J
jpy15026
Guest
How did the Mass of 1965 finally become the Mass of 1970?? How and who let this happen and does anyone know the reasons it “evolved” into the mass of 1970?
- Status
K
kleary
Guest
The “Mass of 1965” did not “evolve into” the Mass of 1970.
The Mass of 1970 was put together by a consillium headed by the late Archbishop Bugnini. It took elements from what is now called the “Extraordinary Form” (The Original Roman Rite of Mass) and combined them with Protestant worship rites- (Facing the people, total vernacular, women in the Sanctuary) Communion in the hand came later- for it started as an abuse- since the new rite looked exactly like the Protestant communion services many took it upon themselves to ape the Protestant practice of communion in the hand- it was finally granted an indult and continues to this very day under indult)
I am also aware of an anphora from the Eastern Church that can be used in place of the Canon as well but am not sure which one…
Anyway the gist of this is that the New Mass did not evolve organically from the Mass of 1962 or 1965. It was created by “liturgical experts”.
(Sort of like “New Coke”…remember when they came out with that? The formula mimicked Pepsi…it only stayed on the market a few years until it was pulled from the shelves)
Ken
The Mass of 1970 was put together by a consillium headed by the late Archbishop Bugnini. It took elements from what is now called the “Extraordinary Form” (The Original Roman Rite of Mass) and combined them with Protestant worship rites- (Facing the people, total vernacular, women in the Sanctuary) Communion in the hand came later- for it started as an abuse- since the new rite looked exactly like the Protestant communion services many took it upon themselves to ape the Protestant practice of communion in the hand- it was finally granted an indult and continues to this very day under indult)
I am also aware of an anphora from the Eastern Church that can be used in place of the Canon as well but am not sure which one…
Anyway the gist of this is that the New Mass did not evolve organically from the Mass of 1962 or 1965. It was created by “liturgical experts”.
(Sort of like “New Coke”…remember when they came out with that? The formula mimicked Pepsi…it only stayed on the market a few years until it was pulled from the shelves)
Ken
A
Aramis
Guest
Essentially, the experts Ken refers too implemented a large number of semi-organic but localized requests into one new form… and threw in a dash of antiquarianism by adding an old testament reading back in as a regular part of the mass.
Some bishops had requested a longer cycle of readings so that more of the bible was read in church.
Many bishops had asked for the vernacular (outside the eastern churches, most of whom had provisions for using the vernacular).
Many had local indults to face the people during the consecration; this was generalized, and is also an antiquariansim.
The elimination of the quiet prayers was neither total, nor without precedent; some priests had said them audibly as an educational practice for converts, or so I’ve been told by several converts from the 50’s…
The Last Gospel was an addition, and technically outside the mass; it was eliminated as a part of the dismissal and moved into the reading cycle.
The problem was that they took a few significant antiquarianisms, (some going back to practices in the preconciliar Catholic Church, like old testament readings being weekly), and a whole bunch of desired local organic changes, and smashed them all together.
Now, communion in the hand was 10 years later… in the Roman church. The Chaldean Catholic Church has allowed it for centuries.
The elimination of the Maniple and the Subdeaconate have good basis in the lack of biblical reference to the subdeaconate (it appears to formalize around 300, well after the cutoff for canonical books), and the Maniple was the vestment common to clerics of all levels: subdeacons, deacons, priests, and bishops. Since deacons and above add stoles, and bishops wear miters… the need for a symbol of the subdeaconate (and one that is impractical for its original purpose acording to the Catholic Encyclopedia of being a sweat rag so that the hand is not soiled with the sweat from the brow…), it was not seen as needed nor important.
For reference, a subdeacon wore a maniple and tunicle over an alb and amice. The deacon wore a maniple, stole and dalmatic over an alb and amice. The priest wore a maniple, stole, and chasuble over an alb and amice. The bishop wore a maniple, stole, chasuble, zuchetto, and miter; up to Trent, and some years after, bishops were allowed and encouraged to wear an optional dalmatic over the stole and under the chasuble. After V II, the maniple was dropped for all clerics, and the dalmatic no longer encouraged for bishops. All of them could, and still may, wear a cope or a humeral veil when appropriate.
Note that there still are subdeacons, just not in the normative Roman practice. Many of the Eastern Churches still have them, tho’ some have dropped them post V II.
Some bishops had requested a longer cycle of readings so that more of the bible was read in church.
Many bishops had asked for the vernacular (outside the eastern churches, most of whom had provisions for using the vernacular).
Many had local indults to face the people during the consecration; this was generalized, and is also an antiquariansim.
The elimination of the quiet prayers was neither total, nor without precedent; some priests had said them audibly as an educational practice for converts, or so I’ve been told by several converts from the 50’s…
The Last Gospel was an addition, and technically outside the mass; it was eliminated as a part of the dismissal and moved into the reading cycle.
The problem was that they took a few significant antiquarianisms, (some going back to practices in the preconciliar Catholic Church, like old testament readings being weekly), and a whole bunch of desired local organic changes, and smashed them all together.
Now, communion in the hand was 10 years later… in the Roman church. The Chaldean Catholic Church has allowed it for centuries.
The elimination of the Maniple and the Subdeaconate have good basis in the lack of biblical reference to the subdeaconate (it appears to formalize around 300, well after the cutoff for canonical books), and the Maniple was the vestment common to clerics of all levels: subdeacons, deacons, priests, and bishops. Since deacons and above add stoles, and bishops wear miters… the need for a symbol of the subdeaconate (and one that is impractical for its original purpose acording to the Catholic Encyclopedia of being a sweat rag so that the hand is not soiled with the sweat from the brow…), it was not seen as needed nor important.
For reference, a subdeacon wore a maniple and tunicle over an alb and amice. The deacon wore a maniple, stole and dalmatic over an alb and amice. The priest wore a maniple, stole, and chasuble over an alb and amice. The bishop wore a maniple, stole, chasuble, zuchetto, and miter; up to Trent, and some years after, bishops were allowed and encouraged to wear an optional dalmatic over the stole and under the chasuble. After V II, the maniple was dropped for all clerics, and the dalmatic no longer encouraged for bishops. All of them could, and still may, wear a cope or a humeral veil when appropriate.
Note that there still are subdeacons, just not in the normative Roman practice. Many of the Eastern Churches still have them, tho’ some have dropped them post V II.
A
AJV
Guest
The rubrics for facing the people are almost the same in the 1965 Ordo Missae as they are in the 1962 missal. One of the rubrics regarding this from the 1962 missal is missing because of the Last Gospel is omitted in the 1965 Ordo.
It would be pedantic on my part to point it out (but I’ll do so, anyway
)- most Protestant churches do not have a sanctuary, and those that did in 1960’s did not allow women to enter.[/quote]
A
AJV
Guest
Actually by 1965 it had been decided that there would be a NO (or something similar). However, the new Mass itself had not yet been written completely- a draft version of the 1965 is different from what we have today - especially at the Offertory and the Communion (they tinkered around with a lot of stuff, such as moving the washing of the hands to the beginning of the Offertory a la the Caeremoniale, having an introductory incensing of the people like in the Byzantine rite, and so forth)
For the Ordinary of the Mass, therefore, the changes were gradually introduced until 1969. First was the disappearance of the Iudica Me, and the Last Gospel (which would have happened anyway). The option was given to sit at the sedalia for the Mass of the Catechumens after the incensing. This too, I feel would have happened, since if you look at the liturgical gatherings of the 50’s, one of the proposals was that the first part of the Mass be celebrated in choro. The formula for Communion was changed to Corpus Christi ( a little earlier than the preceding). Then was authorized a Rite for Concelebration and a rite for Communion under both species. Then came Tres Abhinc Annos (you can read that). The new Eucharistic Prayers were written in 1966-67 and came into use in 1968. Likewise, a interim ferial lectionery was provided. And so forth until the NO.
Why the NO? They were two main things - remove the “accretions” and “be pastoral”. A few belonged in the first camp only, but most belonged in the second, or in a combination of the two.
The Roman liturgy did have a certain number of ‘defects’ if you will, that many criticised. The following is an idea of the logic used:
For example with the Collects, it was criticized that some collects (particularly of the Sanctorale) contained spurious details and information based on legends of the lives of saints. Some postcommunions were dubbed as “pseudo” because they were more like the Opening Collects. There were certain scribal errors that had crept in. The orations should be addressed to the Father This would have involved judicious pruning- so far so good.
Some of the pseudo-archeologism was a little more severe -the Collects should not be verbose, but streamlined and the prayers should be,in accordance with Roman custom, addressed to the Father instead of to the Son. .
But the real thing- pastoralism- snuck in. Some collects referred to meanings that were lost (e.g. in Lent is a collect to Ss. Cosmas and Damian that seems out of place, but it is present only because the ‘station’ church at which that Mass was celebrated was the Church of Ss. Cosmas and Damian) so even though those were ancient they should be corrected. Then too, for example in Lent, with a restored Catechumenate, the baptismal character should be brought out more clearly. Concepts should be made more clear to modern understanding. Too one-sided approaches must be rejected. Ancient collects for Sundays are sometimes influenced by doctrinal concerns and so should be moved to more fitting places- we should have collects which better express the nature of the Sunday and move these somewhere else. Easter should express better the Paschal mystery. This collect is wanting theologically. And so on. Result: a whole new system of collects.
Then we can come to the lectionery. The lectionery cycle exists only for Sundays and weekdays of Lent. The readings for the saints are too limited and frequently repeated. So a wider selection is required. This actually involves nothing more that a lectionery for weekdays and an expanded set of readings for saints. Again a severe pseudo-archeologism wanted an Old Testament reading- even though this has been lacking, its position is evidenced. And besides most of the other Churches have 3 or more lections. It would also be pastoral. Pastoralism goes further to realign the Sunday readings in a “better”, “more profitable” schema even though that cycle is extremely ancient. Result is a new lectionery.
(contd.)
A
AJV
Guest
The minor Propers (Introit, Offertory, Communion) and the Graduale, Tract, Alleluia. Firstly, people can’t sing such complex chants. So the bright idea was to have seasonal chants on simpler tones- this became the Graduale Simplex.
But even then peope might not be able to participate. Perhaps vernacular songs in their own language would help them better. So ther eis the option for singin “another suitable song”.
There is no uniformity and it might be too confusing to people. So in future, all Masses should follow more or less the same pattern - not one have a Tract, and another have 2 Alleluias. Then, we should restore the Graduale to a full psalm- that’s how it was in the first place - and responsorial chanting was common back then, so restore that. So we have a responsorial psalm.
The Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons are linked to the processions. So if we don’t have processions (like in low Masses), we should not recite these- it serves no purpose. However, the Introit can prepare us mentally for the theme of the celebration and the Communion acts a a god reflection. So we have antiphons (minus psalm) for these points. No point in having an Offertory antiphon if there is no procession. So omit that.
Result: Gradule Romanum, Graduale Simplex, new set of responorial psalms in the missal, some what new set of Entrance and Communion antiphons for read Masses, and a series of supposedly “suitable songs”
Eucharistic Prayer: It was greatly criticised on many counts. Patchwork of prayers, some parts are not related smoothly to the preceding, low on the history of salvation with many parts essentially repeating the same idea. To be honest, criticism itslef was not new- right back in the 19th century, the Micrologus, a tract on Mass and liturgical year pointed out the “Superfluosities in the Canon”. But criticism before was usually just idealistic rather than actual.
Some (like Jungmann) realised that they couldn’t adequately rewrite the Canon, and moreover the Canon formed the basis of the Roman Rite- to remove it would cause violence and also remove a claim to any sort of “purity” that many were claiming to lead the Roman liturgy back into. The Roman liturgy never had multiple Eucharstic Prayers.
Others, like Vaggaggini were less convinced. Having more Euchartsic Prayers was a Good Thing because (1) all the other Churches and Rites had it (2) it is pastoral and relives the montony, gives more exposure to various themes and different ways of presenting the history of salvation in thanksgiving. (3) it provided to remedy some perceived deficiencies of the Canon, such as the minimal role of the Holy Spirit. In fact, as Jungmann somewhat acidly pointed out, it was not returning to a Roman idea but rather the consultor’s idea.
And so on, if you go through everything there was one or another reason for the change. First the reason for going back to a “purer” form, and then that reason modified by “pastoral concerns”. And so it happened. In fact, as Bugnini wrote in his book, it was perceived that all these perceived “defects” could not be corrected and it was required to start ex novo, from the beginning,- “Peripheral alterations are not enough; there had to be a radical restoration”
But even then peope might not be able to participate. Perhaps vernacular songs in their own language would help them better. So ther eis the option for singin “another suitable song”.
There is no uniformity and it might be too confusing to people. So in future, all Masses should follow more or less the same pattern - not one have a Tract, and another have 2 Alleluias. Then, we should restore the Graduale to a full psalm- that’s how it was in the first place - and responsorial chanting was common back then, so restore that. So we have a responsorial psalm.
The Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons are linked to the processions. So if we don’t have processions (like in low Masses), we should not recite these- it serves no purpose. However, the Introit can prepare us mentally for the theme of the celebration and the Communion acts a a god reflection. So we have antiphons (minus psalm) for these points. No point in having an Offertory antiphon if there is no procession. So omit that.
Result: Gradule Romanum, Graduale Simplex, new set of responorial psalms in the missal, some what new set of Entrance and Communion antiphons for read Masses, and a series of supposedly “suitable songs”
Eucharistic Prayer: It was greatly criticised on many counts. Patchwork of prayers, some parts are not related smoothly to the preceding, low on the history of salvation with many parts essentially repeating the same idea. To be honest, criticism itslef was not new- right back in the 19th century, the Micrologus, a tract on Mass and liturgical year pointed out the “Superfluosities in the Canon”. But criticism before was usually just idealistic rather than actual.
Some (like Jungmann) realised that they couldn’t adequately rewrite the Canon, and moreover the Canon formed the basis of the Roman Rite- to remove it would cause violence and also remove a claim to any sort of “purity” that many were claiming to lead the Roman liturgy back into. The Roman liturgy never had multiple Eucharstic Prayers.
Others, like Vaggaggini were less convinced. Having more Euchartsic Prayers was a Good Thing because (1) all the other Churches and Rites had it (2) it is pastoral and relives the montony, gives more exposure to various themes and different ways of presenting the history of salvation in thanksgiving. (3) it provided to remedy some perceived deficiencies of the Canon, such as the minimal role of the Holy Spirit. In fact, as Jungmann somewhat acidly pointed out, it was not returning to a Roman idea but rather the consultor’s idea.
And so on, if you go through everything there was one or another reason for the change. First the reason for going back to a “purer” form, and then that reason modified by “pastoral concerns”. And so it happened. In fact, as Bugnini wrote in his book, it was perceived that all these perceived “defects” could not be corrected and it was required to start ex novo, from the beginning,- “Peripheral alterations are not enough; there had to be a radical restoration”
S
stmaria
Guest
The groundwork for the Mass of 1970, the Novus Ordo, actually began before Vatican II even started. In Father Bugnini’s book *Reform of the Liturgy *he says that Monsignor Wagner began work on the New Mass at the same time that the Constitution on the LIturgy was being written.
It is important to note that the same men that wrote the Liturgy for the New Mass also wrote the *Constitution on the Liturgy that was presented at Vatican II. Those men would be Bugnini, Wagner, Vagaggini, Mcmanus, Jounel, Gy, Famoso, Righetti, Jungmann, Hanggi and Vigorelli
There never was any intention of having the Mass of 1965 as the norm. “Radical reform” were Bugnini’s words.
In the book The Rhine flow into the TIber *the author, Father Wiltgen, who was at the Council records this interview that he had with Bishop William Dushak. This interview was given three weeks after the Council began and more than one year before the Constitution on the Liturgy was even voted on and eight years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1970.
Page 37-38
“My idea is to introduce an ecumenical Mass, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable…It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…can readily understand without involved explanations…the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths in order to provide a basis of common worship by all Christians” When asked if his proposal originated with the people whom he served he stated, “ No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it” Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on November 6 1962.
It is important to note that the same men that wrote the Liturgy for the New Mass also wrote the *Constitution on the Liturgy that was presented at Vatican II. Those men would be Bugnini, Wagner, Vagaggini, Mcmanus, Jounel, Gy, Famoso, Righetti, Jungmann, Hanggi and Vigorelli
There never was any intention of having the Mass of 1965 as the norm. “Radical reform” were Bugnini’s words.
In the book The Rhine flow into the TIber *the author, Father Wiltgen, who was at the Council records this interview that he had with Bishop William Dushak. This interview was given three weeks after the Council began and more than one year before the Constitution on the Liturgy was even voted on and eight years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1970.
Page 37-38
“My idea is to introduce an ecumenical Mass, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable…It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…can readily understand without involved explanations…the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths in order to provide a basis of common worship by all Christians” When asked if his proposal originated with the people whom he served he stated, “ No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it” Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on November 6 1962.
- Status