1965 Rite

[Kephapaulos]

I guess it would have been at the very least better to stay with the 1965 rite instead of instituting the NOM, even though the 1965 rite is still poorly done in comparison to the TLM of 1962 and before. The NOM goes to point of being a different rite altogether though with at the same time being a very defective or deficient form of the TLM (again to the point of not being the TLM or Roman rite at all), while the 1965 seems to be not such a poor form of the TLM like the NOM despite its (the 1965 rite's) own setbacks.

[CampeadorShin]

The 1955 rite was the one BEFORE Bugnini made changes.

[Kephapaulos]

The 1955 rite was the one BEFORE Bugnini made changes.

 

Yes, but I think Bugnini has a lot to do with the Holy Week changes of 1955.

 

Speaking of Bugnini, I remember HMiS mentioning that John XXIII had a stronger hand over Bugnini than had Pius XII, but I wonder why or how?

[GospodiPomiluj]

Yes, but I think Bugnini has a lot to do with the Holy Week changes of 1955.

 

Speaking of Bugnini, I remember HMiS mentioning that John XXIII had a stronger hand over Bugnini than had Pius XII, but I wonder why or how?

It was probably because John XXIII and Bugnini were men of the same ilk with the same "reform"-minded objectives. Pius XII was very much a man of the old school, wasn't he? It's hard to imagine he and the archbishop being best mates, so Bugnini would undoubtedly have been more obedient to a pope on his wavelength, so to speak. John XXIII certainly was.

That's my theory anyway.
 

[Clarkthepapist]

What I don't get is that the 65 looks tlmish to me. So why did they even bother replacing the 62 with it? Or instituting the optional features. The fact they did that just reinforces the idea that it was purely a transitional liturgy to the NO. Truly when the faith is restored in Rome, I would hope they go back to the Pre- Pius XII holy week changes and let all this novelty just fade into the history books .

[Kephapaulos]

What I don't get is that the 65 looks tlmish to me. So why did they even bother replacing the 62 with it? Or instituting the optional features. The fact they did that just reinforces the idea that it was purely a transitional liturgy to the NO. Truly when the faith is restored in Rome, I would hope they go back to the Pre- Pius XII holy week changes and let all this novelty just fade into the history books .

I agree. The liturgy should go all the way back to the restoration left by St. Pius X (concerning the Mass, Breviary, calendar) just to be on the safe side.

[Clarkthepapist]

The 65 page said it added the ability ot have congregational singing, but didn't St. Pius X do that in his missal? Its just another excuse they used to supress the True Mass....

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

 

What I don't get is that the 65 looks tlmish to me. So why did they even bother replacing the 62 with it? Or instituting the optional features. The fact they did that just reinforces the idea that it was purely a transitional liturgy to the NO. Truly when the faith is restored in Rome, I would hope they go back to the Pre- Pius XII holy week changes and let all this novelty just fade into the history books .

I agree. The liturgy should go all the way back to the restoration left by St. Pius X (concerning the Mass, Breviary, calendar) just to be on the safe side.

 

Thanks be to God that have have that available to me right now.

[gladius_veritatis]

Or instituting the optional features.

The options helped to get people used to this concept - which is foreign to Catholic worship.  The same may be said for the insertion of St. Joseph in the Canon, etc.  Even though some of these things were not wicked in and of themselves, they were disastrous in that they prepared people mentally to accept all kinds of changes - which would have been unthinkable just a short time before.  One word - gradualism.