In every way it fulfilled the sober/ conservative recommendations of the Council Father’s for the reform of the Mass. The only thing lacking was the expansion of the Lectionary. What could have been done, rather easily, would have been to keep the original TLM lectionary as “Year A” and create two other cycles, Years B and C to include Scriptures not in the original lectionary.
The 1964 Missal allowed the vernacular for all of the laity’s parts although Latin was in the margin for these parts to make clear that Latin could still be used. What was required in Latin were the quiet prayers of the priest to include the Roman Canon.
It modified the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. I think wrongly. It eliminated Psalm 42 only. I would have liked to see the double Confiteor’s and absolutions eliminated and combined into one set recited simultaneously by the servers and priest.
The rubrics indicate that the Mass be unified, meaning priest at a sung Mass does not have to say the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus and Agnus Dei as well as the Propers, when these are sung by the choir/congregation. He joins the choir/congregation in singing these parts.
The Last Gospel was eliminated.
Certain ceremonies were simplified especially for Palm Sunday, Candlemas and a few others.
8 comments:
In my opinion the opening and penitential rites flow better than the old rite. Also prefer that they are integrated into the rite.
Hand Missal History Project has done good research showing that there was a widespread belief in 1965 that the so-called “interim” missal was, in fact, the reformed liturgy. Few saw the 1969 tsunami coming.
Nick
The average man in the pew may have wrongly thought that but it was clear the concillium was still meeting with a brief to reform all the liturgical rites. The clue to further changes to come can be seen by the term ‘interim missal’.
and the Novus Ordo has been a flop, little benny.
It wasn't just the average pewsitter. That was the frequently stated view in 1964-1966 by American bishops and national and diocesan Catholic papers. No indication of it being temporary or intended to be set aside in favor of something to come in a few years.
Nick
Nick,
True. Cardinal Heenan even wrongly reassured Evelyn Waugh as such.
TJM,
Such a flop that 99% of Catholics are content with it and prefer it over the TLM
BB the comment to TJM is misleading. In this country on 8% to 25% of Catholics attend Mass (depending on the region). I hear it is much lower in Europe! 99% of Catholics who attend Mass might prefer the Modern Mass with a significant number enjoying liturgical abuses. But that is no where near 99% of all Catholics!
True 99% of regularly and occasionally practicing catholics. But doesn’t mean the non attendees would prefer the TLM ie you don’t hear of nominal catholics requesting a TLM for christenings, wedding ms or funerals etc.
Post a Comment