Comparison of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+

JMJ

I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here).

... a very good reference!

P^3

From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link).

CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE
Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism;
Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969


The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences
between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass

Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the Roman Canon was fixed, drawing in turn from still earlier liturgical forms. This Canon has remained unaltered for fourteen centuries, with the exception of the invocation of Saint Joseph added in 1962. The chart below offers parentheticals with brief notes regarding certain Catholic doctrines expressed by its ancient ceremonies.

Cranmer’s Rite: Thomas Cranmer, the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury (1489-1556), championed the Anglican schism of King Henry VIII and worked to undermine Catholicism in England by imposing a state-sponsored liturgical revolution per his newly contrived rite of Mass. The initial 1549 edition was designed as a doctrinally ambiguous “compromise rite,” amenable to both Catholic and Protestant theology; by its 1552 edition, it was manifestly Protestant. As this rite supplanted the Catholic Sarum Missal (the Roman Rite as used in England, essentially identical to that later codified at Trent), some of the changes introduced do not apply directly to the Vetus Ordo, hence the “N/A” entries given in the chart below.

Novus Ordo: “New Order,” the Missal of Pope Paul VI (1969). Original in many parts and as a whole, this Missal was crafted by the Consilium (liturgical committee) appointed after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) to undertake the unprecedented creation of a new rite of Mass. The chart below limits itself to noting only those officially prescribed changes indicated in the Missal itself and the accompanying rubrics for the United States. That Pope Paul VI recognized the apparent discontinuity of his Novus Ordo with the centuries-old Vetus Ordo was evident during its preparation and in its promulgation, as illustrated by his General Audiences of March 17, 1965 and November 26, 1969. An excerpt from the latter follows:

…A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead… We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed… We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect… This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms… No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and  spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth…