For Saint Vincent de Paul, the Eucharist is the center of all liturgical action and, so to speak, compiles all the mysteries of our salvation. After presenting the “the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation [as] mysteries beyond words, he adds: “There can be no better way of paying the best honor possible to these mysteries than proper devotion to, and use of, the Blessed Eucharist, sacrament and sacrifice. It includes, as it were, all the other mysteries of faith and, by itself, leads those who receive Communion respectfully or celebrate Mass properly, to holiness and ultimately to everlasting glory. In this way God, Unity and Trinity, and the Incarnate Word, are paid the greatest honor” (Common Rules X:3-4).

To understand Vincent de Paul’s concern, it is necessary to recall the chaotic state of the liturgy in France during the early years of his priesthood. For political reasons, the decrees of the Council of Trent had not yet been officially published in France with the force of law even fifty years after the council’s conclusion. This only occurred in 1615, with the publication of the “Pragmatic Sanction” of Louis XIII. In a conference with his  confrefres about the need for some uniformity in preaching and ministerial practice—so as not to cause confusion or disorientation among the faithful—he recalled the absurdities in the celebration of the Eucharist: Oh, if you had only seen, I don’t want to say the ugliness, but the diversity, of the ceremonies of the Mass forty years ago, it would have made you ashamed! I don’t think there was anything uglier in the world than the different ways people were celebrating it: some began the Mass with the Pater noster; others would take the chasuble in their hands and say the Introibo, and then they’d put on that chasuble. Once I was at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, where I noticed seven or eight priests who all said Mass differently; one did it one way, the other another way; the diversity was worthy of tears. God be blessed that His Divine Goodness has been pleased to gradually remedy this great disorder! All of it hasn’t been set right, for, alas, how much variation in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries is still apparent! How many poorly formed priests there still are who lack instruction or are unwilling to follow the correct way that should create the uniformity indicated by the rubrics! (CCD:XII:212).

Father Vincent’s great concern was to avoid confusing people. These were times of division, at times quite aggressive. It was necessary to establish a certain degree of uniformity so that the Catholic community could clearly distinguish itself from other Christian confessions. It is interesting to note that he implicitly refers to the debates of the Council of Trent when he says: even though people complained in the beginning that Mass was being celebrated in a language they didn’t understand, nevertheless, in order to be preserved in one and the same spirit, after having weighed everything and compared this difficulty with the inconveniences that might result if each country had Holy Mass in its own language, the Church wanted everyone to be unanimous and uniform in all these things. It willed that all nations be conformed to the usage it established, despite the complaints made about this. And why? Because, in addition to the fact that God is honored by this universal practice, great abuses are avoided by this conformity (CCD:XII:211).

It is worth highlighting that the very principle behind the revision of the Roman Missal approved by Saint Pius V was the same principle that guided the revision of the Roman Missal after the Second Vatican Council, published by Saint Paul VI. This principle is clearly expressed in the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum: “One ought not to think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been improvident. The progress that the liturgical sciences has accomplished in the last four centuries has, without a doubt, prepared the way. After the Council of Trent, the study ‘of ancient manuscripts of the Vatican library and of others gathered elsewhere,’ as Our predecessor, St. Pius V, indicates in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, has greatly helped for the revision of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, more ancient liturgical sources have been discovered and published” (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum,” April 3, 1969).

Today’s tools for historical and archaeological research provide us with knowledge that was not available to sixteenth-century scholars.

But that was not Father Vincent’s concern; he did not take a principled stance but rather a pastoral one. He acknowledged that there had been debate, and that the debate was reasonable—but, given the circumstances of the time, it seemed pastorally wiser to choose uniformity, without calling into question legitimately established and diverse traditions, such as the Ambrosian, Bragan, Mozarabic, or Dominican rites.

For Saint Vincent de Paul, it was important not to create confusion in people’s minds or in Catholic communities, which were already facing many divisive forces. Lutheran and Calvinist communities had created their own liturgies in the vernacular. It was important that, across the various countries of Europe and in the new lands where missionary work was expanding, there be uniformity, so that the Catholic Church would not be confused with the new Christian communities that had broken away from it.

In view of the spiritual growth of the Christian people, Saint Vincent de Paul felt urgency in his heart, swiftness in action, and clarity in speech.

Fr. José Alves, CM