The idea isn’t that the “the Christianized gentiles ‘replaced’ the Jews as a chosen people,” but rather that the Catholic (universal) Church has replaced Israel by way of the New Covenant written in our Savior’s Blood. And of course the New Covenant expanded God’s “chosen people” to peoples of any race or tribe that enter into baptism.
I get that...and that is very legitimate doctrinally. But I'm beginning to notice all sorts of groups - and some Catholics- transpose this into a story of ethnic/sociological group replacement, treating it as a stick to beat other groups with or to judge. Safer to leave judgement to God.
I can see that. Tbh, the entire culture is in a state of decomposition. People have been indoctrinated to hate their race/ethnicity/nation/culture/history which has led people to hate whom they see as the perpetrators of this sadistic project rather than loving and valuing and taking pride in their own race/history/culture, preferring it to all others and protecting it, whilst not hating other ones.
The 1962 edition of the missal wasn’t published until 1963, and was then superseded by a new edition in 1965, so it was only in use for two years. It’s effectively a transitional form, which makes no sense except as a prelude to further changes.
You don’t need to use any Roman missal except the current edition. The candles, incense etc can still be used, in fact ought to be used as described in the rubrics. The standard of music at Mass has been poor for centuries. In the late nineteenth century the future St Pius X intervened personally to stop a town band playing during Mass in his diocese. That would not have been unusual.
If you would like to see the standard of liturgy improved read Sacrosanctum Concilium and the general instruction on the missal so that you are properly informed, and get involved in a local parish.
History of liturgy is an interest of mine too. I agree it’s useful to see what changes have been made, and to think about the history and purpose of the ceremonies. Some missals intended for the laity have notes which concentrate on these aspects. Others have notes which aim at encouraging devotion.
If you have a 1950s missal it will probably have the pre55 Holy Week ceremonies, which were changed in 1956.
I think it’s helpful to realise that there were always several varients of the Roman rite; some religious orders had their own eg Dominicans or Carmelites. From my bedroom window I can see the tower of Hereford Cathedral. Hereford had its own “use” in the Middle Ages, ie a local variant of the Roman Rite with slight variations in texts and ceremonial. The best known English use was that of Sarum (Salisbury), for which all the books, including proper chants survive. Some of these include elements which were subsequently removed from the mainstream Roman rite eg Sarum has “troped Kyries”, ie there is an extra text added, like “you were sent to heal the contrite” in the current missal, or “bidding prayers”, which were the Sarum equivalent of the “Prayer of the Faithful” restored to the rite in 1965.
The idea isn’t that the “the Christianized gentiles ‘replaced’ the Jews as a chosen people,” but rather that the Catholic (universal) Church has replaced Israel by way of the New Covenant written in our Savior’s Blood. And of course the New Covenant expanded God’s “chosen people” to peoples of any race or tribe that enter into baptism.
I get that...and that is very legitimate doctrinally. But I'm beginning to notice all sorts of groups - and some Catholics- transpose this into a story of ethnic/sociological group replacement, treating it as a stick to beat other groups with or to judge. Safer to leave judgement to God.
I can see that. Tbh, the entire culture is in a state of decomposition. People have been indoctrinated to hate their race/ethnicity/nation/culture/history which has led people to hate whom they see as the perpetrators of this sadistic project rather than loving and valuing and taking pride in their own race/history/culture, preferring it to all others and protecting it, whilst not hating other ones.
The 1962 edition of the missal wasn’t published until 1963, and was then superseded by a new edition in 1965, so it was only in use for two years. It’s effectively a transitional form, which makes no sense except as a prelude to further changes.
You don’t need to use any Roman missal except the current edition. The candles, incense etc can still be used, in fact ought to be used as described in the rubrics. The standard of music at Mass has been poor for centuries. In the late nineteenth century the future St Pius X intervened personally to stop a town band playing during Mass in his diocese. That would not have been unusual.
If you would like to see the standard of liturgy improved read Sacrosanctum Concilium and the general instruction on the missal so that you are properly informed, and get involved in a local parish.
History of liturgy is an interest of mine too. I agree it’s useful to see what changes have been made, and to think about the history and purpose of the ceremonies. Some missals intended for the laity have notes which concentrate on these aspects. Others have notes which aim at encouraging devotion.
If you have a 1950s missal it will probably have the pre55 Holy Week ceremonies, which were changed in 1956.
I think it’s helpful to realise that there were always several varients of the Roman rite; some religious orders had their own eg Dominicans or Carmelites. From my bedroom window I can see the tower of Hereford Cathedral. Hereford had its own “use” in the Middle Ages, ie a local variant of the Roman Rite with slight variations in texts and ceremonial. The best known English use was that of Sarum (Salisbury), for which all the books, including proper chants survive. Some of these include elements which were subsequently removed from the mainstream Roman rite eg Sarum has “troped Kyries”, ie there is an extra text added, like “you were sent to heal the contrite” in the current missal, or “bidding prayers”, which were the Sarum equivalent of the “Prayer of the Faithful” restored to the rite in 1965.
Well thank you :) That's very useful. I guess I'm reading it along side the modern one because those changes are interesting. I will have to find an even older one from the 1950s. SC is on my list https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html. Thanks :)