Last night when I was up late working, I also couldn't help distracting myself from work occasionally, and came across this post about the 1965 'mass of Vatican II' which was the original (and at the time expected to be the only) revision of the Tridentine Mass based upon the recommendations of the Council.
The 1965 missal was a much lesser departure from the 1962 missal (which is what is generally celebrated both under the indult) and perhaps in many ways fit the bill for a gradual, organic reform that brought the mass back into line with its historical and theological purpose.
The readings were said in the vernacular, while the ordinary of the mass remained in Latin. A few accreted prayers and gestures were removed from the Tridentine missal. But generally, it sounds like the 1965 order of the mass was very close to its immediate predecessor.
You can read a defense of the changes from the 1962 to the 1965 missal here.
And a description of the 1965 order of the mass here.
The text is here.
I can't say I wish I was alive in the 60's, but this sounds like the sort of reform that many of us on the more conservative end of the spectrum would have been quite satisfied with. Sadly, that is water under the bridge at this point.
FROM THE ILLUSTRATED EDITION.
3 hours ago
1 comment:
There's a hundred ways they could have "reformed" the Mass without destroying it.
The Dialog Mass pretty much fit the bill as far as "participation of the laity". They could have just made the readings in the vernacular and everyone would have been okay with it.
Changing the calendar and readings would have been no big deal either - it happened often enough. Add a reading? No biggy, that could have been done without without much ado.
IMHO, changes as minor as those done to the confiteor were destructive (it's like a child's version of the real thing - not a bad prayer, but nowhere near as pious as the original). The new Eucharistic prayers are nowhere near as good as the original, though elements may not be without merit.
Ditching the reverent Kiss of Peace fot that evil thing we call the Sign of Peace was an awful blunder. And even though nothing called for turning the priest away from God (nice hyperbole, huh? - but somewhat valid), it happened, and personally I would say that that is the single greatest reason why the what we enounter such awful liturgies.
You just can't have the priest facing the people and him not become the absolute focal point. It's just human nature. It becomes him facing you and you facing him, rather than everyone looking toward God. The priest standing in person of Chist offering the Most Holy Sacrifice for us and leading us in worship to the Almighty.
The priest facing the people also has the effect of making his personality a part of the Mass. I don't care how good, humble and reverant a priest may be, his personality wedges itself in.
The 1965 missal isn't bad, but the 1962 Dialog Mass with some vernacular would be very doable and satisfactory most everyone (excluding the Mahony types of course). Though I'd still prefer the Low Mass any day.
Post a Comment