Changes in Liturgical Discipline

bob

\"bob\"

If liturgical awareness begins about age six, only those of us fifty years and older remember the Latin Mass, which preceded the introduction of the Novus Ordo in November 1969. This introduction, over 40 years ago, would seem to be the major change in the celebration of the liturgy in the past one hundred years. In this essay I propose that two other changes were much more significant.

The first major change in liturgical discipline occurred on 15 August 1910 when Pope St. Pius X lowered age of first reception of Holy Communion from typically the age of twelve to the age of seven. With this change all of the faithful were encouraged to receive Holy Communion frequently.

In the late 19th century and the early 20th century, the general habit of the faithful was to refrain from Holy Communion except when the sacrament of Penance had been received the day before, typically at Christmas and Easter. Infrequent reception of Holy Communion was not a sign of indifference to the Faith and the sacraments. This practice was a virtue of the times. It represented the awe and reverence worthy of the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Pope St. Pius X was suggesting that that same awe and reverence worthy of the Blessed Sacrament be expressed by frequent reception.

In the 1940\’s, in addressing the generation before mine, I recall the priest\’s often mentioning from the pulpit that it was not necessary to receive the sacrament of Penance, the day before receiving Holy Communion.

As children we were encouraged to receive Holy Communion each Sunday and to make a confession once a month, usually on the Thursday before the first Friday of the month. In the Catholic grammar school I attended, St. Cyril\’s Carmelite in Chicago, the pupils attended Mass at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesdays in the parish church, but did not receive Holy Communion because there was no time after Mass to eat breakfast before the start of classes at 9:00 a.m. However, on first Fridays, the school children attended the 8:00 a.m. Mass for the sake of their reception of Holy Communion. The extra half-hour provided enough time for breakfast before the start of classes.

In those years the Communion fast was from midnight from all food and drink including water. Sunday Masses were typically on the hour from 6:00 a.m. through noon. From one-half to two-thirds of the congregation received Holy Communion on Sundays at the Masses before 11 a.m. At the eleven o\’clock Mass, perhaps five percent received and at the noon Mass typically no one in the congregation received Communion. The fast from midnight made reception at late morning Mass impractical. There were never any Masses in the afternoon or evening except for midnight Mass at Christmas.

There can be no Mass without the consecration or without the reception of Holy Communion by the priest celebrant. However, the habit of reception by members of the congregation was such that the Communion of the Faithful was a red-bracketed insert into the order of the Mass, to be omitted when Communion was not distributed to those congregated.

In the early 1950\’s, the priest still faced the altar away from the people and would discretely turn his head around to see if anyone in the congregation was approaching the altar rail to receive Holy Communion. If so, the altar boys, who said all the responses, would recite the Confiteor, the confession of sin. The congregation was typically silent at the usual low Mass, except for a hymn or a feast day. The priest would then turn and face the congregation and pronounce absolution:

\”May Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting. (Amen) May the Almighty and Merciful Lord grant you pardon, (making the sign of the Cross) absolution and remission of your sins. (Amen)\” The priest would then say the Agnus Dei, the Domine non sum dignus three times, and then, while placing the Sacred Host on the tongue of the recipient, \”May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting, Amen.\”

The entire Mass was in Latin. This, as well as the silence of the congregation, enhanced the reverence toward the Eucharistic mystery. The Confiteor, the confession of sin, had been said by the priest and then by the altar boys at the beginning of Mass. The repetition of the Confiteor by the altar boys and absolution by the celebrant immediately before Communion emphasizes to what extent the Communion of the Faithful was treated as an exceptional, if not a foreign insert into the order of the Mass.

We routinely think of the pre-Vatican II Church as unchanging, and yet throughout my youth change in the discipline of the Mass and the Sacraments was almost commonplace. As a rule the congregation was silent at Mass. The parish school children attended the 9:00 a.m. Sunday Mass as a group. In 1945 at 9 o\’clock Mass at St. Cyril\’s the missa recitata was introduced, i.e., the congregation recited the responses in Latin along with the altar boys.

The most significant change in discipline came in 1953. It was the introduction of afternoon and evening vigil Masses. For these Masses the Communion fast was set at three hours for food and at one hour for non-alcoholic beverages. In 1957 this fast was made applicable to all Masses. The 1983 revision of Cannon Law set the Holy Communion fast at one hour except for water, which was unrestricted.

The changes in the Communion fast were initiated due to the introduction of the Sunday and Holy Day Vigil Masses. The relaxation of the fast increased dramatically the frequency of reception of Holy Communion, such that, over the years, the reception of Holy Communion by practically the entire congregation at all Masses became commonplace in the late 20th century. Prior to these relaxations, the urging to receive frequent Communion had little effect.

Imagine what a shock it would be today to read in the missal in the pew: “If Communion is not distributed, omit part with red line, Communion of the Faithful.” That is a direct quote from a 1950 missal. It was the introduction in 1953 of vigil Masses, which resulted in removing the red line in the missal by relaxing the Communion fast. Thereby the Communion of the Faithful was reinstated as an integral part of the Mass. In receiving Communion the congregation participates in the sacrifice by consuming the Lamb, who takes away the sins of the world by his redemptive sacrifice from sin, which is the Mass.

In retrospect the post-Vatican II, 1969 introduction of the vernacular Mass with the priest facing the people appears almost cosmetic. It did not have as profound an impact on the participation of the congregation in the Sacrifice of the Mass as did the introduction of vigil Masses in 1953, which led to the relaxation of the Communion fast to one hour.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

49 thoughts on “Changes in Liturgical Discipline”

  1. Pingback: Sep 18 – Edward Bouverie Pusey – Priest + Renewer of the Church | Paradoxical Thoughts

  2. Pingback: Sep 18 – Edward Bouverie Pusey | Holy Women, Holy Men

  3. James below you are right. The architect of the 1953 changes to Holy Week was Bugnini who will always live infamy as the destroyer of Catholic liturgical tradition and continuity. The 1953 changes were not restorations… but in many parts a creation. They also failed to take into account the driving forces that formed the liturgy before 1953. Even now the Easter vigil with its fire is held before the sunsets obliterating its intent. The Exultet for example is not ancient but a creation that uses an old chant with new words. Una Voce international http://www.fiuv.org/docs/FIUV_PP14_Part1_HolyWeekReformFinal.pdf
    Concerning frequent Communion. Our ancestors though frequent communion was monthly and unlike modern Catholics never too communion with out Confession. This tradition or custom was kept in various Protestant sects such as Lutherans who must present themselves to the Minister, or Presbyterians who only have communion monthly. Daily Communion combined with the abuse of Communion on the hand have resulted in sacrilege on a wide spread scale that dwarfs any abuses in the history of the Church.

  4. I think the priest’s talking to Jesus with his back turned towards him is more than a cosmetic difference. It’s a different emphasis.

    1. It isn’t a change of emphasis. it is an insult. It is like saying I sweet words you love someone then hitting them, Ever heard the phrase talking behind someone’s back. It is normal to face the person or group to whom one is speaking. Turning the back is an insult and a snub. The historical Mass has changes of direction at different times. The new Mass has an inauthentic and fashion victim mode of facing away from God and the East which is where the sun rises and towards Jerusalem. Even in St Peters’s Rome the Pope faces East..The congregation don’t because of the geography of the site of St Peters crucifixion and burial places in the way the church was built in a way that was the exception to the rule. Originally they turned towards the East as well during the Liturgy.

    2. Granted that orientation is important, don’t you think it more remarkable that the confession of sin and the absolution from sin have been dropped from the Communion of the Faithful, not only in the Novus Ordo, but in the new Extraordinary Form? It’s as if the Communion of the Faithful was integral to the Mass. In the early days, we are told that those who could not receive Communion, such as catechumens and those enrolled in the order of penitents (their ex-Communication, not yet being lifted), were not permitted to be present for the Sacrifice and its consummation in Communion.

  5. Very well written article Mr. Drury, but I have to disagree. To compare more regular communion and lowering the age of reception of communion to the upheaval of the traditional mass and traditional Catholic teaching after Vatican II is like comparing bullets and nuclear bombs. What Bugnini (probably a Mason) did to the mass as a whole, the change in orientation, change in form of reception of communion from Kneeling and on the tongue to standing and in the hand by Bernardine (homosexual/pedophile) in the US completely changed the reverence and understanding of what communion is. At least prior to these changes the majority of Catholics understood that Christ was truly present in the eucharist and that if you had mortal sin on your soul you had better not recieve until you confessed. (Check polling data) The majority of Catholics no longer believe in the true precense or the necessity of confession we have become the Jewish people of the time of our Lord, I think the phrase our Lord used was whitewashed sepulchres. That is because of the presentation of the mass and the teaching of our Bishops and Priests over the last 50 yrs.. If they had taught the true faith and appropriate worship this would not have been a problem. Just compare the character of those that proposed the changes as to those that protested the changes, I will stand with those that protested against the changes implemented by Bugnini and Bernardine, I wouldn’t trust those guys to lead me to the grocery store let alone Heaven, I surely would not want them behind me.

    1. Perhaps you are not aware that your words about Cardinal Bernardine, i.e.,”homosexual/pedophile,” are contrary to the universally taught moral theology of the Church. To accuse falsely is a calumny; to accuse publicly or privately of grave immorality without BOTH grave necessity and moral certainty that the accusation is true, is gravely sinful even if you believe it is true! How do you know it is true and why is it necessary to tell us about it???
      To speak evil of another, especially a deceased Cardinal, is reprehensible in the extreme. Although I agree with many of your liturgical sentiments, this part of your comments needs to be rebuked.

    2. Thank you for your response but I will stand behind what I said, I did not accuse him only stated information that is already public. He passed to Judgement in 1996, shortly after the allegations of peophilia of numerous clergy started popping up in Chicago, nearly 10 yrs. before the Boston ordeal. We talk about Judas, Arias, Luther, Husse, the Borgias, Cramner and many other wayward priests and bishops in Church history why not Bernardine what these Catholic bishops allowed to happen under their “watchfull eyes” in the last 50 or so years is horrendous. The necessity of talking about it is because he is the one that spearheaded the reception of communion standing and in the hand in this country. You should know from whom your traditions come. If I am wrong I will find out at my judgement, but thank you for your concern.

  6. The discrete liturgical changes you mention were part of a program that the left wing of the pre-Vatican II Liturgical Movement gradually foisted on the whole Church beginning in 1948.

    The Archbishop of Freiburg and a number of German bishops warned the Holy See about the errors and abuses the Movement was already promoting in 1942. The Holy See responded in 1943 with Mystici Corporis and a letter reproving various abuses, and Mediator Dei in 1947, by which Pius XII tried to take the Movement under Roman supervision.

    Unfortunately, the pontiff put a fox in charge of the henhouse when, in 1948, he appointed Annibale Bugnini as Secretary of the Commission for Liturgical Reform. Bugnini, a secret supporter of the Movement’s modernist left, was able to implement a whole series of incremental changes throughout the ’50s that eventually culminated in the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI in 1969.

    I give chapter and verse on all of this in my book Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI.

    1. james, the Church itself does not teach and never has taught that all prudential judgments made by the Pope are guided by the Holy Spirit. Quite the contrary. Pope St John XXIII was perfectly free to believe that Pope Pius XII had made a mistake in trusting (then Monsignor) Bugnini with such an important role, and evidently did believe exactly that, since he fired Bugnini summarily from his position in 1962, and also had him removed from his professorship. We are perfectly free to share Pope St John’s belief.

    2. Given the current state of our church, it is reasonable to ask if
      the unguided judgements made by the Pope and magesterium
      have a higher purpose unbeknown to them, as they are mere
      vessels of the Potter. Could it be the the Church has had its “lampstand” somewhat removed for such a mass exodus of
      the faithful to have happened. Could the Holy Spirit be using
      dissenting Catholics to teach the current orthodox a lesson ?

    3. On the matter of the Holy Ghost and prudential judgements, Mr. DiPippo is quite correct.

      To this, I’d add that Bugnini in his memoirs (La Riforma Liturgica, 22) tells us that Montini and Bea (Pius XII’s confessor), were able to get Pius XII’s approval for the 50s changes “even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from
      approaching him.”

      Since both were fans of the Liturgical Movement and “liberals” Bugnini’s remark offers a tantalizing hint of a conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of the notoriously gullible Angelic Pastor.

    4. So is it safe to say that Buginni,, Montini and Bea were not given
      the 7 gifts of the Holy Ghost at their Confirmation if all this ended in so much chaos. To rise to such a level in the church as to hear the Pope’s confession I would think that they were guided
      by the 3d Person of the Trinity. It just seems like their flaws had
      a purpose, one not apparent … yet.

    5. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not received by all in equal measure, nor is anyone compelled by the Holy Spirit to use them properly. Piety and wisdom are numbered among them, but many people have done impious and stupid things even after their Confirmation.

      The infinite goodness of God is such that He can bring good out of any evil. God permits man to use His free will even for ill (hence we speak of God’s permissive will), but He does not *will* evil that good may come of it. I agree that believing Catholics may draw many profitable lessons from the chaotic age through which the Church is now passing. But the chaos itself, to the degree that it has been caused by the sinful actions of men, is an evil, and it would be better if it had not happened.

    6. I assume that means it would be better if Vat 2 had not taken
      place ? That would have meant no Francis. I don’t believe he
      is here to pick up the pieces but to assemble them into a refined
      truth that resonates throughout all Christiandom, all faiths..

    7. You assume incorrectly. I mean the general state of confusion and chaos which has long reigned and currently still reigns in much of the Church. Pope Francis is NOT going to “assemble the pieces into a refined truth that resonates throughout all Christendom, all faiths”, because no such thing exists or can exist, and the Pope cannot do the impossible.

  7. It is interesting to note that here, in a region woth a large presence of Mexican migrants and their deacendants, a large number of people still scrupulously believe that they ought not to receive Communion unless they have confessed their sins on the very day of the Mass.

  8. Pingback: One of the most significant changes in the liturgy came not in the 1960s, but in 1953 - Christian Forums

    1. I submit that this exodus would have happened, council or no council. Especially in America, where many had let by the end of the War their Faith become more of an ethnic expression than amything else.

  9. My mother had my siblings and I doing the midnight to communion fast until 1969. I can tell you it definitely did instill a much greater reverence for the eucharist. Even in my later teen years and into my 20s when I was calling myself an atheist I would have been disturbed to hear of anyone disrespecting the eucharist. ,

  10. Please stop with the word “congregation.” Catholics do not congregate we assemble. It is a fine point of both our ecclesiology and liturgical theology!

  11. ClassicalTeacher

    Small changes within the liturgy are certainly not a problem. What happened during and after Vatican II was a complete destruction of the liturgy into something that is significantly and inherently different. I’m not saying that the N.O. Mass is not valid. It’s just not very inspirational or beautiful as the Traditional Latin Mass. There can be no comparison.

  12. “In the early 1950′s, the priest still faced the altar away from the people”

    It would be best if we all gave up this way of speaking about liturgical orientation. To describe the celebrant’s posture by reference to the people subtly (if unintentionally) buys into the “enclosed circle” notion that the people are the point of reference. In reality of course, God — specifically, the Father — is the point of reference, towards which all should be directed.

    1. “Ad Orientem” has nothing to do with being oriented toward the Father – it has to do with facing the East, toward Christ, the rising sun (c.f. Psalm 19). “Ad Orientem” literally means “to the east.” If you are going to make the argument about the ad oriented, at least be informed about it.

      My source? See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy.”

    2. Autocorrect changed it to oriented. Meant to say “orientem” in that last sentence of the first paragraph.

    3. Thank you for your comment. Please consider that liturgical orientation can convey more than one message. The sacrifice of the mass is offered to the Father by the priest, on behalf of the rest of us who add our affirmation. It is not merely meal time at which a nice memory is recalled for the sake of those present. That was my point. I am well acquainted with the eschatological significance of facing geographical east. Priest and people should be facing the same direction together regardless of actual geographical direction.

  13. “The relaxation of the fast increased dramatically the frequency of reception of Holy Communion, such that, over the years, the reception of Holy Communion by practically the entire congregation at all Masses became commonplace in the late 20th century.”
    I would disagree. Most OF parishes have 1 hour of confession per week for thousands of people. When everyone gets up for communion it is hard to beleive that everyone is in a state of grace. Mortal sin is no longer preached in modern parishes. People in the past actually had fear of eating judgment.
    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/06/father-gee-i-wonder-why/

    1. ” When everyone gets up for communion it is hard to beleive that everyone is in a state of grace.”
      It is disgusting to think that is what is on your mind at communion time.

    2. I can’t believe you would deny your own quote and when this thought first occured – your topic not mine.

  14. Liturgical “reform” had begun in the 1940’s. Prior to that the Mass was very stable. The “reformers” took advantage of Vatican II to introduce the most recent/radical changes including the vernacular mass, stopping ad orientem celebration, communion in the hand, current use of extraordinary ministers of communion, altar girls, etc. These changes are more than cosmetic and most are sacrileges. If you your argument is that we should accept the current sorry state of the OF liturgy because a few changes were made when the tridentine mass was still wildly celebrates, then your argument is false.

  15. “In the late 19th century and the early 20th century, the general habit of the faithful was to refrain from Holy Communion except when the sacrament of Penance had been received the day before, typically at Christmas and Easter.”
    Or perhaps the penance was more widely available. My EF parish has confession every day and before/during each Mass.

  16. “In retrospect the post-Vatican II, 1969 introduction of the vernacular Mass with the priest facing the people appears almost cosmetic”

    I certainly do not have the benefit of hindsight, given that I started attending Mass in 2007, but comparing the local Ordinary Form Masses with the local Extraordinary Form Masses, it’s impossible for me to fathom considering the difference between the two cosmetic.

    That being said, it’s very easy for those of us who were born after 1969 and who love the Extraordinary Form so much to romanticize it and project our impressions and the impressions of others upon its celebration before November 1969.

    It’s certainly my prayer that, as Pope Benedict envisioned, the two forms of the Roman Rite continue to inform one another.

  17. I agree with this…up to a point. I too am aghast at how casually many people treat the Sacred Gifts. My wife and I always try to receive only from the priest and on the tongue. I say bring back altar rails, kneeling, NO reception in the hand, and no EMHCs. Otherwise, it is like everybody is going up to get their little Jesus cookie to munch on. Regarding the fast: I am not in complete agreement. I was Eastern Orthodox for 12 years. The Orthodox still maintain a very high expectation of eucharistic fasting discipline, but it can be counter-productive. I could keep the fast, but not eating from midnight (or earlier) until almost noon threw my body off so much that the joy of the day was not there; my wife has blood sugar issues and it became a real struggle for her. The Divine Liturgy is typically only celebrated on Sundays and occasionally during the week, and I have really come to love the opportunity of daily communion. While the bar should be MUCH higher in the Latin Church, my time in the East also showed that such things as fasting could become matters of pride and legalism. We in the world are not monastics. Thanks for this very good piece, Bob.

    1. My wife and daughter are hypoglycemic. Stricter fasting rules would not be good for them. Even three hours would be a major struggle.

      My parish celebrated daily mass at 5:15 PM. If it were in the morning, many people who currently attend would not be able to.

  18. It’s true that the frequent reception of Holy Communion was a significant and much needed change, but I think the extensive changes to the rite of Mass in the reforms which followed the council are much more significant to the way a Catholic experiences the Mass today.

    A Catholic from the 19th century would get quite a shock walking into the average suburban Catholic parish today during Mass. The whole orientation and culture of the liturgy is radically different.

    I think the return of the Traditional Latin Mass, which I attend as frequently as I can, is a necessary step in restoring continuity between these forms and recovering some of the liturgical strengths which were lost in the reform.

  19. Pingback: Why We Love the Traditional Latin Mass - BigPulpit.com

  20. “…the general habit of the faithful was to refrain from Holy Communion except when the sacrament of Penance had been received the day before, typically at Christmas and Easter. Infrequent reception of Holy Communion was not a sign of indifference to the Faith and the sacraments.”

    It is interesting to note that today’s conservative Catholics point to the blase attitude
    that people seem to have when receiving communion. The question of why this happened begs an answer: does familiarity play a role ? was ie: twice a year sufficient to carry Catholics through their years of faith ? did the subsequent change result in more holiness than those of other times ? Did very infrequent confession before the reception make for a better examination of conscience as opposed to today when reception is very frequent but confession is largely absent ? Is not the onus perceived – by conservatives – of Vatican 2 connected to the exodus in the 60’s and if so what role did frequent reception play ? Did Pius X or anyone for that matter feel that the Eucharist had an effective shelve life ? I certainly can’t answer these rhetorical questions nor do i expect anyone else to do more than speculate.

    1. (Not the same james as above.)

      I will point out that my experience is that frequent (even daily) reception of the Eucharist is often a factor in why Protestants convert to Catholicism. Scott Hahn wrote quite a bit contrasting the difference between the daily communion in the Catholic church vs. monthly in his Presbyterian tradition.

      In other words, St. Pius X was right.

    2. Another factor are the many Catholics now – at least from what I read –
      who question the Real Presence. Did familiarity play a part ?

    3. No, but irreverence did, IMHO. Liturgy became too casual in many places. before and after the council Architecture suffered an unfortunate iconoclastic modernist period. Loss of sacred rhythms and sacred spaces led to loss of faith.

      Bad catechesis is endemic in Catholicism After the council, Catholics simply made different mistakes. (Pre-V2 Catholics could probably recite the Baltimore Catechism definition of the Real Presence with no real understanding of what it meant or its implications.)

      Protestants go to Sunday School from preschool through the rest of their lives. Catholics think they “graduate” at confirmation. Until this changes, there are going to be problems.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.