Monday, January 9, 2023



Yesterday when I celebrated the TLM in Savanah, the pastor there showed me a beautiful altar missal, the 1964 version! I did not take a photo of it and the one above I found on the internet and it might be hard to read at the angle of the photo.

The 1964 Roman Missal is the 1962 Roman Missal except the Propers and the lectionary of readings are in the vernacular, in this case, English, as you can see if you look closely.

Everything thing else about this Roman Missal is the 1962 Roman Missal. Everything!

I have a 1965 Sacramentary. It changed the 1964 one considerably. There was more English, not just for the antiphons and lectionary but also for the orations, prefaces and Sanctus and Lamb of God. Psalm 42 was removed from the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the doxology of the Roman Canon no longer prescribed the “Signs of the Cross” but was reformed to be like the final 1970 missal that wasn’t final either. 

Thus, here is my God inspired “what if” reform of the Mass. Would there have been no liturgy wars with this “what if” Roman Missal?

1. The 1964 Roman Missal is the template because it is the 1962 Roman Missal

2. Allow for more vernacular for all the changing parts of the Mass, new prefaces, etc

3. Revise the Communion Rite, but not as dramatically as the 1970’s versions of the Missal. By this, no change in how the Pater Noster and prayers that follow in the 1962 Missal. The only change would be that the priest prior to the “Domino non sum dignus” would first genuflect, take the Host and paten below it with his left hand, turn to the assembly and say “ecce Agnus Dei…(the 1970 full version) at which everyone together says the “Domino…”. Then the priest turns back to the altar and makes his Holy Communion to ratify the Sacrifice. Then there is no need for the additional Domino… for the congregation, a useless repetition. 

4.There would be a three year lectionary cycle, but the first one would be the one in the 1962 Roman Missal and the subsequent two others would be modeled after it, to include Old Testament and other New Testament readings not in the traditional lectionary.

5. Explicitly develop lay ministries (not associated with the ministries that lead to ordination) of lector and altar server that would include males and females but require an enrollment and ratification by the bishop with prescribed “minor seminary” requirements, which includes proper screening. 

6. Allow deacons, permanent deacons, to have a function at the low and high Mass, to include reading the Gospel and distributing Holy Communion. No extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. 

Thus, what I recommend fulfills everything for the “renewal” of the liturgy called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. Some vernacular, but maintain Latin and Gregorian chant. Eliminate useless repetition. Expand the role of the laity in terms of formal assistance at Mass and active and actual participation!

There you have it and there would not have been the liturgical wars that Pope Francis has reignited. 


Catholic Mission said...

There is a problem. The New Missal is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. We can interpret Vatican Council II rationally and we return to the pre Vatican Council II ecclesiology.
Now threre are exceptions in Vatican Councl Ii and the Missal for the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus.

Before 1949 there was no such thing.
Lionel Andrades

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

I was an altarboy in 1964 and recall this Missal. My parish was very much part of the Liturgical Movement - our normative Sunday Mass was the Missa Cantata and the entire congregation sang the chants of the Mass. However, I remember the wheels starting coming off in 1965 as our pastor became caught up quickly with the latest changes. I agree with your assessment. Too bad the bishops lost control of the process and did not vigorously defend their own prescriptions contained in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Anonymous said...

Father McDonald said..."There you have it and there would not have been the liturgical wars that Pope Francis has reignited."

The liturgical war is the result of disobedience to the Magisterial (liturgical) teachings that our holy Popes have issued.

We could begin with the liturgical war that Father Gommar A. DePauw had initiated in 1964 A.D., vis his Catholic Traditionalist Movement.

Beyond that, additional folks throughout the Church had initiated a war against Pope Saint Paul VI's liturgical teachings.

In 1988 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger declared that following "the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised “desacralization” to the level of a program...Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things."

One bishop after another had rejected Pope Saint John Paul II's teachings, via Ecclesia Dei, to secure liturgical peace.

One bishop after another had rejected, or, at best, had paid mere lip service, to Summorum Pontificum.

Many "traditional" Catholics, such as Peter Kwasniewski, have trashed Summorum Pontificum as a confused document that Pope Benedict XVI had packed with lies supposedly. Said folks have insisted that the lies were concocted to obtain the "impossible"...the peaceful co-existence of the TLM and Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.

Said folks, as well as their many among their followers, have denounced Summorum Pontificum as a dreadful document. Nevertheless, via misrepresentation, they have weaponized Summorum Pontificum to wage liturgical war against Holy Mother Church.

The liturgical war is the result of "non serviam."

Mark Thomas

ByzRus said...

What, Fr. AJM would be the means of implementation and enforcement? For over 50 years, various persons have been thumbing their noses at directives, suggestions, modeled behaviors etc.

The Roman Church is wed to VII, the perceived "spirit of" which resulted in a flawed interpretation and implementation. Even if having a Council to modify the prior is totally unnecessary, VII is so part of the mindset of the Roman Church, is it even possible to leave that behind and move forward? Aside from small pockets, is there even an appetite to do this? If the Supreme Pontiff were to promulgate a revised missal (I would name it after our Benedict XVI), what would prevent wailing, gnashing of teeth followed by predictable nose thumbing? Would this strain the various groups to the point of rupture? What will end this, VIII?

TJM said...


LOL - non serviam is a hallmark of the Left, including the current crop of Lefties running the Vatican.

What does your drivel have to do with what Father McDonald posted?

TJM said...


Good points. The younger clergy pays lip service to Vatican II, they don’t worship it like some of the elderly clergy. All 3 of my local pastors, all in their 30s, celebrate the TLM and the Novus Ordo. I suspect all 3 would be amenable to what Father McDonald is suggesting