The Post-Vatican II Reform of the Epiphanytide and Post-Pentecost Collects: Some Observations

It is (or should be) no secret that the corpus of orations found in the post-Vatican II Missale Romanum are quite different from the preceding liturgical tradition as embodied in the 1962 Missale Romanum. This difference exists not only in the orations used, but also in where they are utilised. For those who are interested, my recently published book The Proper of Time in the Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms (USA, UK) gives the texts of all the orations from the 1962 Missal, Schema 186 of the Consilium (dated 19th September, 1966), and the 1970/2002 Missal, arranged in parallel for the Proper of Time. It also contains various indices for the different types of oration, ordered by the source numbers given in the Corpus Orationum and other books, [1] where one can see at a glance where a given source is utilised in each set of orations. (For more on the book, see this post on NLM.)

An example page from the indices of The Proper
of Time in the Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms
(click to enlarge)

As readers of New Liturgical Movement are no doubt aware, Lauren Pristas has carried out a detailed comparative analysis of the collects for proper seasons (i.e. Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter). [2] This wonderful book makes an excellent starting point for this sort of comparative analysis, but it is only a start. One of the next steps in this research will be to analyse the collects for Epiphanytide and post-Pentecost (i.e., tempus per annum). So, I thought I would compile some basic statistics about the three corpora of orations - the 1962 Missal, Schema 186, and the 1970/2002 Missal - both as a precursor to further research and to show how the information in The Proper of Time in the Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms could be utilised in this regard. [3]

Between the 1962 Missal, Schema 186 and the 1970/2002 Missal, there are 53 sources used for the collects that occur in Epiphanytide and post-Pentecost. [4] Some of these sources are common to all three corpora, some are common to two of them, and some are unique to one corpus. Of these 53 sources, 29 are used in the 1962 Missal, 33 are used in Schema 186, and 37 are used in the 1970/2002 Missal. [5] The percentage of collects common to all three sets of orations is 30.2% (16/53). [6]

It should be noted that this figure is already quite a low level of correspondence, but it also masks the stark differences between the 1970/2002 Missal and the other two corpora:

Table 1: Percentage similarity of sources used between the different corpora (click to enlarge)

As can be seen from the table above, the number of sources in common between 1962 and Schema 186 is 77.1% (27/35), whereas the number in common between Schema 186 and the 1970/2002 Missal is 37.3% (19/51). This number is even lower when one compares the 1962 and 1970/2002 Missals - in fact, the only sources in common between the two Missals are those that all three corpora have in common! [7]

We can observe another major difference between the three sets of sources when we look at those unique to each set of collects:

Table 2: Percentage of unique sources in each corpora (click to enlarge)

Whereas there are only 2/29 (6.9%) sources unique to the 1962 Missal and 3/33 (9.1%) unique to Schema 186, almost half (48.6%; 18/37) of the sources used in tempus per annum in the 1970/2002 Missal are unique to this corpus. [8]

So, what do these basic statistics point towards?

Firstly, that the corpus of collects in the 1970/2002 Missal really is very different to that of both the preceding liturgical tradition and the proposed draft for the reform of these prayers - perhaps even more so than liturgists and scholars have thus far realised. It should be pointed out here that these statistics do not indicate which orations were edited prior to their inclusion in either Schema 186 or the 1970/2002 Missal, as this would require much more detailed consultation of the Corpus Orationum. However, the number of changes would seem to indicate that, potentially, the character of what is known in the 1970/2002 Missal as tempus per annum has been significantly altered from what came before.

Secondly, that the set of collects being proposed by Coetus 18 bis in 1966 for Epiphanytide and post-Pentecost were only marginally different from those already in the 1962 Missal. It should be noted that a significant proportion of these differences can be accounted for by the elimination of Pre-Lent in Schema 186, and the subsequent designation of these Sundays as the 7th, 8th and 9th after Epiphany. It would also be interesting to look at the collects that have been changed from the 1962 Missal in Schema 186, to see if there are any patterns in the changes and whether these changes satisfy the criteria laid out by Coetus 18 bis in the schema. [9]

Both of these observations raise the question of why the eventual outcome of the Consilium’s work was quite so different from their 1966 draft. Further research and comparative analysis of the post-Vatican II reform of the Missal orations is vital for this question (and others) to be resolved.

NOTES

[1] For the numbering of sources which follows in this article, CO = E. Moeller, J.M. Clément & B. Coppieters ’t Wallant (eds.), Corpus Orationum (CCSL 160-160M; Turnholt: Brepols, 1992-2004, 14 vols.); CP = E. Moeller (ed.), Corpus Praefationum (CCSL 161-161D; Turnholt: Brepols, 1980-81, 5 vols.)

[2] Lauren Pristas, The Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013).

[3] It should be noted here that, though some of these sources are used elsewhere in the respective corpora, we are only looking at the use of sources in Epiphanytide and post-Pentecost (tempus per annum).

[4] The 53 sources are: CO 20, 95, 669, 762, 875, 899, 901, 934, 990, 1085, 1188, 1245, 1310, 1532, 1582, 1633, 1737, 1772, 1898, 1952, 2055, 2128, 2175, 2210, 2234, 2418, 2555, 2637, 2638, 3233, 3237, 3246, 3739, 3773, 3819, 3830, 3837, 3849, 3886, 3887, 3909, 4145, 4244, 4557, 4663, 4745, 5110, 5346, 5956, 6109, 6821, 6824; CP 1073.

[5] The breakdown is as follows:

• 1962 Missal: CO 20, 875, 899, 990, 1188, 1245, 1532, 1772, 1898, 1952, 2175, 2210, 2234, 2418, 2555, 2637, 2638, 3233, 3237, 3739, 3773, 3849, 3887, 3909, 4145, 4557, 4745, 5346, 5956;
• Schema 186: CO 762, 875, 899, 934, 1188, 1245, 1532, 1772, 1898, 1952, 2055, 2175, 2210, 2234, 2418, 2555, 2637, 2638, 3233, 3237, 3246, 3739, 3773, 3849, 3887, 3909, 4145, 4244, 4557, 4663, 4745, 5346, 5956;
• 1970/2002 Missal: CO 95, 669, 899, 901, 934, 1085, 1188, 1245, 1310, 1532, 1582, 1633, 1737, 1952, 2055, 2128, 2210, 2555, 2638, 3739, 3773, 3819, 3830, 3847, 3886, 3887, 3909, 4244, 4557, 5110, 5346, 5956, 6109, 6821, 6824; CP 1073.

[6] The sources shared between all three are: CO 899, 1118, 1245, 1532, 1952, 2210, 2555, 2638, 3739, 3773, 3887, 3909, 4557, 4745, 5346, 5956.

[7] The breakdown is as follows:

• 1962 Missal & Schema 186: those common to all three (see note [6]), plus CO 875, 1772, 1898, 2175, 2234, 2418, 2637, 3233, 3237, 3849, 4145;
• 1962 & 1970/2002 Missal: none, other than those common to all three (see note [6]);
• Schema 186 & 1970/2002 Missal: those common to all three (see note [6]), plus CO 934, 2055, 4244.

[8] The breakdown is as follows:

• 1962 Missal: CO 20, 990;
• Schema 186: CO 762, 3246, 4663;
• 1970/2002 Missal: CO 95, 669, 901, 1085, 1310, 1582, 1633, 1737, 2128, 3819, 3830, 3837, 3886, 5110, 6109, 6821, 6824; CP 1073.

[9] An English translation of pp. 1-4 of Schema 186, which gives the criteria for and some of the rationale behind the proposed reform of the Missal orations, can be found along with the Latin text in Matthew P. Hazell, The Proper of Time in the Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms (Lectionary Study Press, 2018), pp. 220-227.