The 1965 Missale Romanum, the Mass of Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I recently came across this blog. I was confused on if this was a reformed version of the Tridentine missale of 62, or what the council fathers figured the “new mass” was going to look like. I believe it’s the latter… and if this is truly so, I am saddened that this is not what we now call the “Novus Ordo”.
 
I recently came across this blog. I was confused on if this was a reformed version of the Tridentine missale of 62, or what the council fathers figured the “new mass” was going to look like. I believe it’s the latter…
Click to expand...
The missale of 65 was the mass which was actually said in most places between 1965 and 1970, a transitional period between the old and the new.
 
Notice the translation, it is wonderful.
It is unbelievable that the ICEL deliberately mistranslated the Novus Ordo Mass.

The fact that this missal was suppose to be pernament, but somehow we just had to have the Novus Ordo with ICEL translations.

“Et Cum Spiritu Tuo” means “And with your spirit” not " And also with you".
 
40.png
Freeway4321:
I recently came across this blog. I was confused on if this was a reformed version of the Tridentine missale of 62, or what the council fathers figured the “new mass” was going to look like. I believe it’s the latter… and if this is truly so, I am saddened that this is not what we now call the “Novus Ordo”.
Click to expand...
I have always believed that the 1965 version, while doing what the Vatican II Council intended, did not go far enough to satisfy the more shall we say adventurous minded. Since this was in the 60’s, remember those days, more change was always good and everything new was better. So basically we got what they wanted.
 
40.png
palmas85:
I have always believed that the 1965 version, while doing what the Vatican II Council intended, did not go far enough to satisfy the more shall we say adventurous minded. Since this was in the 60’s, remember those days, more change was always good and everything new was better. So basically we got what they wanted.
Click to expand...
I refuse to believe it. Yes i’m in denial…

It’s a painful reality… I would of loved to have this “New Mass”.

Where would that leave the Tridentine missale of 1962? In a better light then it is now, simply because they are pretty similar, although as an avid reader of the poetry (1962 missale) it has a distinctiveness to it.
 
As a regular attendee at the Traditional Latin Mass, I can definitely see how it needed some slight changes. There were many needless repetitions and that Mass would benefit by eliminating some of them.

While the 1965 Missal may have been what the Council intended, it’s all water under the bridge. We can’t go back in time. What we have now is the Mass of Paul VI. Any “reform” has to start with that as it’s baseline.

The new Mass replaced needless repetition with needless options. And I will continue to say it: Eliminating the options from the new Mass will be the most signfiicant reform and ultimately have the most positive effect in restoring reverent Masses to the Latin Rite.
 
Ok, in the local diocese here, they used the 1965 missal in English and turned the altars around from what I understand.
I for sure like hearing the Eucharistic Prayers. This can be done with the priest facing ad orientum perfectly fine.
 
Dr. Bombay:
As a regular attendee at the Traditional Latin Mass, I can definitely see how it needed some slight changes. There were many needless repetitions and that Mass would benefit by eliminating some of them.

While the 1965 Missal may have been what the Council intended, it’s all water under the bridge. We can’t go back in time. What we have now is the Mass of Paul VI. Any “reform” has to start with that as it’s baseline.

The new Mass replaced needless repetition with needless options. And I will continue to say it: Eliminating the options from the new Mass will be the most signfiicant reform and ultimately have the most positive effect in restoring reverent Masses to the Latin Rite.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you in principle Bombay. A question, why do you think they have the number of options and flexibility that they have?
 
40.png
palmas85:
I tend to agree with you in principle Bombay. A question, why do you think they have the number of options and flexibility that they have?
Click to expand...
My opinion only…the Missal of 1970 was intended to be an “experimental” Missal. Priests would have a few years to see what worked and what didn’t by actually implementing these options at the parish level. Then, bishops would get feed back, consult one another and finally present their findings to the Holy See and a final Missal would’ve been issued sans most, if not all, options.

The problem is, 1970 was around the time the “smoke of Satan” entered the Church. It was Lord of the Flies time for a bunch of ankle-biting priests, nuns and lay people who were finally able to take out their rage on the Church without fear of reprisal. Add to this the continuous river of liturgical changes that assaulted the people in the pews: vernacular, turning the altar around, tearing out High Altars and Communion rails, laymen reading scripture and distributing Communion, Communion under both kinds, Communion in the hand, ad infinitum, ad nauseum…perhaps the Holy See decided that, in the midst of Church-wide anarchy and seemingly weekly changes, it was best not to try to implement yet another entirely new Missal so the 1970 version stuck.

Or, perhaps, there’s been some other cover story put out about why we have so many options. But my version makes the most sense to me. 😃 I mean, seriously. Does the Mass of Paul VI strike you as a finished product? It doesn’t me. Seems like it should be stamped “DRAFT.”

So, since reviewing the new Mass after just a few years of use was impractical, I think now is the perfect time to do it. We’ve had more than a generation to find out what works and what doesn’t. Time to get out those scissors and start chopping. Why, for instance, is there any point whatsoever in having a Eucharistic Prayer (#4) that nobody uses? Why have two options of the Penitential Rite that duplicate the Kyrie? Why allow the [text in brackets may be omitted] when it might take a whole minute and a half to read it? What’s the rationale behind dropping the Amen from the Pater Noster? Why not just let the congregation sing or recite a Psalm instead of making it a *Responsorial *Psalm?

The '65 Missal may have been the logical progression and even, dare I say, an organic development of the '62 Missal but you can’t really impose that on the Church now. Oh, people would squawk. But I think, with all the brilliant minds we have in the Church, especially in the Chair of Peter, we could definitely streamline the current Mass and take it back closer to what the Fathers of Vatican II intended. Even just eliminating the options entirely and leaving everything else exactly the way it is would be splendid.

Or so it seems to me. :tiphat:
 
40.png
MrS:
An appropriate word ! Also used to decribed what happened when the ambiguities of VatII “permitted” Catholics to leave the church and not close the doors behind them.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_2_10.gif
Click to expand...
Very true, Mr. S. The problem for those ambiguous Catholics is, the tornado turned right around and deposited the house on top of them. So now all we’re left with is the little stripey socks of the Heterodox Witches of the West sticking out from underneath. Soon to curl up and disappear entirely. 😃
 
40.png
MrS:
Also used to decribed what happened when the ambiguities of VatII “permitted” Catholics to leave the church and not close the doors behind them.
Click to expand...
What is this an allusion to? I’ve never heard of this.
 
40.png
MrS:
Also used to decribed what happened when the ambiguities of VatII “permitted” Catholics to leave the church and not close the doors behind them.
Click to expand...
What is this an allusion to? I’ve never heard of this.
 
Dr. Bombay:
Very true, Mr. S. The problem for those ambiguous Catholics is, the tornado turned right around and deposited the house on top of them. So now all we’re left with is the little stripey socks of the Heterodox Witches of the West sticking out from underneath. Soon to curl up and disappear entirely. 😃
Click to expand...
Okay, wise one (MrS too but I can’t ping him)
My hubby was at RCIA last night. There are some reborn Catholics there. The question was, “Why was there Vatican II?”

The deacon answered that there was a threat of schizim in Europe so they gave in to the changes for the sake of Unity. (oh that worked)

He also said the Orans came from Belgium priests.

Any thoughts?
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
What is this an allusion to? I’ve never heard of this.
Click to expand...
Just a way of explaining the saddest result of Vat II… that instead of strenghening the numbers in the pews, the opposite has occured. In stead of keeping the door secure and safeguarding the Catholics (with the potential allure to others to join), the doors where flung open… and people were sucked out into the secular world.

Kinda like stained glass windows in the Church… they are most beautiful from the inside. Vat II, in a sense, allowed the windows to be broken, and the draft to run rampant.
 
Dr. Bombay:
My opinion only…the Missal of 1970 was intended to be an “experimental” Missal. Priests would have a few years to see what worked and what didn’t by actually implementing these options at the parish level. Then, bishops would get feed back, consult one another and finally present their findings to the Holy See and a final Missal would’ve been issued sans most, if not all, options.

The problem is, 1970 was around the time the “smoke of Satan” entered the Church. It was Lord of the Flies time for a bunch of ankle-biting priests, nuns and lay people who were finally able to take out their rage on the Church without fear of reprisal. Add to this the continuous river of liturgical changes that assaulted the people in the pews: vernacular, turning the altar around, tearing out High Altars and Communion rails, laymen reading scripture and distributing Communion, Communion under both kinds, Communion in the hand, ad infinitum, ad nauseum…perhaps the Holy See decided that, in the midst of Church-wide anarchy and seemingly weekly changes, it was best not to try to implement yet another entirely new Missal so the 1970 version stuck.

Or, perhaps, there’s been some other cover story put out about why we have so many options. But my version makes the most sense to me. 😃 I mean, seriously. Does the Mass of Paul VI strike you as a finished product? It doesn’t me. Seems like it should be stamped “DRAFT.”

So, since reviewing the new Mass after just a few years of use was impractical, I think now is the perfect time to do it. We’ve had more than a generation to find out what works and what doesn’t. Time to get out those scissors and start chopping. Why, for instance, is there any point whatsoever in having a Eucharistic Prayer (#4) that nobody uses? Why have two options of the Penitential Rite that duplicate the Kyrie? Why allow the [text in brackets may be omitted] when it might take a whole minute and a half to read it? What’s the rationale behind dropping the Amen from the Pater Noster? Why not just let the congregation sing or recite a Psalm instead of making it a *Responsorial *Psalm?

The '65 Missal may have been the logical progression and even, dare I say, an organic development of the '62 Missal but you can’t really impose that on the Church now. Oh, people would squawk. But I think, with all the brilliant minds we have in the Church, especially in the Chair of Peter, we could definitely streamline the current Mass and take it back closer to what the Fathers of Vatican II intended. Even just eliminating the options entirely and leaving everything else exactly the way it is would be splendid.

Or so it seems to me. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Dr. Bombay et al,

If you haven’t seen it already, you may be interested in this site
The New Liturgical Movement. Let’s all pray that the reform of the reform comes quickly.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Okay, wise one (MrS too but I can’t ping him)
My hubby was at RCIA last night. There are some reborn Catholics there. The question was, “Why was there Vatican II?”

The deacon answered that there was a threat of schizim in Europe so they gave in to the changes for the sake of Unity. (oh that worked)

He also said the Orans came from Belgium priests.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would *like *to think that good Pope John called the Council because of an inspiration from the Holy Spirit. I hadn’t heard of any threatened schism, but anything’s possible, I suppose.

As for the orans…many peculiar things come out of Belgium, not least of which is their waffles. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top