The Mass of Paul VI

[jpy15026]

The Mass of Paul VI

I obtained a 1966 St Joseph Missal and I’m comparing it to my Angelus Press 1962 Traditional Latin Mass Missal
This 1966 missal is the “Transitional” missal that was only around for a brief period after Vatican II and from what I can see, other than “Modern” English, the propers and readings all match as does the Liturgical calendar. They are the same in the 1966 “The New Mass”, (the Mass of Paul VI, the post-Vatican II Mass, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, Novus Ordo Missae) as they are in the 1962 (Traditional Latin Mass) Missal There are differences in the “Order of the Mass” but they are few. How in the world did the Mass evolve into what it is today?

• The Novus Ordo Mass uses an entirely different calendar.
• Has three options that can be used instead of the Confiteor.
• The Confiteor has totally changed.
• Additional “Optional” Eucharist Prayers I,II,III,and IV
  • The Gospel, Epistle and propers are different
    Example from “The Exaltation of The Holy Cross” (Sept 14 in both Missals)
    1966 Missal…Epistle Phil 2:5-11 / Gospel Jn 12:31-38
    Novus Ordo…Epistle Phil 2:6-11 / Gospel Jn 3:13**-17**

I realize the Mass “evolved” over the years but does anyone have when these various major changes happened?
I know about the “communion in the hand,* Ad orientem and Versus Populum etc.*
But what dumbfounds me is, when did we get a completely new Liturgical calendar, does anyone know?
When did the Confiteor change?
When were all the additional “Optional” Eucharist Prayers introduced?
I researched many Latin Mass and Vatican II resources and know what the Vatican II docs and the GIRM say, but that’s not what we have now. I’m not talking about abuses, I’m talking about a reverent, by the book, Novus Ordo Mass, and it doesn’t seem to be what the Vatican II Church Fathers intended it to be. What came out of Vatican II was this Mass that is in this 1966 missal, which is basically The Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular with some “minor” changes. Can anyone answer when all these “major” changes crept in? The completely new calendar is huge, is it not? I’m not trying to start a debate; I’m just amazed with this 1966 “Transitional” missal, why isn’t our “Novus Ordo Mass” the Mass in this 1966 Missal? What happened and when??
Thanks in advance for anyone who has some answers
John

.

 

[brotherhrolf]

To the best of my recollection we transitioned from the EF to the OF in a two year period from 1966 to 1968. All of us found our missals to be of no use because announcements were made in Mass that “in two weeks we will not sing the Gloria in Latin. We will be reciting it in English”. The OF was officially adopted on the First Sunday of Advent in 1969. The reality is that we had already transitioned to it in 1968.

The optional Eucharistic prayers came in, I want to say in the early 70s. We used the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) in the beginning but then switched to EPII (because it was much quicker) I have to chuckle because we get some folks who respond that Father could say an EF in fifteen minutes. I am aware of a certain vigil Mass using EPII that was over in 20-25 minutes depending on how many folks went to Communion.

The long and the short of it is that most parishes used a transitional approach. My Catholic boy’s high school was a bit more abrupt…the beginning of my junior year which would have been in Fall of 1967 - no more Latin at Mass; no more ad orientum; no more brothers in cassocks. That was pretty abrupt.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Pauline Missal was officially promulgated in 1969. It became required in the English version in the USA on 1 Advent 1970, if I’m’ not mistaken.

 

[RyanML]

To the best of my recollection we transitioned from the EF to the OF in a two year period from 1966 to 1968. All of us found our missals to be of no use because announcements were made in Mass that “in two weeks we will not sing the Gloria in Latin. We will be reciting it in English”. The OF was officially adopted on the First Sunday of Advent in 1969. The reality is that we had already transitioned to it in 1968.

The optional Eucharistic prayers came in, I want to say in the early 70s. We used the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) in the beginning but then switched to EPII (because it was much quicker) I have to chuckle because we get some folks who respond that Father could say an EF in fifteen minutes. I am aware of a certain vigil Mass using EPII that was over in 20-25 minutes depending on how many folks went to Communion.

The long and the short of it is that most parishes used a transitional approach. My Catholic boy’s high school was a bit more abrupt…the beginning of my junior year which would have been in Fall of 1967 - no more Latin at Mass; no more ad orientum; no more brothers in cassocks. That was pretty abrupt.

I still can’t understand where folks got the idea that the priest had to turn and face the people. The ad orientem position makes so much more sense to me. And what about the communion rails? I know there was nothing out of Vatican II that recommended these changes so where did people get the idea they had to change so suddenly?

 

[SFD]

I still can’t understand where folks got the idea that the priest had to turn and face the people. The ad orientem position makes so much more sense to me. And what about the communion rails? I know there was nothing out of Vatican II that recommended these changes so where did people get the idea they had to change so suddenly?

The “people” didn’t change these things…the Bishops did.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

I still can’t understand where folks got the idea that the priest had to turn and face the people. The ad orientem position makes so much more sense to me. And what about the communion rails? I know there was nothing out of Vatican II that recommended these changes so where did people get the idea they had to change so suddenly?

It started in Rome with some papal Masses. The history of it was addressed in Spirit of the Liturgy. The whole thing was a mistake, though. The structure of the particular church was faced the wrong way and in this one church only the celebrant needed to turn around. I have my book on loan or I could give the details. But the result was that others copied it and it spread from there.

 

[SFD]

It started in Rome with some papal Masses. The history of it was addressed in Spirit of the Liturgy. The whole thing was a mistake, though. The structure of the particular church was faced the wrong way and in this one church only the celebrant needed to turn around. I have my book on loan or I could give the details. But the result was that others copied it and it spread from there.

The Liturgical Movement
An Address of Pope Pius XII to the
International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy
(September 22, 1956)

The position of the tabernacle

In the instruction of the Holy Office, “De arte sacra,” of June 30, 1952, (26) the Holy See insists, among other things, on this point: “This Supreme Sacred Congregation strictly commands that the prescriptions of Canons 1268, #2, and 1269 #1, be faithfully observed: ‘The Most Blessed Eucharist should be kept in the most distinguished and honorable place in the church, and hence as a rule at the main altar unless some other be considered more convenient and suitable for veneration and worship due to so great a Sacrament…The Most Blessed Sacrament must be kept in an immovable tabernacle set in the middle of the altar.’” (27)

There is question, not so much of the material presence of the tabernacle on the altar, as of a tendency to which We would like to call your attention, that of a lessening of esteem for the presence and action of Christ in the tabernacle. The sacrifice of the altar is held sufficient, and the importance of Him who accomplishes it is reduced.

The person of our Lord

Yet the person of our Lord must hold the central place in worship, for it is His person that unifies the relations of the altar and the tabernacle and gives them their meaning.

It is through the sacrifice of the altar, first of all, that the Lord becomes present in the Eucharist, and He is in the tabernacle only as a “memoria sacrificii et passionis suae.”

To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united.

Specialists will offer various opinions for solving the problem of so placing the tabernacle on the altar as not to impede the celebration of Mass when the priest is facing the congregation. The essential point is to understand that it is the same Lord present on the altar and in the tabernacle.

This last underlined section that I quoted from the address of Pius XII applies to those cases in which the building faces West, instead of East. In those cases the altar still must face East. St. Peter’s itself is one of these exceptional cases (the altar is over the tomb of St. Peter, and the nature of the site precluded the building extending West from that point, so it had to be built to the East), which is why the altar is placed so that Holy Mass is celebrated facing East but also facing the people. Pope Pius XII is cutting off this line of argument from Modernist innovators who would use it as a path to their preferred outcome - the removal of Our Lord’s Presence from the altar in as many churches as possible, and His placement in some obscure corner where He can more easily be ignored. Take a look at most conciliar churches for examples.

SFD

 

[Frosty]

The Mass of Paul VI

I obtained a 1966 St Joseph Missal and I’m comparing it to my Angelus Press 1962 Traditional Latin Mass Missal
This 1966 missal is the “Transitional” missal that was only around for a brief period after Vatican II and from what I can see, other than “Modern” English, the propers and readings all match as does the Liturgical calendar. They are the same in the 1966 “The New Mass”, (the Mass of Paul VI, the post-Vatican II Mass, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, Novus Ordo Missae) as they are in the 1962 (Traditional Latin Mass) Missal There are differences in the “Order of the Mass” but they are few. How in the world did the Mass evolve into what it is today?

• The Novus Ordo Mass uses an entirely different calendar.
• Has three options that can be used instead of the Confiteor.
• The Confiteor has totally changed.
• Additional “Optional” Eucharist Prayers I,II,III,and IV
  • The Gospel, Epistle and propers are different
    Example from “The Exaltation of The Holy Cross” (Sept 14 in both Missals)
    1966 Missal…Epistle Phil 2:5-11 / Gospel Jn 12:31-38
    Novus Ordo…Epistle Phil 2:6-11 / Gospel Jn 3:13**-17**

I realize the Mass “evolved” over the years but does anyone have when these various major changes happened?
I know about the “communion in the hand,* Ad orientem and Versus Populum etc.*
But what dumbfounds me is, when did we get a completely new Liturgical calendar, does anyone know?
When did the Confiteor change?
When were all the additional “Optional” Eucharist Prayers introduced?
I researched many Latin Mass and Vatican II resources and know what the Vatican II docs and the GIRM say, but that’s not what we have now. I’m not talking about abuses, I’m talking about a reverent, by the book, Novus Ordo Mass, and it doesn’t seem to be what the Vatican II Church Fathers intended it to be. What came out of Vatican II was this Mass that is in this 1966 missal, which is basically The Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular with some “minor” changes. Can anyone answer when all these “major” changes crept in? The completely new calendar is huge, is it not? I’m not trying to start a debate; I’m just amazed with this 1966 “Transitional” missal, why isn’t our “Novus Ordo Mass” the Mass in this 1966 Missal? What happened and when??
Thanks in advance for anyone who has some answers
John

.

You might be interested in these two articles from Time Magazine in the 1960’s. The first article is dated November 1964 and talks about what, on the first Sunday of Advent of that year, new changes to the Mass were going to take place.

time.com/time/printout/0,8816,871416,00.html

The second article, dated January 1970, discusses the introduction of the Pauline Mass itself. Which, by the way, began in the U.S. on Palm Sunday, March 22, 1970.

time.com/time/printout/0,8816,878755,00.html

 

[AJV]

This last underlined section that I quoted from the address of Pius XII applies to those cases in which the building faces West, instead of East. In those cases the altar still must face East. St. Peter’s itself is one of these exceptional cases (the altar is over the tomb of St. Peter, and the nature of the site precluded the building extending West from that point, so it had to be built to the East), which is why the altar is placed so that Holy Mass is celebrated facing East but also facing the people. Pope Pius XII is cutting off this line of argument from Modernist innovators who would use it as a path to their preferred outcome - the removal of Our Lord’s Presence from the altar in as many churches as possible, and His placement in some obscure corner where He can more easily be ignored. Take a look at most conciliar churches for examples.

SFD

This is not exactly right. Pius XII, while insisting on the tabernacle and altar unity, was not speaking of cases where the altar must face East and ad populum at the same time. This is evidenced through the fact that at liturgical Congresses and other such gatherings, Masses were not celebrated towards the East but were ad populum. Some other cases - for example, in 1957, until a satisfactory solution was obtained, the Congregation of Rites put a moratorium on celebrating Masses ad populum in churches with only one altar. There was not reference to the East.In fact, the Popes in certain cases, far before Pius XII had celebrated in other churches ad populum but not towards the East.

 

[AJV]

The Mass of Paul VI

I realize the Mass “evolved” over the years but does anyone have when these various major changes happened?
I know about the “communion in the hand,* Ad orientem and Versus Populum etc.*
But what dumbfounds me is, when did we get a completely new Liturgical calendar, does anyone know?

1. You might find some of this helpful.

When did the Confiteor change?

Again 1969/70. The Confiteor was strictly speaking, part of the “private” preparation of the priest before the Mass. When the new Order of the Mass was being formulated, it was agreed to suppress the private preparation or relegate to the sacristy. There were some additional questions:

1. Should there be a penitential rite for the people?
2. If so, where should it be located?
3. What form should it take?
4. Some argued (and still some argue today) that there should not be a pentiential rite, in the context of a Sunday ‘Resurrection’ celebration. Others argued that reconciliation and pentience were sufficiently expressed by other prayers or actions (e.g. the community coming together). However it was decided to have a public Act of Penitence.
5. Some wanted a location between the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Word. (This is the case in some modern “inculturated” liturgies) However, a position at the beginning of the Mass was retained
6. This is where there was a disagreement. The revisers disliked long prayers since there felt it emphasized things with “undue prominence”. Thus a single prayer was proposed. Ultimately 4 prayers were provided with sort-of was a compromise for all. The Confiteor was shortened because it was felt that the list of saints decreased the gravity of the formulation.

When were all the additional “Optional” Eucharist Prayers introduced?

Eucharistic Prayer II, III and IV came out in 1968 and as to reasons, some of them are here.

 

[drforjc]

1. You might find some of this helpful.

Again 1969/70. The Confiteor was strictly speaking, part of the “private” preparation of the priest before the Mass. When the new Order of the Mass was being formulated, it was agreed to suppress the private preparation or relegate to the sacristy. There were some additional questions:

1. Should there be a penitential rite for the people?
2. If so, where should it be located?
3. What form should it take?
4. Some argued (and still some argue today) that there should not be a pentiential rite, in the context of a Sunday ‘Resurrection’ celebration. Others argued that reconciliation and pentience were sufficiently expressed by other prayers or actions (e.g. the community coming together). However it was decided to have a public Act of Penitence.
5. Some wanted a location between the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Word. (This is the case in some modern “inculturated” liturgies) However, a position at the beginning of the Mass was retained
6. This is where there was a disagreement. The revisers disliked long prayers since there felt it emphasized things with “undue prominence”. Thus a single prayer was proposed. Ultimately 4 prayers were provided with sort-of was a compromise for all. The Confiteor was shortened because it was felt that the list of saints decreased the gravity of the formulation.

Eucharistic Prayer II, III and IV came out in 1968 and as to reasons, some of them are here.

Being right in the middle of reading Dom Alcuin Reid’s “The Organic Development of the Liturgy,” I find that all these questions that you indicate were being posed at the time (e.g., whether even to have a penetential rite) it strikes me particulary hard just how abruptly and violently the whole program was implemented.

 

[brotherhrolf]

My friend AJV, how are you? I should have known you would have the answers. All I can provide is an account of the experience which was forty years ago when I was a teenager.

Honestly, there was no rhyme or reason to it from the pews. There were only announcements from the pulpit. It was very emotional for people of my parent’s generation (WWII). And very chaotic. They largely became marginalized during the 70s. They submitted to the magisterium, however.

For my generation, it was another matter. However, it should be remembered that not all of us were enamored of what was happening. The biggest “shock” for me was when the communion rails were removed. My cathedral parish (of today) was one of the first. It was renovated in '66. However, my home parish in New Orleans was dedicated in '67 and the communion rails were not removed until after '76 since they are clearly visible in photos of my sister’s wedding.

In short, the adoption of the Mass of Paul VI “evolved” (if that is the right word). From my perspective in the pew it was not planned or “thought out” universally. I think the various local bishop’s confrences had a lot to do with it.

 

[SFD]

This is not exactly right. Pius XII, while insisting on the tabernacle and altar unity, was not speaking of cases where the altar must face East and ad populum at the same time.

He was addressing the exceptional cases (which St. Peter’s is one). The point is that he isisted on tabernacle and altar unity (except in exceptional cases), as you admit.

This is evidenced through the fact that at liturgical Congresses and other such gatherings, Masses were not celebrated towards the East but were ad populum.

These are exceptional cases…not the design of a typical church, or the normal situation.

Some other cases - for example, in 1957, until a satisfactory solution was obtained, the Congregation of Rites put a moratorium on celebrating Masses ad populum in churches with only one altar. There was not reference to the East.

In fact, the Popes in certain cases, far before Pius XII had celebrated in other churches ad populum but not towards the East.

These are exceptional cases dealt with case by case. A wholesale destruction of altars and removal of tabernacles to some obscure place is what was being condemned here. When a true exception existed…there was a way to deal with it properly.

SFD

 

[AJV]

He was addressing the exceptional cases (which St. Peter’s is one). The point is that he isisted on tabernacle and altar unity (except in exceptional cases), as you admit.

These are exceptional cases…not the design of a typical church, or the normal situation.

These were not exceptional cases - that’s why it was addressed in the allocution - and no one interpreted it to say that the altars were to be in churches oriented to the West. The altars ad populum were becoming increasingly popular and this is attested, as I noted before, by the S.C.R. in the 1957 Instruction and its commentaries (e.g. Fr Loew, the consultor to the Congregation “The most serious difficulties in regard to tabernacle construction have arisen from the growing popularity of the altar versus populum…with this decree, therefore, the remark of the Holy Father to the Assisi Congress — about the eventual possibility of reconciling tabernacle (of worthy proportions) and altar versus populum, so that both the Mass celebration and God’s dwelling place are equally given their due…”

 

[jpy15026]

I’m the OP and these are my findings thus far:

1920’s: the reforms of Divino Afflatu begin to be implemented properly under Benedict XV. Feast of Christ the King introduced with preface.

**1950’s: **New Holy Week introduced. The missal is modified by the rubrics of Cum Nostra.

1960: Blessed. John XXIII introduces new rubrics and rankings effective

**1961. **Revised Ritus Servandus makes no mention of the Confiteor before Communion. Prayers at the foot of the altar and Last Gospel omitted on certain occasions

**1962: **St.Joseph in the Canon

**1964: **Inter Oecumenici- removal of the kissing of the priest’s hand.

1965: Ordo Missae omits the Last Gospel and the psalm Judica Me. Revised Ritus Servandus omits many signs of the cross in the Canon and genuflections. The priest is now required to conduct the Mass from the chair until the Offertory. The moving from the center of the altar to the left and back for the postcommunion is suppressed- the priest remains at the center at all times. Allowance of the sign of peace uses a pax-brede (a board which is kised)
: Rite of Concelebration introduced

1967- Tres Abhic Annos- further simplication of ritual gestures including the holding of the forefinger and thumb after the ablution.

1968- 4 new Eucharistic Prayers
There are far more changes in the 60’s. They included the changing of the formula of administration of communion to “Corpus Cristi”, gradual permission for the vernacular, etc.

2001 The “Revised Roman Missal.”
The first Latin edition appeared in 1970. A second edition was issued in 1975, and it was this second edition which was normative at the time of the publication of the original edition of this book. The third Latin edition (editio typica tertia) of the revised Roman Missal was approved in the Jubilee Year 2000, although it was not published until 2001. Its General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) contains the normative liturgical rubrics and regulations that must now be followed in American dioceses. Some practices formerly allowed or not addressed in previous editions are now prohibited.
For example,
*The Lectionary is never to be carried in the entrance procession.
*The processional Cross must have the figure of the crucified Christ.
*Hymns are not to be substituted for chants found in the Order of Mass, such as the Gloria or the Agnus Dei.
*The deacon, if present, must kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer until the elevation of the Chalice.
*Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are not to approach the altar before the priest has received Holy Communion, and must always accept from the hands of the priest the vessel from which they distribute Communion.
These and other rubrics contained in the 2001 GIRM are clearly intended to place a new emphasis on the sacred. After a twenty-five year evaluation of liturgical celebrations using the 1975 edition, there is much in the new GIRM to warrant the judgment of the current prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze
“The do-it-yourself Mass is ended; go in peace.”

---

**Here is where a light went off in my head and started to research changes since 2002,
Seems like the Pendulum is swinging back the other way **
**
2007 **Apostolic Letter “Summorum Pontificum” issued Motu Proprio
July 7, Pope Benedict XVI issued an Apostolic Letter on the celebration of the Roman Rite according to the Missal of 1962. It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.

2008 Pope faces “ad orientem” in Sistine Chapel liturgy.
Vatican City, Jan 15
Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass on Sunday in the Sistine Chapel, using the church’s original altar beneath Michelangelo’s depiction of the Last Judgment instead of the removable altar used by Pope John Paul II.It was the first time Mass had been celebrated in the Chapel in such a way since the Second Vatican Council, which took place between 1962 and 1965.
The Pope has also encouraged the revival of Gregorian chant, a centuries-old style of liturgical music.

**2008 **Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope will become the norm at papal liturgies, said the Vatican’s liturgist.
Vatican City, Jun 26
While current norms allow the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand while standing, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated a preference for the more traditional practice, said Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies.Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights “the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily,” he said in a June 26 interview with the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.
Pastorally speaking, he said “it is urgent to highlight and recover” these aspects of the sacredness and mystery of the Eucharist in modern times.
Generally at papal Masses, those receiving Communion from the pope stand and the majority choose to receive on the tongue.
But starting with a May 22 Mass outside the Basilica of St. John Lateran, two ushers placed a kneeler in front of the altar and the chosen communicants all knelt and received on the tongue.
At a June 15 Mass in the southern Italian port city of Brindisi, the pope again distributed Communion to the faithful on the tongue while they were kneeling.

**2008 **Catholics will discover Saturday at Les Invalides the Return of Forgotten Practices.
A Cross at the Centre of the Altar September 09, An exposed position, therefore, media-wise and even more so ecclesially. He embodies the return of tradition; in matters of liturgy the smallest symbol is fraught with meaning Parisians, Saturday morning, and those who follow the Mass in Lourdes, Sunday and Monday morning, will not be surprised to see that the Pope will give Communion in the mouth of the faithful kneeling. "Benedict XVI wants to emphasize that the norms for distributing Communion in the Catholic Church are still in force. One has indeed forgotten that the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand is due to an indult, an exception, one might say, given by the Holy See to the episcopal conferences that request it.
He observes, “to receive the host in the mouth highlights the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces more easily into the sense of mystery. So many aspects it is important to stress today and urgent to recover.” Nothing, therefore, of a papal fantasy. These changes in liturgical forms are part of a clear vision of Benedict XVI and explicitly expressed in Rome by several interlocutors close to him: “To achieve, ultimately, a liturgical synthesis between the Mass of Paul VI and that which tradition can contribute to it as enrichment.” The Pope intends to counterpoise “by example” the “deficiencies” that he has always denounced since the 1970s: the lack of “recollectedness” and “silence”; the loss of the “sense of the sacred”, which he also calls the “cosmic” sense of the liturgical celebration where, according to Catholic theology, and also Orthodox by the way, “God Himself, through the Incarnation of the Son, makes Himself really present in the consecrated host.”
He has never hidden anything before becoming pope. In his memoirs, My Life, Memoirs 1927-1977 [published in English as “Milestones”], published ten years ago in France at Fayard, Joseph Ratzinger showed his colours regarding the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council which he had lived at the age of 40: “I was dismayed,” he wrote, "at the ban on the old Missal, since such a development had never been seen in the history of liturgy. (…) A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy (…) This is why we need a new liturgical movement which will call to life the real heritage of the Council."everything suggests that this “new liturgical movement” is well and truly launched. Benedict XVI does not envisage disseminating it by way of regulations, but by the force of example.

 

[AJV]

I’m the OP and these are my findings thus far:

1920’s: the reforms of Divino Afflatu begin to be implemented properly under Benedict XV. Feast of Christ the King introduced with preface.

**1950’s: **New Holy Week introduced. The missal is modified by the rubrics of Cum Nostra.

1960: Blessed. John XXIII introduces new rubrics and rankings effective

**1961. **Revised Ritus Servandus makes no mention of the Confiteor before Communion. Prayers at the foot of the altar and Last Gospel omitted on certain occasions

**1962: **St.Joseph in the Canon

**1964: **Inter Oecumenici- removal of the kissing of the priest’s hand.

1965: Ordo Missae omits the Last Gospel and the psalm Judica Me. Revised Ritus Servandus omits many signs of the cross in the Canon and genuflections. The priest is now required to conduct the Mass from the chair until the Offertory. The moving from the center of the altar to the left and back for the postcommunion is suppressed- the priest remains at the center at all times. Allowance of the sign of peace uses a pax-brede (a board which is kised)
: Rite of Concelebration introduced

1967- Tres Abhic Annos- further simplication of ritual gestures including the holding of the forefinger and thumb after the ablution.

1968- 4 new Eucharistic Prayers
There are far more changes in the 60’s. They included the changing of the formula of administration of communion to “Corpus Cristi”, gradual permission for the vernacular, etc.

I had written this two years back but its very brief and does not really give a good picture of the changes. For example, if one really gets into the small areas, Benedict XV allowed a lot of other things such a Prefaces for St. Joseph and the Dead (1919), or permission to trinate on All Souls’ with a clearer ‘Missal for the Dead’. Another example… as my post seemed to suggest, Inter Ocumenici only removed oscula (kisses), but the simplifications were actually more vast and there were other, more important changes. The actual document is clearer in the different changes

Inter Oecumenici
Tres Abhinc Annos

Some other documents which may be helpful:
De Musica Sacra (1958)
Ecclesiae Semper (1965)
Norms on the Eucharistic Prayers (1968) (I couldn’t find the decree Preces Eucharistiae online, so I’ll try and transcribe it later)
Memoriale Domini

The changing of the formula of Holy Communion was done by the decree Quod actuosius in 1964. Another change that took place in 1965, was the a document for Variationes in the Order of Holy Week that treated the Chrism Mass, the consecration of the oils, and importantly the Good Friday prayers. (if your really interested in the decree of promulgation then that’s here.)

 

[SFD]

These were not exceptional cases - that’s why it was addressed in the allocution - and no one interpreted it to say that the altars were to be in churches oriented to the West. The altars ad populum were becoming increasingly popular and this is attested, as I noted before, by the S.C.R. in the 1957 Instruction and its commentaries (e.g. Fr Loew, the consultor to the Congregation “The most serious difficulties in regard to tabernacle construction have arisen from the growing popularity of the altar versus populum…with this decree, therefore, the remark of the Holy Father to the Assisi Congress — about the eventual possibility of reconciling tabernacle (of worthy proportions) and altar versus populum, so that both the Mass celebration and God’s dwelling place are equally given their due…”

What you are implying here is that Pius XII contradicted himself. He insisted on the altar and tabernacle unity (Here’s what you said previously,“Pius XII, while insisting on the tabernacle and altar unity…”). But you interpret his allocution to be paving the way for the destruction of Altar/Tabernacle unity by saying the exceptions were actually becoming the rule!

The Liturgical Movement
An Address of Pope Pius XII to the
International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy
(September 22, 1956)

The position of the tabernacle

In the instruction of the Holy Office, “De arte sacra,” of June 30, 1952, (26) the Holy See insists, among other things, on this point: “This Supreme Sacred Congregation strictly commands that the prescriptions of Canons 1268, #2, and 1269 #1, be faithfully observed: ‘The Most Blessed Eucharist should be kept in the most distinguished and honorable place in the church, and hence as a rule at the main altar unless some other be considered more convenient and suitable for veneration and worship due to so great a Sacrament…The Most Blessed Sacrament must be kept in an immovable tabernacle set in the middle of the altar.’” (27)

There is question, not so much of the material presence of the tabernacle on the altar, as of a tendency to which We would like to call your attention, that of a lessening of esteem for the presence and action of Christ in the tabernacle. The sacrifice of the altar is held sufficient, and the importance of Him who accomplishes it is reduced.

The person of our Lord

Yet the person of our Lord must hold the central place in worship, for it is His person that unifies the relations of the altar and the tabernacle and gives them their meaning.

It is through the sacrifice of the altar, first of all, that the Lord becomes present in the Eucharist, and He is in the tabernacle only as a “memoria sacrificii et passionis suae.”

To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united.

Specialists will offer various opinions for solving the problem of so placing the tabernacle on the altar as not to impede the celebration of Mass when the priest is facing the congregation. The essential point is to understand that it is the same Lord present on the altar and in the tabernacle.

Pius XII, after telling us that the Church:

“strictly commands that the prescriptions of Canons 1268, #2, and 1269 #1, be faithfully observed: ‘The Most Blessed Eucharist should be kept in the most distinguished and honorable place in the church, and hence as a rule at the main altar unless some other be considered more convenient and suitable for veneration and worship due to so great a Sacrament.”

THEN he says but here’s how to separate the Altar and the Tabernacle.

SFD

 

[AJV]

What you are implying here is that Pius XII contradicted himself. He insisted on the altar and tabernacle unity (Here’s what you said previously,“Pius XII, while insisting on the tabernacle and altar unity…”). But you interpret his allocution to be paving the way for the destruction of Altar/Tabernacle unity by saying the exceptions were actually becoming the rule!
SFD

My apologies- I should have been clearer…I was actually referring to ad populum altars, not separation of altar and tabernacle.

 

[jpy15026]

**
Seems like the Pendulum is swinging back the other way even more,I forgot this:**

2008 Aug 4,(White Book)* Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia,* Recently the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was granted the recognitio for the new English-language translation of significant parts of the Ordo Missae as found in the *Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, *including most of those texts used in every celebration of the Holy Mass.
Expected Changes
There are some translations that from the very first days were laid out by LA. Paragraph 56 noted:

Certain expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a greater part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony, are to be respected by a translation that is literal as possible, as for example the words of the people’s response Et cum spiritu tuo, or the expression mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa in the Act of Penance of the Order of Mass.

One should not be surprised, therefore, to find as a final translation “And with your spirit.” Nor would it be surprising to find after the words *“what I have failed to do” *of the *Confiteor, *an insertion: “Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”

With reference to the profession of faith, LA no. 65 states:
By means of the Creed (Symbolum) or Profession of Faith, the whole gathered People of God respond to the word of God proclaimed in the Sacred Scriptures and expounded in the homily, recalling and confessing the great mysteries of the faith by means of a formula approved for liturgical use.

The Creed is to be translated according to the precise wording that the tradition of the Latin Church has bestowed upon it, including the use of the first person singular by which is clearly made manifest that “the confession of faith is handed down in the Creed, as it were, as coming from the person of the whole Church, united by means of Faith.

” In addition, the expression carnis resurrectionem is to be translated literally wherever the Apostles’ Creed is prescribed or may be used in the Liturgy.

The translation of the Ordo Missæ approved by the Latin Church members of the USCCB, at its June 15, 2006 plenary meeting, has the opening words “I believe.” In addition, at three points in the Creed, the Bishops recommended that the action of the gathered assembly be clarified by the restatement of these opening words:

• “And in one Lord Jesus Christ” becomes* “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ”*;
• “And in the Holy Spirit” becomes* “I believe in the Holy Spirit”*; and
• “And one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” becomes* “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”*
  The bishops also addressed the translation of* consubstanialem.*

Since 1970, this important theological term has been rendered in the United States of America as “one in being.” The bishops voted to retain this translation, instead of adopting the ICEL rendering of “consubstantial.” Finally, the rendering of “He suffered death and was buried” was changed to “He suffered, died, and was buried.”

With reference to the expression carnis resurrectionem, the Bishops approved the translation “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead.”

It is to be kept in mind, however, that all of these texts have been submitted to Rome for *recognitio. *The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will also have to take into consideration the translations that have been submitted by other Conferences of Bishops. Number 87 of LA indicates, “It is recommended that there be a single translation of the liturgical books for each vernacular language.”