• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Diary of Cardinal Antonelli (1964): “How Exactly Should The Vatican II Mass Look?”

Jeff Ostrowski · July 19, 2014

6031 Antonelli ARDINAL FERDINAND ANTONELLI served as Secretary for the Consilium of Paul VI. (Technically, Cardinal Antonelli was appointed “Secretary of the Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy” on 4 October 1962.) Extremely well-informed and experienced, he was probably the most reliable and unbiased witness of the postconciliar liturgical reforms.

As you can see below, Cardinal Antonelli would today be given a “Reform of the Reform” label, proving that Pope Benedict XVI was correct 1 in his interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.

Please do not freak out because the diary contains Latin quotes: I’ve provided an English translation at the end.

Any comments written in red are mine.

*           *           *

PRIVATE DIARY OF CARDINAL ANTONELLI
—   Entry Date:   27 December 1964   —

Sacrosanctum Concilium

1. Article 50 of the Constitution contains 3 words which are explosive when compared to the actual state of things: Ordo Missae recognoscatur.

Therefore, the fixed parts of the Mass must be revised. In reality, they are not very ancient and assumed their present form only in the Tridentine reform. The Canon, however, has remained unchanged since the time of Gregory the Great, simply because he believed it to be Apostolic in origin.

[Cardinal Antonelli is incorrect when he says “in reality, they are not very ancient.” He’s probably referring to the fact that certain parts of the Tridentine Ordo Missae—such as the Offertory Prayers and “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar“—are not quite as ancient as things like the Canon and Proprium Missae. However, even those items go back many centuries before the Council of Trent, as anyone who purchases the Jogues Missal can see clearly.]

2. The Constitution also gives the criteria for recognition:

a) Singularum partium propria ratio necnon mutua connexio clarius pateant, for example, distinguishing the place of the liturgy of the word and that of the Eucharist;

[The Tridentine Low Mass did not demonstrate the difference between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist as clearly as the arrangement used during a Tridentine Pontifical Mass. Antonelli here wants the Pontifical to be chosen so that the “intrinsic nature and purpose of the Mass may be more clearly manifested.” For the record, the Pontifical form is probably more ancient.]

b) Pia et actuosa fidelium participatio facilior reddatur, simplifying some things, Psalm 42, for example;

[The Tridentine Rite prescribed a recitation of Psalm 42, which had been used as preparation for Mass many centuries before the Council of Trent. However, Antonelli is here suggesting that “devout and active participation by the faithful” is impossible if Psalm 42 remains.]

c) ritus simpliciores fiant, for example some genuflections and many signs of the cross;

[In response to the Council’s desire that “the rites are to be simplified,” Antonelli suggests that some of the numerous genuflections could be eliminated, as well as the great number of times the Priest makes the sign of the Cross. In particular, some liturgists—especially those who possessed a very superficial understanding of the Sacraments—had a difficult time understanding why the Priest was required to make the sign of the Cross over the Sanctissimum, because no man can ever “bless” God. There is more that could be said about this, but it would be inappropriate to do so here.]

d) ea omittantur quae duplicatur fuerunt, for example, that the celebrant should have to say alone the parts sung by the deacon or subdeacon;

[Antonelli here reacts against those parts of the Tridentine liturgy where the priest “duplicates” the exact words prayed by the choir, congregation, deacon, or subdeacon. Pope Pius XII had already eliminated this duplication during the Gospel, as well as the sizable readings at the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday. For the record, it’s hard to see how it makes any difference to Catholics in the pews whether the Celebrant quietly recites prayers like the Gloria, Creed, and so on.]

e) restituantur nonnulla quae deciderunt, for example, the oratio fidelium.

[Antonelli was a huge fan of the “Prayer of the Faithful,” which some liturgists believe to be extremely ancient. There is an odd moment in the Tridentine Rite where the priest (after the Creed) turns around and sings «Orémus» but no prayer follows, and this might have been where the ancient “Prayer of the Faithful” happened. In another diary entry, Antonelli says the special prayers on Good Friday are vestiges of the “Prayer of the Faithful,” but scholars today disagree about this.]

Article 50 of the Constitution, which is very dense, lays down two indisputable conditions:

1. Ut substantia rituum servetur, in such a way that were St. Pius V or St. Gregory the Great to come back, they would be able to say that the Mass had substantially remained the same.

2. Ad pristinam sanctorum Patrum normam. This expression is taken from the Bull of Saint Pius V of 1570 on the Missal. It means that the entire revision must be carried out in accordance with the tradition of the Church.

Here’s a “key” to the Latin quotes:

Sacrosanctum Concilium

50. Ordo Missae ita recognoscatur, ut singularum partium propria ratio necnon mutua connexio clarius pateant, atque pia et actuosa fidelium participatio facilior reddatur.

Quamobrem ritus, probe servata eorum substantia, simpliciores fiant; ea omittantur quae temporum decursu duplicata fuerunt vel minus utiliter addita; restituantur vero ad pristinam sanctorum Patrum normam nonnulla quae temporum iniuria deciderunt, prout opportuna vel necessaria videantur.

Sacrosanctum Concilium

50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

 


NOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

1   By the way, I’m amazed that Benedict’s astounding talk has not been made into a booklet yet.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Annibale Bugnini Reform, Cardinal Ferdinando Giuseppe Antonelli OFM, Hymns Replacing Propers, Reform of the Reform Last Updated: October 19, 2022

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

Nothing should be allowed that is unworthy of divine worship, nothing that is obviously profane or unfit to express the inner, sacred power of prayer. Nothing odd or unusual is allowable, since such things, far from fostering devotion in the praying community, rather shock and upset it—and impede the proper and rightful cultivation of a devotion faithful to tradition.

— Pope Paul VI • 10/13/1966

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up