The Eucharist is the source and summit, the font and apex, of the Church’s life. As a result, the Mass is at the heart of the Church, a constituent part of the daily and weekly ecclesiastical rhythm. In many ways, the liturgy has become a battleground of sorts, with many people trying to use the Mass to justify or bolster their own views about the Church or any number of Church teachings.
Because it is such a fundamentally important aspect of the Church’s life, it is important for Catholics to have a deep understanding of the Mass, and how it has developed through the centuries. Fr. Uwe Michael Lang’s latest book, A Short History of the Roman Mass, is a tremendously succinct, informative, and easy to understand contribution to this effort.
Fr. Lang is the author of many other books about the liturgy, including Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer, Signs of the Holy One: Liturgy, Ritual, and Expression of the Sacred, and The Voice of the Church at Prayer: Reflections on Liturgy and Language.
He recently spoke with The Catholic World Report about his latest book, the importance of understanding how the Mass has developed over the centuries, and how such an understanding can help in liturgical controversies of the day.
CWR: How did this book come about?
Fr. Uwe Michael Lang: In 2022, my monograph The Roman Mass: From Early Christian Origins to Tridentine Reform was published by Cambridge University Press.
This book begins with a discussion of the Last Supper and examines the history of the basic structure and ritual shape of the Mass in the Roman tradition until the Missal of Pope St Pius V (1570). Writing such a work had been on my mind for some years. The difficult COVID period, with its lockdowns and other restrictions, gave me the opportunity to focus on this project. At the same time, Chris Carstens, the editor of Adoremus Bulletin, had invited me to write short entries on the history of the Roman Mass.
Once this series was completed, I reworked these entries into a single text, which–unlike my longer monograph—takes the argument to our present day.
CWR: What’s the purpose of knowing the history of the Mass? What can we learn from it?
Lang: If I may paraphrase Saint John Henry Newman, to be Catholic is to be deep in history. The history of the Church shows us how God’s Revelation is received in the life, worship, and thought of His people.
And this history is not simply in the past but is present in the Church’s living Tradition. An understanding of the rich and complex development of the Mass throughout the ages helps us to participate consciously and fruitfully in the liturgy today.
CWR: Are there common misconceptions about the liturgy, and particularly about its history and development?
Lang: There is a widespread narrative that the liturgy of the Western Church moved from early dynamic development through medieval decline to Tridentine stagnation and was only revived in the wake of Vatican II. This narrative still has considerable traction both in academic publications and in the broader public, despite its questionable interpretation of historical sources.
In my book, I challenge this narrative. For instance, I intend to show that the later medieval period, which has sustained damning criticism from liturgists, has been somewhat rehabilitated by secular historians. The liturgy in this complex period offers not only signs of decay but also of vitality and was deeply rooted in the people’s practice of the faith.
CWR: Is there a difference–and if so, is this difference important–between organic development of the liturgy, and inorganic top-down changes?
Lang: The concept of “organic” development is not an easy one. It draws on biological imagery and suggests a natural, continuous development over time, as opposed to a technical model of deliberate construction.
In fact, liturgical development was often the result of authoritative decisions, taken by a religious superior, a bishop, a synod of bishops, a pope, or even a king or emperor. In the long history of the Roman Mass, there were no doubt moments of ritual change and innovation that make it difficult to apply the category “organic”.
However, I believe it is justified to speak of organic development once the Roman Order of Mass had acquired its distinctive structure in late antiquity. This Order of Mass was enshrined in the 1570 missal and is essentially maintained in the 1970/2002 missal.
Another factor should be considered here: pre-modern means of communication and administration meant that any liturgical reform depended on local initiative and preceded necessarily by a slow and gradual pace–and hence more organically. There is no precedence for the speed, the efficiency and the global reach that has marked ritual change since the twentieth century.
CWR: The use of what is now known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass has become an incredibly contentious issue. Can an understanding of the history and development of the Mass in the Latin Rite help inform the debate on this issue?
Lang: I hope that my work will put this contentious issue on a more solid historical footing. You can find exaggerated historical claims across this debate.
Through the centuries, the celebration of Mass was affected by many religious, social, cultural, political and economic transformations. For a historian, change over such a long period and such a wide geographical area is to be expected.
But it is the essential continuity that should be noticed, and this continuity connects us with the words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper.
CWR: The Roman Mass is one expression of the Church’s rich liturgical patrimony; there are many Eastern rite liturgical traditions, which this book is not meant to address. Is it important to also understand these Eastern rites, even for Latin Rite Catholics? Can this help us to understand our own rite better, and to appreciate the Mass more fully?
Lang: It is a great enrichment for Latin-Rite Catholics to encounter the Eastern rites, which have developed in different ways. These historical rites have common roots and share the same ethos. The Eastern liturgies use distinct linguistic, cultural, and artistic forms of expression, which can help us to appreciate both the limits and the treasures of our own tradition.
For instance, I am struck by the beauty and depth of the Byzantine rite of marriage, which makes the Roman version look rather “low church”, but I prefer the aesthetic of Gregorian chant to that of Byzantine chant.
CWR: What do you hope readers will take away from the book?
Lang: For centuries, the celebration of Mass was shaping culture and inspiring art. Knowing about the historical development of the Roman Mass will give readers a better appreciation of Western civilisation.
Moreover, the liturgy is a witness to the faith of the Church and can teach us about this faith.
Most importantly, I hope that the book will help readers to have a deeper understanding of the great and profound mystery that is celebrated in the Holy Eucharist.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
About “organic” development, we read: “There is no precedence for the speed, the efficiency and the global reach that has marked ritual change since the twentieth century.”
But there are all kinds of precedents; they’re called “parasites” or “mutations.” Misapplying Thomas Kuhn’s book on the natural sciences (“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” 1962), we have ecclesial and moral “paradigm shifts.”
The most recent mutation, of course, is not the mere deformation of the Mass, but rather the replacement of the Mass-to-the-east with a Mass-in-the-round, and then—rather than a possibly inspired hybrid—the replacement of this with synodal Round Tables and with a circular Synod on Synodality (say what?).
Gradualism becomes mutation.
The awaited definition of “synodality” is the replacement of the Mass, itself, with its itself. And, so-called “liturgists” are replaced by expert “study groups.” The nature of the entire (c)hurch IS a never-ending “study group.”
And about parasites, the longest tapeworm (Diphyllobothrium) measures well over thirty feet. So, of “synodality,” and just as backseat children often ask, “are we there yet?”
“You can find exaggerated historical claims across this debate.”
Bugnini was documented inside the Gagnon Report*, with paper proof in volume 3, as a fully fledged militant freemason. His redaction of the Novos Ordo Rite is unprecedented in Church History. Never before was the sacred liturgy re-scripted by the eternal enemy of the Roman Catholic Church.
No amount of liberal fudging will change the fact.
*Fr Murr, Murder in the 33rd Degree: the Gagnon Investigation into Vatican Freemasonry. 2022
Take what Mr.Murr says with many grains of thought
Since there is very little in scripture as to the form necessary for a valid mass (only briefly mentioned in the three synoptic Gospels and alluded to by St Paul in Corinthians I ) , I think that all this fuss about the different forms of the mass is purely academic and a matter of preference. In the Old Testament, as we well know, God was VERY specific as to how things were to be handled up to the most minute detail. I have a feeling that the same instructions would have been given in the New Covenant if they were needed. Why the silence? Apart from these very brief and vague instructions there is also little in oral tradition handed down to go on.
What we must do is establish what are the bare bones necessities for a valid mass and use them as a template to determine if a particular mass is valid. If so, it is valid and therefore acceptable. PERIOD. END OF CASE!!!
Dear James,
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ – God Himself – established a living liturgical tradition impulsed by the Holy Spirit. There was no need for a written instruction in the New Testament. Sacred Tradition.
That living Sacred Tradition of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was rescripted by the post-conciliar Freemasonic Enemies of the Roman Catholic Church. Bugnini’s Novos Ordo is not the Catholic Mass of the Ages, but a rupture by a butcher.
Ex opere operato.
Those three words are all that are needed to discern the continuity of the Sacred Liturgy across two millennia.
The TLM is a more fitting form of the Mass, but the NO is also the Mass.
The NO ecumenical liturgy is symptomtic of the NO ecumenical New Religion.
This is not just a matter of two liturgies, but two distinct religions. Catholicism is not Protestant Novos Ordo.
Sede?
Novos Ordo is the liturgy of occupied Rome, scripted by freemasons, and at the centre of A new Ecumenical Church, a member of the one world religion which has absolutely no need of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ King of the Universe. For this new religion, any religious observance is equivalent to the Novos Ordo, and no-one needs Jesus Christ to attain eternal life. Novos Ordo is today no longer hiding its game, but openly Apostate.
Rome is become the seat of Apostasy.
I am an eighty-seven year old retired (emeritus in Latin) college professor and of course grew up with the Latin Mass and had three years of Latin in high school. The best thing that ever happened to the Catholic Church during my lifetime was the change to the Mass in the vernacular. Now the faithful can actually understand what is being said and what is going on at Mass.
Sorry no one bought you a bilingual missel. There are plenty available for Catholics fleeing Ecumenical Novos Ordo today.
Your sorrow is appreciated but misplaced. I actually owned a bilingual missal, and I think most missals of that era were in fact bilingual. No one needed to buy it for me because I was capable of doing it myself. As I recall the purchase transaction took place using Arabic, not those pesky Roman numerals which was a blessing.
As to Latin at the Mass I am reminded of Matthew 12:14, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding.” And also, Matthew 11:15 “For those who have ears, let them hear.” It is estimated that less than one percent (1%) of United States Catholics understand Latin so the latter quote would pertain to the vast majority of us. We may hear the Latin but do not understand it.
PS Incidentally missal is the correct spelling not missel.
Yes, most Catholics now understand and speak aloud the words of the new liturgy while most fail to believe in Christ’s Real Presence amidst hand-shaking and fake smile-vocalizing of ‘peaces-be-with-you,’ clapping, drumming, priest and lay-participatory-performing, unchaste dressing, cell-phone using. This, while celebrating and commemorating the Sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, all in the name of the vernacular. It is a profound pity.
Then some people perplex themselves at crises in church, climate, country or misspelled typos.
All Catholics around the world followed in bilingual missAls… Above the Cross were three liturgical languages: latin, greek, Araméen. All three remained the Exclusive Liturgical languages until the 9th century. Why? They were spoken by the Logos Himself. Mary, the mother of Jesus, schooled at the Temple had the best quality education in town. She would have been fluent in all three and capable of writing them. Sacred Language is what unites the Two Covenants of the Logos; God is honoured in His own tongue.