The official dates of the Missal are 1920 and 1962. Anything in between is reprint.I’m not a liturgical scholar or an expert, but I think Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio limited celebrations in the the Extraordinary Form to the liturgical books in effect in 1962. As such I believe the liturgy and the Holy Week services had been modified since 1952, so I don’t think that it could be used licitly under the indult.
ChadS
I did not realise it was a reprint. Thank you very much. I am not troubled by the reforms of Holy Week but I know not why. Perhaps it was a result of World War II.The official dates of the Missal are 1920 and 1962. Anything in between is reprint.
The difference between the two missals are:
The Holy week was changed significantly in the fifties.
- adding St Joseph to the communicantes
- omitting the required commemorations
- the change in the calendar
No, 1952 was an editio typica. The changes were relatively small with correction or altering of a few prayers and the additiono f some commons.The official dates of the Missal are 1920 and 1962. Anything in between is reprint.
If you really are a priest, how is it firstly you cannot spell ‘Franciscan’, and secondly, you are asking the opinion of those on this messageboard, rather than your brethren or other priests?It’s looking like I like the 1952 Holy Week rites best… They seem to speak to me deeply. It’s a conundrum.
As a Fransiscan priest, is it possible that I could use this Missale under indult?
There was, I believe, a 1952 editio typica of the Rituale Romanum, but not the Missale Romanum. Printings of the Missale Romanum between 1920 and 1962 showed, as I recall, the designation editio iuxta typicam (of the previous (i.e. 1920) editio typica).No, 1952 was an editio typica. The changes were relatively small with correction or altering of a few prayers and the additiono f some commons.
The Holy Week changes in the fifties were a great success. The churches get full again for the celebrations. Basically the change was only to change the time from the morning to evening and afternoon and to shorten the ritesI did not realise it was a reprint. Thank you very much. I am not troubled by the reforms of Holy Week but I know not why. Perhaps it was a result of World War II.
While it’s true that the timings were changed, I don’t know how much “success” can be attributed beyond that to the revision of the Holy Week rites. Yes, the restoration of the timings was a positive thing, but that was only the tip of the iceberg so-to-speak. The rites for Palm Sunday and Good Friday, in particular, were drastically altered.The Holy Week changes in the fifties were a great success. The churches get full again for the celebrations. Basically the change was only to change the time from the morning to evening and afternoon and to shorten the rites
Would you so kind to enlighten us and explain what is worse in the revising? Please use the 1920 and 1962 Missal what is documented and available for everyone forn Sanctamissa.org.While it’s true that the timings were changed, I don’t know how much “success” can be attributed beyond that to the revision of the Holy Week rites. Yes, the restoration of the timings was a positive thing, but that was only the tip of the iceberg so-to-speak. The rites for Palm Sunday and Good Friday, in particular, were drastically altered.
The wording of one particular prayer means absolutely nothing in the overall picture. If what was done to the Holy Week rites were simply that, I doubt there would ever have been any discussion of the issue.Would you so kind to enlighten us and explain what is worse in the revising? Please use the 1920 and 1962 Missal what is documented and available for everyone forn Sanctamissa.org.
Nb. I do not see that to omit the label that Jews are perfidious was wrong. God is the judge, not us, and we shall pray for them as for the others.
It is evident that Gregory DiPippo the correspondent of the New Liturgical Movement from Roma does not like the changes. He did not convinced me. Based on his picture I suppose he did not live in the time of the changes. I was there and testify that before (in Hungary) 1957 the churches were almost empty during the celebration, and after that they were full.The wording of one particular prayer means absolutely nothing in the overall picture. If what was done to the Holy Week rites were simply that, I doubt there would ever have been any discussion of the issue.
That the Holy Week rites were drastically altered with the 1955 revisions is fact. Now, whether the “revised” Holy Week rites were better or worse is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. In any case, an excellent series of articles on the subject appeared in the New Liturgical Movement a couple of years ago.
It wasn’t meant to “convince” you of anything. And BTW, The revisions were effective 1955, (although there had been some use of them earlier in various places on an ad experimentum basis).It is evident that Gregory DiPippo the correspondent of the New Liturgical Movement from Roma does not like the changes. He did not convinced me. Based on his picture I suppose he did not live in the time of the changes. I was there and testify that before (in Hungary) 1957 the churches were almost empty during the celebration, and after that they were full. …
That last is merely a matter of opinion, and one which – other than the restoration of the timings for the Triduum – I do not share.We need a critical body for the survival. The Ordo Hebdomodae Sanctae helped to save this critical body.
Not to be impolite, but there definitely was a missal in 1952 and all others between that date and 1962 are based on that typical edition. There is a write up in Ephemeredes Liturgicae which gives the differences between that edition and the previous edition.There was, I believe, a 1952 editio typica of the Rituale Romanum, but not the Missale Romanum. Printings of the Missale Romanum between 1920 and 1962 showed, as I recall, the designation editio iuxta typicam (of the previous (i.e. 1920) editio typica).