C
callmeChris
Guest
First of all I would like to ask just out of curiousty, why did Bl. John XXIII revise the missal? Did it make the Latin mass shorter than what it was? How was the Mass said before it was ‘revised’?
How did the revised 1962 missal change the way we pray the Tridentine Mass?
- Status
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I think Blessed John XXIII did three things:
*]He added St. Joseph to the saints mentioned in the Canon
*]He changed the rubrics (you’d need someone more au fait with the TLM to give details of those changes)
*]He changed the Calendar (again, you’d need someone more au fait with the TLM to give details of those changes)
I hope that starts to answer your question. You may find this Thread gets transferred to the Traditional Catholicism Forum, but that should increase your chances of getting your question more fully answered.
Matt
O
OraLabora
Guest
And of course the person who was instrumental in advancing those changes was none other than Annibale Bugnini.
L
laszlo
Guest
Pius XII changed the calendar in 1955
John XXIII ordered to make a new and complete set of rubrics (the previous complete set was made sometimes in the 19th Century). Related to the ordo of the Mass the only change was in 1962 with the new Editio typica that St Joseph was introduced into the Missal.
Most important changes started in 1964 and 1967
divinumofficium.com/www/missa/rubrics1967.html
- deleting most most the Octaves, Vigils,
- reducing the former semidoubles to simplex, and the former simplex to commemoration,
- removing the formerly almost always three commemorations to max one in second class and Sundays, and max 2 on other days,
- ordering the variations on the last Gospel to be abolished,
- suppressing the Dies Irae in the Masses of the dead except on the day of the burial.
John XXIII ordered to make a new and complete set of rubrics (the previous complete set was made sometimes in the 19th Century). Related to the ordo of the Mass the only change was in 1962 with the new Editio typica that St Joseph was introduced into the Missal.
Most important changes started in 1964 and 1967
divinumofficium.com/www/missa/rubrics1967.html
C
Chatter163
Guest
There were also four prefaces added in the 1962 missal as optional prefaces listed in the appendix, for all saints, advent, the Holy Eucharist and dedication of a church.
A
AJV
Guest
As most people have said, it was primarily a change in texts, and in rubrics - what Mass could be said when, what colour vestments should be worn, and things like that.
In terms of actual changes that a person in the pews would see:
- there would be no second Confession before Communion
- technically, there would be less bell ringing (in practise, probably not)
- the priest would not read the Gospel and the Epistle along with/before the deacon and subdeacon at a Solemn High Mass.He would listen.
- On very few days, the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel would be omitted.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
The rumours made against the much maligned Most Rev’d. Msgr. +Annibale Bugnini remain what they are, rumours. None of the decisions made during his service for their Holinesses Popes the Venerable Pius XXII, Blessed John XXIII, and Paul VI would have been his decisions. Pius was well-known for not wanting decision makers among his officials; he simply wanted executants who obeyed his orders. John was no one’s fool and he usually got his way. Paul was often considered hamletesque but while he took time in making decisions he made them and stuck to them. Bugnini is credited with much more influence than he really had.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Bugnini headed up the Pian Commission from 1948 until he was appointed Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy in 1960.
The Pian commission is the commission that came up with the Piux XII and John XXIII liturgical reforms. The Popes did not dream up these reforms. Abp Bugnini and the commission he lead, was in fact the “genuis” (or devil depending on your viewpoint) behind liturgical reforms since he was appointed to the Pian Commission in 1948 until the Liturgy of the Hours and Mass of Paul VI came out in 1970.
Some of the changes he proposed also affected the Divine Office.
Of course the Popes had a huge influence on his works. For example the removal of the deprecatory psalms in the current Liturgy of the Hours was at the insistence of Paul VI, not Bugnini; there was considerable debate about this within the commission.
A good read on the history of the reform of the Divine Office is “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Sanislaus Campbell.
P
Pregustator
Guest
The much unknown Rev’d Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, you mean. There probably are about 10,000 (if that many) Catholics in the world who are familiar with this name, all of whom equate it with the name of Satan. Many of these people are operating on about a pamphlet’s worth of information, and that pamphlet represents the first time they’ve ever heard that name, and all they know about that man. Most of the others haven’t even read so much as a pamphlet: they’ve only ever heard about him from those who have, but despise him nonetheless.
If there is a Monsignor Bugnini who is singlehandedly responsible for absolutely everything that one doesn’t like about Vatican II, one can throw all the mud one wants to throw at that name and at the nebulous bogeyman who bears it. It prevents one from having to throw the mud at other names…names ending in regnal numerals, for example.
And that’s all Annibale Bugnini is to those few Catholics who have ever heard of him.
M
malphono
Guest
No. While I care less about, and totally ignore, the “rumors” (which are merely a by-product of the usual Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theories), believe it or not, there are some of us who are quite familiar with the late Archbishop. So-called “rumors” aside, his legacy, unfortunately, still endures, and in ways that most people don’t even know about.
I’m leaving it at that.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is interesting as I’ve never heard them described that way. Do you have some kind of source for this? Books you have read, websites, etc?
M
malphono
Guest
While (as one might have guessed from my previous post) I completely disagree in principle with the last sentence in the quote, I have to say that the characterization of Pius XII is actually quite accurate. So, too, that of Bl PP John XXIII. For a variety of reasons, I will reserve comment on Paul VI.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’re right. His outside associations, if any, have nothing to do with the validity of the Mass. Bugnini carried out his duties as instructed by Popes Pius XII and Paul VI. He was, of course, decommissioned by John XXIII and transferred later to Iran by Paul VI but that was, as far as I’m concerned, an “internal matter” for the Church. Again not a matter of validity or liceity of the Mass.
M
malphono
Guest
The pièce de résistance of his tenure under Pius XII was the revision of the Holy Week rites, and I somehow doubt that he was actually “instructed” by Pius XII to go as far as he did.
That “transfer” to Iran has to have been one of the greatest demotions in history, whether secular or ecclesiastical.
P
Pregustator
Guest
I’ve read several biographies of each of the popes in question and the observations ring fairly true…
…particularly the observation that Paul VI was “hamletesque”; Pope John XXIII famously referred to Montini as “Our Hamlet”. He was famous for his endless vascillations.
As for Pius XII, he was a monarch, not a group-leader. He reigned and ruled. It must be remembered that he came to the Chair of Peter from the world of the aristocracy and from the world of courtly diplomacy. He was Pius XI’s Secretary of State, of course: a significant power-behind-the-throne before arriving on the throne. Pius XII’s firm grip upon the reins of the church only loosened toward the end of his reign, when failing health took its toll upon him.
John XXIII was no man’s fool, at all, and was very adept at persuading (and when he had to, commanding) the Curia to adopt his ways. He had a very firm resolve, in fact, much to the chagrin of the conservative wing of the Curia. There is the story of the cardinal who was so distasted by John XXIII’s ways that he invariably referred to him as “the man upstairs”. This habit of the cardinal’s made its way to John’s ear, who approached the cardinal and light-heartedly scolded him: “God is the man upstairs, Eminence. I am just the man on the fourth floor. Please do not throw confusion into the ranks!”
Pope Paul VI was a terrible vascillator and found it hard to make decisions. Of course, in his defense, there were no easy decisions for Paul VI to make. Of all the popes, he had, arguably, the most difficult task of them all. When Paul did make a decision at last, that was that, and he did not like dissent. He was not one to take criticism gladly, either. One of the many paradoxes of Pope Paul: he wanted a greater level of collegiality between the Pope and bishops…in theory…but he certainly did nothing to foster it in practice.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Even for those of you who want to blame Annibale Bugnini for everything that has gone wrong in the Church for the last 40+ years you have to have some admiration for the man. If we are to accept your position this man managed to dupe 3 popes, keep commissions on side and he would also have had to got all this past a Curia very efficient at blocking things it doesn’t like. My hat goes off to the man!
O
OraLabora
Guest
I for one do not think he was the devil incarnate. Some things he did with the liturgy were controversial. But not all were his doing.
If anything the fruits of Vatican II liturgical reform bear the stamp of management-by-consensus: offend nobody, please no one.
One often hears griping for instance about removing the deprecatory psalms from the liturgy, yet that was a pet project of Paul VI himself.
Some things were very necessary. The shortened Divine Office for secular clergy and to foster lay participation is a brilliant idea in spite of some of the shortcomings of the resulting office (the feature I have trouble with is the addition of N.T. Canticles to Vespers. They simply neither chant nor recite well and shouldn’t be part of the corpus of “psalmody”; it would have been better to simply add another psalm and perhaps shorten the cycle to 2 weeks instead of 4).
If anything the fruits of Vatican II liturgical reform bear the stamp of management-by-consensus: offend nobody, please no one.
One often hears griping for instance about removing the deprecatory psalms from the liturgy, yet that was a pet project of Paul VI himself.
Some things were very necessary. The shortened Divine Office for secular clergy and to foster lay participation is a brilliant idea in spite of some of the shortcomings of the resulting office (the feature I have trouble with is the addition of N.T. Canticles to Vespers. They simply neither chant nor recite well and shouldn’t be part of the corpus of “psalmody”; it would have been better to simply add another psalm and perhaps shorten the cycle to 2 weeks instead of 4).
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
We already HAD a shortened office for the benefit of the secular clergy. The drastically reordered Office of 1913.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I think the office is still a considerable burden for the secular clergy especially when we consider their numbers are considerably reduced and many are looking after more than one parish.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
It is possible to reduce / modify the clergy’s obligation rather than mangle the actual Liturgy handed down from our fathers.
In the 1960 office of Matins we have situations in which a patristic reading brings up a question, but then the answer is not there as it was cut. Ridiculous.
- Status