How did the revised 1962 missal change the way we pray the Tridentine Mass?

[Matthew_Holford]

It is possible to reduce / modify the clergy’s obligation

How may this be done?

rather than mangle the actual Liturgy handed down from our fathers.

I am not sure, honestly, to whom you refer by fathers. As the Office developed there was both a monastic form and a cathedral form. The monastic form is, I think, better suited to those who commit their life to the contemplative monastic life. They’re daily praying of the Office is for the whole Church. I often wonder if it wouldn’t have been better for the cathedral office to have survived for secular clergy and those religious with an active apostolate. They would still be sanctifying their day with prayer.

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.

I am afraid I don’t understand this sentence.

 

[laszlo]

Bugnini headed up the Pian Commission from 1948 until he was appointed Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy in 1960.

Stalin promoted the Secretaries whom he implanted into the Party to be the heads of the Party. The Church never employed this reorganization. The secretary of a group in the Church was the same as the secretary in the business: someone responsible for the documents and scheduling meetings, etc.

Bugnini was secretary of the Pontifical commission for the litrurgical reform, not the head of it.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

How may this be done?

By letting pray fewers hours, or skip hours on days when pastoral duties are increased, or letting them complete fewer readings, etc.

I am afraid I don’t understand this sentence.

I’d refer you to New Liturgical Movement’s excellent series online on the history of the Office. In 1960 readings in Matins were simply cut off at the end to shorten the office. It was done, however, without much forethought. The resulting situation is that there are actually readings in which a father (like St. Gregory the Great) brings up a question that he, in all offices using his reading until 1960, answers a bit later in the reading.

In 1960 some readings were cut such that the answer isn’t there any more. Also with the cutting, some readings begin an idea but the development of the idea is just left out.

I fully agree that reforms are necessary as our organic tendency is to add and add and add, and things need to be simplified. But it needs to be done with extreme respect for the liturgy. As the catechism itself says (I think paragraph 1124 …or around there), even the supreme authority of the Church should not mess with the liturgy except when appropriate and necessary — not just for good intentions, and respecting the liturgy’s integrity. (My paraphrase of course).

 

[Mark1970]

Just to explain the 1960 changes to the Office - In the 1960 revision of the Office, a section of readings was removed from Matins completely.

Pre-1960, every Sunday Matins consisted of 3 Nocturns, with 3 Bible readings at the end of I Nocturn, 3 Patristic readings at the end of II Nocturn, and 3 readings taken from a Patristic “Homily” on the Gospel of the day at the end of III Nocturn.

In 1960, most Sundays were reduced to one nocturn, with 3 readings: the first reading was the original first reading from the I Nocturn. The second reading was ths second and third scripture reading from I Nocturn, combined into one reading. The third reading was the first of the three from III Nocturn.

So all the 3 Patristic readings from II Nocturn were removed, plus the second and third Homily readings from III Nocturn. So a subject started in the first Homily reading wasn’t completed, the following readings beinn removed.

That may help to explain previous comments about Patristic readings being removed or shortened , raising questions but not answering them.

 

[laszlo]

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.

As a matter of fact, the three nocturns for

• Sundays and Seasonal feast were 3 scriptural reading, three exposition of the previous scriptural readings, and three readings as homily for the Gospel of the dat
• From the proper of Saints three scriptural reading, 3 lessons of hagiography of the saint, 3 readings as homily for the Gospel of the daily Mass. This were repeated very often taken from the common of Saints

In 1960 the 3 scriptural readings were kept intact (2 and 3 read together) and the third was either the first part of the homily for Sundays, or a shortened hagiography for the saint.

The patristic readings (exposition. of the scripture) are very hard to understand most of them being written in Latin by one who were educated in Greek or translated from Greek in the time when ‘Grece non loquitur’ was the rule.

The 1960 changes represented about 30 minutes shortening a day, and imho resulted that the priest stopped to sit in the confessional to recite their breviary, while giving opportunity for confessions.

 

[malphono]

How did this thread veer from the Missal to the Breviary?