The Mass of 1965
#1
At Mass today in the give away section of the entrance where pamphlets and stuff are put I picked up a missal from 1965 it is the in between Mass the one that came between the 62 and the 69/70 goof ball Mass of Paul VI.
Was the 1965 Missal the one that was called for by the council? And why did Paul VI have a whole new Mass written up by six Protestants and a Freemason since the missal of 65 follows all of what the council's document on the Mass called for.
I am confused looking through the Missal of 65 it seems that the shortening and editing out of prayers that were superflous was done why then did Pope Paul have a new Mass written up if what the council called for was already done?
Reply
#2
I was under the impression that the "middle Mass" was thrown in there to begin the revolution.  You know, prepare the way for the "big one." 

That's of course adding some interpretation to history.
Reply
#3
(05-04-2009, 12:50 AM)neel Wrote: I was under the impression that the "middle Mass" was thrown in there to begin the revolution.   You know, prepare the way for the "big one." 

That's of course adding some interpretation to history.
I see that makes sense because the "middle Mass" is at least Catholic. It still has the same canon and the essentials are there. Reading through it in the Missal I thought it seemed like a Readers Digest condensed book. It was the Mass just had a lot of stuff cut out or made optional. Than you get the Novus Ordo which is barely Catholic thats it Eucharistic prayer 1 is used.
Reply
#4
Mgr. Gamber argues that the 1965 Missal was what the council-fathers called for, but with more readings from the Bible.
Reply
#5
Baskerville Wrote:Was the 1965 Missal the one that was called for by the council?

In addition to Gamber, the Adoremus Bulletin is of the mind that the 1965 Missal was in line with the changes called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. How we ended up with the 1969 Missal, I don't know.

Quote:And why did Paul VI have a whole new Mass written up by six Protestants and a Freemason since the missal of 65 follows all of what the council's document on the Mass called for.

He did not. This is a traditionalist talking point, and a bad one at that. It is used more for emotion than anything else.

While this poster finds it difficult that Annibale Bugnini was not a Mason (no one gets posted to Iran for being a good boy), we first must ask ourself whether Pope Paul VI knew this at the time of appointing Bugnini to his highly influential position? The answer would seem to be no. This is based on the fact that when Paul VI was supposedly presented with fileson Freemasons in the Church in 1975, Bugnini was reassigned to Iran within a year. A rapid fall from grace. By '75, the revised liturgy - including the new Office - was already in effect.

The second problem with the above statement was that the six Protestant Experts who were present at the formulation of the Mass of Paul VI were just advisers, they had absolutely no voting rights on the New Mass.  It is disturbing they were there to begin with, but let's just take it as a misguided act of friendliness rather than anything sinister.
Reply
#6
(05-04-2009, 07:52 AM)Credo Wrote:
Baskerville Wrote:Was the 1965 Missal the one that was called for by the council?

In addition to Gamber, the Adoremus Bulletin is of the mind that the 1965 Missal was in line with the changes called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. How we ended up with the 1969 Missal, I don't know.

Quote:And why did Paul VI have a whole new Mass written up by six Protestants and a Freemason since the missal of 65 follows all of what the council's document on the Mass called for.

He did not. This is a traditionalist talking point, and a bad one at that. It is used more for emotion than anything else.

While this poster finds it difficult that Annibale Bugnini was not a Mason (no one gets posted to Iran for being a good boy), we first must ask ourself whether Pope Paul VI knew this at the time of appointing Bugnini to his highly influential position? The answer would seem to be no. This is based on the fact that when Paul VI was supposedly presented with fileson Freemasons in the Church in 1975, Bugnini was reassigned to Iran within a year. A rapid fall from grace. By '75, the revised liturgy - including the new Office - was already in effect.

The second problem with the above statement was that the six Protestant Experts who were present at the formulation of the Mass of Paul VI were just advisers, they had absolutely no voting rights on the New Mass.  It is disturbing they were there to begin with, but let's just take it as a misguided act of friendliness rather than anything sinister.

If anything truly sinister happened or not, it can be easily seen by all today that the Protestant and Masonic efforts in the New Mass were heard loud and clear, due to the fact that the New Mass is closer Protestantism than Catholicism - regardless if they had "voting privileges" or not, with the abolishing of the altar and the replacement of such a necessary thing with a Lutheran "supper table." -- Not to mention the watering down of the Liturgy.  The fact that Bugnini stated that the New Mass must be stripped of all things Catholic so as to be more easily accepted by heretics should be evidence enough of the wickedness of its "promulgation" -- not to mention the suppression of the true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time to be used in perpetuity -- all these things can be seen as somewhat "sinister" in my eyes.
Reply
#7
Good points in the above post, except,

Quote:the true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time to be used in perpetuity

"The true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time" was changed a few decades after Quo Primum was issued, and it was changed again a few decades after that, and a few decades thereafter, all the way down to 1955 and 1962.

Indeed, the same stipulation of Pope Pius' is true for the Breviary. A point that is never, ever brought up by trads is that the Divine Office, on which Pius V enjoined the same strict prohibitions against alteration, was drastically changed by Pope S. Pius X in the first-half of the 20th Century. Why the silence from trads?

BTW - My point in critiquing the stock arguments traditionalists use against the Novus Ordo is not that I'm newly enamoured with the revised liturgy. Rather, now that we trads "have a place at the table" since 2007s Summorum Pontificum, it's time we refine our apology for tradition to reflect history more accurately. That's all.
Reply
#8
Credo, your analysis is correct. Since they now have a "seat at the table" their discussion should be measured and rational, as the criticism of the 1969 Mass will stand on it's own. It is more than ironic that the 1965 Mass could be a model to "fix" the 1970 Mass, and bring both forms closer together. It appears to me that Bishop Fellay's Rosary Crusade is the next logical step before discussions can begin.
tim
Reply
#9
It was never my understanding that the Mass of 1965 was the Mass "called for by the council." I think it was a transitional liturgy to prepare the faithful for more revolutionary changes - but I can't swear to it. I agree with Timoose that it's ironic that the 1965 Mass could very well be the model used to bring the two forms closer together. The 1965 Mass was less a departure from the 1962, but the changes were definitely noticeable. It's the Mass I mostly remember from my grade school years (1962-1970). The Pauline Mass wasn't introduced until I was in 8th grade -- maybe my first year of high school.

- Lisa
Reply
#10
(bites tongue)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)