Tuesday, November 29, 2011


The future new Roman Missal will make the Mass look like this?

Here are the excerpts on matters liturgical from a longer article in the National Catholic Register:

The tribunal prefect also exercises care for the Church’s liturgy as a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship.

He is grateful to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for giving the Church “a font of solid direction” regarding worship, based on the Second Vatican Council’s vision of a “God-centered liturgy and not a man-centered liturgy.”

That intention was not always realized, he said, since the Council’s call for liturgical reform coincided with a “cultural revolution.”

Many congregations lost their “fundamental sense that the liturgy is Jesus Christ himself acting, God himself acting in our midst to sanctify us.”

Cardinal Burke said greater access to the traditional Latin Mass, now known as the “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite, has helped to correct the problem.

“The celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form is now less and less contested,” he noted, “and people are seeing the great beauty of the rite as it was celebrated practically since the time of Pope Gregory the Great” in the sixth century.

Many Catholics now see that the Church’s “ordinary form” of Mass, celebrated in modern languages, “could be enriched by elements of that long tradition.”

In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church’s ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors.

“It seems, to me, that what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite — the ‘reform of the reform,’ if we may — all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent.”


What are the major differences and similarities in the Ordinary Form from the Extraordinary Form?

1. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar was changed to the "penitential" rite with numerous options.

2. The Kyrie is in the same place although truncated when the Confiteor is used. However, when the rite of sprinkling takes place, the penitential rite is omitted and unfortunately also the Kyrie is eliminated altogether. Unfortunately this is also the case in the Funeral Mass.

3. The Gloria and Collect are the same.

4. The Liturgy of the Word is expanded, laity are allowed to read the first two readings and all is read from the Ambo.

5. The Offertory Rite is totally revised and truncated

6. The Orate Fratres is the same

7. The prayer over the gifts (secret) is the same, but prayed out loud.

8. Preface is the same.

9. Sanctus is the same.

10. Mystery of Faith is added, although Roman Canon is the same, but more choices for canons and simplified rubrics.

11. The Great Amen is emphasized as is the "Through Him..." but is the same wording.

12. Pater Noster is the same

13. The addition of the embolism and elimination of several post Pater Noster Prayers.

14. Separate duplicated rites for Holy Communion of priest and then faithful.

15. Clear Communion rite for Laity (missing in EF Missal!)

16. Post Communion prayer the same

17. Blessing and dismissal is reversed and a prayer is eliminated

18. Last gospel is eliminated.

What would a new Missal that suppresses the current OF Mass and the 1962 Missal look like. Of course now we enter into my well-known clairvoyance!

1. Ad Orientem returns

2. Penitential Rite is eliminated in favor of the "Requiem Mass" Prayer at the Foot of the Altar, although this is omitted when the Rite of Sprinkling takes place with the blessing of the Water during it."

3. Kyrie, Gloria and Collect--normative for all Masses.

4. The Liturgy of the Word will be unaltered from the OF Mass and the manner in which it is celebrated. Year D will be added, though, which will be the 1962 Missal's Sunday readings.

5. The calendar will remain the same except for the designation of Ordinary Time as After Epiphany and then after Pentecost. Ember days will return and the season prior the Lent will return. The Octave of Pentecost will return.

6. The Creed and Universal Prayer (Intercessions) will remain as is

7. The offertory prayers will use the 1962 version

8. The additional canons will remain, but the rubrics will be more defined for the use of the pall, double genuflections (one also genuflects each time the pall is removed after the Precious Blood is consecrated). However, the other rubrics from the OF will remain.

9. The Post Communion, Blessing and Dismissal will remain the OF version.

10.It will be mandated that the Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons be used and "devotional" hymns, anthems and songs only used as "filler" if desired, but not mandated.

11. The distinction of styles of Mass will be clarified: Low Mass, no music; Sung Mass--all parts sung; Solemn Sung will be eliminated and the role of the deacon will be as it is currently in the OF Mass.

12. Vernacular will be the norm but Latin encouraged for all or parts of the Mass; perhaps a Latin version in parishes with multiple Masses on Sunday.

13. Receiving Holy Communion according to the 1962 missal kneeling will be the norm, but the laity will still have the option of the chalice through intinction


Dan Hunter said...

Whats wrong with leaving the Missal of 1962 alone?
Maybe adding new saints but leave the Ordinaries alone.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I've said this before, but I feel that the corrected English translated Mass could be celebrated with the EF Form but according to the rubrics and order of the 1965 Roman Missal. The problem with the 1962 missal is its lectionary. The revised lectionary is much richer not only for Sunday Mass, but esepcially for daily Masses and the number of Masses for various needs, not to mention prefaces is certainly richer. All that would need to be added is the full array of propers, introit, offertory and communion. With my idea of a revised missal, you'd have the best of both worlds. I think the vast majority of Catholic truly appreciate the Mass in the vernacular as long as it is a Latinate, sacred vernacular, not the equivalent translation we've endured for 40 years or so.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Frajm for personal reasons: I like the richer lectionary. I have been mapping the '62 to the 'New' Translation and there is not a lot of difference, as his post shows.

I guess as long as I don't have to spend $70 but once every forty years, I'll be ready when the next change comes along!


Joseph Johnson said...

A recent issue of "Inside the Vatican" magazine featured an article arguing for a return to the 1962 offertory in the Novus Ordo. It mentioned that even Pope Paul VI commented (when he observed one of the private session "trial runs" of the proposed Novus Ordo in the latter 1960's) that he thought the new offertory was "weak" as compared to the then used older form.

The older offertory form, rather than emphasizing the bread and wine as being products of the earth and human labor, instead emphasized their being offered by an undeserving priest for all for our sins and negligences to benefit us in gaining our salvation unto life eternal.

Certainly this shows one very important difference in the two present forms of the Mass and why many will still argue that the 1962 form more clearly and forthrightly emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Mass. No doubt the new English translation has cured a lot of the problems (for English speakers) in the wording of the Novus Ordo Mass prayers. Still, there is more to be seriously considered and the offertory should be high on the list.

The Moderate Jacobite said...

If I may make a small comment. You suggest that the collects and post-communions are unchanged between the E.F. and the O.F. - I have to disagree, there is both a ritual and ceremonial change.

In the E.F. they are both offered (as all prayer is) over the Altar, whereas in the O.F. they are prayed from the sedilia or presiding chair.

Also, the O.F. radically changes the actual collects and post-communions used, with barely any of these (frequently ancient) texts surviving unchanged into the O.F. (I speak, here, of the Latin).

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The 1965 missal gives the option of presiding from the chair or from the altar as in the 1962 missal--it was a move to allow the Mass by a lowly priest to be like a Mass by the bishop even in the 1962 missal--presiding from the cathedra.

I know that the Mass texts are revamped in the Latin version of the revised missal. I'm not opposed to that but the corrected English translation is giving us now what that Latin text conveys.

I think we have to allow for the reform of the Mass but recover what was lost in terms of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass--we can still do that with the current corrected missal but using the Order of Mass and its rubrics from the 1965 missal.

Anonymous said...

I prefer the calender form from 1962...For the majority that go to Mass they only do so once in a while. And for that majority maintaining in memory the readings in anything more than a 1 year cycle is close to impossible. If necessary for a 5 minute extra reading, insert it into the 1 year calender and Mass and drop the optional Sign of Peace that many people dislike and cringe when it comes around. Linking things to seasons and hearing them at least once a year retains things in memory. I think those who like the 3 year A,B,C readings will probably read scripture outside Mass anyways. But for the rest of us we are often lost with nothing sounding familiar until a few years roll by again. This is not a retention aid. The natural rhyme in time and nature is by minutes, seconds, hours, days, months, years, decades, generations and centuries. Where does 3 years fit in the natural rhythm? It is just a strange anomoly making it seem and feel artificial.