Was there a specific Sunday in the 1960's when the OF Mass replaced the EF Mass uniformly across the US?

[FrDavid96]

In the U.S., there was actually a series of eight steps between Advent Sunday, 1964 and Advent Sunday, 1969. I wrote a series of articles about this 17 years ago, largely pulled from the archives of the archdiocese where I lived at the time. When the first changes started on Advent Sunday, 1964–the first transitional Missal that many here are thinking about–no one really expected there to be as many changes as there would eventually be.

Three separate altar missals were published in the US during the transition period, and I have each of them in my library:

• The first in 1964, reflected Inter Oecumenici, which was the Instruction on the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
• The second in 1966, reflected instructions from the Holy See regarding additional reforms in 1965, and the US bishops’ vote to increase the use of the vernacular to all audible prayers in the Mass.
• The third in 1968, reflected Tres Abhinc Annos, which was the Second Instruction on the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in 1967, and the addition of three new Eucharistic Prayers in 1968.

At the time, since the reform of the Roman Missal was underway, and as yet still not complete, the Order of Mass was being referred to by the Holy See as the Novus Ordo Missae, i.e., the new Order of Mass. This term was still widely used, including by Blessed Paul VI himself in his weekly addresses, for the first several years of the reformed Missal, since various countries were implementing their translations at varying speeds. This was the origin of the term Novus Ordo that is still used today, and not anything sinister. While I realize that there are folks today who use the term pejoratively, the term itself was/is not pejorative, and certainly represents a relative expression, when compared to a missal that had been used for some centuries. Until Pope Benedict started using OF and EF, there were no other terms to use, other than saying “the New Mass.” Novus Ordo was quick and easy to say.

Well, now you’ve gone ahead and done it.

Remember: from now on, you have no one to blame but yourself for the consequences of your own actions.

From now on, whenever we need to know exactly what was written in one of the versions of the transitional Masses, we know precisely whom to ask. We know whom to PM with the obscure questions like “what was the exact date…?” or “what exactly were the options, if any, in the Penitential Rite in 1967 as opposed to 1968?”

That’s one Lit & Sac forum mystery solved!

Let the questions begin.

 

[Solomonson]

…While I realize that there are folks today who use the term pejoratively, the term itself was/is not pejorative, and certainly represents a relative expression, when compared to a missal that had been used for some centuries. Until Pope Benedict started using OF and EF, there were no other terms to use, other than saying “the New Mass.” Novus Ordo was quick and easy to say.

It’s inaccurate and it’s a slur.

You’re wrong about other acceptable names for the OF Mass. “Pauline Mass” used to be very popular. “Mass of Paul VI” is long but fine too.

 

[Solomonson]

It is considered a perfectly acceptable way of referencing the Missal promulgated in 1970 among theologians and liturgists and in seminaries…

It’s a slur. The more obstinate one is in their continued use of it, the more they seem know it’s a slur yet they purposely choose to be offensive.

The one good thing about people using the slurs “NO Mass” or “Novus Ordo” in person is that it provides a very quick read of them and a pretty strong signal to terminate the conversation (in a non-offensive way of course.)

 

[Solomonson]

Opinions on the matter vary widely. Certainly some use it that way, but many others use it without rancor. Since its use is a matter of opinion, and is based on actual use at the time by the Holy See, we are free to make our own determinations on the matter, rather than trying to police the speech of others with whom we may disagree. Charity in all things.

So you choose not to follow Pope Benedict XVI’s request – an extremely easy request to implement (and one he made anticipating this issue), and instead choose to use a label you realize offends others because “we are free to make our own determinations on the matter”?

Really? Wow…

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s a slur. The more obstinate one is in their continued use of it, the more they seem know it’s a slur yet they purposely choose to be offensive.

The one good thing about people using the slurs “NO Mass” or “Novus Ordo” in person is that it provides a very quick read of them and a pretty strong signal to terminate the conversation (in a non-offensive way of course.)

No. It is not.

It is perfectly acceptable.

It is not for you to decide for me the vocabulary that I choose to employ.

Do not presume to tell me what vocabulary I may or may not use and most especially do not presume to tell me what my motivation is for using it.

You do not know anyone’s motivation for using the term (unless it’s been expressed). Don’t pretend that you do.