A Re-Issued "Roman Ritual" Valid?

[ThuribleGuy45]

Got the latest catalog from Leaflet Missal Co, and they have a growing section of Tridentine resources. One item is “The Roman Ritual” - complete English edition in accord with the Editio Typica of Jan 25, 1952 with the additional Liturgy Commission changes of Sept. 26, 1964.

Question: Is this valid to use in English (i.e., the sacramental and blessing forms), or is the 1952 Roman Ritual only valid in Latin as an adjunct to the Extraordinary Form?

 

[muledog]

Got the latest catalog from Leaflet Missal Co, and they have a growing section of Tridentine resources. One item is “The Roman Ritual” - complete English edition in accord with the Editio Typica of Jan 25, 1952 with the additional Liturgy Commission changes of Sept. 26, 1964.

Question: Is this valid to use in English (i.e., the sacramental and blessing forms), or is the 1952 Roman Ritual only valid in Latin as an adjunct to the Extraordinary Form?

I would say that, since Summorum Pontificum only authorized the use of liturgical books (including the Rituale Romanum) of 1962, only those parts of the re-published edition that correlate to it would be licit to use.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

A proper minister conforming to the rubrics validly and licitly uses the '62 liturgical books (those in force in that year). The questions I would have are:

1. Does the ritual provide for the texts you are considering to be employed in the vernacular?
2. Since you used the word “valid,” are you (or whoever would be employing the rites) a valid and licit minister of the rites you have in mind?

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

A proper minister conforming to the rubrics validly and licitly uses the '62 liturgical books (those in force in that year). The questions I would have are:

1. Does the ritual provide for the texts you are considering to be employed in the vernacular?
2. Since you used the word “valid,” are you (or whoever would be employing the rites) a valid and licit minister of the rites you have in mind?

Thanks for your response. In reply:
(1) Not sure I understand your question. From the book’s description (I don’t actually have the book), the texts are all in English.

(2) Yes, for some of the rites and blessings.

Maybe a better way of asking my original question would be: I find many of the “blessings” in the “Book of Blessings” to be overdone, too long, and over-ritualized for many of the tasks at hand. Having seen an original, falling-apart copy of the early 1950’s “Roman Ritual” by Weller in our sacristy, I was impressed by how much more focused and succinct the various blessings were. Thus, my interest in a re-issued version IF its use were licit. That said, and unlike the original 1950’s version, I don’t see myself blessing many locomotives or dynamos. (Of course, there IS a blessing for beer . . . )

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Thanks for your response. In reply:
(1) Not sure I understand your question. From the book’s description (I don’t actually have the book), the texts are all in English.

I asked this because I’m not familiar enough with the books other than the missal and am nowhere near old enough to have experienced them in practice. I just assumed that since the Ritual is normatively in Latin (like all the rest of the Latin liturgy) that some rules would govern what parts could be done in the vernacular and which must be in Latin (our more…er…mature posters can probably attest that much of the baptismal rite was allowed in the vernacular IIRC). When I asked my pastor to bless my missal, he pulled out his ritual, found a page, prayed a few paragraphs in Latin, and sprinkled it with holy water. That’s my only experience of the Rituale.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Question: Is this valid to use in English (i.e., the sacramental and blessing forms), or is the 1952 Roman Ritual only valid in Latin as an adjunct to the Extraordinary Form?>>

The word you’re looking for is not “valid” but “licit.”

If the 1965 additions were “valid”, they are still valid.

Whether they may still be used is another matter.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

<<Question: Is this valid to use in English (i.e., the sacramental and blessing forms), or is the 1952 Roman Ritual only valid in Latin as an adjunct to the Extraordinary Form?>>

The word you’re looking for is not “valid” but “licit.”

If the 1965 additions were “valid”, they are still valid.

Whether they may still be used is another matter.

I’m not so sure I would make the same assertion, and here’s why: Sacramentals are of merely ecclesiastical origin. Whereas sacraments have essential forms that if once valid remain always valid, sacramentals can be altered at will by the Church, including the forms that suffice to effect them. If she wanted, the Church could say on Tuesday that a layman can bless (validly make) holy water with the form “I bless this water, etc.”, but then on Thursday say that only a priest can bless it, and must use the form “Be blest, in the name of, etc.” Just because one formula worked for a sacramental in the past it does not necessarily mean it will work in the future. Now, since '62 books are licit, their provisions will also govern validity, so it is a moot point in this situation, but I wouldn’t say we could assume the validity of, say, a 1274 Dominican ritual.