Forest said in an interview with Sue Sims (somewhere on the internet, coughingbear pointed me towards it the other day but I can't find it now) that Patrick's views were hers.
An attempt at a bit of background for those who know little or nothing about this - feel free to skip if you do, feel free to correct if there's something I have got wrong.
Tinkering with the liturgy hadn't started with Vatican II - Pius X, not exactly the wet-liberal of 20th century popes, had kicked it off before WWI. However, much of this would have been non-obvious to the average layman or woman until about 1955 when the Easter services were radically re-arranged. Some further tinkering followed leading up to the 1962 Missal - that in use on the eve of and throughout the council and (later, I think after the publication of Attic Term) to be settled on by Archbishop Lefebvre as the last version acceptable to him (so almost by chance it has become a semi-compromise position between various camps and remains so). The constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium was the first product of the council, promulgated 1st Dec 1964. A committee ("The Consilium") then set to work and in 1965 a new edition of the missal, sometimes called the interim version was promulgated. It was further tinkered with in 1967.
While this gets into ongoing liturgical history wars, I think it is fair to say that 1965 was in structure in continuity with the earlier editions of the missal. In 1969, however, the Novus Ordo Missae was published, to come into effect from 1st Jan 1970, and this did have radical differences in structure - as it says on its face, it is a "new order", not a revised new edition of the Missal of Paul V promulgated after Trent and based on the practice of Rome before that, as everything up to 1965 had been. However, in practice the use of the 1965 Missal had led to radical and obvious changes, most particularly (a) English was permitted in parts, increasing in 1967 and this was enthusiastically adopted, (b) despite it never being more than a permitted possibility in a low-level document of 1964, "priest-facing the people" swiftly became common (to this day the old stance is the official norm) and (c) I think but am not sure that the silent canon went (which was notable first because it was obviously, err, obvious and second because Trent had said in terms that it was heresy to condemn the silent canon. Shortly put, there were differences to be noticed by the laity from 1965.
The reason I find this slightly curious is that it is now in Forest time, as lilliburlero notes above, at the earliest the summer after October 1970 and the canonisation of the 40. Attic Term was I think published 1976 (I'll come back to that). Patrick is 16-17. So Attic-Term-Patrick cannot have been older than 11 when the 1965 missal, the regular use of English, and lots of rather enthusiastic and eccentric enactments of the mass took off, and was possibly rather younger. (I note in passing that if my mother and her friends are anything to go by the whole period of change has been elided in their memories to a single change). Admittedly Patrick is both precocious and precious (I can never be certain of my spelling of either of those words) but I find this a bit difficult to swallow - it is, I suppose, an inevitable result of the combination of Forest-Time and Forest wanting to put her own views into Patrick's mouth. (cont)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Patrick's views on the Vatican II reforms?
Date: 2015-02-14 12:59 pm (UTC)An attempt at a bit of background for those who know little or nothing about this - feel free to skip if you do, feel free to correct if there's something I have got wrong.
Tinkering with the liturgy hadn't started with Vatican II - Pius X, not exactly the wet-liberal of 20th century popes, had kicked it off before WWI. However, much of this would have been non-obvious to the average layman or woman until about 1955 when the Easter services were radically re-arranged. Some further tinkering followed leading up to the 1962 Missal - that in use on the eve of and throughout the council and (later, I think after the publication of Attic Term) to be settled on by Archbishop Lefebvre as the last version acceptable to him (so almost by chance it has become a semi-compromise position between various camps and remains so). The constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium was the first product of the council, promulgated 1st Dec 1964. A committee ("The Consilium") then set to work and in 1965 a new edition of the missal, sometimes called the interim version was promulgated. It was further tinkered with in 1967.
While this gets into ongoing liturgical history wars, I think it is fair to say that 1965 was in structure in continuity with the earlier editions of the missal. In 1969, however, the Novus Ordo Missae was published, to come into effect from 1st Jan 1970, and this did have radical differences in structure - as it says on its face, it is a "new order", not a revised new edition of the Missal of Paul V promulgated after Trent and based on the practice of Rome before that, as everything up to 1965 had been. However, in practice the use of the 1965 Missal had led to radical and obvious changes, most particularly (a) English was permitted in parts, increasing in 1967 and this was enthusiastically adopted, (b) despite it never being more than a permitted possibility in a low-level document of 1964, "priest-facing the people" swiftly became common (to this day the old stance is the official norm) and (c) I think but am not sure that the silent canon went (which was notable first because it was obviously, err, obvious and second because Trent had said in terms that it was heresy to condemn the silent canon. Shortly put, there were differences to be noticed by the laity from 1965.
The reason I find this slightly curious is that it is now in Forest time, as