A Tridentine-Novus Ordo Hybrid Mass

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
Please read the link above, thank you!:smiley:
I’ve heard alot of folks complain equally about both forms of the Holy Mass. Both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine masses, each have their own unique benefits, Why not combine the best of both worlds with Ad Orientem Reverent Mass with lots of Gregorian Chant, polyphony, and incense and a good amount of Solid Latin or a Latin-English(or Vernacular for non-english speakers) mix?!!! I’d definately agree if the Holy Pontiff phased in this Missal of 1965 as the best of both worlds!
Pax Christi,
Matthew

Most of what I have read concerning complaints regarding the Novus Ordis is less about the NO as it is abuses.
Personally, I have not experienced the abuses about which many of the posters write.
That said, I want to avoid starting this thread in that direction.
The main purpose of revising the Mass, according to Vatican II documents, was to increase participation by the laity and to eliminate superfluous elements that added little to the worship.
I was trying to remember what the Collect is. From reading the link, it is a very late greeting and perhaps why the Sunday obigation was met when arriving before the Collect. It does not need to be returned.
I have no doubt that the Magisterium is working on a “hybrid” that will combine the best of both. The confiteor is recited more often now than it was in the past, at least at daily Mass.
One of the churches in my city is St. Pius X. One of his goals was liturgical reform and greater participation of the laity. It is my understanding that the pope and bishops are in constant communication regarding how to make the Mass more real.
I know Pope Benedict XVI in his document on the Eucharist, said he wanted to maintain the Sign of Peace. When Pope Paul VI expressed bringing the Sign of Peace back into the Mass, he was unsure what form it would take. I could see the bishops placing it after intercessory prayer in line with Jesus command “If when you bring your gift to the altar, you remember that your brother has a grievance against you, go first be reconciled and then bring your gift.” This Sign of Peace is a sign of reconciliation before the gifts are brought up:twocents:
I’m not sure that I want the 1965 missal, but I do see elements that could be used as the Mass continues to develop in a manner that increases reverence.

I like that. What were the problems with it?

Pope Paul VI said that he “ hoped” the New Mass would be accepted and he “ wished” that “Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future” and that “ legitimate variations and adaptations"would be allowed. So a hybrid is possible.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
ISSUED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
MISSALE ROMANUM
ON NEW ROMAN MISSAL
"the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished"
The major innovation concerns the Eucharistic Prayer…we have decided to add three new Canons to this Prayer…Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM. The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful…In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, “for legitimate variations and adaptations,”(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful… We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, Holy Thursday, April 3 1969, the sixth year of Our pontificate. PAUL VI, POPE

stmarie (#4)–Thanks for posting the section from the Apostolic Constitution regarding the Roman Missal.
From it I take from the purpose for the revision of the Mass is "the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested."
It should be, quoting Pope Pius V regarding the Missal, "an instrument of liturgical unity and a witness of the worship of the Church."
We come to worship as a community, as Church.
The Church after Vatican II is the same Church that existed before Vatican II.

It’s a quibble, but it seems to me that the translation (and it would be offered in the vernacular) isn’t as lovely as the 1962.

Chemically speaking if you mixed two uncompatible chemicals they either produces fumes, it’ll be corrosive, or it’ll explode. The same with mixing the two Roman rites, each of its purity will be dissolved that will result to its loss of authenticity, it may also cause further abuse from creative priests, or it may greatly confused the faithful, so let it just stay they way it is for now. We don’t want to wait again for another 40 years just to realize, “Oops we did it again, we were wrong,” so let the Traditional Mass stay authentic and let the Novus Mass stay as a revision.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

I remember when they were using the Missal of 1965 and it wasn’t in the vernacular. The biggest difference, in my opinion, was that there more of the prayers were said aloud instead of sub vocce (sp?) and responses by the whole congregation (in Latin) were the norm. Parts of it were “streamlined” from the Missal of 1962 and there were not (if I remember correctly) any more distinctions between high and low Masses.

I loved the Missal of 1965 and noone has ever been able to explain any problem with it. It was used as a temporary measure while the Bishops worked on what became the NO Mass.

How the heck was it a revision? :shrug: Its explosive all by itself…

I think the Pope’s intention that that the EF will work on the OF, brining about “a reform of the reform.”

Just to be technical, there is only one Roman Rite. The Ordinary Form (the NO) and the Extraordinary (the TLM).

It seems to me that the Magisterium is working on ways to improve the Mass. I like the Mass as it is now. In developing a “hybrid,” what needs to be kept, added, or removed?
The Mass is the vernacular is more understandable–A retired pastor of my parish said Mass this morning. He spoke about how the Office of Readings used to always be read in Latin. The words were read but there was no time to translate. There was no understanding.
The Tridentine had an epistle and a gospel reading–Today at Sunday Mass, we have an Old Testament Reading plus the Epistle, a Psalm, and the Gospel. The Scriptures have been more fully opened that we might understand the OT in light of the NT and the NT in light of the OT.
In order to meet the Sunday obligation today means attending the Mass from the Entrance Rites through the Concluding Rites. There is no more if you arrive before the Collect (or was it later) or leave early, you have met your obligation.
Responses said by Altar servers are now said by all. There is no Secret as all hear the Eucharistic Prayers as they are said. The priest acting “in persona” faces the Congregation.
The importance of family life is commemorated when families bring forward the gifts for the consecration.
Pope Paul VI wanted a return of the sign of peace although he was unsure what form it would take. Pope Benedict XVI in his document on the Eucharist wanted this to be retained. This Sign of Peace appears to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks between those who desire the NO versus those who want a return to the TLM. How can this be done so as not to interrupt the flow of Mass especially as we prepare ourselves for Communion?
It should be noted that the retired priest who said Mass this morning is very conservative. He is not afraid to speak out about anything that would distract from reverance at Mass or our identity as Catholic Christians. When he was pastor, he was in the confessional everyday before Daily Mass. Today he spoke about genuflecting.
The question seems to be, how do we retain (regain) reverance for the Real Presence in the Eucharist while encouraging full participation and understanding of the mystery of the Mass? How do we reconcile those like myself who enjoy the NO and those who prefer the Trindentine Mass? Is it really the rite by which we celebrate that is the issue or is it the changes in society that have colored our perception of what is truly important?

Bow

:yup: :thumbsup:

I just came back to the Church after being gone some 38 years, and this is the Mass that I remember. The Novus Ordo Mass is basically new to me, and just strikes me, as a Rip Van Winkle, if you will, as very simplistic and kind of “dumbed down.” I hope I won’t get in trouble for saying that, but it is my honest reaction.

Mary

Honestly I don’t see anything wrong with this. How is the Novus Ordo more beneficial in terms of edification/solemnity?! It seems that this missal of 1965 incorporates all the changes proscribed by Sancrosanctum Concilium in the Second Vatican Council, especially it those aimed at increasing laity pariticipation in the mass, (which it seems to do the job very well) while at the same time, retaining the full dignity, reverence, solemnity and delibrateness of the Tridentine Mass. (Yes, the NO is a completely valid and licit mass, I’m not debating that) I’m merely asking why would this be worse or less beneficial than the NO. I mean, yes the Lectionary can be adapted to provide more scripture like the three year lectionary of the NO, but aside from that, I can seem nothing rubrically or textually against instituting this missal of 1965 as the chief Missal of the Latin Rite of the Holy Catholic Church.

Your statements about meeting the obligation of attending Mass, both past and present, are mistaken.

A common stream of opinion prior to the reform of the liturgy was that you satisfied your Sunday obligation AS LONG AS YOU HEARD THE MASS FROM THE OFFERTORY NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST OR “MASS OF THE FAITHFUL.” In other words, YOU COULD MISS THE ENTIRE LITURGY OF THE WORD OR “MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS” AND STILL FULFILL YOUR SUNDAY OBLIGATION.

I can quote this point from MULTIPLE pre-Concililiar moral theologies if necessary.

That being the case, we then ask: Do the Church’s documents indicate that MORE than this is required today?

No.

They don’t.

In fact, as I’ve mentioned, canon law does not indicate anything at all regarding how much of the Mass we need to attend in order to satisfy our Sunday obligation…
[RIGHT]—Jimmy Akin[/RIGHT]

[LEFT]Regarding the Collect, your comments indicate more confusion. It is not a greeting, it is a prayer to God immediately preceding the Epistle (known in the N.O. as the Opening Prayer). Yesterday’s Collect:Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thy people may shun all the wiles of the devil: and with pure mind follow Thee, the only God. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

[FONT=Verdana] Next Sunday’s Collect:
[/FONT]Let the exercise of Thy compassion, we beseech Thee, O Lord, direct our hearts: for without Thee we are not able to please Thee. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

Perhaps you don’t intend it as such, but if you have TLM attendees in mind when you talk about “encouraging full participation and understanding of the mystery of the Mass” I find it patronizing. I attend the TLM and I lack neither of these. It is my belief that the “improvements” to the Mass so far may have inadvertently contributed to the decline in belief in the Real Presence, but that’s another thread. It is my hope that the “fixers” leave the TLM alone.
[/LEFT]

St. Pius X desired a fuller participation by the laity and to that extend instituted liturgical reform. The terms “to encourage fuller paricipation…” come from the Document on Sacred Liturgy put forth by Vatican II.
Problems with disbelief concerning the Real Presence come more from limited catecheses than from the reforms. This forum from my understanding is not about which is better, the TLM or the NO. It is more about how the best of both can be combined. I personally like the NO and find myself more closely drawn into the mystery.

It is ironic that you would cite the patron of SSPX in support of the later reforms of Vatican II. (I mention SSPX in a neutral manner, in no way meaning to denigrate Pope St. Pius X—whom I greatly admire—or for that matter, SSPX.) Are you aware that the Motu Proprio* Tra le sollecitudini*, in which St. Pius first used the term “active participation,” was released on the feast of St. Cecilia, patroness of music, and concerned itself primarily with the restoration to the laity of Gregorian chant? A form of music, I might add, which has been all but exterminated from the Mass in the wake of Vat. II, despite Sacrosanctum Concilium (which you also cite) stating Gregorian chant “should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (SC 116). St. Pius also was to greatly promote more frequent Communion, but before we consider him a founding father of the reforms that came later, we should call to mind this statement from his Motu Proprio:The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions—much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office.

I agree poor catechesis has contributed to the problem, however I don’t believe the situation has been helped by the removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary; the great reduction in the use of incense, a sign of prayer and offering; the focus of the priest seeming to change from God to congregation; lay people distributing Communion, an action once reserved to the ordained priesthood; reception by the laity in the hand and standing, rather than on the tongue, kneeling. None of this is invalid but all of it, at least from an outwardly symbolic standpoint, seems to model less rather than more reverence.

An interesting comment coming after your post #11 where you state:

“The Mass is the vernacular is more understandable…”

“The Tridentine had an epistle and a gospel reading–Today at Sunday Mass…The Scriptures have been more fully opened…”

“There is no more if you arrive before the Collect (or was it later) or leave early, you have met your obligation.”

“Responses said by Altar servers are now said by all. There is no Secret as all hear the Eucharistic Prayers as they are said.”

Finally, we get a commemoration of “the importance of family life”; the desire of two popes for the Sign of Peace; and the imprimatur of a conservative priest to seal the N.O. deal. Pardon me, but I’m at a loss to see “the best of both” here. I’m aware of the thread topic. The last line of my original post summed up my feelings on the matter.

I’m not interested in the best of both either. I’m just interested in making the mass even more glorious by revising the Novus Ordo to be more like the mass as it has always been.

For example (and bear in mind that this is opinion, that I humbly submit to the will of the Holy Father, whatever that may be), the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar ought to be restored to the mass. Whether it was officially a part of the mass, or a prayer that the priest said privately before, it has existed at least since the days of Pope Gregory the Great.

Also, for communion, “May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ bring thy soul unto life everlasting” is a lot more reverent than the simple “The Body of Christ.” So few words make it easy for priests to speed through communion.

And what about taking communion kneeling? Let’s bring back the communion rails in NO parishes. It seems to me that by grabbing communion with their bare hands and chopping on it like it were a Lays potato chip as they walk back to their pews, people are showing great irrevence. If we all kneeled and recieved on the tongue, it would help deepen the mystery, and acknowledge what we really believe about the eucharist. We ought to be asking ourselves, “how casually would I behave if Jesus standing before me?” and then use the answer to dictate how we behave before the Blessed Sacrament.

There’s also the Ad Orientem issue. Priests are allowed to say the mass facing liturgical east, but how many of them really do this? On that same note, how many use Latin in their masses? These two things seem to say to me that the Mass of Paul VI is not very often said on the parochial level the way in which His Holiness intended it.

To sum things up, if any changes are made to the NO, then they need to be very, very specific.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.