I do think that it is lamentable that Pope Benedict did not re-promulgate the post-Vatican II Roman Missal of 1965 rather than the 1962 Pre-Vatican II Roman Missal with the Muto Proprio, Summorum Pontificum.
Why? Because the 1965 Roman Missal seems to have followed what the Council Fathers were asking about the revision and simplification of the 1962 Roman Missal without mutilating the 1962 Roman Missal altogether as the 1970 Roman Missal did.
But with that said and with Pope Leo XIV meeting with the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals, just a few days away, wouldn’t a marvelous compromise be for Pope Leo to give to the latest version of the 1970 Roman Missal, revised again in 2011, the order of the 1965 Roman Missal which I link below?
Doing so, allows the guts of the 2011 Roman Missal to remain in place, but the older Order of the Mass to be used.
And then Pope Leo could give liberal permission for the 1965 Roman Missal to be used in full in place of the 1962 Roman Missal, either in Latin or the vernacular as allowed in various countries in 1965. In the USA, all the priest’s private or quiet prayers were in Latin to include the Roman Canon. All other prayers offered in a loud voice could be in the vernacular and the lectionary could be in the vernacular also.
This is a commentary on the 1965 Roman Missal contained in the link above:
The official text of the Ordinary is from the Roman Missal with English translations approved by the National Conference of Bishops
of the United States, published by authority of the Bishops' Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate.
NOTE: This was the official English version of the Order of Mass from the 1965 Roman Missal, published directly after the Second
Vatican Council ended in 1965. This was the English Mass used from 1965 until 1969-70, when Paul VI promulgated the New Order
of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), and imposed it on the Latin Rite (the Novus Ordo is the current normative Mass of the Latin Rite).
This interim Mass is much closer to the intended fruit of Vatican II's Sacrosanct up Concilum than the New Mass of 1970. It is
essentially the Tridentine Latin Mass in English with minor modifications.
Many rubrical similarities exist between the 1965 Missal and the New Mass of 1970. Obviously, an option for use of the vernacular
exists in the 1965. Furthermore, as in the Novus Ordo, it is at the discretion of the celebrant to either face the East ("ad orientem") or
the people ("versus ad populum"). An option for concelebration was also introduced in the 1965 (this was formerly restricted to
Ordination Masses). The required Mass vestments were also simplified (e.g., optionality of the maniple). In 1967, the cope was
supressed in the Asperges (rite of aspersion at High Mass). The chasuble was worn in its stead. The Canon was still required to be
read in Latin until 1967, when it was permitted in the vernacular. In the 1965 Missal, the priest, when administering Communion, says
"the Body of Christ" (or "Corpus Christi") instead of "Corpus + Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam ad vitam aeternam"
(that is, "May the Body + of our Lord Jesus Christ bring thy soul unto life everlasting").
Options for congregational singing also exist in the 1965, exactly as they do in the Novus Ordo -- with places for processional,
offertory, communion, and recessional hymns. The 1965 also allows for the Prayer of the Faithful after the Creed. The prayers at the
foot of the altar, in addition to being made entirely optional, were shortened (as they would previously be prayed at Requiem Masses).
The Last Gospel was suppressed. The calendar follows the Tridentine Ordo, consistent with that of the previous Missal (Missale
Romanum 1962). Ironically enough, the New St. Joseph's Missal ends the Liturgical Calendar in 1970.
As is clearly evident, the 1965 Missal more than accomplished all of the goals of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Second Vatican
Council. The promulgation of a New Order of Mass was unnecessary. And, as you will see below, the translation of the 1965 Order
of Mass is far superior to the faulty ICEL translation of the 1970 Mass.
Corey Zelinski
4 comments:
In another word: No!
The problem with.the 1965 Missal is that it undercut the Council’s stated goal of having pastor’s train their flock to chant, in Latin, the parts of the Mass proper to them. So publishing them in the vernacular and then creating all sorts of vernacular musical settings totally undermined this goal. What would have made more sense would have been to leave the entire Ordinary in Latin and permitted the use of the vernacular fir everything else.
Father McDonald, obviously Bishop Reed of Boston didn't get the memo. Here he is in Columbus, Ohio celebrating a Pontifical Latin High Mass!
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/01/02/united-states-msgr-reed-celebrates-a-traditional-mass-with-the-youth-of-ohio/
An alternative view:
From: New Liturgical Movement:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/just-say-no-to-65.html
By Peter Kwaniewski
-- Just Say No to '65!
Excerpt:
"Joseph Shaw has done the Mass-loving world a tremendous favor by nipping in the bud a recent flurry of suggestions that, perhaps, when all is said and done, we might want to take up the interim Missal of 1965 as a new platform for the Roman Rite — after all, it's said to fulfill the intentions of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and yet avoids the snares and pitfalls of the 1970 revolution.
"The only problem with this is . . . well, there are many problems, and that's what Shaw's piece is about, so be sure to read it.
"In short, the so-called 1965 Missal was a quick slash-and-burn edit on the 1962 to buy time for the completion of the innovating Bugnini Missal.
"Some of the changes made in '65 already go beyond anything the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council even touched on in the aula, let alone voted to include in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
"It marked the beginning of the end, and, as such, needs to be stalwartly resisted even as a theoretical option.
=======
"Indeed, to be fully consistent, we must admit that there is no particular mystique to the 1962 edition; as all engaged in the study and promotion of the liturgy know, the '62 already carries the telling signature of Bugnini's handiwork.
"...Archbishop Lefebvre finally settled on for his clergy and faithful...But there's plenty of reason to question, for instance, the clumsy Holy Week reform of the 1950s, motivated by a combination of antiquarianism and modernism..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment