Reforming the 1962 Missal according to Sacrosanctum Concilium

[japhy]

Nota Bene: This is not a thread for arguments, insults, or extremism. This is a thread asking an honest question seeking intellectual answers.

Has anyone here read Reform of the Reform? by Fr. Kocik? Part of it deals with looking at what Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC henceforth) actually said about necessary liturgical reforms (admitting it is ambiguous at times) and making suggestions about how to actually carry out a reform that is faithful to the liturgical tradition of the Church (and the Roman Rite in particular) as well as the council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Is anyone here interested in entering into a conversation about how they envision an organic reform of the 1962 missal according to SC?

I would ask that suggestions make clear references to SC and any liturgical documents before it; I’m thinking in particular of documents such as Mediator Dei and Musicae Sacrae.

 

[markadm]

Have you seen the so-called “1965 Missal” that is available in some places online on the Internet.

I am not particularly au fait with it, but if memory serves it was not so much a new edition, but a “freezing in time” of the reforms coming out around the time of the Council. Take a snapshot 1965, and you’ve got it. It was in English, and had the Prayers at the foot of the Altar, etc.

From what I remember (reference copy here), it would be a good starter for 10.

Now as to discussion, I would like to see how “redundancies” could be eliminated without causing destruction to the Mass. I realise there is repetition in the prayers, but even after reading Alcuin Reid’s Organic Development of the Liturgy, I am unsure if the '62 Missal needs reforming!

My big concern is with the discontinuity between the two calendars!

Now, that didn’t help, did it!?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think eventually the missal ought to be revised at least in part along the lines of SC (but let’s face it, the 1960s were a “fad” era of liturgical scholarship - think of “turning the altars” and writing a Eucharist prayer based on “Hippolytus’” Apostolic Tradition, which may not even be Roman - and if no pope since the council has felt the need to implement its decrees, I’m not going to get bent out of shape if we don’t get around to every single one of them). I also think, though, that now is not the time. On the one hand, there are lots of people out their who have been damaged by the painful upheavals alluded to by Benedict XVI, and on the other hand, the '62 missal needs to be given time to pull the '02 missal back toward at least a semblance of continuity.

If I were to contemplate revisions along the lines of SC, though, here is how I would respond to some of its points:

34 - I’m not really sure what “useless repetitions” the document is referring to. The “second Confiteor” ought to go, but other than that I don’t think any of the three-fold acclamations (or the nine-fold Kyrie) are useless.

35 - This carries, I believe, some very time-bound ideas. First, could the scriptural selections of the '62 missal use a little more “variety”? If we were designing a missal, sure, we would probably have more, but the 3-year lectionary and the added reading were not the way to go. These naively assumed that simply reading more scripture during what became the Liturgy of the Word was going to give people better exposure. The reality is, the more we hear read, the harder it is for any one particular passage or reading to sink in. If we really want an expanded selection, we should do it by adding to the commons and then trying to more even distribute which saints use which common Masses. Anything with a proper Mass, though, is best left untouched. For point two, regarding the homily, we once again went overboard. It would probably be good to mandate that the sermon take place after the Gospel and to encourage that it often be used to expound the readings of the day, but we shouldn’t give the impression that sermons on other doctrinal topics (like series on the sacraments, four last things, etc.) are no longer useful.

36 - While the vernacular may be useful, I think our focus on having the readings done in the vernacular is importing a different, pedagogical spirituality into that portion of the Mass. That is an area that needs serious study. If I were going to allow the vernacular (hah! like that would ever happen. But I digress…) I would probably use it for the collect and post-communion.

In all honesty, though, I think the best way to “reform” the liturgy in line with SC is simply to get the whole congregation to sing the ordinary with the choir, and to make sure everyone feels free to make the responses along with the altar server. That will do far more to foster true participation than any of the specific, limited reforms suggested by SC.

 

[markadm]

35 - This carries, I believe, some very time-bound ideas. First, could the scriptural selections of the '62 missal use a little more “variety”? If we were designing a missal, sure, we would probably have more, but the 3-year lectionary and the added reading were not the way to go. These naively assumed that simply reading more scripture during what became the Liturgy of the Word was going to give people better exposure. The reality is, the more we hear read, the harder it is for any one particular passage or reading to sink in. If we really want an expanded selection, we should do it by adding to the commons and then trying to more even distribute which saints use which common Masses. Anything with a proper Mass, though, is best left untouched.

Andreas,

I agree strongly with you about this point. I am not attempting to contradict the Council fathers, but I do agree that having a cycle larger than one year is problematic. A friend of mine makes the case quite strongly in his post here.

God bless,
Mark

 

[brotherhrolf]

Have you seen the so-called “1965 Missal” that is available in some places online on the Internet.

I am not particularly au fait with it, but if memory serves it was not so much a new edition, but a “freezing in time” of the reforms coming out around the time of the Council. Take a snapshot 1965, and you’ve got it. It was in English, and had the Prayers at the foot of the Altar, etc.

From what I remember (reference copy here), it would be a good starter for 10.

Now as to discussion, I would like to see how “redundancies” could be eliminated without causing destruction to the Mass. I realise there is repetition in the prayers, but even after reading Alcuin Reid’s Organic Development of the Liturgy, I am unsure if the '62 Missal needs reforming!

My big concern is with the discontinuity between the two calendars!

Now, that didn’t help, did it!?

I have a pristine copy of said Missal sitting here on my desk. Pristine, why? It was mine from 1966 and never got used. Why? Because the Mass was said in Latin and only certain parts were introduced in English every few months. ( “OK, parish. In two weeks we will say the Gloria in English”.) By the time 1968 came, there were revisions to the revisions to the revisions such that the Mass was a proto-NO, not a revised '62.

One of the first problems I see is that we would have to agree on whether we translate the Latin verbatim or if we opt for a more “poetic” translation. The English translations of most of the prayers today is not what the Latin says. “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will” is not “Glory to God in the highest and peace to His people on Earth”.