I would not have the courage to speak here if not Father Martin would have invited. Therefore, following his invitation, I can speak. But the suggestions I shall make are given without any authority, as Mr. Anderlein. I have no authority. I can give only counsel as a brother. It's quite evident. As a brother who has certain qualities. And the first quality would be that I have been together with Reverend Father Damasus in the novitiate still. And we studied together in Rome for many very happy years. And we were ordained in the same day to the priesthood. And later on we were teaching in Maria Laage for many, also very nice years, philosophy. And working very well together.

[01:02]

I left Laage in 1937 to go to Rome the first time. And he left Laage in 1938 going to the States. And he wrote me in 1938 or 1939 spring. I remember very well this letter. that I must leave Maria Lark has been the first real sacrifice in my life. And he did it, and he enjoyed it very much later on. Therefore, I am a monk of Maria Lark. It's also my quality. And then now I am professor and president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, also a certain qualification. And I am too, excuse me if I am counting all these things, consultor in the sacred congregation of worship.

[02:05]

Formerly, I was member, peritus, consultor in the concilium ad ex sequendum constitutionum in the sacra liturgia, in the ecclesiastical commission from the first beginning, 64, until the end, 69, and then in the congregation of worship. And now the last quality I can present is my trip through the States. I have been so many weeks in Gethsemane, then I have seen the liturgy of Conception Abbey, of St. Meinrad, with Monsignor Hellriegel in St. Louis, a marvellous parochial mass during the week. and then Conception, and Mount Angel, and a week in Guadalupe. I've been in St. John's, and I could stay in a Franciscan convent in the south of Minnesota, and I'm here some weeks, and finally in Genesee.

[03:08]

Father Martin thought I could give a short information first about the intentions of the Council and the logistical reform after the Council. I can only underline some points because you know that already. The Vatican Council was approving the liturgical movement. And you remember this marvelous, excuse me, marvelous words of Pius XII, who said to the Congress of Assisi, when he received it in Rome in 56 or 57, the liturgical movement of this modern times is like a passage, a transition of the Holy Spirit to the church of our days. In a certain way we could say, if you need a Pentecostal movement, here in the Ecclesiastical Movement you have this real Pentecostal movement, to follow the Spirit and to be filled with Spirit and to pray in the power of the Spirit who are living in you.

[04:22]

And the Ecclesiastical Movement Therefore was the preparation of the council and the council could speak about the liturgy in the first document which was published because precisely the liturgical movement through 50 years and more was preparing all the things so well. And in this orientation, wishing to approve the liturgical movement, the Council insisted in a celebration where the local community actively is involved. Therefore, the Council wishes to retain the treasures of the entire tradition, of the classic tradition, because the classic tradition was insisting also in this active involvement, Only later on things became too much clericalistic, so that the faithful more or less have been passive spectators.

[05:28]

And to retain the treasures of the entire tradition, the Council wished to restore the liturgy existing according to the pristina norma patrum, according to the original norm of the Fathers. but at the same time taking away things which during the centuries were evolved in a wrong way, in a bad way, and adding some other things which have been lost. And also here the Council was following the intention of the liturgical movement because in these years also we always, from the first beginning on, wished to follow rigidly the norms of the Roman liturgy. Very quickly we realized some things are not very happy. It could be very convenient to reform, to restore, or to take other things from the old times and to reintroduce them again.

[06:35]

And the Council insists then in simplicity, in authenticity. It wishes to make available the treasures of the Word of God so that the entire Holy Scripture could be read in a year or in two or three years. It did not give an accurate number of years. The Council insisted in the communitarian aspect and in the possibility to make adaptation necessary for the local church. And you remember this word, the Council says, conserving the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, nevertheless a certain variety would be possible and is also desired. In the same time, the Council did not wish to have an archaeologist to restore things only because they have been at once.

[07:47]

And also, the Council was ready to change things, old things, if the pastoral necessity of our days would ask such a change. If the pastoral necessity of the faithful, that is of the concrete community which is governing for worship, is asking such a change. More or less, very shortly, here are the intentions of the Council. pious desires, pious wishes made in 1963. And no, it was necessary to do it, really. And here is the terrible work we must do in the last ten years, the reform work of our Commission, of the Concilium Ad Exsequendum Constitutionem. According to this title, a council to obtain The liturgical reform wished by the Council is evident.

[08:52]

Our first goal has been nothing else than execute the will of the Council. And very often we said, we must do this because the Council was asking it. For example, introduce the Holy Scripture. Make it more simple. We have not been free, the Council, which it is, therefore we were obeying to that. Sometimes against our own personal view, but we have been in many points, how do you say, bound by the Council. But execute, realize the will of the Council had also his own weight, pundus. We must reform, we must restore in order to obtain active participation, the involvement of the community gathered together in the spirit of the Council.

[10:00]

And therefore it was necessary sometimes to go on much how do you say, more far, more deeper, more on than the dead leather of the council. And from the first day on, many of the consultores, of the consultants who have been periti during the council, repeated a word which was said during the council. The doors may never be closed. Therefore, there was not a reform which stopped in the last moment, again for a thousand years, but we wish to open doors through which we can go on. Perhaps the reality sometimes has not been so, but at least that was the explicit desire of us as consultants, obeying to the Council.

[11:06]

For example, in the concelebration, the Council, in a certain solemnity, said, concelebration is convenient, can be used, for example, for the benediction of the abbot. very important event in the history and in the reality of the actual Church. I don't know why she said precisely this point, one point, but in very few years after that we have made the right for the concelebration. Concelebration is the normal form of mass, not only for benediction of others, but practically we don't know any more private mass. I remember a moment when we left our session, we went out, Padre Antonelli, the Franciscan, Pagagini and I together, and then Antonelli,

[12:11]

very old, Franciscan, perhaps five years older than I, that I am very sad, very sad that people sometimes speak with despection, despising, this despicience. You are with some, not esteeming enough, speaking about the missa towards the wall, missa contra murum, the testing gates, and it's not right. And then he took the arm of Wagarini, and you too, my dear father, you are speaking so. And then Pagasini said, no father, we are not against this mess towards the world, but we are insisting in a necessity to concelebrate and so on. Very strongly he defended himself. And so, therefore here you see the ponderous, the weight of this reform.

[13:19]

You could introduce something and its own Dynamic, dynamism, it went on. And other points. The communion of both species. The Council said, for example, you can use communion of both kinds if you have made good catechesis that people know very well. If we are receiving the communion of one species, it is also valid. The doctrine of Trent can be retained, it is not touched. Therefore, for example, you can do it on the day of ordination for your family, you can do it for a profession in the monasteries, and so on. Certain occasions, three or four cases, for example. And then our duty was to make a catalogue of possibilities, not only three, but of ten. with the tendency to go on, to make it possible very often.

[14:25]

Some old people said, no, the Council said only three times. Then we must insist, but the spirit of the Council and also the word of the Council is, for example, in such a case, and it is our duty in the name of the Apostolic See, and to make a greater catalogue. And in the last catalogue, in the institution to the missile, the catalogue is still greater and you know practically you do it now every Sunday. Formerly it was possible only in certain feast days, in community mass for the monastery itself and in retreat days. Therefore, you see, things are going on and we cannot hinder it, and we don't wish to hinder it, because doors may never be closed again. And so with the vernacular language, the Council surely said it is very convenient that sometimes also may be given an opportunity to use the vernacular languages.

[15:35]

But the intention, the first intention of the Council was evidently to retain the Latin totally. But in very few years, with a powerful dynamism, things went on, and after four or five years, all things were in vernacular. And today, to imagine to go back to Latin is impossible. And so with the calendar, Simplicity, therefore insist in the solemnities of our Lord and in the great solemnities of our Lady, in the great solemnities of the saint that signified to take away not the saints. As somebody was making calumniation against this, we did not depose nobody. because it's not our duty to depose saints. But we must change some solemnity, some feasts. It wasn't possible in, let me say, if we're taking away the Sundays and the Lent and the Feasts of Our Lord and Our Lady, in 100 or in 200 days it's not possible to celebrate 2,000 saints.

[16:47]

Therefore, we must take away some saints and find the categories according to whom, to which we are choosing these saints. And we said, for example, we take saints of great importance for the universal charge, so that every continent has his It's saying that not only Europe and not only Italy and France and Spain but also Germany and United States and Japan and Africa, so far as possible. And we don't obligate the Chinese people to celebrate San Januario of Naples, which is very famous in Naples. Not in China, and so on. And the same for the structure of the Mass. The Council wished to have a greater simplicity, to introduce Holy Scripture, but how do it? And here we must do this work, and it was a very difficult work, where so many paths, so many sentences, and nevertheless we must find a common way.

[17:56]

last sentence possible for everyone. And now, concretely, we had a good liturgy, the missal and the office of Pius V and the Pontificata Romanum and the Ceremoniale Episcoporum of the following popes. And this liturgy was good for in the times of the 16th and 17th century, but times are changing. Therefore, this work must be done again today, in a deeper way, with the means of our times. And we intended and we were obliged to make a restoration, not only according to the norm of the liturgy of the Roman Curia of the 12th and 11th century, therefore of the liturgy of the so-called Pontificale Romano Germanicum, of this medieval liturgy, and in substance according to the norms of the liturgy of the Carolingians, but so far as possible we wish to go back to the real Pristina Norma Patrum, to the really original norms of the Fathers

[19:18]

which are before the Franco-German middle age. Here is the entire difficulty, more or less, let me say, to the norms of the classic Roman liturgy of the 6th and 7th century, which in a certain way could be seen as an authentic realization of the fundamental norms of worship how they are given in the New Testament, but not always, because also in this Roman liturgy of the 6th century, some things are not very good. Some things are typical for the 6th century, but not convenient for our days. Therefore, having in mind this Roman liturgy of Gregory the Great and Leo the Great, but seeing behind it the New Testament, find a form able, capable, valid for our days of today.

[20:20]

Enormous difficulty. Pius V, more or less trying to do the same, did not realize that he was able only and that he went back only to the times of Gregory VII. who believed in his restorations in the 11th century to go back to the old times. In reality, he did nothing else to adopt, to introduce in Rome the French-German liturgy, how it was made in the 8th, 9th century in the Carthaginian times in France and in Germany. We today know that. He did not know it. Therefore, today, with our scientific means, we were obliged to try this old way, to say, in the simplicity, in the authenticity, in the active participation of faithfuls, as more or less in the times of Leo the Great, of Saint Augustine. in the same time so that we make it possible for faithfuls of today and that we did not lose the contact with the tradition also of this

[21:31]

Frankish, German, Middle Age. Not all what our fathers in France and in Germany did during the Middle Ages is bad. Therefore, retaining a certain tradition, not in a revolutionary way, as for example the cardinal Francesco Francis Quiglione met with his breviary, Sancti Crucis, in the beginning of the 16th century. He was suppressed by Trent, also he was working in the name of the Pope, because he was too revolutionary, too much against the tradition. You see already how difficult it is to go back to old times, before 800 to 600, and having in mind the New Testament, and at the same time not losing the contact with the Middle Ages, and so that we are also understandable for today. Nevertheless, more or less, so the idea.

[22:33]

And to undo that, the concilium was working for nearly 10 years, composed by 30 until 40 bishops and cardinals from the entire church over the world. And it is very necessary to insist in this reality. Here is not the Pope working. Therefore, you could not say this literally would have been imposed by Rome, by a central authority. No, the church itself all over the world was doing it. It is true that a great part of these bishops and cardinals were called by the Pope, but others not. And there was a very good composition between cardinals and bishops called by the national conferences and called, nominated by the Pope. I don't remember who was called by the Pope and who was called by the bishops. But, for example, you had there the Cardinal of St.

[23:35]

Louis, you had Rugamba of Uganda, black man, you had Garcia of Bombay, You had Silva Sonso from Santiago de Chile, and you had the Bishop of Atlanta, you had a bishop who died already, of Georgia, I think, a very fine man, and I forgot the name, and so on. And then you had two German bishops, and three, four, five French bishops, and English bishops, and the cardinal of Ireland, and so on. Therefore, composition of the entire world. You had also India, as I said already, and Japan, a good Japanese bishop. who sometimes were remembering us that we cannot impose European customs to Japanese people. For example, it is impossible for Japanese to kiss the book.

[24:36]

Then he showed us, we were all edified by that, how a Japanese must make his reverence for the Gospel. Then immediately we could realize, yes, we cannot say you must kiss the book, you must let it to the natural adaptation. Nevertheless, the good bishops filled with the Holy Spirit could not do the work really. The work must be done by the Peritti, by the consultors, these poor people. Therefore, 200, more or less, consultores at Peritti, again from all over the world, and this time not called by the Pope, but called by this small group who was composing the Council. I remember very well, in March 1964, Pongini, Antonelli,

[25:38]

Pauline, I don't think so. The Jesuits, Schmidt, and myself, and others still, five, six, we were sitting there thinking, who are the persons whom we could call? Was it a big man? Young man? Orban-Bohm, Theodor Buchler, von Sollheim, from England. And therefore, we called these people all together. And then, if these people, these big people, Marty Moore, Wagner, came, then they called their other friends, and so on. Therefore, you can say that the elite of liturgists in science and in pastoral work of the entire world, have been called to work in this Council. We did the consultative work, we proposed this to the bishops, and the bishops gave always the last decision, not we.

[26:45]

And then we went on. In this Council was the greatest liberty to express their own opinion. There was a real dialogue And also there were groups of conservative bishops and of progressive bishops and also between the consuls it was the same. Nevertheless, if a bishop was defending with conviction his opinion, sometimes it was quite so that one bishop could obtain the majority also when formally all were against him. And they are speaking with courage and with openness and with liberty, which is really a marvellous document for the dignity of Bishops. I remember situations, perhaps I have told you already, there was a Yugoslavian bishop, a French bishop sitting together and then the French bishop said something and the Yugoslavian said, and no, my dear brother, I am from quite opposite opinion.

[27:56]

All were laughing. He was exposing his doctrine and nobody was feeling. And also very conservative bishops who sometimes had terrible sentences had the courage to say it. also they felt immediately that they were against the modern vision, and so on. I could tell many stories about this wonderful atmosphere of liberty and free expression. Enormous have been the work of preparation and study. The consultants have been divided in nearly 30 study groups, meeting together in different places of Europe several times every year, in Munich, in Paris, in Rome, in Switzerland, in other places in Germany, in Austria, and so on. And all these travels have been paid by the Pope, who also paid for the foreign people,

[29:02]

days in a row for the Cardinal of Australia, Cardinal of Asia, of Africa, all were paid by the Pope. And nevertheless, this pay did not signify in no way any obligation to follow, let me say, the doctrine of the Pope. No, we remained free. There was nothing which could take away this liberty. And every morning at 10 o'clock we received, according to European custom, our breakfast, tea or coffee and cookies. And so also in the afternoon and sometimes the Bishop of Mainz, later Cardinal Volk, told me, I have never seen in Rome in any ecumenical council sitting and so marvelous hospitality as in this liturgical council. Therefore, it was a wonderful, very nice atmosphere. And we were beginning every morning with tears. And Mártimo was solemnly singing Dies Naturae Humanae Mentenda, and Cardin of Solheim was solemnly intoning the hymn.

[30:18]

And then we were the bishops, the cardinals, and the entire people were saying the tales according to the Roman breviary. And fifth time, when our work was going on, according to Stylo, how do you say Stylo? copied new exemplars of the new breviary to make an experiment in our new prayer. And the bishops came, together all, the 30, 40, more or less all, twice a year in Rome, assisted, not by 200, it was impossible, but by the chiefs of the heads of these so-called relatories, of these 30 study groups. And because I was the head of a very not important group, the communibus, I have been present in every session, which was very nice.

[31:20]

And so we did for years and years. And some of these people must work so much that they died. For example, Broiland, this wonderful monk of Mont Cesar, Louvain died, and another very good Spanish consultor. and others became sick, Wagner became sick, and so on. The most important persons have been Monsignor Wagner of Germany, the head of the liturgical institute in Trier of Germany, for the mass, and Monsignor Martimo, or little Napoleon, because he looked like Napoleon, and he was a dictator like Napoleon. Very important secular priest, canon of Toulouse, was the head for the office. and offer very important men for our things. Therefore, for years and years we come together in this way. Normally the situation was so that things where we could obtain unanimity were accepted from the Roman authority.

[32:23]

But in other points sometimes we did not obtain that unanimity. We were for years and years discussing and always again we were not satisfied when, for example, let me say 16 bishops were poor and 14 again. It's not possible. Then again, and so on. For years, sometimes we finished. We could not finish. We took another object. Therefore, sometimes, in these situations, the Pope has given the last decision. He must do it, because we could not continue forever. Personally, and sometimes when Heaney told me, I have seen He showed me the paper, the manuscript the Pope had written after having seen, after having studied, after having discussed, after having spoken also with all the Roman courier personnel.

[33:25]

No, I agree, I subscribe, it must be done so. He made it very, very, very, very great seal. In other moments he said sometimes, Dubongini, who told it to me, all will be published under my name. I have the right to say also a word. And so he did, for example, I told you already for the Mass, because he could not agree about the penitential right, about the offertorium's prayer, and about the communion prayers, the most difficult point. After years, finally the Pope said, more or less, what we are doing today. And then we came together to give our last decision. And the youngest bishop came and said, we are not here to say yes. We are here to express our sentences as bishops. Let us say again what we are thinking, exposing our difficulties to the Pope, and then he may decide, and we shall obey.

[34:26]

But we don't say yes, no. And the bishop said no. And the Pope then said yes. And the bishops obeyed. In his decisions, the Pope sometimes has been helped by Bungini. He had a very great influence. Sometimes by other persons. We don't know that this is right. Sometimes we said, as is very often with superiors, who has had the last time the door, I made the decision. It's not so bad. The result is not a liturgy. That is so important and therefore I am telling all these details. The result is not a liturgy imposed from above, but a compromise.

[35:28]

obtained after years of dialogue between bishops and theologians of the world church, not of a small group. In no way you can say that it's the work of the Pope alone, the work of the Roman Curia, in no way. The Roman Curia, the real Roman Curia, was not great friend of this council. We were a quite new element. And Bounini, I can tell you too, sometimes by many of the home courier, is regarded as a little devil. He is the secretary of the council. And he was a man who suffered for this sake. He was secretary of the commissio preparatoria, to prepare the council. And when the council was beginning, he was the post. He lost his shares on the Pontifical Universities in Rome, with one exception, and another was nominated Secretary of the Commission.

[36:38]

And when the bishops came, the finest points of the preparation were taken away. When the bishops received the papers and gave them to their secretaries, their parities, the parities said, this is not what we made. Then the parities, working with the bishops, were fighting. In a very short time, they restored the old situation. And what we have now is the work which was done before. You see behind the, how do you say, collision, behind the the theatre world, because there were tendencies to change, conservative tendencies, and again Perizzi and Pizos working together obtained this wonderful work we have now. Then, after the Council, Pope Paul again took this poor Father Bonini from the abuses, and he was again imposed in his office as secretary and archbishop and so on.

[37:45]

And the only pontifical university who retained him as professor was the University for Missions, the Propaganda. And when he became secretary, of the consulate. He had no more time to teach. Then he called me, asked me to take his place. Therefore, for two, three, four years, I was his vicarious. When he became then secretary definitively of the Sacred Congregation for Worship, he renounced, and I took the place of him forever. It was a great honor for me to do that. Therefore, a liturgy not imposed from above, but a compromise, a work of the entire world, George. Therefore, in a certain, but in a very true sense, made from the basis, from below. And no, I would say, because it is not only the work from the authority, but the work of the people of God.

[38:51]

No, we must do it. We have no reason to, because very often, I said that already, all the problems you are touching now, all the difficulties, and all the new forms you wish to change, we have already discussed all these things. You cannot go on to say we don't like the prayers of the offertorium. Also, we did not like them. What can we do? We had these two possibilities, or to say nothing, or to say something. And if we must say something during the offertoryum, what could we say? Therefore, we must finish now, finally, after so many discussions, after having seen all your difficulties already. A decision was made. It is reasonable now to obey. in a certain way. Therefore, here the Holy Spirit was working, sometimes also in, how do you say, not going rightly, in wrong, strange ways.

[40:03]

And he obtained his result. Perhaps not in a perfect way, because no human work is perfect. I remember in 1965, after the first reforms, I was in Paris in a liturgical conference organized by Orthodox Theology. And the Roman canon of St. Peter was speaking about reforms. And then he was speaking in a terrible way against these reforms. They were all terrified, Catholic, the majority, Orthodox, Protestant, Silent. Abbot Capel of Louvain came and said, Mon cher, mon seigneur, you are right. No human work is perfect, but I protest against the way in which you are speaking about the reforms given by the Church. And then the entire public, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, and Catholic, were applauding to him, because you cannot always protest.

[41:14]

Therefore it seems to be legitimate, real, convenient to accept now this new liturgy, at least as a norm, as a general structure, as pattern, within which we must not move in an iron uniformity, because that is the spirit of our reform. And Bonini himself told us always again, We did not make accurate rubrics. Ted, you have the liberty to adapt it to your concrete way. And sometimes, he said, there are coming always letters asking, how must we do it? Must we put the book on the right or on the left side? We did not say it. Do it as you like it. Therefore, not ask, but do things where the rubrics are not clear, that you can adapt it to your concrete situation. Therefore, not in an iron uniformity, but with elasticity, according to the intention of the Council and the following reform itself, adapting all to the concrete situation of our local church, but always within the general norm of the Council, not without

[42:29]

and not against our tradition, but according to our tradition. I'm not forgetting the suggestions of this Consilium and finally of the Council itself. For the liturgy of the Mass, we must follow in a very narrow kind the structure of the new Roman Missal. For example, we have spoken already about that. It would be wonderful to begin the Mass with Dominus Fulbiscum, the Lord be with you. Let us sit down to hear the readings. In a certain moment, we thought it would be nice to do so, as St. Augustine did it, and then realized We cannot. After a thousand years, you cannot take away the intuit. You cannot take away totally the curia. You cannot take away totally the gloria and the oration. Therefore, you need some preparation. It's not so bad. But it's not necessary to insist in this first part of the mass for two hours, as in the miscellaneous of Beethoven, where you are never finishing until you come to the Sanctus.

[43:44]

You can do it in a very simple way, but you must follow at least this pattern, this structure, as it is given now. Especially in the presentation, very well made, in the new English translation, in a certain way, made very well. For the office, the situation is very different. Here is made only the Roman office for the secular clergy. And Bonini said to me very often, when I was still Secretary of the Commission of Our Order, No, you must make your office, the monks. And his first idea was that the monastic order composed by black Benedictines, Cistercians of common observance and Cistercians of strict observance are brought together to make a unique monastic office as we had it formerly, according to the rule of St. Benedict. It seems that it's not possible and perhaps not necessary, but nevertheless we are beginning at least to do something in this way.

[44:53]

Therefore, we have still the obligation now to make our own liturgy, but according to the example given by the new liturgy of Orarum, we could not We must retain Antiphons and Responsoria. I remember very well a certain Bishop of Australia with a great insistence that no, no Antiphons, no Responsoria, only choir work. We secular priests, we don't need them. And then we said, you are not right, because responsoria and antiphons help also the private prayer to pray spiritually in a new way, according to the mystery of the day, of the Feast of Solemnity. And he was finally agreeing. Therefore, we introduced it so. Now, after all these discussions with this Australian bishop, after our fighting, you have no more the possibility to take away any antiphon. Also, you are free to choose the antipons you like.

[45:54]

And so in many other points... And this liberty, which we are retaining within a certain scheme, was again solemnly promised to us in this very nice meeting between the Abbot Primate, the Congregation of Worship, and the Congregation of Religious with Augustin Meyer in February of this year. And again, in the same way, to the suggestions of the strict observance in their meeting with the congregation in June. Therefore, so far, I tried to give you an idea of the general principles of the Council, of our liturgical reform after the Council, and of our own duties of today concerning the Mass and concerning the office. In a certain way, you can say the most difficult and the most essential point of this entire reform is after a thousand years, the evolution taken by the original apostolic and Roman liturgy, this evolution is finished.

[47:00]

And to live it, we must go again back to these first origins. We cannot restore again the Middle Ages. It's finished. We cannot again restore the liturgy of the Curia Romana of the 12th century, not again the liturgy of the Carolingians. We must go back to the old liturgy of Rome, seeing the New Testament, but for our times. It is a work which in a thousand years, for the first time occurs. And therefore a terribly difficult work, and it is quite evident that we don't succeed immediately. But we must see at least this enormous reality and enormous obligation and do our possible also to realize now the execution of these things. First for the mass. Father Martin suggested that I would speak about a scheme, especially for the Mass during the week.

[48:04]

We were discussing this also in our small talking groups in the last mornings. Father Mass, I would say, in general, all is good. You can allow me to say that. I have a very good impression. Also, you know it. But you yourself, you wish a greater simplicity for weekday mass and a greater variety. Therefore, my suggestions, also after these common discussions, would be so. First, a scheme of the mass during the week, and then the second point, concerning the calendar and some other things in the third and fourth point. First point, scheme of the mess during the week, therefore for the Feria and the Memoria ad Libitum. These ideas have been discussed according to a leitfaden, a leitmotif of Father Gregory and more or less we could find a certain agreement.

[49:13]

also my own ideas. Therefore, you must not accept it. Therefore, if you wish to make it more simple, it would be possible to take away the possession of the concelebrants. privately, but in Alps, in the choir, waiting for the coming of the main celebrant and acolyte, who come without cross, which remains all before the altar, or, as Father Gregory would prefer it, is hanging from above. The celebrant then chooses, in his introduction verse, after greeting, also after the Canticle of the Community, the words of the Intuit, perhaps, in the new translation of the Roman Missal, as a motif for his words, to have some variety. Sometimes we, when in Rome, we say nearly every morning, to prefer ourselves to celebrate the holy mystery, let us think that we are sinners, period.

[50:22]

It's very disagreeable to say it every day, but here you have every day new words. The same fundamental substance, we are sinners, we are asking for the mercy of God, but using these words. you can do it, you must not do it, then a penitential right, you cannot abolish it totally. But you have many possibilities. Or a formal penitential right as it is given in the book, or only curio, Greek or English, in a certain way you can say that is our penitential right. Perhaps then, after the curious still, this little prayer, Almighty God may take away our sins and so on. Have mercy on us. Then the readings. For the prayer of the faithful, I would never omit it. It's one of the points in which we were so glad to reintroduce it. The difficulty which are felt sometimes against the prayer of the faithful is that it's not very easy to do it.

[51:32]

Therefore, you must try to do it well, and you find wonderful suggestions in the magazine of the Cistercians, Trappist Cistercians, Liturgy in the Last Number, how you can do it in a substantial way, according to the genus literarium of these prayers, according to tradition. in a very, very, very high way, not too salop, how do you say, not too badly and so on. But never omit it. And you must change. On one day, as you are doing it now, on another day, after a short introduction of the celebrant, the acolyte or somebody else reads two or four intentions well prepared and all are answering. But you can take for this prepared intentions different forms. not always the same, not always Lord have mercy, but also hear our prayers and so on.

[52:39]

You can sometimes raise our prayers to the Father, and other times to Christ our Lord. And the Cistercians are insisting it is never allowed, also the Rubrics say so, to change in the same prayer one intention to the Father, the next intention to Christ. Therefore, you must observe some rules there. You can change, but it's difficult to make it well. For the homily, there are different possibilities. Changing from day to day to have variety, but a short homily every day, I think it would remain useful. Or only an introduction in the beginning, with silence after reading and after gospel. a real silence, or a real but a very short homily, but in the beginning only a greeting, nothing else. A short indication of the motif of the introit, and a short formula of the penitential rite.

[53:45]

It would be possible to, and quite allowed, to give a short homily after the reading, and not after the gospel, after the gospel silence. Then for the offertorium, it's quite possible to do that. All prepare before the mass on the credentia. Credentia, how do you say? The acolyte brings it to the altar, and not a solemn procession from one of the brothers who brings it from the faithful. But it's possible, you can change. But if you wish to have variety or greater simplicity, And you know it is quite allowed and possible to say the prayers in silence, not allowed. Therefore you have a wonderful silence there and in this time you are able to meditate, to prepare yourself and so on. But also, from time to time, it would be possible to say these prayers aloud and you can answer.

[54:49]

For the Yugoslav prayer, you could, perhaps more as you did it, change with one, two, three, four. For the Communion song, normally it would be better here in Monsevier to have it. But sometimes it could be sufficient to say the Communion song by the cantor or celebrant. Only once that you can receive Holy Communion with the content of this Antiphon of the Communion sung in your ears, in your mind. Once only. Or only from time to time, as we are doing in my monastery. We have normally a very big number of faithfuls and of monks who are receiving Holy Communion. We are singing the antiphon in Latin, and two verses of the psalm, and the antiphon again, silence.

[55:52]

And then again, antiphon, and two psalms, antiphon. No, only one, antiphon and two psalms, or two psalms and antiphon. And so three, four times, but always with very big poses. It's not too heavy, not too much. No. Only to bring some suggestions concerning the mass scheme and still a little observation concerning the calendar. According to our reform and following the general scheme, you are obliged to observe the differences of the calendar. And you did not do it until now. Therefore, memoria obligatoria in our Benedictine monastic calendar must be celebrated. And so on.

[56:57]

Memoria ad libitum you must not, but you can celebrate it. And here the community must, perhaps in the beginning of the year, give the decision which are the Memoria ad libitum, you wish to celebrate here. Here again, I could tell it's, we were fighting, we wished, when Bonini said to us, you must make your own office, we wished to have our own calendar. And the congregation did not accept it. They said to us, you must take our universal calendarium. And the primate said to me, we must fight now. And we did it. We did not obtain the permission. Bonini told me, it is true, you had until now a wonderful, very simple calendarium. And the Roman Church did not have it. But now the Roman Church, helped by you, following your example, took this very simple calendarium, making it better in certain points.

[58:02]

Now it is convenient that you are too receiving this calendarium. And it is good to take it. with St. Francis and St. Aloysius and St. Alphonsus of Liguria, that you don't become a sect, that you, seeing at least in the calendar, the Memoria ad Lipitum, see the presentation of the sanctity of the universal charge of all the centuries, also after Trent, also between the Jesuits and the Dominicans and the Franciscans, not only between the Benedictines. It's not so bad. So, alas, I am not finished, but more or less finished. Also, you must still, for example, observe the difference between solemnity and feast. Not the difference, but a feast and solemnity must be celebrated in a certain way.

[59:05]

Certain things must be observed better in the office, in the mess you did it more or less. But in the office you cannot celebrate the feast, the festum of the exaltation of the Holy Cross as every memorial. with the same sounds as every day, with one reading only. You must give to this feast, to the feast of Our Lady and Nativity and so on, a certain character of time. For the moment all is okay, because you must change, you must prepare, you have time. Finally, you are obliged to present in one day, let me say, after five years, after ten years, your office, to a central authority. Your authority is the primate and also the congregation. You are free in many points, but the general structure must be observed, and I don't think that you can obtain the last approbation after five, ten years, after a certain time

[60:16]

You cannot obtain the last approbation without following the general scheme of the Vatican Council, of the Liturgical Commission and of the Roman Authority, which is not so much a Roman Authority, but an authority of the entire Church with some elements of our Benedictine tradition. So far, my suggestions, which you can take as suggestions of a problem, nothing else. Let me finish. We have a little bit of time to discuss. Excuse me, the material is so big that I again am talking too much. For example, if you wish to discuss this point, did you see my central point?

[61:29]

enormous changes from liturgy of the last thousand years to an older form adapted to our modern necessities. And therefore, after having done that, by a work of the entire Church, we are obliged to follow this pattern. What do you think? Not in uniformity, but, as it was also the word of the last Abbots' Congress, pluriformity in uniformity, or together. A certain uniformity with great liberty in the singular points and more or less it is the ideal in which Father Damasus in the last years in letters to me always was insisting. We must have liberty in the detail. What do you think? Would you think it would be a convenience or you insisting greater liberty? I'm very happy if you say so.

[62:43]

I think also it is convenient. And here again, we need always I said it sometimes, a fraterna correction, as it was called in the fourth century in the time of St. Augustine. And this fraterna correction today is given a little bit to a certain central authority. Rome, the primate, the congregation, the Pope. Not more, but otherwise we are You are able to do it, but if you have the liberty to do what you like to do, every little chaplain is doing the same, and he is not able to do that. If you make it possible, I could finish perhaps still with my little remarks concerning the office, and then 15 minutes for discussion.

[64:00]

But if you wish still again to discuss, to make difficulties... My, more or less, I wish to say again, your mercy is okay. The little changes to be made are concerning more your own desires to make it more simple. And here again, I wish to say, today, this morning, we were discussing the problem of daily Eucharist. And this afternoon I was discussing it with Father Gregory. And here I must say, St. Benedict did not know the Daily Eucharist, but in the monastery of Montevideo, so great a monastery, with all its guests, Not to have the Eucharist every day is impossible. And also Fr. Gregory, who did it sometimes, saw in Christ in the desert for years, and Fr. Elric was the prior. Also he is agreeing here it would be impossible.

[65:09]

But then seeing the difficulty which are really there, we have the entire office as St. Benedict and the daily Mass. Sometimes it could be too much. And there is no obligation to say every day Mass. A certain obligation coming from the intrinsical value of Mass is only for the Sunday. There is another possibility used, for example, in Hersteller. The monks of Hersteller know, some years already, with their new chaplain, Father Anno, have one day in the week in which nobody is obliged to come to the Mass. And therefore they don't sing the Mass. They don't say it on the high altar, on the altar, but they put a small table between the choir stalls of the sisters, and the sisters stay around the altar with the guests, and they say together in a very fine way, moving to do it on the tomb of Fr.

[66:17]

Otto Kassel, They stay on the tomb, stays on the tomb, and miss a Dialogatha. Dialogmas. And all the people who need some respire can do that. Many sisters can't. Somebody needs such a liberty. And here you have to put, if you allow only, you can't remain away. You are not obliged to come every day because in a certain way nobody is obliged to receive every day Holy Communion. And we were always also in Rome in our reform program insisting on this liberty. Rome itself was always insisting on this liberty. Nevertheless, if you give this permission for every day, then you can have the situation that in the choir are only five monks. Therefore, it would be better to fix such a day, if you wish to have it. I, for my person, I see the difficulties, but I think

[67:20]

after 1,500 years where slowly this possibility to can say mass every day was growing and has been seen as a great ideal, the rhythmic, the natural rhythmic repetition every week, every day and not more. after Pius X, after the parties in the parish churches, I don't believe that we must drive in this direction. Difficulties which are there could be overcome in another way. To finish now, my observations according to the office A kind of critique concerning the office, if you allow, that is the most difficult part.

[68:27]

First of all, I wish to say also here, the entire office pleases very much. You sing most of it, or entirely, with the exception of some parts of vigils. as I have seen it in nearly every monastery. The only one monastery where nothing was sung, so far as I remember, is only Genesee. Entire vigils without any melody. I think so, yeah. Ah, Sunday, Sunday a little bit, yes. Sunday, yes. No, on weekdays not. And also in Mount Angel, They were not singing the Invitatorium. But in every other monastery, Trappist and Benedictines, also St. John's, they were singing the Invitatorium. Therefore, you do it, you do it. in a very good form, simple, simply, quietly, and nevertheless with some moving vitality, with a very good disposition of sounds, especially now with the distribution of sounds in the visuals in two weeks, which is really convenient, I think.

[69:47]

So far as I have seen, you have always only 30 minutes And it would be therefore very easy to add something if it is necessary. It's not too much. But nevertheless, now my critique. I would like to suggest the following points. You are free, I have no authority, but you are allowed to let us say it. First of all, you must follow, I think, but I have no authority to say it, the calendar of the monastic order. You must do something for every memorial obbligatoria, formerly tertia classes, third class. Therefore, for example, in John Peter's tomb, you didn't do nothing in the office. It's not possible. Gregory the Great, you did do nothing in the office, only in the mass. And you are very free in the celebration of the memorial.

[70:49]

or obligatoria or ad libitum. You can take everything from the air, only in the new situation, the oration and perhaps the antiphon for the benedictus. There is no more the old commemoration with a second antiphon after the benedictus, but the antiphon to the benedictus must be from the saint and the oration and the patristic or hagiographic reading. So with time, you are, for the moment, you have the permission to do it as you are doing it with the angels. For the fifth time, you must change this system. For feasts, festa, formerly feasts of second class as exaltation of the Holy Cross, you need first psalms, not of the air, but of the feast. and also with time a third nocturne. Therefore, one or two or three canticles and perhaps Deleon and Gospel.

[71:53]

There are very few only. Our Lady Nativity, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Apostles. Every month one or two, it's not too much. Then a very difficult point, also a suggestion, Also, after the experience of these weeks here in the States, you need antifreeze. In Bond Angel, they changed the office they had before with this. We did not have anything from the liturgical year. Always psalms, always the same. With Antiphons, psalms are changing from Christmas to Epiphany to Lent to Easter to Pentecost to Our Lady to Apostles, Martyrs. The same psalms set in a new light. With time you are free to choose, but with time you must find antiphons which could be convenient, as you did it already, for the Magnificat.

[72:58]

You took the antiphons from the Liturgy of the Hours. And then again, there is a personal view, but also according to the structure of the Roman suggestions, Notwithstanding the explanation, you have given to me a hymn after the Invitatorium. You could not say the Invitatorium is the hymn. You are singing it, it is true, but the hymn is another kind of singing to bring together the entire community. The Invitatorium is more an invitation, an invitatory, inviting. But then all together, invited, you are singing the hymn, short, and so on. You must choose between the many possibilities which are sometimes very, [...] very feeble. That's true. And all were agreeing. Pater Kosokolos in Srimani, in other monasteries, the hymns, also Jai Srimani has four big books of hymns, are the most feeble point in the new liturgy.

[74:03]

With time, we must wait, with patience, perhaps we can get them. And then also, and here we were agreeing this morning, and we were agreeing with Father Gregory, who was very much insisting on it, you can drop the thirst, because you have no possibility, or you can say it after the chapter, you can find many possibilities to think about it, but if you don't say the thirst, you must find a place for the psalms. And here Fr Gregory had also some propositions to do it with time. Already for many months you did not say this wonderful psalms 118 and so on. Then you must find convenient, as you are trying to do it, disposition of the Holy Scripture. You are doing it already. But also perhaps for patristic readings. You know the New Liturgy of the Hours in Latin has wonderful readings of every day, beginning with the Didache, St Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin, Melito of Sardis, Hippolyte of Rome, never heard before.

[75:18]

until the modern authors of San Francisco's Francis of Sales and so on. And there is the possibility given to the bishops, therefore also for the monastic communities, to make a dictionarium with other readings until Cardinal Newman, until Romano Guardini and Udo Karsel and Damasus Winsen, as you had it last Sunday with wonderful readings for the Book of Esther, but not living persons. at least to the Roman, according to the Roman principles. And therefore, you are more or less to follow, you are more or less free in the concrete disposition of everything, but with time you must follow the general structure, which, how is it given, or by the Roman liturgy, or by the scheme we are preparing in Rome for the Benedictine Oral, Henry Ashworth, the Primate, and also I am sometimes working with them.

[76:23]

And if you wish to find good readings, smaller readings for the Minor Orals, for Laws and Bishops, the new Roman liturgy has marvelous readings, short, three, four, normally three, four lines, very long, not too long, not too short, great variety, and other things. No, we have still 50 minutes to discuss. Please, you can ask or discuss or protest and perhaps it would be possible for me to answer. Here you are free. In the new Roman liturgy again, they have normally, so far as possible, taken antiforms from the psalm. no more so far as possible.

[77:30]

Sometimes it is not possible. Historical, as we had them before for St. Lawrence, for Eastern and for St. Benedict and so on. And here you can follow all the suggestions of the Roman office, but you are free quite free. You are not obliged to take the old. Sometimes the old are not good. And here is one of the wonderful effects, wonderful realities of new liturgy. One Benedictine monk of Pallia, Pelagius Vicentine, made this terrible work for every psalm and for every reading, a responsorium and antiphon, which is quite corresponding. no more, as we did formerly, to have a marvellous responsoria, twelve, which were set after every reading of the Kings, of Esther, of Tobias, and more or less so. No, no. After one reading, a responsoria which gives the answer.

[78:33]

And you have the possibility, for example, to have a silence after the reading, then after one, two minutes, The responsorium, made very well, is giving the last periods. Final point. Are they singing out of it, the responsories? Yeah, here is the difficulty. We, in our reform work in Rome, we could convince the bishops, we are going on to make antiphons without attending to music, to melody. No, you must try to find this melody. Here is the difficulty. Sometimes you can use... No, it's not existing. You must create them. You can do it as you are doing it now for Magnificat and Benedictus.

[79:36]

You take a general melody which is able for every antiphon, but that is not an ideal. This time it would be necessary to make new melodies. G. C. Manet did it. He said, more or less, all these antiphons in a convenient way. Some suggestions are made by Cardin. good, very good, but for Latin. The difficulty is always for vernacular English, the difficulty is enormous. Therefore, we can't have patience, you are not obliged to make it immediately. And as I have seen in many monasteries, at Libby, no, at Interim, a solution is to give the, to sing the sound and to speak the antiphon, to recite it. and then you go on with the text, speaking or singing.

[80:36]

It's not an ideal, but for the moment. Nevertheless, in the light of this text, you are singing and speaking and praying. And therefore, the psalm is changing its character every day, every feast day. And you have not only a marvelous office for four weeks, was as I have seen it, but also a marvelous office, if you are saying it during the entire year. Now sometimes you say after four years, always the same, always the same, never changing. But memories, you can change. Antiphons, you can change. The atmosphere, the light, and so on. But please, my dear conference, what do you think? It is possible to go in this way. It is the way of the Pope, of the universal Church, in a certain liberty and nevertheless trying to find a common way.

[81:38]

And our unity in the future would not be anymore as it was before. The same office, quite the same. You could say the same Latin office in every Abbey, until National Abbey in England by the Anglicans. Also, they used our Latin bravery. Today, it's no more possible. And therefore, we don't need to have a common office with the Circassians, because every Benedictine Abbey has a different office. In no Abbey, Concepcion, Montangel, St. John's, Montevideo, Genesee, in no Abbey has it been the same. And nevertheless, more or less, you are already trying to find the same structure. I shall tell it to Bungini. I have written it already to him. Always different and always the same. In a certain way, an ideal. What do you think? Are you agreeing? When you say animals, what do you mean?

[82:43]

Animals must be animals for every song. No, you could choose, as we did it formerly, you can choose different ways. For example, three psalms in Easter time with one Alleluia. And here again, also in the Cistercian Abbey, every Sunday this wonderful old possibility to sing nine Alleluia's with the old Gregorian melody without any difficulty. And here, again, I felt how important these melodies have been. in confrontation with the modern, sometimes not so good. No, therefore here and also in other feasts, other days, you could say, in the light of this Sunday, I shall pray all the Psalms with one antiphon in this nocturne. But you can also choose for every time, but sometimes it's more convenient. It depends from the day

[83:43]

During the week, in the federal days, I would say for every psalm, an antiphon. But as we had it formerly in our old breviary, one antiphon for so different psalms, six psalms or three psalms in the first monastery was not ideal. Depends. Here again, if you wish to do it as you are doing it now, only once, at the end of the nocturne, you could do it. Also we, here again, after discussions, after having spoken about all these difficulties, were insisting a little bit, the old-fashioned monks with Monsignor Martimo, all these people of the old tradition. No. After Everlip San, the Gloria Patri, to give this Christological, Christian orientation to a Hebrew word of the Old Testament.

[84:44]

In my monastery, we don't like it. We are doing it, as you are doing it, perhaps Fr. Raphael was the inspiring man, to be more contemplative, not to change. And our father, Albert Basel, in the old times said, I am a poor man, as Albert, according to the old system, I must remain during the entire nocturne, six psalms, not going up to the Gloria Patri, always sitting. And I am inviting you, because you can move to awake, to remain living, and I, poor man, I must always sitting down with the danger to sleep. Therefore, here are different points of view. You can choose. I, for my person, would like Gloria Pata after Eben Ibsen. I don't see the reason to drop it. Could you tell me why did you take her away?

[85:45]

Gloria? Also, what is the reason to have more peace? Yeah, well, great. Raphael did it. It was just that people thought that it was too distracting to get up and down with it. Yeah, distracting, against the contemplative quiet. You dropped it and you introduced it again. It's interesting, yes. You are free again. You can use much liberty, but nevertheless, you see, there is a reason, yes, it's a little bit against the peace and against the contemplation, on the other hand also, and it is not prescribed in the rule. The rule speaks only about the Gloria Patri after the Responsorium, Opta Reverentiam Trinitatis.

[86:48]

The rule does not speak about the Gloria Patri so far as I remember after the Psalms. I think part of our problem came because we were using benches, not the Misericordia. But we are sitting also in benches, in the vigils. We have to take them down. You arrive during the Vespers, it's very easy for the Misericordia to rise up, so there's nothing. Also, there's a moment, yes, it's more difficult if you are sitting. Lifetime is... No, we don't do it in... In Rome, the situation was so, we were not very friend to them in the commission, because you don't find them, very few.

[87:50]

But there were some periti, especially Germans and Prof. Pascho from Munich, who were fighting. And finally he obtained a victory. They introduced it. He was responsible for the disposition of Sanche. He is a master in this work. It is not so bad what he finally found for the rest of us, but always the same, three, four, five canticles, nothing more. In Mr. Schwarzach they are using also the prologue of St. John's and other things for canticle. That's not a canticle. So now, my dear brothers, I said it only as some counsel of a brother. I know you can meditate it. And take your decision. And I hope that you do it well. That's it.

[88:47]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ