Perhaps I am complaining too much. Your thoughts?
.jpg) |
| Mass according to the 1965 Missal: the un-reforming of the reform? source: catholicphilippines.blogspot.com |
Pages
▼
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
1965 Missal (Again)
Why are the Reformers of the Reform talking about it again!?!?—as though it was anything other than a transitional rite. After 1962izing 1970, they wish (and are unlikely to succeed) to continue by 1970izing 1962. It is as though "the liturgy" is just a play thing for some people and they will never be satisfied with it until it conforms in just the right way to their agenda. While favoring [much] older forms of the Roman rite myself, I realize that unilaterally going back to 1570 would be a complete disaster in practice. I favor organic growth based on the original product, not one adjusted just enough to balance political causes.
Perhaps I am complaining too much. Your thoughts?
Perhaps I am complaining too much. Your thoughts?
I suspect they are simply not aware how untraditional it is - kind of like how many 1962ers are ignorant of the problems with the liturgy of that year. I agree with what the recent writers have been saying in principle, that the reform cannot really be reformed, and that there is a real break with tradition; but I think I would agree with you that 1965 would be a poor choice for a starting point for organic development.
ReplyDeleteDear Maestro. One problem I have with your assertions is that when he formally promulgated the new form of Mass, Pope Paul VI stated it was in continuity with tradition and in response to what was called for in S.C.
DeleteAnd in Feast of Faith Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said essentially the same thing.
GIven that, I think it is fair to ask if it is a good idea to claim, essentially, that Pope Paul Vi lied to Church and State when he promulgated his Missal?
I end by noting that I am a rank amateur in the matter of Liturgy (which is one reason I LOVE this Blog) and I do claim that I am asking these questions without guile.
Cardinal Ratzinger and Paul VI both admitted in other places that the Novus Ordo is a break with tradition. Cardinal Ratzinger said this in several places, one of which that I can remember is in his preface to Msgr. Gamber's book on the Reform of the Roman Rite. Ratzinger words: "A fabrication... a banal, on-the-spot product..."
DeletePaul VI admitted a break with tradition in one of his general audiences: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM
And in any case, even if neither of them had made these admissions, this conclusion is still quite evident from a study of the liturgies themselves and their content.
I agree. Also, the arrangement in the picture looks ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAlso why do you think that the reverting the liturgical clock to 1570 would be disaster in practice?
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a disaster, but i don't have any opinion on the matter so i'm asking to state your reasons. :)
Delete1-Very few clergy in any country can even read Latin let alone understand rubrics
Delete2-The change would shock the laity just as much as the changes of the 1950s and 1960s did, and turn them off
3-Many clergy are a bit lethargic and would not want to take the additional time to pray the longer Divine Office. You can pray the 1970 Office for the day in about 30 minutes, the 1962 in 45 minutes, and the 1570 in 70 minutes.
Perhaps giving license to some vernacular might hep, yet I cannot help but think many clergy and laity simply lack the intellectual and spiritual formation necessary to go back to such a challenging rite as was used after Trent.
Oh i get now from where you were commenting. You had a wholesale mandatory return in mind. :)
DeleteIf priests lived as they did in the past, they would manage to pray those 70 minutes no prob. :)
ReplyDeleteOnly differences would be lesser number of saints in calendar, Kyrie said in the middle of the altar, and "haec quotiescumque" said at the moment of elevation, not before it. Other than that, liturgically i don't think it would be a shock. People aren't shocked by Dominican liturgy, and it is more different from 1962 than 1570 from 1962. :)
Plus a triple blessing at the end - and other more minor details.
DeleteMore seriously, it would make a lot of sense to actually follow Quo primum rather than quoting it - as so many of the '62 Traddies do - yet ignoring it.
Dear Maestro. With all due respect, that is not what the Pope Paul VI said.
ReplyDeleteAs We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice.
.
15. Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually.
The following are also Paul VI's words: "A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead."
DeleteSource: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM
And the following are Cardinal Ratzinger's words: "[After the Council] "in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."
Source: http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/07/card-ratzinger-novus-ordo-reform-was.html
Feast of Faith; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
ReplyDeleteLest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.
Rorate just came out with this, on the 1965 missal: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-mass-of-1965-back-to-future-why-it.html
ReplyDeleteIt's the vernacular man!!! The 1965 is the only one that allows something recognizeably tridentine with a language besides latin (but also exclusively latin). It was released in at least 20 editions with 20 different languages side by side next to the latin.
ReplyDeleteMany people who love every aspect of the tradition, but know it can't go mainstream with exclusive use of latin and want to compete with the vernacular novus ordo see that the 1965 missal is the only convenient strategy out there. It is a compromise based on improvement, based on desperation. and To replace the new with the old for the average person who really likes the vernacular, well, this is the perfect solution in the short term. When the Church hierarchy grows younger and wiser in a decade or two, maybe they'll fix all this and improve on whatever can be managed to be done in this decade.
Honestly I dont think that showing that picture above is fair. The 1965 celebrated correctly looks and sounds more like the 1962 than the 1970. I can show you dozens of pictures that look exactly like that with 1962 and 1950's missals. Liturgical abuse knows no boundaries in reality, it can be done anywhere with enough disobedience/ignorance/motivation.
The 1965 is an means to an end, it's not the end itself. It's all about becoming mainstream while staying as close to 1962 as possible. I tell you it's not as bad an idea as it seems. I dont find it ideal either, but I'll take it a hundred times more than the 1973 missals !!!
Ad Orientem I way prefer over Ad Populum, any day. In Ad Populum, I feel uncomfortable with the Priest staring out at the Congregation. I prefer him leading us up to God
ReplyDelete