40 years Novus ordo missae
Liturgical reform per insert sheet
by Francis Norbert Ottobeck
2 4 2009
Bishop Otto Spülbeck (1907 - 1970) was not only a theologian, but also a long-standing member of the regular Concilium for liturgical reform. His views on what the reform would, and should accomplish, have weight and are to be taken as an authoritative interpretation - in contrast to the ideas of spin doctors such as Emil Lengeling. Unfortunately, Spülbeck because of the political conditions in a divided Germany it was not possible to bring his ideas (regarding the liturgical reform) to the West sufficiently, here (in the West of Germany) there reigned the hermeneutics of rupture.
Spülbeck Bishop of Meissen in Eastern Germany
The Bishop of Meissen, Otto Spülbeck, was a theologian and renowned liturgist. He summarized the effects of the new Mass, according to the Ordo of 1969 in a few sentences in a small insert sheet for the German prayer book. By the way, the liturgical reform in the "Eastern Zone", thanks to the gracious providence of God did not have to suffer through or hardly caused any grief by a Würzburg Synod. There was of course admittedly also no boycott agitation in 68/73, of a thousand million years "era of Teilhard," of an ever ready neighborly apparatus referred to as a "church service." The world moves, the liturgy indeed does too, but its service remains essentially a "countercyclical" act, looking heavenward.
So what are in the instructions from the then Bishop of Meissen with imprimatur of 8 January 1970?:
"The structure of the Mass remains essentially unchanged. The new order of Mass brings to the faithful a few changes, namely at the beginning of the Mass and during the Communion part after the Our Father." Then the opening of the Mass is presented and the penitential rite with the three possible forms that both the 1970, as well as the amended 2002 have retained. Then follows Bishop Spülbeck's remark: "The further course of the Mass brings no change for the faithful up to the Lord's Prayer." Then the Communion part is displayed with the new texts, in particular: "All pray with the priest again: Lord, I am not worthy ..." This short explanation sheet relating to the Novus Ordo Missae concludes with the words ". Besides the prayer of the faithful ... there are a few solemn blessing formulas foreseen in the coming Missal"
That's it. A Revolution? Not in the doctrine, at best in appearance, and there was no doubt "designed" to be strong, by way of the informal Missal after 1970. The "break" or "rupture" therefore was not in the texts, but in practice, and almost exactly 1964/65; Joseph Ratzinger remarked about this already in Bamberg in 1966. Nevertheless, it is natural to simply say: Even the "new Mass" is Tridentine. It's order is in conformity with the decrees of Trent, because the decrees of Vatican II have all strictly followed the preceeding councils. It orders the liturgical material admittedly anew, mostly with success. The so-called "council majority" (as if the law indeed for "all" is true, not only for Bolsheviks?) the "red-chartreuse" are still annoyed today that the Pope and Cardinals Ottaviani and Cicognani and Pericle Felici have "forced" the council to do so. Not even the utilization of Trent, that the proper minister of the Anointing of the Sick is the priest, was overturned by "the majority". The "Rahner School of thought" (or only Herder's national spirit?) It was sometimes a little shaken, because an example an old decree should fall. But it stands as the world turns.
One may make liturgical "rupture" in the life of the Church but do not paint over it with too cheap a paint. The Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum" of 3 April 1969 notes in the closing formula that everything was lifted, which prevents the new order for the holy Mass entry into force. The diocesan despot debit-to-be aka "Mussinghoff" used this in 2007 as a Molotov cocktail against "Summorum Pontificum". The "ban" was there so to speak. "There is still a need for clarification!" However, the Curia diplomat of Montini (Paul VI) was a better canonist. Who sought From the very beginning with a limited, not without conflict discontinuity He stopped just short of an outright doctrinal ban ordered by the council ( probably deliberately.) With all obstacles for the New order of Mass out of scope but the old Mass is deliberately suppressed in a only disciplinary way, but not "abolished". This is Roman school which preaches "Affective Theology" but anti-Roman Campy ideology from cloudy forests mean by that, it will never ever get it. Disciplining then in the light of the subsequent conflicts in some areas hard "doctrinaire trains" move on. That was the law for measuring the Constitution of 1969 but not be intended to prove the wording.
Paul VI. emphasizes the continuity. But a portion of the sequence could not make him understand his friend Jean Guitton. The fear of schism prevailed. The philosopher who was mediator in the dispute over St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (Paris), who from the perspective of Lefebvre, a crypto-modernist sui generis, but a friend of the "old Mass" (and politically "arch-conservative"), nor the 1986 the French bishops who went into the courts: "Silence sur l'essentiel" he accused the progressivism, mainly for silence. But the same could be on 23 July 1976 in OSSERVATORE ROMANO speaking as a layman to the problem of "The Mass", as a precursor of Dr. Charlier, Mosebach, Spaemann and "last but least," also myself. Clearly, as Spülbeck confirmed: The new Mass is as real as the old one. But: "this is because I am sure that the so called ban on the Mass of St Pius V is a temporary ban." he was convinced that those prohibiting named after Pius V liturgy that maybe imposed itself in a period of transition, remains tentative. Dixit. Now we have the Salade tridentine, usus antiquior.