Textual/Structural/Historical Differences between the Church's Old & New Rites

All of the points that I will mention here have been treated of extensively by folks far more knowledgeable and qualified than I, such as Peter Kwasnewski, Shawn Tribe, Jeffrey Ostrowski, and Gregory DiPippo. Yet, I still desire to articulate these points myself and for my own friends and family who may be reading!

When Catholics offer a defense of the ancient Roman Rite (AKA the Traditional Latin Mass [TLM], vetus ordo [old order],  usus antiquior [ancient use], or Tridentine Mass), it is best not to focus so much on the ad orientem, Communion on the tongue, all-male altar servers (who act as an extension of the priest's office), incense, Latin and chant. These are all accidental features that can be easily imported into the new Roman Rite (the Novus Ordo, or the Mass of Paul VI) and even properly belong to it. Indeed, the term “Latin Mass" could easily refer to a new rite Mass done entirely in Latin from its typical edition, the 3rd and most recent edition of which was released in 2002 (abrogating the 1975 2nd typical edition of the rite, which had abrogated the 1970 1st typical edition of the new rite.)

Any argument defending the old rite should emphasize the substantial textual and structural differences between the two rites. A liturgical scholar plugged all of the orations of the old and new rite into an algorithm and found that the two rites only shares 13% of the same texts in common (see here). 11% of the texts were combined, 24% were otherwise altered, and 52% were omitted altogether.

A German mathematician friend of liturgical scholar Peter Kwasnewski calculated all of the combinations of options [introductory rites, Eucharistic prayers, dismissals, etc.] that the new rite gives and found that logically, there were more than 2 trillion different ways to say the new rite (5.000 x 500.000.000 = 5 x 10^3 x 5 x 10^8 = 25 x 10^11 = 2,5 x 10^12). This contrasts heavily with the rubrics of the old rite.

One of the ways that such scholars identify rites is by their texts. Many of them agree that “you know a rite by its propers" (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory, Communion), of which the new rite actually has 3 entirely different sets of texts:

1. the ones in the 1974 Graduale Romanum (Graduale Romanum) book, which moved many of the old rite’s propers (which can be found in the 1961 Graduale Romanum) around to different liturgical days in the new rite,

2. the ones in the Graduale Simplex (Simple Gradual) book (the English adaptation of which is By Flowing Waters),

and

3. the entrance/Communion antiphons in the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal of 2011.

Unlike in the traditional rite, none of these 3 sets of propers are required to be said or spoken at any new rite Mass. Indeed, in practice, they rarely are.

The Sarum Use (the use of the Roman Rite that was present in medieval England, before the Council of Trent) can be identified truly as a use of the wider Roman Rite, and not as its own separate rite, because its propers are essentially identical to those of the Roman Rite that was codified at Trent. (Sarum's Ordinary texts - Kyrie, Gloria, Roman Canon, etc. - are of course also identical to those of the Roman Rite.) Indeed, the Council of Trent simply codified what was already widespread, regular, standard liturgical practice. In this way, the term “Tridentine Mass'' is rather a misnomer - this rite is much more ancient than the 16th-century Council of Trent. Of course, the Roman Rite is by far the biggest rite of all the Western rites. An example of a non-Roman, western rite is the Mozarabic Rite, still used today in a few parishes in Toledo, Spain.

According to this methodology of knowing rites from each other, the “1 rite, 2 forms", very political formulation of Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 now-abrogated motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum" does not quite hold up. This document also always begged the question: what do “extraordinary" and “ordinary" even really mean? Does “extraordinary" mean “out of the ordinary" and therefore not to be frequently done? Or does “extraordinary" mean “awesome" as opposed to “good" (“ordinary")? It is unfortunate that B16 did not mandate that every Roman Rite priest learn to celebrate both forms of the Roman Rite. How can a priest not even know his own rite?

In comparing the texts of the old rite to the new, it is important to note what was changed - what words were taken out and which ones were put in. Peter Kwasnewski here compares a collect from the old rite with one from the new in this manner. One has to wonder what was so wrong with the ancient texts of the Mass that the entire Mass had to essentially be rewritten from scratch. Indeed, the 1960's was the very first time in Church history that different subcommittees were tasked with sitting down and writing different parts of the Mass.

Much of the scholarship that these committees referenced in their work was flawed. For example, a side-by-side study of the ancient Hippolytus canon with the new rite’s Eucharistic Prayer II yields that they are indeed not very similar at all. As numerous articles (like this one) have shown, the claim that EP2 is to be considered “representative of early Christian liturgical tradition in Rome” is dubious at best. And yes, it is unfortunately true that EP2 was written on a napkin in a rushed meeting in a restaurant (see here).

The books of the new rite were not even released together. Furthermore, they were released in a very chaotic fashion, as Jeff Ostrowski details here. Whereas the old rite of Mass could be said entirely from one book (the Roman Missal), the new rite requires at least 2 books - the Sacramentary (the book that gives the priest all his prayers for Mass) plus the lectionary that gives the Scriptural readings for the Mass. (The updated 2011 English translation of the new rite calls itself the “Roman Missal” in an attempt to reclaim the Roman Missal idea, but it does not include readings for Mass and therefore still requires the use of a lectionary; therefore, “missal” is a bit of a misnomer.) The 3rd book used for the celebration of the new rite is the unfortunately-optional Graduale Romanum or Simplex. The 1974 Sacramentary (the first English translation of the 1970 1st typical edition of the new rite) was originally released piecemeal over several years. Pope Paul VI once asked: ““How can we celebrate this new rite when we have not yet got a complete missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?”

I believe that many or even most Catholics believe that the new Mass is simply the old Mass in the vernacular. How I wish that were true! I have often said that tomorrow, theoretically, the new rite could be abrogated, and the old rite could be done in the vernacular (perhaps with the Canon spoken audibly at first), and I really don't think that anyone would mind. (Over time, more of the Mass parts could be put back into Latin.) I really don't think anyone would say, “Oh, how I miss the 3-year RCL (Revised Common Lectionary) of the 1970's!" The 1-year Epistle-Gospel cycle is memorable and ancient and did not need to be displaced with a brand-new cycle of readings. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that the human brain remembers things much better on a 1 year cycle than on a 3-year one.

The desire for the laity to know more Scripture may have been well-intentioned, but we know that the Divine Office (which was also rewritten in the 1970's at the Liturgy of the Hours - but that’s another article for another day!) is traditionally the place that a person got his or her Scripture. The traditional Office has a person praying all 150 psalms every week! Speaking of psalmody, there was no need for the Catholic Mass lectionary to splice all of the psalms, omit many lines of the psalms, and squeeze the psalms into a responsorial antiphon-and-verse-based format. What is wrong with reciting or singing a psalm all the way through, as the Anglicans do?

In speaking of reforms to not just the Mass, but the Divine Office, one thinks of the manner in which all of the rites of the sacraments were rewritten. For example, whereas the old rite of baptism consisted entirely of prayers and exorcisms, the new rite removed all of these exorcisms and replaced the prayers with didactic statements. Clearly, the new rite of baptism is designed to teach; however, catechesis among Catholics plummeted in the decades following the Council. Furthermore, the kind of catechesis that the new rite of baptism attempts to give is the kind that should be received outside of the act of worship/sacraments - the kind that that the Baltimore Catechism provides. In the new rite of baptism, when the priest asks the godparents to answer (on behalf of the child, of course) what is here desired, the answer is “baptism.” Here, I also recall an interview with author Martin Mosebach, who said that one of Pope Benedict XVI’s greatest regrets of his papacy was not changing this word back to “faith.”

The only text that the old and new absolution formulas share is “I absolve you”; the new rite completely rewrites the rest. The old rite absolves the person from “every bond of excommunication and interdict”, whereas the new rite removes these “harsh” words. The new rite takes another teaching moment by explaining that “God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins.” The old rite refers to this act being done by the “authority” of Christ; the new rite, the “ministry of the Church.” The old rite says the word “absolve” three (the symbolism!) times; the new rite asks that God grant the penitent “pardon and peace.”

Countless other changes come to mind, such as the new rite’s:

1) total replacement of the ancient, sacrificial Offertory prayers of the old rite with Jewish meal thanksgiving prayers from the Didache,

2) removal of saints and St. Michael the Archangel's names from the old rite's Confiteor,

3) elimination of the ancient subdeacon position (when the old rite's priest/deacon/subdeacon format's threefold nature is no symbolic accident),

4) loss of the directionality of the Epistle/Gospel sides of the altar (the proclamation of the Gospel to the north, to the unbelievers),

5) loss of many extra prayers and gestures (like genuflections and signs of the cross),

6) ninefold Kyrie & triple Domine Non Sum Dignus, both of which are rich in trinitarian symbolism,

and

7) insertion of the rather disruptive Memorial Acclamation right after the consecration, which begs the question: why are laity talking in the middle of the Canon?

In the same way that musical polyphony contains layers of overlapping melodies, the old rite contains layers of fluid, overlapping activity - the choir sings the Introit and Kyrie while the priest first prays the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, incenses the altar, etc. The new rite, in comparison, is very “start and stop." For example, in the new rite, the priest cannot begin the Eucharistic prayer until the Sanctus is over, whereas in the old rite, the priest is often halfway through the Canon, at the Consecration, by the time the schola is finished singing the polyphonic Sanctus. In this way, the new rite makes it quite difficult to do any of the great polyphonic or orchestral Mass Ordinaries (Kyrie/Gloria/etc.) of the Catholic liturgical music canon. The new rite's 2011 GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) requires the people to stand for the Gloria, and it is awkward to have people standing for minutes, listening to the schola sing the Gloria. (In the old rite, the people sit for the Gloria.) Indeed, the new rite was designed exclusively with the idea of the priest, people and people singing everything all together.

There are plenty of other examples of great Catholic liturgical music that is impossible to use in the new rite. The Baroque genre of the French organ Mass for Low Mass - essentially, background organ music lasting the entire length of a priest’s Low Mass - is rendered obsolete by the new rite. (On this note of Low Mass featuring music - there is nothing wrong with a parish Low Mass with Hymns on low-class feast days, as long as the parish culture prioritizes Sung/High Mass being done on first-class feast days.) Organ music that was written for the priest’s Elevation cannot be used in the new rite, due to the rite’s requirement that the Eucharistic prayer be audible. Polyphonic “Benedictus” movements, designed to be sung for the second half of the Canon (after the priest’s elevation of the Precious Blood), are impossible to use at that point in the new rite and must be sung at Offertory or Communion as “ad libitum” music, if at all.

As scholars (like Laszlo Dobszay in his book The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite) have shown, a study of the last 2,000 years of liturgical history indeed shows how the Roman Rite developed organically and authentically from the early Church up until inorganic, inauthentic tweaks were made from 1955 through 1962, which set the stage for the total overhaul of 1969.

It is hard to over-appreciate the level of accessibility and inclusivity that the common, universal language of Latin offers. I can go to a Latin Mass anywhere in the world with my Latin-to-English hand missal and know the meaning every single word that is being said. Considering that the Catholic Church is led by the Bishop of Rome, it is fitting that the ancient language of Rome (Latin) is the official language of the Church. It also worth noting that Latin as a language, represents power and authority, having been the official language of the Empire that encompassed so much of the world. Latin, being an extremely organized and logical language, also represents order and logic. In this way, we are reminded of the concept of the Greek, Christian theological and philosophical concept of the logos, which refers all at once to intellect, (divine) reason, word (language), the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and Christ as the organizing principle of the universe.

This article also feels that it would not be complete without a brief note regarding the liturgical calendar. It is very lamentable that the new rite permits the moving of certain liturgical feast days - this reflects a certain disrespect for Scripture. Biblically, Jesus ascended to Heaven 40 days after Easter (which recalls Jesus’ 40-day fasting period in the desert, among many other instances of 40 days in Scripture). However, the new rite permits the moving of Ascension Thursday to Sunday. Biblically speaking also, Jewish boys were circumcised on their 8th day of life. The old rite’s Feast of the Circumcision on January 1st is so biblically important; the new rite completely excises this feast from the liturgical calendar. (According to solid biblical research - see here - Jesus really was born on December 25th; therefore, he really was circumcised on January 1st.)

Biblically speaking as well, Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist and the priesthood on Maundy Thursday, forever giving the day Thursday a Eucharistic theme. The Feast of Corpus Christi is supposed to be celebrated exactly 2 months from Maundy Thursday, but the new rite permits Corpus Christi to be moved to Sunday. (We get the word “maundy” from the Latin word “mandatum” [commandment], but the new rite replaces that word with “Holy.”) The new rite also permits the every-important Feast of the Epiphany (traditionally, January 6th) to be celebrated on Sunday.

This article also feels that it would not be complete without a brief nod to the 2011 Roman Missal that thankfully abrogated the very inaccurate 1974 English translation of the new rite. (Interestingly, the 1998 translation of the 1975 2nd typical edition of the new rite, which was an improvement over the 1974 translation, was never approved by the Vatican. One here also remembers the transitional Latin-to-English Missal of 1966, which was never put into effect.)

One of the most concerning mistranslations of the 1974 Sacramentary was its translation of “pro multum” (“for many”), which it translated as “for all.” In the wake of this translation’s abrogation, one of the sillier critiques of the 2011 translation that I have heard is that referencing Jesus coming “under [one’s] roof” is offensive to homeless people. Surely, such folks can be taught to adjust their interpretative framework to one that is more symbolic, poetic and figurative, and less literal.

Indeed, the state of liturgy in the 1950’s, especially in America (with the rushed, even silent Low Mass culture coming from Irish immigrants who had been oppressed in terms of religion by the English), was not desirable. I have heard this decade described as the “bad old days.” Indeed, if everything before Vatican II was so great, why did it all crumble so fast? Truly, the liturgy needed reform - Sung/High Mass needed to be brought back, for example - but not a complete rewrite.