.JPG)
As some of you know, I have a few 1965 Roman Missals for the altar. It is basically the 1962 missal but has all of the public prayers translated into English and similar to our glorious new English translation. All of the quiet prayers of the priest remain in Latin, including the quiet Roman Canon with all the rubrics still in tact except for the Per Ipsum which is as we have it in the Ordinary Form.
I copy this from The New Liturgical Movement. Over there it is offered as a lament. You can read their commentary there.
I see it as the ideal way to have been faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium. If only the reform had not gone further. The only possibility would be for our current Roman Missal to remain as is, but with the 1965 Order of Mass as celebrated as the document below indicates. I could live with that!
13 comments:
My biggest qualm in an analytical sense with the OF is its extremely lax rubrics and optionitis tendencies. Does it really profit anyone to have three different forms of the penitential act? Oh? Yes? And what is that? I mean, I don't understand the justification for that, for example.
Why, why, exactly for what reason--in case you haven't noticed I want a reasoned justification because I've never heard one--are there three forms for that part of the Mass?
This then is the Mass of Vatican II. It does seem to respond far better to the actual directives of SC than the current ordo in at least one important respect: the way it retains Latin.
ytc, my theory on this is that it is a multigenrational plan. I seem to recall back in the 70s and 80s. Form A (with the Confiteor) was the most used on Sundays, with Form B (the really quick one) for daily Mass. Now note, unlike the Gloria, the Kryre, the Credo, and the Sanctus, the Novus Ordo Confiteor was heavily rewrote to omit the intercession of the saints by name. This, along with the inclusion of the protestant part of the Our Father, was a direct and calculated move to make Catholics and Protestants more common with each other.
Now, in the 90s, it seemed Form A started to get phased out in most typical parishes in favor of Form C (the sung version, which parish musical directors love). This was done purposely to change people's whole theology behind the Pentitential Act - - its not so much about absolution of venial sins so you can receive communion in a state of grace, its to ask for mercy in a communial way with your fellow man.
The next step, which will happen in the near future during Francis' pontificate, will be to cite the priest shortage as making traditional confession too much of a hardship on priests. The sacrament of confession will be incorporated into the Sunday Novus Ordo, a legitimizing of general absolution. For this, Form A with the Credo will be restored as the preferred option for Sundays, but many powerful musical directors will still push for Form C. Traditional individual confession will becom "extraordinary", and genreral absolution during the penitential act will become "ordinary".
if MR65 had been codified and released as THE MISSSAL, none of these conversations would be happening today. V2 would have been just another Council in a long list of Councils. It was what happened after the Council that broke everything...why not admit and fix it? You know, like addicts do in recovery? Admit you have a problem as step 1 to recovery.
Van, keep in mind that in the EF High Mass, the prayers at the foot of the altar including the double absolutions are for the clergy present and their assistants, not for the congregation. The congregation simply had the Kyrie without absolution. Many think it was a mistake to develop a Penitential Act for everyone, that the Mass should have simply had the Introit, then the Kyrie, Gloria and collect, preceded by "the Lord be with you."
Actually, the congregation has the third Confiteor just before Communion...
Of course it was a mistake to collapse the three distinct Confiteors into one.
The Confiteor before Holy Communion was removed in the 1962 missal, but since this missal was only used for about 3 years or less, I think the rad trads that wanted the pre-1962 missal either balked at removing it or could not read the Latin GIRM and didn't know it had been.
Father, all the Trad priests still include the Third Confiteor. In fact, of all the TLMs I've been to in many states and chapels, I think St. Joseph is the only parish I've seen that doesn't use it...
The modern experts on this within the Church - the FSSP and the ICRSS use it. They aren't "radical" are they? They also aren't stupid since they are educated in this Mass... Are they?
FrAJM, have you read "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI" by Fr Anthony Cekada? If so, what is your opinion of that book?
Fr. McDonald: "The Confiteor before Holy Communion was removed in the 1962 missal"
Indeed, as I understand this, it was removed by a committee chaired by Msgr. Bugnini--with the same intent that is manifest in the Novus Ordo innovations he later engineered.
Many (even professed trads) are unaware that the 1962 Mass is not quite the "Mass of the Ages" that they may assume it to be, that it was a definite step in the evolution toward the Novus Ordo. The 1965 interim Ordae Missae was the next big step.
In my view--and that of history, I suspect--is that both were steps down the slippery slope from where we were to where we are today.
Good point, Henry. I think the Holy Week changes have now become a popular thing for Trads to consider and that leads to a realization along the lines of what you've pointed out. Once that was changed and the Canon itself was changed to add St. Joseph, all bets were off. I'm not arguing a true cause and effect relationship between these things, just that the process had certainly begun in the early 20th century, as you noted.
One must admire the patience of the liturgical reformers.
In its article on the Mass, the Catholic Encyclopaedia, published at the beginning of the 20th century, it was opined that if a modern Catholic were to be transported back 1300 years to the time of Pope Gregory the Great the Mass he would encounter would be essentially familiar to him. Now suppose a man goes to Antarctica on a scientific expedition at the beginning of 1964 and returns three-and-a-half years later, in July 1967. He goes to Mass again at his local parish church. It's the same priest. But he's no longer at the altar, but at a wooden table placed in front of it, and faces the congregation. From the opening "In the name of the Father" to the closing "Go, the Mass is ended" everything is in English, even the Canon, which is said aloud, and what has happened to the many signs of the cross and the genuflections before the elevations? Instead of reading the Epistle the priest sits down, still facing the people, and someone comes up from the congregation to read it. During the Offertory everyone sings a song about bread and wine, and as people come up for Communion someone picks up a guitar and starts singing something which sounds like 'Kumbaya'.
Our returning traveller finds all this baffling. Surely this must be a protestant service. It's nothing like the Mass as he remembers it.
[The Consilium's first decree, Inter Oecumenici, was promulgated in September 1964 and first impacted on parishes in March 1965 with the first interim missal. Tres Abhinc Annos became effective on 29 June 1967. I was there, I saw it happen. The Roman Rite destroyed in three short years and they actually boasted about it! Absolutely unbelievable. Well done Annibale Bugnini. Well done Paul VI. I hope you have been suitably rewarded for your efforts.]
Fr AJM
The Confiteor and absolution before the people's Communion was no longer required after (I think) 1960, but was not actually suppressed. Note that the Indulgentiam has the second person plural rather than the first. Sometimes it is done, in my experience more often not - it depends how traditional the server is! If he doesn't say it the priest will still assume there are communicants and go straight to the Ecce Agnus Dei.
The rite for the people's Communion is not in the Missal anyway, as I think you pointed out to me a few months back.
Your comment about the PATFOTA not being a dialogue between celebrant and the congregation is quite correct. In authorizing the "dialogue Mass" back in the 1920s the SCR seems to have overlooked this. The people reciting the Kyrie, Gloria etc is much more sound, as these parts belong also to them in a sung Mass.
In the PATFOTA the server is not answering for the congregation, he is substituting for the deacon and subdeacon. He is in fact a "lay clerk" (the term is still used to describe the men in a cathedral choir, the boys being "choristers"). He also performs other duties pertaining to the sacred ministers at a High Mass.
From 1964 onwards lay readers (of either sex) were permitted. They should not be confused with Lectors and are not really substituting for them. Those substituting for acolytes are in effect lay clerks and should be male.
Post a Comment