Hello kosta,
I think a parentheses got attached to the original link for the '65, thus creating the dead link. Here is the link to the Mass of '65; I hope it will work: http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
I haven't read much of Aquilina, but what I have read is good. Thanks for the suggestion.
"Again, the Tridentine Mass which NYer was kinf to include, had numerous elements that were clearly recognizable as one and the same Divine (Holy) Liturgy, which is not the case with NO, although allegedly NO (by content) doe snot resemble much of the Eastern tradition internally or externally (repeated signs of the cross, signing the entire Service, kissing the hand of the priest, holding tall candles during the reading of the Gospels, three steps to the altar, priest facing ad orientem, etc.)"
It is amazing how two very different liturgies could have so many similarities; even in a Low Tridentine Mass, without all the "bells and whistles" I'm sure you would still recognize so many of the externals. I've only been to one Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St John Chrystomos and did notice the elements more prominent in the Tridentine, but not as much in the NO (crossing, incense, etc.) However, it was only an accident that I was there, due to an odd situation of chapel-sharing at school, so I wasn't able to observe with my full attention. (I have seen an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy on the internet, but the video quality was quite poor). Both the Mass of St Pius and the Litugy of St John Chrystomos are still very different, but both gorgeous, and I think I'd prefer either to an everyday NO.
"One would imagine that the Western fathers in the 1960's stated good reasons how and why the Mass was changed. I am not sure where they are to be found."
I suppose we could go to the source...Paul VI: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6missal.htm
It's an interesting little document, wherein Paul promulgated the use of the NO; he cites, among other things, the desire to correct what was seen as deviations from the "traditions of the Fathers." It is a curious little point I will have to examine further.
The post-Conciliar Popes on the liturgy has always been such a fascinating topic. I mean, how many times on FR alone have we seen rumors of the liberalization, by the Pope(s) of the use the Tridentine Mass? Paul VI spoke highly of that Missal. Benedict, as a Cardinal, said it in public on multiple occasions. JPII, of blessed memory, regularly said it in his private chapel in the Vatican.
However, later this year there is supposed to be a document coming out from BXVI about new directives for the NO. I'm not sure what it will entail but here is an interesting quote from his "Spirit of the Liturgy" (written as a Cardinal) about his idea of papal stewardship of the Mass: "The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy...Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity." (166)
Here's an interesting article about the Pope and the liturgy, from Ignatius Press, his English-language publisher: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/clark_benedictliturgy_apr05.asp
And, if you are so inclined, Fr Jim Tucker, keeper of the "Dappled Things" blog has a great compilation of links of items relating to the Tridentine Mass; he also has a great photo collection of all things liturgical: http://donjim.blogspot.com/2006/08/traditional-liturgy-videos-and.html
I am particularly interested in reading your link on Pope Paul VI because I would imagine most non-Catholics do not know much about what transpired at the Vatican II. All we can see are the effects of it, not whether they are the intended changes or the unintended ones.
Today most of the Catholics do not even remember the "old" Mass, as those who were old enough to remember the Mass vaguely even as children are now over 50. Of course, the Tridentine Mass was not the Mass served in Florence, two hundred years prior, or the Mass served in the first millennium, so even the Tridentine Mass was something "new" at one time before it became a tradition.
What puzzles me personally is why is there a need to change anything? The Divine Liturgies of SS James, Basil and Chrysostom are only variations of each other, not new, especially not radically new ways of serving a Mass. The only thing that essentially changed is the length (that's important because in Orthodox Churches outside of America there are no pews and we stand throughout the service, even in some "real" :) Orthodox churches in America).
The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, which is shorter than that of St. James, is about 4 hours long! So one can see the need to shorten the service without sacrificing essential elements, which is what the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is, which lasts about an hour and a half to two hours, depending on such things as commemorations (panikhidas), chrismations, baptisms, etc.
But my point is: why change? The EO system shows that there is no need to change.