Inspired by the posting of this article (and a discussion initiated by my boss), I'm working on what might amount to a three-part article series regarding three specific impoverishments embedded in the 1965 Order of Mass as compared to the 1962.

At worst, it is a clarification for myself as to why the 1965 Order of Mass was already a bridge too far; and why the 1962 Order of Mass, despite also being touched by The Most Prolific Liturgist of the Last Century™, remains a more solid foundation theologically and liturgically.

I won't offer any previews, but those knowledgeable about such matters may reveal them, provide links, etc. Some might have difficulty finding the three textual impoverishments, but once they're found and mulled over, they can neither be unfound nor unforgotten.

Part I has been approved and published at 1P5.

Armor and Armament Abandoned: Priestly Prayers Purged (Part I—Júdica Me)

I rather liked the 1965 missal - still have one - and thought it much better than what came later. Remember the nonsense about "pro multis?" Reams of paper were written over the implications of what was little more than a translation issue. We all knew what it meant. There is a tendency to pull out individual elements and obsess over them when looking at the total effect would be more productive. The NO is not deficient because of prayers at the foot of the altar being present or not present. Likewise the prayer to St. Michael disappearing. Those are minor issues. I find the diminishment of the sacrificial nature of the mass to be the key issue, not some of these minor things.

Michael Davies: "Likewise, the 1965 Missal was intended to condition the faithful into accepting without protest the radically reformed Missal of 1969."

Thanks as always, PGA, for your enormous sensitivity and finesse.

I was thinking that perhaps a better analogy between the 1962 and 1965 Missals is this:

To those who have been subjected to the 1970 Missal (which in the way of artistic analogy, should look like something suitably modern such as this:),



the 1965 Missal offers so much more in the way of substance and aesthetic beauty that they are more than happy with it, much like the modern age was dazzled by the beauty and grace of the statue of the Winged Victory at Samothrace when it was discovered in 1884.

However, those who knew this sculpture in its original state would no doubt weep to see it so deformed and taken from its original magnificent venue. Similarly, those of us who know the 1962 Missal likewise shudder to see the Mass we love decapitated and wrenched from its setting of Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel in which it is nestled like a jewel in platinum and gold.

Well, PGA, if I were the product of a public school ( i.e., a secular and atheist) education and feminist, socialist, anti-authoritarian, anti-European ideologies, then perhaps I could see your point, but, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, I am the living, breathing antithesis of such a worldview.

If I were such a product, then of course I'd be aghast at the sight of three white males dressed in 17th c. European Baroque clothing approaching me with a little white Host as I knelt in their presence. In other words, it's very likely I would have very little understanding or patience with the concepts of transubstantiation, the male priesthood, a hierarchical Church, the divinity of Christ and the transcendence and omnipotence of God.

I think the pomp and solemnity in this manner of receiving the Lord emphasizes in a very special way the fact that Dominus est, it is the Lord, as opposed to the often casual and sloppy way the Body of the Lord is distributed in the OF.

E.g., this particularly egregious demonstration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3G43C16Ju0

I should add -

I actually find nothing "egregious" about that video.

It is clear that what happened is not in keeping with norms; but what I actually see in those people is fervent faith and an apparently strong desire to get to the body of Jesus. Judging from their actions and the manner in which they were carrying themselves, they certainly appear to believe that the host is the body of Jesus.

I wish we saw more of that enthusiasm and belief.

Charles:

Yep!

But why should we not depart from the practices (not doctrines) of the early church when we wish, if what we arrive at is a deepening and fuller expression of our belief?

I think Vatican II used that same argument - and they did depart significantly. The whole point was "a deepening and fuller expression of our belief." Now how well it worked may be open for debate.

You do have to be careful to not throw out things of value. The Bugnini reform seems to me to have been haphazardly done. Some of his reasoning is hard to follow. That doesn't mean that the liturgy did not need reform. It did, but it wasn't done well.

I think the reform that the Roman Rite needed was that which the early Liturgical Movement was putting forth before it was, in the words of Card. Ratzinger, "hijacked."
What they were trying to do was exactly what the preconciliar popes and the Second Vatican Council requested, namely, to teach the people to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them."

Any ritual reforms that may have been needed beyond that were supposed to pass the test put forth by Sacrosanctum Concilium 23:

T]here must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new form adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

The supreme irony of the present moment is that we have to look to the Society of St. Pius X in France to show us what marvelous fruit can come from actually obeying the Second Vatican's call to "teach the people to say and sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them."

Two splendid examples of how the SSPX France is teaching the people to participate in the Latin Mass as called for by the Second Vatican Council are in this link illustrating the Sung High Mass and this link illustrating the Low Mass (la messe basse).

Could it be that the rest of the Church has something to learn from our friends in SSPX France as regarding the proper way to implement the Second Vatican Council's call to (all together now!) "teach the people to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that belong to them"?

Interestingly, we all have opinions on the "reform" and how it should have been done. All of you noticed that none of us were consulted on any of it, right? This was government by committee at its worst.

Yes, your typical Picasso creation with three eyes, two noses, and random body parts floating in a cubic sea.

I don't see that much antipathy to the EF in the comments on article's site. I do see a subthread where Henry Edwards mentions that is his experience, and others chime in, but the comments themselves are not particularly rich in that bile.

This was government by committee at its worst.

Which is why any committee at any level (parochial, diocesan, whatever) should never, ever, ever, ever touch the Liturgy.

Wait, didn't Pius V appoint a committee to revise the liturgy and the Missal in the wake of the Council of Trent?

(Bonus question: had the Council actually called for any revision of the liturgy?)

maybe not so much now that we are in another culture, time and place.

Oh. And is this culture--this time and place-- better, Charles?

Agreed in toto, Chonak.
I'd go so far as to interpret those specific remarks of PGA to Julie as... patronizing. And obviously missing Julie's point.

Furthermore, what seems to be implied by PGA's remarks- namely that Julie was unduly concerned with sacred finery, and perhaps more than receiving her Lord- is problematic in that such remarks have a snide whiff that borders on assuming judgment about another's interior disposition.

I think we can expect better tone and substance in your comments, PGA. Or if you'd prefer on sticking to snark, maybe consider a change in your moniker. Truth in advertising and all...

I'd go so far as to interpret those specific remarks of PGA to Julie as... patronizing. And obviously missing Julie's point.

The point being that right liturgy is enhanced by more guys in vestments?

Furthermore, what seems to be implied by PGA's remarks- namely that Julie was unduly concerned with sacred finery, and perhaps more than receiving her Lord- is problematic in that such remarks have a snide whiff that borders on assuming judgment about another's interior disposition.

See my previous comments. I can only go by what one writes; she seemed pretty excited about receiving from three people.

I think we can expect better tone and substance in your comments, PGA. Or if you'd prefer on sticking to snark, maybe consider a change in your moniker. Truth in advertising and all...

Consider my picture in addition to my screen name.

I think the comment from the lady who referred to the Winged Victory at Samothrace... really hits home for me. I came back to the Catholic Church in my early twenties through the Charismatic Renewal. I have always loved the Mass... although my experience with priests has often been strained because I am so naturally repelled by clericalism. I'm almost 60 now, have been a practicing Catholic since I was in my early twenties and I have seen everything one can see from the human perspective in the Church.

Then, when one of my daughters was preparing for confirmation... we stumbled upon the
Ottaviani Intervention while on the EWTN documents website. Reading the eight points that this retired Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) wrote to Paul VI warning of the natural outcomes of the changes (he wrote in conjunction with another Cardinal Bacci) really gave us pause. Everything that cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci said would come true had in fact come true.


Recently, I moved my entire family to another state... and we are less than five miles from an FSSP parish. Many FSSP priests and seminarians visit our parish all the time... so I get a good idea of what the FSSP priest is like.

Having now been in this parish for nearly 2 years, there are several things which I and my wife and children have noticed with great interest: 1.) The youth take the Mass and sacred music much more seriously than in all the other OF parishes I have ever been in. 2.) The priests seem to have an all out attitude of saving souls with a kind of charity that I have not often seen anywhere else. 3.) Dad is always present and heavily involved in Sacred Music, teaching, outdoor activities. 4.) The priests spend a great deal of time with the dads and kids on the soccer field and everywhere else. In all of the OF parishes I have belonged to in the past... dad is severely under represented and has not much exposure to the priests. 5.) The confession lines are long and confessions are heard every day of the week... and there is every age, demographic and personality on these confession lines. 6.) There is a palpable reverence for Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist which permeates the parish both in and outside of the sanctuary. 7.) There is a joy rooted in charity which seems to flow from the liturgical life of the parish. It flows out into the streets and neighboring churches and other places of worship... and it effects the whole community around the parish.

My point is that a return to the 65 missal for me would be like that beautiful but badly damaged statue. We are indeed both body AND spirit. The iconography of the Sung High Mass, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Asperges, the Last Gospel, the priest praying with and for me instead of AT me and everything in between creates a transformational focal point which builds up masculinity, femininity and is as contagious as anything I have ever seen. I'm not saying it's perfect... nothing is here on Earth... but it goes way beyond what I have ever imagined in terms of beauty and charity.

It took us a while to really digest the 62 Missal... but we would never want to return to 1965 or 1970. I was there in 1965 AND 1970... and I would prefer not to return to the past failed experiments.

Respectfully, DAVB.

and just want to argue.

Not really. Imagine the Mass as a place--say your home. The garden(s), trees, lawn that you've planted are there to enhance its beauty.

The doorway(s), the sidewalk, the fence, all all there to demark your property and/or to protect that inner sanctum (or sanctuary, as it's been called.)

The sidewalk and the fence are surely not necessities; after all, you live in a civilized neighborhood, right? So...take down the fence.

And people know how to walk, right? So....take out the sidewalk.

And really--do you need both a screen-door AND an interior door?

You see where this is going. It's not at all different from the "sacred time/space/language/music" thing. Remove an element here and there, and pretty soon the center is endangered.

So yes, Ps. 42 is a minor thing. So is that silly garden outside your home.

As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, none of us were consulted on any of the liturgical changes. It is pretty unlikely we ever will be. It is a top-down church, and decisions are made from the top, not the bottom. If you want to become your own pope, then you can have whatever liturgy you desire. If you can find a few like-minded souls, you can even have your own church. But will it be Catholic?

As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, none of us were consulted on any of the liturgical changes. It is pretty unlikely we ever will be. It is a top-down church, and decisions are made from the top, not the bottom

This isn't really true.

Decisions are often made not only by committee, but after consultation. The thing is, it probably isn't parish music directors being consulted, nor is it parish priests. It's people with PhD's in liturgical studies, priests with Sacred Theology Doctorate degrees, and diocesan directors of music and bishops.

...and the beat goes on.

You all know my position on this. Here it is in a nutshell:

The proponents of the NO will, at some point, rally around the flag of modernism, and have nothing to do with the proponents of 'the past' (TLM). It will be as if the silly putty is stretched to the point where it breaks apart. There will be no middle. There will be the left side and the right side with the clean break with a square cut.

I think this is because what was birthed in error cannot remain a part of the root. It will (eventually) be cut off and thrown into the fire. Meanwhile the stretching continues and the tension becomes greater and greater. When will it snap?