No, I have not finally flipped and there is no need for a straight-jacket! A parcel arrived on Wednesday morning containing a rather nice set of Monastic Breviaries from 1884 and an interesting, though I would certainly not describe it as nice, altar edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum.
The current game (what would Eric Berne have to say?) played out on a host of 'Traddieland' Blogs of pretending that the 1962 Missale Romanum is somehow 'the ancient Mass', the 'Gregorian Mass', the 'Tridentine Mass', the 'TLM' or 'The Mass of Ages' etc ad nauseam and that its use extended until Paul VI's 1970 Missale Romanum dropped out of a clear blue sky is both highly innacurate and indeed offensive to those of us who value truth and integrity. However, perhaps it is time to look at what happened to the 1962 MR between 1962 and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae by Paul VI in 1969. Over 300 posts on this blog have, generally, looked at how the 1962 rite differs from the rite that preceded it so it may be useful to consider looking briefly at what followed the 1962 rite.
As a starting point let us look at my latest acquistion. It is a 1962 edition of the Missal published in the United States of America in 1964. On the title page, above) the date of publication can be seen. Following this is a Decree from the Episcopal Conference of the USA followed by a decree addressed to the same Episcopal Conference of the USA from the Consilium, Protocol No. 622/64, stating inter alia what parts of the Mass may be celebrated in the vernacular. Interesting to note the familiar name of the Secretary. Then one finds Quo primum, Cum sanctissimum, Si quid est, Rubricarum instructum and Novum rubricarum, the 1962 rubrics etc.
After the usual contents turning of the pages brings one to the First Sunday of Advent. This is what one finds:
Note that the introit, re-named 'antiphon at the introit' in the 1962 MR (the term used for the first time in the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus in 1956) and later books, is in English. The collect and other orations remain in Latin but the Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia, Gospel, 'antiphon at the offertory' and 'and antiphon at communion' are also in the vernacular.
Turning to the Ordo Missae one finds Judica me and Psalm 42 in Latin. Judica me, as we shall see in subsequent posts, was cut for all days in the '1965' rite but its inclusion here indicates this is a 1962 edition of the Missal. However, turning the page one finds the Kyrie and Gloria in English.
Then the introduction to the proclamation of the Gospel is also in English as is the Creed. All is then back in Latin until the Sanctus.
The Canon remains in Latin but the Pater noster, Agnus Dei, dismissal and blessing are in English.
So here we have an example of a 1962 Missal which has seen a significant number of texts vernacularised but with no other structural changes. It seems the 'Mass of Ages' would be better described as the Mass of the Age. Later in 1964 came the next stage of the reform which structurally altered the Ordo Missae, and much more besides. This will be discussed in further posts.
As to this edition of the 1962 MR it will be joining its stable mates firmly upside-down on my shelves.
Thank you, an interesting post. The 1962 MR that you have here is rather different from the actual celebration of the 1962 Missal that I attend each week, which has no vernacular whatsoever (except the repetition of the Epistle and Gospel). Actually, that goes for any celebration of the 1962 MR that I've ever attended.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that the latest clarification of Summorum Pontificum from PCED states explicitly that the readings must not be only in the vernacular and must be read/sung in Latin, with the option of a repetition in the vernacular. So I think we have pulled back from the edge, so to speak (actually, I think we did that many years ago).
On the point about your exasperation with traddie bloggers referring to the 1962 MR as the traditional Mass, there is a problem here. Which edition of the Roman Missal, according to your good self, marked the end of the traditional Missal and the start of "something else" (I refrain from giving it a label to avoid tangential discussions on nomenclature!)? Not a trick question, I simply want you to define your terms. No doubt you've stated it umpteen times before, but I'm a relative newcomer to this blog, so bear with me.
Steve
Many thanks for this post. I have one of these missals but have never considered it in the way that you just have - very enlightening. I look forward to further posts on the subject. BTW, one thing that will keep it off of my altar is its beefy size and weight.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent post Rubricarius. I have linked to it on my own blog.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteSurely that is part of the game? Modern celebrations using the 1962 rite are made to be as 'old rite' as they can be, even often with 'cheating' such as bows to the Cross, the Confiteor before Communion etc. Back in the early 1960s the opposite was the case with petitions for more reform.
In terms of historic editions of the Roman Missal - and of course the question is more complex than 'cut off' dates - then the 1939 editio post typica probably would be the best choice and is consistent with editions which preceded it. This date of course doesn't really work for the Office that well.
I cannot see how, even ignoring the other changes and with Latin being used, the 1962 MR can be considered 'traditional' with the glaring anomoly of the novelites of the Pian Holy Week etc.
The point about this post, and the one which will follow it is that the 1962 MR was never a stable rite (depending on how precise on wants to be lasting two or three years) and an interim measure for future reform.
These "1964 missals" are somewhat common over here in the colonies. Benziger also published an edition.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine the expenses incurred by publishers and parishes as they tried to keep up with the latest editions of the liturgical books during that time.
Scott
ReplyDeleteIs the Benziger edition the same, i.e. the 1962 MR with approved vernacular or actually a 1964/5 ritus?
I have only ever seen the edition I have and an identical one in the British Library.
I think 1962 MR with approved vernacular. See the results of this Abebooks search. The descriptions for the Benziger editions seem to match the CBP editions.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that I've seen Benziger "Roman missals" on eBay, dated to 1964, with the same mixed Latin/English propers arrangement that you show in your post.
Thank you Scott.
ReplyDeleteI have a particular reason for asking as the 1965 Ordo Missae was ordered to be published in new editions of the Missal.
Here's a 1964 Benziger currently on eBay, with some nice pictures showing the pre-65 Ordo Missae:
ReplyDeletehttp://cgi.ebay.com/Roman-Missal-Latin-Catholic-Tridentine-Mass-LARGE-/150453297420
Rubricarius,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's more complex than cut-off dates, and I also agree that the various revisions to the Roman Missal through the 1950s and 60s were pointing in a particular direction, and not one I like! However, if one is to take a position that says, 'I approve of this Roman Missal, but not of that Roman Missal', then logically there has to be a "cut-off point". I appreciate it can be as difficult as Archimedes' ship, but logically it's possible and desirable to pin-point the moment of change (because clarity in such matters is desirable, if not essential).
Now, you've drawn the line in 1939 for the Missal. I would draw the line with the Missal of Paul VI, and would disagree with the criticism of those who champion 1962. My reason is that in 1969/1970 it is quite clear there was a deliberate cut-off point. Paul VI made it easy for us by calling it the New Order of Mass, and it was then, for most Catholics, that the proverbial hit the rotating cooling machine and millions walked away from the Church. That didn't happen in 1962.
Another observation. I think every priest who can celebrate the 1962 Missal could, with very little trouble, celebrate according to 1951 or 1939, etc. A priest who only knows the 1970 Missal couldn't. Not a hope! Why? Because it's a completely different rite of Mass, that is utterly alien. The 1962 versus its predecessors is close, indeed part of the same organic development. For years I've followed the 1962 Missal in my 1940s missal with no trouble at all. I couldn't with a Novus Ordo missal.
I mentioned organic development. The changes through the 1950s and 1960s were organic, or at least incremental, but that wasn't good enough for the reformers, and in the end they had to go for full-blooded revolution. Cue the 1970 Missal.
What is my point, you may well be asking! Simply this, that traddies trumpeting the 1962 Missal are not on the other side of the fence; they're on your side. I think most Catholics attending their nearest 1962 Mass would be happy to see pre-1962 practices restored. The second Confiteor (or, more to the point, second Absolution) that you mention is an obvious example. But week in, week out, our spirituality and Faith are being nourished by the (shall we say "a") Traditional Mass and, speaking from personal experience, that is a life-transforming experience when compared to the spiritual desert that is the Novus Ordo.
Keep up your valuable apostolate. It is a brilliant resource.
Steve
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was the publishing of this missal that led to Benzinger & Sons going under. Previous to this "1964" missal they had exclusive rights to publishing altar missals in the USA; I believe it was at this time that other publishers were given license to publish missals as well. Benzinger was left with a warehouse full of missals and absolutely no buyers; so, it was good-bye to them and all of their other superfluous traditional wares: Bruce and Pustet publishing suffered similar fates around this time – publishers of traditional devotional books were cut off at the knees. And not only that, but this was the beginning of our current culture of industrially mass-produced “cardboard”, crumb-less, “tastes like yuck” altar breads. Now, the sisters who were formed on "ora et labora" were free to explore psychologist directed "liberation" workshops and get in touch with their inner what-ever-it-is.
ReplyDeleteFascinating!
ReplyDeleteWe Anglicans only have to worry about the 1933 and 1955 English Missals!
Look forward to the next installments
I'm glad you finally got that set of Monastic Breviaries.
ReplyDeleteA comparative study of the Roman and Monastic Rites would be a good idea for a blog post at some future time.
Dear Steve,
ReplyDeleteI must beg to differ with you and your reasoned analysis. certainly would not agree with the idea that the changes in the 1950s were 'organic'. Rewriting Holy Week in a most radical manner cannot be anything but 'inorganic' to continue the metaphor.
As to 1962 priests wanting, or to be willing to use earlier editions, I would most respectfully suggest you are wrong. Those clergy tend to canonise the idea that the point of departure, shall we say, was the Second Vatican Council. To them everything that preceded the Council was hunky-dory, everything after anathema - or close to it.
Likewise, although you, and by your suggestion your confreres might like to see a 'pre-1962' restoration I would suggest that the raison d'etre of the 'indult/motu proprio' crowd would regard such a development with horror.
Kind regards. R/P
Thank you for this most interesting post. I had never seen this edition before. The decree allowing the vernacular in some parts of the mass and even anticipating the instruction "Inter oecumenici" (September 26, 1964) is dated from May 1, 1964, so this is indeed the rare case of a "1964" Missal! Was this the first post-conciliar bilingual altar Missal of the Roman rite or were there countries where the vernacular had been introduced even earlier?
ReplyDeleteHere in Germany, the first bilingual Altar Missals were the ones with the well-known "1965" Rite. The very first edition of Vol. III from June 1965 (which was the first of the three volumes to appear) does not yet contain vernacular prefaces because saying the preface in the vernacular was only approved later in 1965.
BTW, are there any "Latin-only" Missals of the 1965 rite? I have never seen one.
Aedifex,
ReplyDelete1964 gets rather complex with anticipations of the next stage of reform happening at different times in different countries.
In the next post on this subject I'll look at what happened in England and Wales from Advent Sunday 1964 and then consider the 1965 Ordo Missae and other changes.
I would value your comments then to compare with what was happening in Germany.
You are making points here based on this Missal having the vernacular in it; there were plenty of the same vintage which do not! Notice also it's American... that great bastion of (slipping) standards!
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteAll Latin editions of 'the same vintage' allow for the use of the vernacular in certain, albeit limited circumstances e.g. the Procession of Palms, the renewal of Baptismal promises, Rogation Processions when the people are present etc.
The point is that by 1964 the next stages of the reform process were being implemented.
As for the USA and standards the English and Welsh reforms in 1964 were significantly more radical with special permission granted by Rome for more vernacular than SC permitted.
I guess I've just been fortunate in which ones I've seen.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the point to be made that the so-called traditionalists you berate at least drew the line at '62 and realise that '64 etc took it too far?
Here is my contribution to the “Mass Competition” from May 7. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to find out when exactly a change in the rubrics was mandated and/or went into force. For sake of simplicity (and sometimes just because I don’t know exactly) in some answers I use “1962” for the changes introduced in the pontificate of John XXIII. between 1959 and 1962 and “1970” for changes between “Tres abhinc annos” (1967) and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo 1970.
ReplyDelete1. Aboliton of the present duplication of readings.
(facultative celebration of ) Easter Vigil: “Dominicae resurrectionis” Feb 9, 1951
Entire Holy Week (mandatory): “Maxima redemptionis nostrae” Nov 16, 1955
Mandatory for all days: 1962 Missal. Actually most of the rubrical variations were done with the introduction of the new code of rubrics for the missal and breviary (Rubricarum instructum, Jul 25, 1960) if I remember correctly.
2. Omission of the Judica, etc.
It’s not clear what exactly is meant by “Judica etc.” Psalm Judica was of course omitted in the Pius XII. Holy Week liturgy, but that’s because it was omitted in the Masses “de tempore“of Passiontide anyway.
The entire prayers at the foot of the altar (until the incensation and Introit, exclusive) were first omitted in the reformed Easter Vigil 1951, From 1956 on they were also to be omitted in the Mass after the Palm Sunday procession and from 1960 in addition to the above in all Masses with a special blessing or procession before (Candlemass, after blessing of candles and procession, Ash Wednesday, after blessing and imposition of ashes, Rogation Days, after procession, Masses following consecrations in the Pontifical)
Psalm Judica was omitted in all Masses after introduction of the new (1965) Ordo Missae (“Nuper edita”, 27 Jan, 1965), carrying out the prescriptions of the instruction “Inter oecumenici”, 26 Sep, 1964). The 1965 Ordo also states (no 5) that “Omnes supradictæ preces,[the prayers at the foot of the altar] non autem osculum altaris, omittuntur, quoties alia actio liturgica immediate præcessit.” “Alia actio liturgica” also included Asperges, Terce etc.
3. The second part of the Mass should be called: the Liturgy of the Word. It should be carried out in choro, not at the altar.
The sub-heading “Liturgia Verbi” in the ordo missae was first introduced in the new (1970) Missal (“Missale romanum” 26 Apr, 1969)
The first introduction of lessons and prayers with the celebrant at the seat in non-pontifical Masses was with the Old Testament lessons (formerly “Prophecies”) in the reformed Easter Vigil of 1951 (see above). With the Holy Week changes of 1955 (see above) this was extended to the Good Friday “Actio liturgica” For all Masses (at least Masses “cum populo”) it was introduced with the 1965 Ordo Missae.
4. Never more than one Collect (with rare exceptions).
1) Limitation to three collects at maximum (and abolition of the collects “pro diversitate temporum assignatae”): Decree “Cum nostra hac aetate”, 23 Mar, 1955
2) Further restrictions, e.g., no commemoration of Sundays replaced by a “Festum Domini”, Codex rubricarum 1960
3) Only one prayer but in certain cases addition of another one under the same conclusion: “Tres abhinc annos”, May 4, 1967
4) Strictly one collect only: 1970 Missal
5. A three- or four-year cycle of Lessons and Gospels for Sundays.
1970 Missal (Decree “Ordinem lectionum”, 25 May, 1969)
6. Less frequent recitation of the Credo.
1) Credo only on Sundays, I class feasts, feasts of the Lord, Octaves of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, Feasts of the Blessed Virgin, birthday Feasts of Apostles and Evangelists, Cathedra Petri, St. Barnabas: codex rubricarum 1960
2) Credo only on Sundays and Solemn Feasts: 1970 Missal
7. The Prex fidelium (Bidding Prayers) - should be reintroduced as the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word. Omit the Dominus vobiscum at the beginning of the Offertory.
Bidding prayers: Ordo Missae of 1965
Omission of Dominus vobiscum: 1970
(Continuation of the last post)
ReplyDelete8. The sacred vessels should not be on the altar before the Offertory.
For solemn Masses (with deacon and subdeacon) this had been the rule before. It was introduced into non-solemn Masses as an option with the Ordo Missae and Ritus servandus of 1965, as the general rule with the Missal of 1970.
9. More Prefaces, but only those which refer to the Memoria Passionis.
There were a few prefaces added in the 1962 Missal (Holy Sacrament, Saints, Dedication of a church) pro aliquibus locis, which apparently became generally approved afterwards. A large number of prefaces (not sure how many in the latin edition) were finally added in the 1970 Missal.
10. The priest should wait for the end of the Sanctus to continue the Mass. The different Amens during the Canon should be eliminated.
In the 1965 rite, the celebrant was allowed to sing or recite the parts of the Ordinary together with the congregation or choir. From 1967 on, the Canon was regularly recited aloud in Masses cum populo. The conclusions and Amens were made facultative in the 1970 Ordo but sometimes altogether omitted in the official vernacular translations.
11. No Confiteor, etc., at Communion time.
1962 Missal
12. No Last Gospel. The Last Blessing ends the Mass.
Ordo missae 1965
13. Rename the Secreta: "Oratio super oblata", and make it the audible conclusion of the Offertory.
Oratio super oblata: 1962 Missal
Audible recitation: 1965
14. Sing the Great Doxology at the end of the Canon; eliminate its five signs of the cross and elevate the two Sacred Species during the Doxology. No genuflection before this elevation and perhaps no genuflection at all.
1) Singing and elimination of the crosses: 1965
2) No genuflection before the doxology (but still after the doxology): 1967
3) No genuflection at all: 1970
15. After the Pater noster: regroup the prayers and ceremonies and find a way to have the congregation participate in the Pax.
Ordo missae 1970
16. Develop the interval between Communion and Post-communion (prayers and singing, consult other liturgies).
Tres abhinc annos states: “A Mass celebrated with a congregation should include, according to circumstances, either a period of silence or the singing or recitation of a Psalm or Canticle of praise, e.g., Ps 33 [34], I will bless the Lord, Ps 150, Praise the Lord in his sanctuary or the Canticle Bless the Lord [Dn 3:35] or Blessed are you, O Lord [1 Chr 29:10].” More options were given in the 1970 Missal.
(Third and last part)
ReplyDelete17. Regulate the use of Ite, missa est and Benedicamus Domino (see the new regulation on Holy Thursday).
1) Benedicamus Domino (and omission of the blessing and last gospel) on Holy Thursday: 1955 Holy Week
2) Ite missa est even in Masses without Gloria: 1962
3) Benedicamus Domino and omission of blessing in all Masses followed by a procession, e.g. on Corpus Christi: 1962
4) Ite missa est instead of Requiescant in pace, blessing before dismissal (even in Masses for the dead): 1967
5) Complete abolition of Benedicamus Domino: 1970
18. The revised Easter Vigil is the model of the principles which should govern future reforms.
This is plain from the facts above. Obviously, the “new Holy Week” was a trial run for changes to come and sticks out like a sore thumb even in the 1962 Missal.
19. Sing or recite aloud the Per ipsum (Great Doxology); no signs of the cross; elevate the two Species until the Amen of the people; no genuflection here, or only after the Amen [repeating no. 14].
See above
20. No Amen after the Pater noster; sing or recite aloud the Libera nos; no sign of the cross with the empty paten, no kiss [anticipating the projects at Lugano].
1965 Ordo
21. Place the first Domine Jesu Christe immediately after the Libera (or suppress it entirely); follow the Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum with no ceremony of the Host; no response of the people; give Pax afterward (this is spelled out in detail on pp. 242-3 of the report).
Introduced (with some modifications) in 1970
22. Breaking of the Host takes place after the Pax, with no accompanying ceremony, while the congregation sings the Agnus Dei; at low Mass the priest says it after the Fractio. The two Communion prayers should then follow or be suppressed (see pp.242-4 of the report).
1970
23. The celebrant receives half the Host, the other half is either given to those who serve at the altar or distributed with the ciborium.
As far as I recall never formally introduced, but widely practiced since the 1960s
24. No Confiteor, etc., at Communion time; shortening of the "Corpus" prayer during the distribution (p. 239 of the report elaborates the 1951 Maria Laach resolution).
No confiteor: see above
Shortening of the communion formula to “Corpus Christi”: 1965
25. Have the Communio sung solemnly during the distribution, even in the vernacular.
Sung during distribution: 1960
Vernacular: 1965
26. At the end of the Mass: Ite missa est (only), Deo gratias, kiss of the altar (no Placeat), blessing, and people's Amen. No Last Gospel or Leonine prayers.
See above no. 17. The Leonine prayers were never in the Missal anyway and their recitation was suppressed by "Inter oecumenici" in 1964.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteNo. The point is that 1962 was never intended as anything but an intermediate step in a well planned and continuing process of reform.
Aedifex,
ReplyDeleteBrilliant!
I will respond to your excellent comments in due course. I have a dinner party this evening and must do some work.
Let me know if you want a copy of Ordo 2010 or 2011 (when available).
Well done.
I agree wholeheartedly with your criticisms of the 1962 Missal. However, it is disingenuous to represent this specimen as a '1962' missal, when it clearly contains notable modifications from the 1962 form.
ReplyDeleteThe Decree at the front 'Ut universi Christi' makes quite clear that changes have been made to this edition, to implement the Decree 'Sacrosanctum Concilium' of V2.
There genuine 1962 Benziger Missal has been reprinted by 'Preserving Christian Publications'; another has been produced by Roman Catholic Books; or there is a pdf form which can be downloaded from sanctamissa.org. The known name in the front of that one was Larraona, not Bugnini.
What you have appears to differ very little from the 1965 edition of the missal - which some traditional groups have wanted to use. I believe they use it often at Le Barroux. Am I correct in thinking that in the early days of the FSSPX it was used by Archbishop Lefebvre at his seminary, and it was only as the 1970s wore on, and the situation in the church became clearer, that the FSSPX reverted to 1962 (or earlier forms in some cases)?
Some priests who use the 1962 Missal would certainly prefer to use previous forms, but use the 1962 since they believe that it is necessary to do so to be obedient to the pope. Others would like to use the 1962 with innovations, or perhaps to use the 1965.
Those who use pre-1962 forms tend to be circumspect about it, or do it out of ignorance.
Most laity who attend the old mass, who know what is at issue, would prefer to revert to pre-1962 forms. At least, that's been my experience.
I'm not sure that anyone uses the 1962 Missal because he believes it to be the ultimate in the organic development of the liturgy. If there is any such person, it would be interesting to hear an argument. The most that can be said of 1962 is that it was a stage in the reform of the mass. Reform is neutral - improvement or decay, depending on your perspective.
1965 could be justified, perhaps, on the grounds that it is 'just what the council ordered.' The justification of 1962 would be a negative one - it's precisely 'not what the council ordered' being the last definitive version before V2 got going.
I would be interested to know what actually happened in England in 1962. Clearly some clergy were wanting to rush ahead into innovations. But I have no doubt that others regretted any change, or even ignored them.
Probably the majority regarded the reforms of the time as 'simplifications' and had little understanding of the agenda. Why should they have had? Very few people knew that it was part of a well thought out strategem to change the liturgy.
I don't understand why 1939 is a problem for the Office, any more than for the Missal. I use a Breviary from about that vintage. It is regrettable that some later feasts (eg The Immaculate Heart of Mary, established in 1944) do not appear, and these need to be imported from later versions if they are to be marked. But the actual structure of the Office isn't a problem: Vulgate psalms, preces feriae, octaves, commemorations. Can you expand on why 1939 is perceived to be an issue?
I've always taken the Holy Year of 1950 as a watershed, though that's for convenience rather than through any logic. The Pian version of the Psalms is to be avoided, however.
Rubricarius: In some respects I can see that you mean where you call it a bridge, but I don't see it as a reason to berate others. My point is that the form of the Mass in 1962 was the same as it had been previously, whereas after that it was radically changed: you should be pleased that people draw the line there at least.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks indeed for your insightful comment.
Briefly, for now, I do not think it is being disingenuous to describe the book in question as a 1962 rite Missal. It is that and clearly does not have the changes (in England and Wales) from Advent 1964 or the 1965 Ordo Missae. It simply has some texts in the vernacular rather than Latin.
John XXIII even mentioned fortcoming deeper changes when promulgating the 1960 rubrics. The 1962 rite has been described as the 'Mass of the Council' etc. As to changes what about Nove hisce temporibus? That became effective 8th December 1962 yet missals bearing the SRC protocol of 25th June 1962 saying the 'Missal' is an editio typica have the name of St. Joseph inserted into the communicantes.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThe 'original' 1962 Missal is substantially changed from the Missals that preceded it.
Put two side by side and compare them.
I am talking about the ordinary. Am I missing a trick here?
ReplyDeleteAm I missing a trick here?
ReplyDeleteYes... it's just about the ordinary but everything else that goes with it!
Mark,
ReplyDeleteConfining changes to the Ordinary then, for example:
a) Omission of prayers at the foot of the altar on Candlemass, Palm Sunday, Holy Saturday, Rogations etc
b) Alteration of the Canon by the insertion of St. Joseph,
c) changes to use of Ite, missa est and Benedicamus Domino, omission of blessing and last Gospel on certain day
Not to mention the rules governing the Ordiary parts e.g. bows to the Cross, number of orations etc etc.
@Rubricarius
ReplyDeleteAedifex,
Brilliant!
Thank you very much.
(...)
Let me know if you want a copy of Ordo 2010 or 2011 (when available).
Of course I have already got a copy of the 2010 Ordo but I would very much appreciate getting the 2011 one. Details via PM.
Many thanks again,
Aedifex
David,
ReplyDeleteA fuller response to your comment now time allows.
I am not suggesting that changes had not been made to the 'typical' edition of the 1962 MR, that is really my point that changes were happening fast and furious during this period.
The ‘typical’ edition did indeed bear the names of Cardinal Larraona and Abp. Dante. The Church Music Association of America pdf version has the name of St. Joseph in the Canon so must have actually been published after November 1962 or the knowledge of that addition was known before to the printers. However, the 1964 printing is still exactly the same in its rubrics and text to the ‘typical’ 1962 edition with the exception that some of the texts are in the vernacular following the decisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
The Ordo Missae, Ritus servandus and De defectibus are still in the idential form as the 1962 'typical' edition. These were changed, albeit only shortly afterwards in January 1965, replacing the 1962 forms. In the 1965 rite there are textual changes such as the omission of Judica me Deus and the last Gospel. The 1965 Ritus also incorporated Paul VI’s 1964 shortening of the formula for the distribution of Communion to Corpus Christi whilst the 1964 edition I posted about has the form found in previous missals. The 1965 Ritus is, in one respect, at least more logical than the 1962 form in that the celebrant does not read the introit, gradual, offertory etc if these are being sung. In the 1962 Ritus the celebrant does not read the epistle and Gospel when these are sung by ministers but does read the ‘choir’ parts. In the 1965 rite the celebrant does not recite the Kyrie and Gloria etc if they are sung either but may sing them with the choir. Again none of these changes appear in the 1964 edition I made the subject of this post.
My understanding from a discussion many years ago with Fr. Edward Black is that Econe used 1967 with three missals required for Mass: one on the altar, one on the lectern for the readings and one at the sedilia. I do not think consistency was really observed though with some earlier practices making an appearance. Indeed in the mid-1970s there had been a return to 1962 generally amongst the French clergy and ‘pre-Pius XII’ use generally associated with the English speaking and German clergy.
I sincerely hope I am wrong in my perception of celebrants and congregations using the 1962 books. An old friend said to me over a decade ago that as interest in the older liturgy grows there will be a natural move away, in an earlier direction, from 1962.
I think in England at the time of the 1962 books a significant, though relatively small, number of clergy ignored them and kept to previous forms. A larger number of clergy were inspired by Mgr. Crichton and his kind to rush into uncharted waters.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that few people realised the stratagem in place for change – hindsight has its advantages!
My point about 1939 for the Office was that I do not think we can ignore what happened in 1911-13. That reform was carried out very quickly, in a matter of weeks in fact. The loss of ancient structures like the Laudate psalms needs a sensitive re-visiting at some stage. Without going into details of that reform, which it has to be said was radical, one aspect I believe has not been considered was the impact it had on the clergy. Young priests around then would have seen their liturgical prayer life re-ordered by Roman fiat. I believe those men, many of them bishops and even popes forty years on, had developed a mentality that the Church can do what it likes with the Liturgy, which they had experienced in living memory, which in turn helps explain why the resistance to the changes was generally weak amongst the majority of senior clergy.
Best regards.
Rubricarious,
ReplyDelete"This date (1939) of course doesn't really work for the Office that well."
I wonder what you mean by that.
"Rubicurious".
Rubicurious,
ReplyDeleteI meant the 1911-13 reform needs some consideration as I mentioned above.
Some years ago the SSPX wrote a theological critique of the missal of Paul VI, which was mailed to priests around the world. Perhaps someone should write a liturgical critique of the reforms of Pius XII and mail it to every "traditionalist" priest in the world.
ReplyDeleteIt should be nailed to their chests, not merely mailed to the blighters.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't have happened in my day, I can tell you; all this "traditionalist" nonsense.
Doner kebab und blitzen.
It should be nailed to their chests, not merely mailed to the blighters.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't have happened in my day, I can tell you; all this "traditionalist" nonsense.
I LOVE this comment! That's great!
Nice blog Rubricarius! Fantastic.
How is it that St John the Bapist's Nativity Octave is higher in rank than Our Lady's Nativity Octave in the Rampolla/Pius X changes of 1911?
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't make any sense to me.
Musicus.
Musicus,
ReplyDeleteA very good question indeed.
I'd be interested to read an in-depth take on the changes of 1911.
ReplyDeleteEpicurious.
Epicurious,
ReplyDeleteThis week I have just finished the first part of an article on that very subject for the journal 'Usus Antiquior'!
The first part of the article describes the Breviary and its Offices as they stood in 1911 - which are not familiar to most people having passed from living memory - and the second part will deal with what happened in 1911 and 1913.
2011 obviously marks the centenary of Divino afflatu. I will publish something else here or on 'The Tridentine Rite' blog.
Good. I shall look forward to that.
ReplyDeleteEpicurious.