Concerning the 1965 Missal

[Virgil the Roman]

I've heard that this Missal is basically a modified version of the Tridentine Mass with some vernacular in it. Is this true, and if so why did we not just use it, instead of creating an entirely new Mass---The Novus Ordo Missae---and could someone please provide me with a link to this please!
sincerly,
Ravenonthecross

 

[Rising_Suns]

I've heard that this Missal is basically a modified version of the Tridentine Mass with some vernacular in it. Is this true

Yes, it is more or less a modified version of the 1962, with vernacular, various omissions/"pruning" (suppression of the Judica me, and the Last Gospel, for example), and a little more "participation" by the faithful (chanting the Pater Noster, and prayers for the faithful, for example).

Some would call it a hybrid/intermediary between the 1962 Tridentine and the 1970 New Mass.

,and if so why did we not just use it, instead of creating an entirely new Mass---The Novus Ordo Missae---and could someone please provide me with a link to this please!
sincerely,
Ravenonthecross

I don't know. The Church chose to do what she did on her own authority to do so. Whether the 1965 Missal was an overall improvement or degradation from the 1962, has been debated. Ultimately, is it up to the Church to decide, in her reform of the reform.

Here is an interesting read: http://traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/

-Davide

 

[Rising_Suns]

The changes included in the 1965 Ordo Missae:
According to the link above
~

1) Psalm 42 was removed from the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar"
2) The "Last Gospel" was removed.​

3) The priest no longer made the sign of the Cross at the "Adjutorium nostrum" Gloria, Creed, Sanctus and Libera Nos. The five signs of the Cross at the Minor Elevation were omitted also.
4) The "Secret" and "Libera Nos" were said aloud and the "Amen" was no longer said between the "Pater Noster" and "Libera Nos."
5) The priest remained at his presidential chair after the incensing/ kissing the altar until the beginning of the Offertory. And when at the altar, except for the Lavabo and post-Communion ablutions, he remained in the center until the "Final Blessing."
6) The Minor Doxology of the Canon, ("Per ipsum . . .") was to sung aloud by the priest, with the people responding with a sung, "Amen."
7) The Epistle, Gradual and Gospel were said/sung, in the vernacular, at an ambo, facing the people. A lector was to read/sing the Epistle and Gradual. And a weekday ferial lectionary was instituted in 1966.
8) The people were to say all the responses of the server at all Masses.
9) The priest no longer recited the parts of the Mass sung by the Choir.
10) The missal remained in one place from the Offertory to the "Final Blessing."

11) The formula for Holy Communion was changed to, Priest: "Corpus Christi" Communicant: "Amen."
12) The "Leonine Prayers" were no longer said by the priest immediately following low Mass.
13) The people were allowed to recite/sing the "Pater Noster" with the priest.​

14) Inclusion of the "Prayer of the Faithful" after the Credo.
15) The use of the vernacular was extended for the administration of the sacraments and various parts of the Mass.
16) The bells were not rung at the beginning of the Sanctus.
17) The rite of concelebration was allowed in all Masses.
18) The priest genuflected after the "Amen" of the people in the Canon and not before it, the subdeacon no longer held the paten before his eyes during the Canon and the priest didn't kiss the paten during the "Libera Nos."
19) Priest and people gave a deep bow at the "Et Incarnatus est . . ." part of the Credo. Genuflection was reserved to the feasts of the Nativity and Annunciation.
20)The priest was given the option of celebrating Mass facing the people
21) Simpler melodies were used during sung Masses.
22) Administration of the Holy Eucharist under both the form of bread and wine (preferably by Intinction).
23) The development of a set weekday ferial lectionary (completed in 1966).
24) The restoration of an "Offertory Procession" where a family from the congregation bring the bread and wine to the priest while the Offertory psalm is being chanted.
25) Implementation of the Psalter for added psalm verses for Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons in the missal.
26) The altar was to be freestanding.
27) The Communion Procession was restored.
28) The deacon (or priest) bowed to the altar while saying the "Munda Cor Meum" in High Masses, as opposed to kneeling.
29) The rubrics governing bows of the head were simplified

SEE LINK ABOVE

 

[Servus Iesu]

Yes, it is more or less a modified version of the 1962, with vernacular, various omissions/"pruning" (suppression of the Judica me, and the Last Gospel, for example), and a little more "participation" by the faithful (chanting the Confeitor, and prayers for the faithful, for example).

Some would call it a hybrid/intermediary between the 1962 Tridentine and the 1970 New Mass.



I don't know. The Church chose to do what she did on her own authority to do so. Whether the 1965 Missal was an overall improvement or degradation from the 1962, has been debated. Ultimately, is it up to the Church to decide, in her reform of the reform.

Here is an interesting read: http://traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/

-Davide

Who is the Church? That is the question that confounds me. People speak of The Church deciding, but how do we know the difference between The Church and completely fallible men who make prudential errors in judgement?

Our religion must be rooted in objective standards of belief and practice if it is to make any sense. It is so very confusing when the men who hold ecclesiastical power say one thing and then another, their yes is no and their no is yes. Where can we find stability and peace of conscience before the Father and Jesus Christ?

 

[BillH]

Who is the Church? That is the question that confounds me. People speak of The Church deciding, but how do we know the difference between The Church and completely fallible men who make prudential errors in judgement?

We know because there is no such difference. The Mystical Body of Christ and the people who compose that body are one and the same. It's a fundamentally protestant error to assert that there is an invisible church that is separate from the actual Church that is physically existing in the world.

This is not to say that the men who compose the Church are free from any errors, but we are guaranteed that they will not destroy the faith.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Who is the Church? That is the question that confounds me. People speak of The Church deciding, but how do we know the difference between The Church and completely fallible men who make prudential errors in judgement?

The Pope in union with the college of Bishops, i.e., the Magisterium.

-Davide

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I hope that the Tridentine Mass will become very widespread again, and the 1965 Missal, would probably be a good replacement for the Novus Ordo Missae. It's just my opinion, of what I think should happen. In the end, though, I trust the Holy Pontiff with the rest of the Magesterium to happen correct the abuses and the pervading heresy that has infected the church.

 

[AMDG]

Where can we find stability and peace of conscience before the Father and Jesus Christ?

Stay close to the Magisterium and you will be fine.

 

[Servus Iesu]

We know because there is no such difference. The Mystical Body of Christ and the people who compose that body are one and the same. It's a fundamentally protestant error to assert that there is an invisible church that is separate from the actual Church that is physically existing in the world.

This is not to say that the men who compose the Church are free from any errors, but we are guaranteed that they will not destroy the faith.

But we know that those men make mistakes, whereas I don't believe Mother Church makes mistakes. Those men teach new doctrines about ecumenism and the rights of man and openness to the world, contrary to the spirit of the Church for 1900 years. I can only explain this by thinking that they speak for themselves and not for Mother Church.

I don't mean to open up old arguments, because people hold to positions that they won't readily abandon. Fighting it out on OBOB doesn't do anyone any good, but I ask because I don't know what people mean when they say The Church. Apparently they mean the Pope and the Bishops. How can they be identical? The Church is the spotless bride of Christ, the individual men with ecclesiastical power are by no means spotless.

I'm aware of my responsibility not to scandalize people, and that is why I've stopped participating here regularly. If I ask questions I may be a source of scandal, while if I answer questions I set myself up as a teacher of other people, though the proverb says teacher teach thyself.

I can't believe that the Church seemingly reinventing herself truly comes from The Church.

 

[AMDG]

Apparently they mean the Pope and the Bishops. How can they be identical?

You are correct. They are not identical (even if at times they are.) The Magisterium is the Pope in union with the Bishops. Jesus promised the spirit of truth to Peter (and his successors). He did not leave us orphans. A Bishop, acting alone, does not have that guarantee of protection. He can make errors. He's only a man. But a Bishop acting in union with the Pope has the guarantee of protection of the Holy Spirit in the guiding of Jesus' Church.

 

[Rising_Suns]

I don't mean to open up old arguments, because people hold to positions that they won't readily abandon. Fighting it out on OBOB doesn't do anyone any good, but I ask because I don't know what people mean when they say The Church. Apparently they mean the Pope and the Bishops. How can they be identical? The Church is the spotless bride of Christ, the individual men with ecclesiastical power are by no means spotless.

I'm aware of my responsibility not to scandalize people, and that is why I've stopped participating here regularly. If I ask questions I may be a source of scandal, while if I answer questions I set myself up as a teacher of other people, though the proverb says teacher teach thyself.

I can't believe that the Church seemingly reinventing herself truly comes from The Church.

I don't think you are scandalizing anyone, Ryan. You have legitimate concerns about the hasty reconstruction of the Mass in a matter of 7 years (1962-1969), which before had only a few minor changes in over 500 years. As you know, the Novus Ordo was a break from the organic development of the liturgy.

However, lets not forget a few things;

1. Authority. Regardless of what one may think of the Novus Ordo, the canon/ordinary/rubrics/etc are all a matter of discipline, not doctrine or dogma. The Church (i.e., the pope in union with the bishops) has the authority to modify disciplines as she sees fit. This does not make it right, but neither does it invalidate what we have.

2. Context, pre-conciliar. The time leading up to the 1950's/60's was not exactly the best years of Catholicism either. Granted, seminaries were overflowing and Catholicism was flourishing. But this was made possible by a culture that was not radically opposed to Judeo-Christian values. Additionally, there was a tendency among Catholics back then to be very rigid, with an overemphasis on the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The Church may have saw the need to correct this by reforming the liturgy. But as Paul VI indicated, once the pendulum picked up momentum, it continued swinging further from where the pope and most bishops intended. It was a fallible disciplinary decision.

3. Context, post-conciliar. The culture of society shifted dramatically in an explosion of modernistic and secularistic thought, first with communism, immediately proceeded by the "sexual revolution". These changes had a significant impact on the Church, threatening her through multiple angles and avenues. The Church suffered greatly, but was not destroyed, and did not succumb to the gates of hell, even though some bishops were instruments of the evil one.

Now, what do we see happening today? We now are witnessing a return to tradition with our generation, while at the same time preserving the spirit of the law. What we are seeing today is the first seedlings of the balance that, I think, the Church had originally intended, before the radical assault by modernism. We value tradition now, because we have seen what it is like without it. Indeed, God has been taking a tragedy, and turning it into a triumph (as He is known to do), making the Church even stronger in the end. This is what we must have faith in. This is why we must keep hope.

-Davide

 

[Wolseley]

I've heard that this Missal is basically a modified version of the Tridentine Mass with some vernacular in it. Is this true, and if so why did we not just use it, instead of creating an entirely new Mass?

Why, indeed.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I found this old thread of mine, I'd made a while back. I'd like to address peoples personal opinions on it and such.