1962 Missal And Sacrosanctum Concillium

[Thomas_White]

Hard to say. The Father Lasance Missal (1945) has pro prefidis Judaeis, translated “for the unfaithful Jews” whereas the St. Joseph Missal (1959) has “for the Jews” (no Latin given).

I had many Missals during the pre-Vatican II years, but the leather-bound Father F. X. Lasance Missal of 1945 was exceptional. I still use it and know very well the differences scarcely matter. I never used a 1962 Latin Rite Missal since I’ve known the Latin for many decades. But the Father Lasance Missal is special. It is faithful to the Council of Trent and the Latin Tridentine Mass.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Does any of them say something to the effect: “O You Jew Who died for ALL?”

Some people seem to think that Jesus was a Catholic when in reality Jesus was born a Jew, lived His whole Life as a Jew and died a Jew.

So many people thru the ages have “blamed” the Jews, when all one need do to see who crucified Jesus is to look in the mirror.

 

[Chatter163]

I stand corrected. The Dropping of *perfidious *was indeed in 1959. I had confused that change with the dropping of the feast of the Circumcision, another concession to the sensitivities of Jewish leaders . That occurred in 1960.

 

[ProVobis]

I stand corrected. The Dropping of *perfidious *was indeed in 1959. I had confused that change with the dropping of the feast of the Circumcision, another concession to the sensitivities of Jewish leaders . That occurred in 1960.

Actually you were -]partly/-] right. The change wasn’t made to the (Latin) typical edition until 1961. (I imagine it was work in progress.) The handmissals weren’t official, and certainly not the translations therein. Or maybe the priests crossed out perfidis in their altar missals in 1959, who knows?

 

[tryphon]

With all due respect, my comments about the Tridentine Mass do not involve what I suspect. They are what I know because I was there to observe and experience it. During our eight years of elementary school in the 1950’s, young girls (and well as all other females) covered their heads whenever they were inside the Church and not just during Mass. This was observed because it was the rule, and the rule was obeyed just like we all obeyed the many rules then existent. Dress was more formal for everyone. One certainly did not wear shorts to Mass in those days, for example. It would have been considered scandalous. As a boy, and thus a male, I was forbidden to wear a hat inside a Church. We were in the Midwest, and it was not unusual for a young boy to forget this rule when the weather was extremely cold. Trust me, he was very quickly reminded. And there were instances where a boy’s cap or hat was pulled right off his head by a patrolling nun. And we had better keep quiet. Even an observed short whisper never had a good result. The rule was silence. And rules were to be obeyed. Excuses were only further disobedience.

A female covering her head while in Church was a very old tradition, and like many things it changed during the 1960’s. The mid to late 1960’s involved a sea change within Western culture and society. Vatican II was a part of it.

I grew up in Italy and in the fifties it was exactly as you describe. In MIlan, where I was born, we used the Ambrosian rite (the priest faced the congregation, even then, before V II)

 

[Thomas_White]

Some people seem to think that Jesus was a Catholic when in reality Jesus was born a Jew, lived His whole Life as a Jew and died a Jew.

This is perhaps true in an ethnic sense, but Judaism is a religion. Christ hardly lived His whole life as an observant Jew. To the contrary: He was in open rebellion.

The word ‘Catholic’, from the Latin word ‘Catholicus’, means Universal (or all encompassing). During the time of Christ and the Gospels, the word Catholic was not yet in use but it is implied: it was the beginning of Christianity and the entirety of it during the time of the Gospels. Catholicism traces its roots to this beginning and the Church particularly to Peter: “…upon this rock I will build my Church”. Matthew 16:18

During the fourth century, this concept was included in the Nicene Creed: ‘Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam’.

‘We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.’

 

[Tom_Baum]

This is perhaps true in an ethnic sense, but Judaism is a religion. Christ hardly lived His whole life as an observant Jew. To the contrary: He was in open rebellion.

The word ‘Catholic’, from the Latin word ‘Catholicus’, means Universal (or all encompassing). During the time of Christ and the Gospels, the word Catholic was not yet in use but it is implied: it was the beginning of Christianity and the entirety of it during the time of the Gospels. Catholicism traces its roots to this beginning and the Church particularly to Peter: “…upon this rock I will build my Church”. Matthew 16:18

During the fourth century, this concept was included in the Nicene Creed: ‘Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam’.

‘We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.’

Would you say that Jesus was in “open rebellion”, as you put it, against Judaism or against the twistation of Judaism?

Wasn’t it said that “zeal for Jesus’s Father’s House” was at least one of the things that led to some of the things that Jesus endured for the Salvation of Humanity?

 

[Thomas_White]

Would you say that Jesus was in “open rebellion”, as you put it, against Judaism or against the twistation of Judaism?

Wasn’t it said that “zeal for Jesus’s Father’s House” was at least one of the things that led to some of the things that Jesus endured for the Salvation of Humanity?

Neither.

I guess ‘rebellion’ was probably not the best word to use. There was the Old Pact of Moses and the Jewish law and practices. Jesus brought forth a New Pact, a continuation of revelation. As I understand it, it was not that He believed the Old Pact was ever wrong or bad, but only that as the Son of the Father he was bringing to the faithful a New Pact that superseded the Old Pact. This was in the context of a Messiah in the Jewish tradition. Its time had come. But it was never that the Old Pact had been invalid. His teachings were not against Judaism or against a twistation of it, I don’t believe. They were meant, rather, as a continuation of what is now called the Judeo-Christian heritage. Christ’s new revelation was, not so surprisingly, resisted by the Temple and its priests. Essentially, He was not accepted as the Messiah. And when it seemed He was acting in this way, it was eventually thought He had gone too far, and what He was saying and doing was then considered blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. This too is not surprising, really, and certainly not to Him. As we know, He was in the end crucified. It was meant to be. His crucifixion was a one-time human sacrifice, and its meaning was the superseding of the continual sacrifices in the Temple with His body and blood sacrificed for and to the faithful.

But I don’t believe He was against Judaism or the Jewish people among whom he lived. How could He be? His very parents and early disciples were Jews.

 

[Thomas_White]

Note: In my above comment, the “Neither” at its beginning is in reference to first sentence of the quoted comment. The second part concerning ‘zeal for the Father’s house’ I am not familiar with, or at least not in those very words. But I wouldn’t doubt they are there, and it does sound correct.

The main point was that Christianity evolved with respect to Judaism and was not in opposition to Judaism as such. The Catholic Bible of course includes the Old Testament, and its first five books are very important in Judaism. Thus, there is as noted earlier the Judeo-Christian heritage or tradition in the U.S. And I believe this tradition is recognized only in the U.S., and that there are unique reasons for why this is the case.

It concerns the very concept of America, its core values and its role in the world. The words on the Liberty Bell–Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land–are from the Torah. Both Benjamin Franklin and Cotton Mather are Hebrew names (Cotton: from kattan, meaning little one or younger).

 

[Lormar]

With all due respect, my comments about the Tridentine Mass do not involve what I suspect. They are what I know because I was there to observe and experience it. During our eight years of elementary school in the 1950’s, young girls (and well as all other females) covered their heads whenever they were inside the Church and not just during Mass. This was observed because it was the rule, and the rule was obeyed just like we all obeyed the many rules then existent. Dress was more formal for everyone. One certainly did not wear shorts to Mass in those days, for example. It would have been considered scandalous. As a boy, and thus a male, I was forbidden to wear a hat inside a Church. We were in the Midwest, and it was not unusual for a young boy to forget this rule when the weather was extremely cold. Trust me, he was very quickly reminded. And there were instances where a boy’s cap or hat was pulled right off his head by a patrolling nun. And we had better keep quiet. Even an observed short whisper never had a good result. The rule was silence. And rules were to be obeyed. Excuses were only further disobedience.

A female covering her head while in Church was a very old tradition, and like many things it changed during the 1960’s. The mid to late 1960’s involved a sea change within Western culture and society. Vatican II was a part of it.

I read in Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year that the veiling of women in church was made mandatory by Pope St. Linus. So, it is a very old tradition.

The only reason why I bring this up is because it is a topic that has been argued on here countless times and some are always asking to know when and how it started. When I read about it in The Liturgical Year, I made a mental note to remember to mention it on CAF the next time veiling came up in this section.

 

[Thomas_White]

I read in Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year that the veiling of women in church was made mandatory by Pope St. Linus. So, it is a very old tradition.
H
The only reason why I bring this up is because it is a topic that has been argued on here countless times and some are always asking to know when and how it started. When I read about it in The Liturgical Year, I made a mental note to remember to mention it on CAF the next time veiling came up in this section.

Thanks for the interesting comment. Really, when I was a kid, and for whatever reason, it was much more likely that a young boy would come into Church wearing a hat than it was for a young girl to do so without wearing one. The major difficulty for young girls occurred when they would forget, as kids will, and would arrive at Church without a hat. This was of course more problematic than it was for a boy who simply had to remove his hat. I remember nuns using Bobby pins to attach a paper napkin to a young girl’s hair. The nuns, who were also our teachers and understood the behavior of children, kept handy a supply of these items for that very purpose.

 

[Lormar]

Thanks for the interesting comment. Really, when I was a kid, and for whatever reason, it was much more likely that a young boy would come into Church wearing a hat than it was for a young girl to do so without wearing one. The major difficulty for young girls occurred when they would forget, as kids will, and would arrive at Church without a hat. This was of course more problematic than it was for a boy who simply had to remove his hat. I remember nuns using Bobby pins to attach a paper napkin to a young girl’s hair. The nuns maintained a supply of these items.

I was around back then too. But that wasn’t the point I was making. And Pope St. Linus wasn’t talking about men. He was referring to women.

 

[Thomas_White]

I was around back then too. But that wasn’t the point I was making. And Pope St. Linus wasn’t talking about men. He was referring to women.

I know it. The point I was making was related to my own comment you quoted.