1962 Missal

[iohanne]

I’m new to traditional Catholicism and have attended the Tridentine Mass only a few times; but I’m already seriously considering investing in a 1962 missal to aid in really becoming familiar with this beautiful and ancient liturgy. I’ve basically narrowed my choices down to two: the missals produced by Baronius Press and Angelus Press. They contain, in addition to the text of the Mass, a lot of other traditional material which I’d love to have. I can’t make up my mind between the two, though! I have no aesthetic preferences with respect to binding or the physical structure of the book. I’m also young so my eyesight is pretty much tiptop and I have no problems with small font or weird layouts. My qualms with the SSPX and the kinds of books their press publishes are minor at most but still something to consider; I’d rather financially support Baronius, for example. I also heard that these two missals were pretty much almost exactly the same except for certain important things which concern me:

1. The Angelus has one extra votive Mass whereas the Baronius is missing it. Is this important? I don’t even know what a votive Mass is yet so…
2. The Angelus apparently has 39 votive collects whereas the Baronius Press description doesn’t include that. I’m not sure if the description just didn’t include this and it’s actually in the missal or if the missal itself does not have these votive collects.
3. The Angelus has the “Conclusions of Collects” whereas the Baronius doesn’t mention this in the description. So again, is this an omission in the description or an mission in the actual missal itself?
4. The Angelus has texts for the sacraments whereas the Baronius doesn’t. This kind of sucks because it would be nice to pass on the missal to future generations and although I can’t imagine anyone inviting me to a traditional 1962-style First Communion or Extreme Unction or Baptism, I figure maybe future generations may be in that situation…
5. Finally and most importantly, I’m Canadian. It’s said that the Baronius has the “supplements for special masses” for England, Wales, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand and USA but there’s no mention of Canada… am I suppose to assume that collectively, all those other anglophone countries have the Canadian feasts? The trouble with the Angelus in this case is that it has those supplements for USA and Canada but my curiosity and my “collector’s instinct” is a little unsatisfied at not having the supplements for special masses for the other countries.

I was wondering if you guys could comment on these and possibly help me tip the scales to one missal or the other.

Finally, I was wondering if there were any French-Latin 1962 Missals? I speak it fluently and if there are any well-known ones that are more comprehensive than even the Baronius and the Angelus, I’d get that…

---

On a related but different note, I’m excited for the bilingual Breviarium Romanum that Barius Press is soon to be releasing. I’m a little wary that there could be possible English and Latin errors which apparently the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary had and it would suck to pay so much to be annoyed by little things like that. I’m also a little baffled as to why it’s being released in three giant volumes instead of the more traditional four smaller volumes. Does anyone know what the organizational style might be?

Thanks in advance, everyone! =D

 

[ProVobis]

On a related but different note, I’m excited for the bilingual Breviarium Romanum that Barius Press is soon to be releasing. I’m a little wary that there could be possible English and Latin errors which apparently the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary had and it would suck to pay so much to be annoyed by little things like that.

It’s quite possible the English contains errors, as translations can’t be perfect. From what I know, though, the Latin should be spot on and official.

 

[Will_S]

The Baronius and Angelus missals are almost identical. Most people I know choose the Angelus missal just because it seems to fit in the hand better. They are both excellent missals.

The Baronius Press Latin/English Breviary has been extensively proofread, but no doubt there will be an error or two. If that bothers you, just wait until it comes out and other people have had a chance to take a look at it and review it. As to why three volumes? Maybe because they couldn’t fit it into two?

 

[TrueLight]

I’m new to traditional Catholicism and have attended the Tridentine Mass only a few times; but I’m already seriously considering investing in a 1962 missal to aid in really becoming familiar with this beautiful and ancient liturgy. I’ve basically narrowed my choices down to two: the missals produced by Baronius Press and Angelus Press.

I can’t personally speak of the difference between the two but about a month ago, I bought the Angelus Press missal and at that time, they had just released a leather bound missal. Yes!

I don’t know if you saw this old review of the Angelus versus Baronius hand missals compared side by side: Missal Comparison - Father Z

 

[At_Trent]

The Angelus offering is a reprint of “The Ideal Missal” fwiw. Though affiliated with the SSPX, many organizations in full communion sell the Angelus.

As mentioned, the Angelus is easier to handle.

 

[James_Miller]

Go to a second hand book store in Montreal there should be a wide selection Latin/French
Missals. Or search abebooks com

 

[laszlo]

Votive Mass is which is celebrated any other day, then it is set in the Calendar. On the days when there is no at least 3rd Class feast set in the Calendar, votive mass can be celebrated, which are either generic or taken from a certain saint or feast celebrated in other day also. People used to ask to celebrate votive Mass for St Jude, for their patron saint or other saint. This is possible only in weekdays.

In the good old days votive masses were very rare, because the free days were filled up Requiem mass (Mass for death) for anniversaries or simple remembering the beloved one.

The votive Mass is either printed separatelly, or the changing parts (e.g. in Lent time Tractus, in Easter time Alleluia after the reading instead of the per annum Gradual) are inserted to the proper.

You may buy any pre 1965 Missal for following the Traditional Mass, they are practically the same, even the pre 1962 editions

 

[iohanne]

Thanks for everyone’s responses! I was hoping someone could comment on the issue most concerning me - the one about Canada’s special masses and concerns that the Baronius won’t have 'em… ?

 

[ProVobis]

You may buy any pre 1965 Missal for following the Traditional Mass, they are practically the same, even the pre 1962 editions

I wouldn’t. Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel are missing. I would throw out all the English before I’d throw those out. Also the formula for reception of communion is not correct for 1962. Specific instructions on using the 62 Missal (per Cardinal Arinze) is that it be said as it was said BEFORE Vatican II.

 

[Chatter163]

I wouldn’t. Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel are missing. I would throw out all the English before I’d throw those out. Also the formula for reception of communion is not correct for 1962. Specific instructions on using the 62 Missal (per Cardinal Arinze) is that it be said as it was said BEFORE Vatican II.

You are incorrect on all accounts. ANY pre-1965 missal, and including all 1962 missals, contain the full prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel, and the former communion rite.

 

[ProVobis]

You are incorrect on all accounts. ANY pre-1965 missal, and including all 1962 missals, contain the full prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel, and the former communion rite.

I stand corrected on those counts. But why use any post-1962 Missal since Cardinal Arinze specifically mentions BEFORE the Second Vatican Council? Wasn’t there a 1964 or 1963 Missal?

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

Pre-1965 isn’t necessarily pre-Vatican II.

 

[laszlo]

I wouldn’t. Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel are missing. I would throw out all the English before I’d throw those out. Also the formula for reception of communion is not correct for 1962. Specific instructions on using the 62 Missal (per Cardinal Arinze) is that it be said as it was said BEFORE Vatican II.

The change (omitting Psalm 42, Last Gospel, changing the Communon rite and Conclusion) was made in 1964 (Inter oecumenici) and 1967 (Tres abhinc annos).

Before that the three collect-secret-postcommunion was omitted and the calendar was changes substancially in 1955 and St Joseph was inserted into the Canon in 1962.

Except for the sentence part for St Joseph and some new saints the 1962 missal can be reconstructed fully from previous versions.

 

[centurionguard]

I stand corrected on those counts. But why use any post-1962 Missal since Cardinal Arinze specifically mentions BEFORE the Second Vatican Council? Wasn’t there a 1964 or 1963 Missal?

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

Pre-1965 isn’t necessarily pre-Vatican II.

I own an old 985 page Latin MISSALE ROMANUM from the year 1921 in very good shape with bidings completely intact.

13" X 9-1/4" Black Hard Cover with embossed Cross

Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concil II Tridentini

Restitutum
S. PII V Pontificis Maximi

Jussu Editum
Aliorum Pontificum Cura Reognitum
A Pio X Reformatum

SSMI D. N. BENEDICTI XV
Auctoritate Vulgatum

Editio Juxta Typicam Vaticanam

Copyright

Mechinle, Typis Dessain
Neo Eboraci Cincinnati, Chicago

Apud FRATRES BENZIGER
MCMXX

 

[Chatter163]

I stand corrected on those counts. But why use any post-1962 Missal since Cardinal Arinze specifically mentions BEFORE the Second Vatican Council? Wasn’t there a 1964 or 1963 Missal?

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

Pre-1965 isn’t necessarily pre-Vatican II.

I did not offer any such counsel, but I will respond. You seem to fixate on being “pre-Vatican II.” Before or during the council is not much of an issue, with a few exceptions.

There is a 1962 typical edition of the missal, and that is the missal that is to be used in the EF. This edition came out in June,1962, four months before the Council opened, but that is not relevant. Especially from a layman’s perspective, the 1962 edition differs little from the previous editions (the addition of St. Joseph’s name in the Canon of the Mass is the most well-known feature, one that many use to identify a missal as a 1962 edition, but there are several other small features), and a layman may use earlier editions for their prayers without difficulty, unless they use a pre-1956 edition for Holy Week.

Now, the promulgation date of the 1962 missal is not the same as when a commercial publisher published a Latin-English missal for use in the pew. There are many people’s missals published in 1963 or even early 1964 that still print the Order of Mass as reflected in the official 1962 typical edition, so these are fine for layfolk to use. In fact, in the USA, most of these will have been published in 1963. But these are not separate editions; they are still the 1962 Roman Missal.

Revisions to the Order of Mass did not officially occur until the 1st Sunday in Lent, 1965 (that is when the foot prayers and last gospel were truncated), so the text of all missals beforehand would generally be the same. However, a mixed Latin-English set of texts was approved by the American bishops for use beginning in the 1st Sunday of Advent, 1964. Actual implementation dates varied by diocese (this was generally accompanied by the use of freee-standing altars), but the actual Order of Mass was still the complete, unedited Tridentine rite, with certain portions recited by the people in the vernacular. These revisions were permitted by the conciliar Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in December, 1963. Because of this, few publishers published any hand missals in 1964, because they knew that changes would be made. Most published again in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1969. However, these were not official editions promulgated by the Holy See; they were simply revised English translations made as the bishops permitted more and more vernacular.

So, the 1962 edition is official. But nearly any layman’s hand missal pre-1965 should be fine.

 

[ProVobis]

There are many people’s missals published in 1963 or even early 1964 that still print the Order of Mass as reflected in the official 1962 typical edition, so these are fine for layfolk to use. In fact, in the USA, most of these will have been published in 1963. But these are not separate editions; they are still the 1962 Roman Missal.

You’ve made your points clear and I’m well aware of the 1962 handmissals as well as the St. Andrew, St. Joseph, and Fr. Lasance missals. I haven’t seen any 1963 or 1964 handmissals but I understand there were already changes in the works planned and the ICEL had already been formed. In fact, my high school teacher (1963) advised us not to buy any new missals at that time. So, until I see a 1963 or 1964 handmissal, I can’t say I agree or disagree with what you say here. I just wouldn’t buy one, that’s all.

 

[malphono]

Chatter163;7953446:

There are many people’s missals published in 1963 or even early 1964 that still print the Order of Mass as reflected in the official 1962 typical edition, so these are fine for layfolk to use. In fact, in the USA, most of these will have been published in 1963. But these are not separate editions; they are still the 1962 Roman Missal.

You’ve made your points clear and I’m well aware of the 1962 handmissals as well as the St. Andrew, St. Joseph, and Fr. Lasance missals. I haven’t seen any 1963 or 1964 handmissals but I understand there were already changes in the works planned and the ICEL had already been formed. In fact, my high school teacher (1963) advised us not to buy any new missals at that time. So, until I see a 1963 or 1964 handmissal, I can’t say I agree or disagree with what you say here. I just wouldn’t buy one, that’s all.

FWIW, I think he’s correct. I have a St Joseph published in late 1963 or early 1964 (I don’t have it handy right now, but I remember it was “hot off the press” when I got it in early 1964) and it’s absolutely according to the 1962 editio typica. IIRC, it was among the last of the hand missals published. Indeed there were “changes in the works” but it seems that the publishers were well aware of that and held-off printing further for fear that things were going to become obsolete in short order.

 

[Cider]

Finally, I was wondering if there were any French-Latin 1962 Missals? I speak it fluently and if there are any well-known ones that are more comprehensive than even the Baronius and the Angelus, I’d get that…

I’ve seen TLM French-Latin missals on ebay.

 

[Cider]

I have the Fr Lasance and the Angelus Press. I’ve used the Angelus press one much more, and it’s easier to carry around because it’s not as thick. I think it’s a little easier to navigate too. The Fr Lasance is nice also though.

 

[Chatter163]

There are many 1963 missals available, as a search of eBay, etc. will reveal. The Constiution on the Sacred Liturgy, which recognized for the first time that there might be some merit for a limited use of the vernacular for the people’s parts of Mass, was promulgated on 4 Dec 1963. Prior to that there had been no real expectation of vernacular liturgy or major changes to the Order of Mass, certainly not in the general public, which included publishers. Publishers, being commercial organizations, and not apparatus of the Church, had no clue before anyone else what was coming. Even through most of 1964, when it was known that reforms would be coming, no one actually knew what those reforms would be.

 

[Monica4316]

I am trying to choose between these two missals also

I have a (used) Latin Mass missal, and I like it a lot because it comes from my old FSSP parish and a person in the parish put a new cover on it, it also has pictures and it’s a “Marian missal”… but it doesn’t have the Latin readings, - so I’m thinking of also getting the Baronius/Angelus Press missal as well.

Is Angelus Press associated with SSPX? However at the FSSP parish I think they were selling them…