Fr Z has an excellent podcast analysing Pope Paul VI's General Audience address for 26 November 1969 in which he speaks about the "liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass" which was to be introduced on the first Sunday of Advent, four days later.I was struck by this passage in the address:
So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms.Four days is not much time to prepare; clearly people were expected just to get on with it and "prepare" as they went along. Another passage makes this clear:
But there is still a practical difficulty, which the excellence of the sacred renders not a little important. How can we celebrate this new rite when we have not yet got a complete missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?Those of us who were around at that time remember that for years every altar was littered with booklets and bits of paper to keep up with whatever had recently changed in the rite of Mass by way of texts, translations and temporary books.
15 comments:
I wasn't even born in 1969 but obviously people were much more robust (or clever) then. Four days to "prepare" for an entirely and radically revised rite of the Mass but now 40 years later we apparantly need months of catechism in advance of some changes to wording of the same rite!
We ought to have a High Mass in the Old Rite to celebrate its anniversary - undoubtedly one of the greatest boons in the Church's liturgical history.
Quote: "We ought to have a High Mass in the Old Rite to celebrate its anniversary - undoubtedly one of the greatest boons in the Church's liturgical history"
Amen to that!.
Father, can it be argued that the unprecedented and universal imposition of a new missal, with almost no exceptions given and hardly any time to prepare, was an act of compromise by Paul VI to appease sections of the church almost facing schism over Humanae Vitae? For otherwise, what else could have motivated him?
I new things were rushed in back then, but I didn't realise it was THAT quick. What on earth were they thinking? So much for the saying I heard, 'The Vatican works in centuries, not days'.
I found listening to Paul VI's address very difficult indeed. It is also very interesting to note how many times he uses the word "innovation". To be honest, I'm left with a feeling of having been robbed in broad daylight.
I'm still thinking of a way of commemorating this anniversay. A black armband perhaps.
What struck me was that the Holy Father expected this to be a pastoral and evangelical boon, that it would make the Church grow more effectively. How wrong can one be? I had always thought that he was opposed to the vernacular but in the podcast it comes out clear that he saw it as necessary, as Christ's will. Reading Michael Davies' book 'Apologia for Marcel Lefebvre' (I only have vol. 1) I now understand a little why Pope Paul was so hard on the archbishop. If a prelate is resisting the 'will of Christ' what is one to do? Why did he allow such innovations though, why did he not come down on the liturgical abusers? It seems he may have thought it was a necessary stage in a process. We should pray for the soul of Pope Paul.
But what was the liturgy like 'four days' before the promulgation of the 1969 MR?
To suggest that there was a radical change in four days is rather taking liberties with history. Four days before the NOM the Mass was already in the vernacular (albeit a better translation - in England at least); in the vast majority of parishes already versus populum and had been for a long time; the new Eucharistic Prayers had been around for a year already; pericope cycles for different years had been in use for several years; parts of the Mass like Judica me and the last Gospel were becoming a fading memory etc., Hence all the pieces of paper with the latest introduction during the 1964 - 1970 period.
What was really new four days later? The new offertory prayers certainly but not much difference otherwise I would suggest.
Of course you are right that much of the change had already been introduced and it was not an overnight change from the 1962 missal.
Nevertheless, it is a stark contrast with the foot-dragging and training days for the new ICEL translation. And the fact that it was introduced before the books were printed is amazing.
For otherwise, what else could have motivated him?
"The extent of the willingness of this unhappy pope to sacrifice even the most sacred traditions of our faith to placate heretics was revealed to its full extent for the first time in an interview broadcast over French radio on December 19, 1993 by Jean Guitton, one of the closest friends of Pope Paul VI. Guitton made public the fact that the Pope had confided to him that his purpose in reforming the liturgy was not simply that it would correspond as closely as possible to Protestant forms of worship, but with that of the Calvinist sect, one of the most extreme manifestations of the Protestant heresy."
Liturgical Shipwreck, Michael Davies, 1994, Tan Books
Forgive my previous typo of '1969 MR'. The Ordo Missae was introduced in 1969 replacing the 1967 OM than in turn had replaced the '1965' OM that had previously replaced the Mass rite found in the 1962 MR. The new plenary MR did not appear until 1970.
In England and Wales the 1962 MR was last used in its entirety on the Saturday before Advent Sunday 1964 when the New Order of Mass was introduced.
The fact that the translations were up and running so quickly is really not that surprising considering the fervour that Liturgical Reform enjoyed at the time. An even cursory perusal of periodical such as 'Worship' and 'Clergy Review' reveals the hot topic of the day was reform from the post-War years. Clearly the translations had been worked on for some years earlier than they appeared. Indeed there is a 1962 edition of the MR in the British Library, printed in 1964 before the '1965' Order of Mass, that has translations appoved by the USA bishops in an ICEL style - but better (B.L. Cat. L.R.409.pp.6.)
I suspect the thing about Committee work is that members of any committee like to see their work come to fruition and so changes were rolled out in the 1960's very quickly in the hope that a wider audience wouldn't moderate them.
The new translations have taken far longer to prepare. I would guess due to disagreements and having to work through those.
I was going on for 10 then and I recall that what we called the "New Mass" didn't actually come in, in Ireland, until the first Sunday of the New Year 1970.
There was certainly confusion with the simplified opening rites, particularly I recall that one of our older Priests would regularly go half way through the former version before he realised in embarrassment that "Blessed Mary ever-virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter & Paul..." were now prominent by their absence, being replaced by "and to you, my brothers and sisters" (or was it still "brethren" back then?).
But since the Gloria, Credo and Sanctus hadn't changed from the 1965/66 forms I don't recall many problems as far as the congregation was concerned. My mother was annoyed that various saints had "gone" but never expressed anything more than a mild exasperation and a casting of the eyes to heaven, with her favourite expression "change for change's sake". I think it's called resignation? Her generation certainly practised that virtue, especially as the 70s progressed, although thankfully the Church in Ireland never visited the wilder shores of the wacky liturgical revolution.
Of course, the 1962 rite was never abrogated.
I started serving when I was about 8 or 9 in 1968 and everything was in English by then. I do recall placing various cards around the altar in the manner suggested by father. Too young to remember the significance of it all.
In respect of Paul VI one wonders if all this innovation was, in part, to counterbalance Humanae Vitae? To be honest, I've stopped believing anything Michael Davies ever wrote even when right on many things but that is just me.
Even if what Davies says—that Pope Paul VI wanted to "placate heretics" by "Protestantizing" the Mass—is false, we still have a mass that is nowhere near what the Vatican II council envisioned. I think we all can admit it is more Protestant-like than its 1962 form, cannot we?
Post a Comment