"The Mass of the Roman Rite", by Joseph Jungmann, S. J. - Book Review
This is what happens when I ask a very simple question about something that I suppose must have a simple answer. For the past 5 years I have been going to the Tridentine Latin version of the mass. I was raised Catholic after Vatican II. It was only about 10 years ago that I really thought about there being other versions of the mass, and that what I was raised with maybe has not been around for ever.
My movement from post-Vatican II rites to pre-Vatican II rites raised in me a wish to know the history of the mass. Was this "Latin" or "Tridentine" version the original? Where things always this way? This led to the simple question:
What was the original version of the mass?
I fumbled around on the internet for a while, and was getting more confused. Even the Catholic church sources I could find seemed to be offering no easy guidance for someone asking these sorts of questions. Then a friend, who knows I care about such things, said, "I have a book about that I will lend you." That book being "The Mass of the Roman Rite" by Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J.
Two volumes, 900 pages. Most pages have a half dozen footnotes to primary sources. The level of scholarship is daunting, even inconceivable. I am only 300 pages in, and it will be a while before I finish, so I wanted to write something.
To my original, simple question, there is no answer. We do not know what was the original form of the mass. We simply do not have enough records from the first few centuries to be able to answer the question. [There is always the possibility that these records exist in the Vatican Libraries, but since I will not be doing anything about that, it is not a useful line for me. ]
This leads to a modified simple question:
The Latin Tridentine rite being practiced at my local church, how long has that been around?
Key elements have been around since the 6th century, but the exact form of the rite has changed many, many times, and looked different in different countries. There are other non-Roman version, such as the Maronite or Greek Orthodox... do those count? One example, to give a flavor: for centuries the entire city would begin the mass at one church, then all walk to finish the mass in a different church. The first church would be the church dedicated to that day's saint. A second example: for some centuries music was not allowed. A third example, in the early centuries the readings were not fixed, but could be chosen by the priest. Each of these examples are not how we do things now, so clearly it is very problematic to look for a "Traditional" version to "go back to".
I think it is safe to say that any time or place over the past 2000 years, if I were to be at a mass, I would recognize it as being a Christian mass, but it would also certainly be different in many respects from what, in our naivete, we now call the "Traditional Latin Mass".
A substantial amount of standardization took place in the 16th century, in direct reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation.
One wonders if the variations that have existed through the past two millennia are a good & useful thing; or if it only shows that people cannot stop themselves from meddling with everything.
I hope in six months I will have finished the Jungmann book and can update this post.
There are some indications that the rite was decided upon by those who knew Christ. I am still looking for the primary source, which I stumbled upon about 20 years ago and have been in vain looking for ever since, because at the time I had no idea how special it was. The story is from the Portuguese, who in the 15th century went to India to conquer and Christianize that land. They found that there were already Christians in India, who were celebrating a version of the mass very similar to what the Portuguese practiced. Somewhat astonished, the Portuguese asked where the locals had learned this, to which the reply was, the Apostle Thomas. The Portuguese did their best to eliminate those differences and make certain henceforth the Indians would do things the "right way." But I could find no description of the differences. Once again the victors write the history books, and the Portuguese saw no reason to elaborate on what was not coming from them thems
That two volume set sounds fascinating. We also attend the TLM and our priest just did two adult formation talks on this very topic. He said many of the same things you mention here, plus some other interesting thoughts.
I don’t know if you will ever read this belated comment, but I have only just discovered your former blog, and I am carefully reading everything here on substack.
I am really delighted to rediscover a book I recall from my university studies, and I am so very happy to discover that you like the traditional Latin Mass too. My wife and I attend a traditional Mass offered nearby exclusively now, and we are not going back to the other rite.
I know that a copy is still on the stacks at the local university main library and I think I will add this to my list of must reads for 2023.
If I could be so bold as to offer a reading suggestion in return?
There isn’t much left of his writings, but the fourth century Tyconius, mentioned by St Augustine and the Venerable Bede, wrote The Book of Rules, which comprises seven keys or rules identifying the constitutive principles of biblical prose.
If you google it you’ll find it.
Thanks!