Msgr. Pope's article about the 1965 Missal
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Hey, I liked that orange sofa, and the shag rug on which it sat. LOL. Our refrigerator was avocado.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Who ASKED for experts? I was stating how things usually WORK, not expressing a preference one way or the other.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    how things usually WORK
    Naaah... never worked this way until the 60s.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,509
    Anyone who doesn't think that 3 ministers are more meaningful than one should brush up on his or her patristics, specifically The Ecclesiastical Hierarchies of Pseudo-Dionysius.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen MaryAnn Carr Wilson
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,509
    Btw I just got home from Msgr. Pope's solemn high Mass. The man can preach!!
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    I'm one who loves patristics, but I'm still at the stage where I need someone to point me in the right direction. Thanks, Kathy!
  • ProfKwasniewskiProfKwasniewski
    Posts: 242
    I’m coming to this discussion late in the game, but (as I already mentioned over in the combox at Msgr. Pope's article) here were my reflections last March on why we should NOT move towards the 1965 Missal:

    http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/just-say-no-to-65.html#.VMxp0dLF98E

    There are, moreover, concerns with the process of modernization and rationalization that were taking place from 1948 onwards, and accelerated in the 60s. For example:

    (1) Having the celebrant not pray the prayers at the altar that are being sung by the schola or people. I have written about why this isn’t such a great idea: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/is-it-fitting-for-priest-to-recite-all.html

    (2) Having the Secret pray said aloud like the Collect and the Postcommunion: there are real benefits to the traditional practice. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/keeping-secrets-at-mass.html

    (3) The shortening of the preparatory prayers and the Last Gospel seem to suggest a new standard of “efficiency”: we need to get done here. But taking time to prepare, and taking time after communion to absorb the message of the Incarnation, is something we need every single day, and the Mass provided that.

    The new lectionary itself is problematic on so many levels. See here: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/11/is-reading-more-scripture-at-mass.html#.VM_zl9LF98E

    My point would simply be that these issues demand a much more careful examination than they were given hastily in the 1960s rush to modernize and simplify things — and so we would be making a considerable mistake to suggest walking down that road, so fraught with pitfalls.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen francis JulieColl irishtenor
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    I can't imagine there is any chance of adopting the 1965 missal in parish churches. The new missal recently promulgated isn't likely to be abandoned to go back to 1965. That idea may be fun to discuss, but in practice it is too silly to even consider. It won't happen.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    I can't imagine there is any chance of adopting the 1965 missal... That idea may be fun to discuss, but in practice it is too silly to even consider.

    It is amazing to think that going back to ANY official Missal could be a "silly proposition", but I totally agree with you.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Going back to the old ICEL translation would be a silly proposition.
    Thanked by 3Jeffrey Quick CharlesW JulieColl
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    But has it been abrogated (we know it's been superseded, but we've learned that supersession is not quite the same thing as abrogation....)?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    But has it been abrogated (we know it's been superseded, but we've learned that supersession is not quite the same thing as abrogation....)?


    As a practical matter, it may make little difference. Using an older missal would require a cooperative priest - is there such an animal? - and a bishop who won't run you out of town for using it.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    Whether an element of the liturgy is beneficial or an unnecessary complication is largely a function of personal preference. Maybe the extent of our agreement is that elements should not be invented from whole cloth if they can be just as well adapted from the existing.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Maybe the extent of our agreement is that elements should not be invented from whole cloth if they can be just as well adapted from the existing.


    Agreed.
Add a Comment