T
TantumErgo90
Guest
I’m thinking about getting a Baronius Missal. What are some of the changes they made between their previous edition and the Motu Proprio edition? Thank you.
- Status
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
I’m very interested in this as well as I’ve only seen a pre-Motu Propio Edition.
N
NoPlaceLikeRome
Guest
AFAIK it’s the same as the previous, but with the Motu Proprio printed in it. There could be more changes…?
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
This is a bummer. I was hoping they would make some changes. To the OP: I would go with the Angelus Missal. I’ve never heard of anyone who has one complain about them, but I have heard several Baronius owners say they wished they got an Angelus. I’ve got one and love it!
T
TantumErgo90
Guest
I have the Angelus Missal, but the Baronius just seems like it has something special to it. I’ve seen the pre-Motu Proprio one, and really liked it. I don’t mind the small print. I seems like it is more easier to carry around. Plus, we need another missal for my household.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Ah, I assumed you didn’t have a 62’ Missal. My apologies. I too plan on buying a Baronius in the future, even though I already have an Angelus. I’m sure the Angelus will still be my main Missal, but I want a Baronius to use for reference and some of the extras too.
T
tcraig
Guest
Just a FYI …
I’ve ordered two items from Baronius Press - a DR Bible and the new Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary - and had problems with the quality of both items (even though they were ordered at different times).
After these experiences, I wouldn’t order anything from them without first seeing the product.
I’ve ordered two items from Baronius Press - a DR Bible and the new Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary - and had problems with the quality of both items (even though they were ordered at different times).
After these experiences, I wouldn’t order anything from them without first seeing the product.
M
markadm
Guest
That’s a pity, tcraig. I’ve never had any problems with the stuff I order from them; mind you, I am often comparing them with the quality of Collins (who have the monopoloy on liturgical books here) which is execrable. 
A
amy411
Guest
Hello Tantum Ergo 90,
There was a detailed review of the new Baronius Missal on the New Liturgical Movement website. I have searched extensively for it but I cannot find it. I have just email the site owner about it. I’ll post again when I obtain the article. I do remember him mentioning some significant changes.
There was a detailed review of the new Baronius Missal on the New Liturgical Movement website. I have searched extensively for it but I cannot find it. I have just email the site owner about it. I’ll post again when I obtain the article. I do remember him mentioning some significant changes.
amy411
W
Windmill
Guest
I have the Baronius Little Office of the BVM, and I love it.
A
amy411
Guest
markadm- Yea, that’s the one.
Here is the the text of the post concerning the missal in question-
*The 1962 Roman Missal
I want to begin with Baronius Press who sent me a copy of their most recently published edition of their 1962 Daily Missal – the Summorum Pontificum edition.
Having already owned a copy of their previous 2004 edition of this same missal, it gave a good point for comparison. Evidently, the main internal difference I am able to ascertain as far as its textual contents is concerned is the fact that the missal now includes the text (in Latin as well as in English) of Summorum Pontificum – a very nice addition needless to say. The Latin text employed is the one which uses “continenter”, though the English translation is rendered “stable” in this edition.
On this point, it might have been a good addition to also have included the Explanatory Letter which is an important interpretive key to the motu proprio. Perhaps this might be included in a future edition, alongside any official clarifications to come forth from Ecclesia Dei.
Moving beyond this, while the previous 2004 editon of the missal was quite nice by all accounts, the 2007 edition takes the printing to a new level in my estimation. From a practical standpoint, the new volume is actually bound thinner than the 2004 edition which makes it a little less burdensome. Likewise, the pages are slightly wider in size, which thereby helps in terms of the placement of the text as regards the centre binding – also helping the missal to stay open better. Both changes bring this edition of the missal into line with typical pew Missal proportions.
Another feature I note is that the pages are brighter white and they tend to stay flatter generally than in the previous edition. In the previous edition, the edges of the pages curled or rippled ever so slightly and the pages were a little more difficult to turn. Moreover, the edges did not feel crisp. All this has been resolved in the new edition.
In addition to this, the gold gilding upon the edge of the book is also better done and the leather cover itself is sturdier and even better made, allowing for the titling and embossed monogram design to show through more clearly.
Overall, this second generation of the Baronius Daily Missal can only be chalked up as a success.
For those who were not familiar with this Missal in the first place, it is worth reviewing that it is a fully parallel Latin-English daily missal based upon the 1962 Missale Romanum. It also includes traditional style black and white art within it and the rubrics are in red for the Ordo Missae. While I would prefer the Belgian missal line-art, it is nonetheless quite attractive. It also includes a number of sewn in ribbons and a Gregorian Kyriale in the back
It is finally worth noting that the publisher informs me that a decent sale of these missals for the Christmas gift giving period is likely to also significantly expedite the process of their publication of the English-Latin Divine Office from 1962. *
Here is the the text of the post concerning the missal in question-
*The 1962 Roman Missal
I want to begin with Baronius Press who sent me a copy of their most recently published edition of their 1962 Daily Missal – the Summorum Pontificum edition.
Having already owned a copy of their previous 2004 edition of this same missal, it gave a good point for comparison. Evidently, the main internal difference I am able to ascertain as far as its textual contents is concerned is the fact that the missal now includes the text (in Latin as well as in English) of Summorum Pontificum – a very nice addition needless to say. The Latin text employed is the one which uses “continenter”, though the English translation is rendered “stable” in this edition.
On this point, it might have been a good addition to also have included the Explanatory Letter which is an important interpretive key to the motu proprio. Perhaps this might be included in a future edition, alongside any official clarifications to come forth from Ecclesia Dei.
Moving beyond this, while the previous 2004 editon of the missal was quite nice by all accounts, the 2007 edition takes the printing to a new level in my estimation. From a practical standpoint, the new volume is actually bound thinner than the 2004 edition which makes it a little less burdensome. Likewise, the pages are slightly wider in size, which thereby helps in terms of the placement of the text as regards the centre binding – also helping the missal to stay open better. Both changes bring this edition of the missal into line with typical pew Missal proportions.
Another feature I note is that the pages are brighter white and they tend to stay flatter generally than in the previous edition. In the previous edition, the edges of the pages curled or rippled ever so slightly and the pages were a little more difficult to turn. Moreover, the edges did not feel crisp. All this has been resolved in the new edition.
In addition to this, the gold gilding upon the edge of the book is also better done and the leather cover itself is sturdier and even better made, allowing for the titling and embossed monogram design to show through more clearly.
Overall, this second generation of the Baronius Daily Missal can only be chalked up as a success.
For those who were not familiar with this Missal in the first place, it is worth reviewing that it is a fully parallel Latin-English daily missal based upon the 1962 Missale Romanum. It also includes traditional style black and white art within it and the rubrics are in red for the Ordo Missae. While I would prefer the Belgian missal line-art, it is nonetheless quite attractive. It also includes a number of sewn in ribbons and a Gregorian Kyriale in the back
It is finally worth noting that the publisher informs me that a decent sale of these missals for the Christmas gift giving period is likely to also significantly expedite the process of their publication of the English-Latin Divine Office from 1962. *
N
NoPlaceLikeRome
Guest
For those who have the Baronius Little Office–
tcraig, I’ve noticed that there are rather a lot of typos, but luckily I can tell where they are for a lot of things; it will be annoying, though, if there’s one in a Latin word that I didn’t already know… was there anything else that bothered you about it?
For Windmill or anyone else who has this Little Office–or just chant types–d’you know what this means?
tcraig, I’ve noticed that there are rather a lot of typos, but luckily I can tell where they are for a lot of things; it will be annoying, though, if there’s one in a Latin word that I didn’t already know… was there anything else that bothered you about it?
For Windmill or anyone else who has this Little Office–or just chant types–d’you know what this means?
(The book says ‘in toni’ but I think it must mean ‘in tono’. But what does this phrase mean? Simply that they are chanted while one faces the altar?
A
AJV
Guest
The direct tone is a particular Gregorian chant tone (usually for psalms without antiphons, sometimes for more ‘mournful’ Offices). I’m horrible at explaining music so I’ll see if I can find a score.
N
NoPlaceLikeRome
Guest
Thanks AJV! A score would be nice.
Seems that it is possible it could be ‘in toni’ since that is a locative of ‘tonus’ or ‘tonos’. I don’t know whether one would use the locative metaphorically though or if it would be the ablative which would be ‘tono.’ I tried doing a Google search but it was hard to tell because it was full of irrelevant hits for women named Toni; “in tono” did bring up a few random apparently musical references.
Seems that it is possible it could be ‘in toni’ since that is a locative of ‘tonus’ or ‘tonos’. I don’t know whether one would use the locative metaphorically though or if it would be the ablative which would be ‘tono.’ I tried doing a Google search but it was hard to tell because it was full of irrelevant hits for women named Toni; “in tono” did bring up a few random apparently musical references.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Hmm… my impression of the fresh print of the Baronius Missal comes from holding a friends one. The cover feels different and that its just slightly thinner.
R
Rosella
Guest
I have both, Angelus and Baronius, and I’m confused. Shouldn’t these Missals be identical? Both are the 1962 Missal, they have the same pictures and information, but the pages don’t match and there are different “explanations” of the rubrics.
Of course the “Motu Proprio edition” has the imprimatur and the text of Summorum Pontificum, but I don’t mean that, I mean the MAIN PARTS of the Missals are not identical.
For example, in the Angelus the Mass begins on page 836. In the Baronius, it begins of page 898. Which is the REAL 1962 Missal?
The Angelus says “Roman Catholic Daily Missal” on the front with a two-heart symbol and “1962” underneath. The Baronius only has print on the binding, which reads, “The Roman Missal (1962)”.
Tomorrow we are having our first Extraordinary Form low mass, at my parish. The priest said to help us through the first time, he will indicate what page number he’s on at various points. He says, “as long as you have a 1962 Missal, either from the old days or one of the new editions, all the pages will be the same.”
But that is not so. Does anyone understand this?
Of course the “Motu Proprio edition” has the imprimatur and the text of Summorum Pontificum, but I don’t mean that, I mean the MAIN PARTS of the Missals are not identical.
For example, in the Angelus the Mass begins on page 836. In the Baronius, it begins of page 898. Which is the REAL 1962 Missal?
The Angelus says “Roman Catholic Daily Missal” on the front with a two-heart symbol and “1962” underneath. The Baronius only has print on the binding, which reads, “The Roman Missal (1962)”.
Tomorrow we are having our first Extraordinary Form low mass, at my parish. The priest said to help us through the first time, he will indicate what page number he’s on at various points. He says, “as long as you have a 1962 Missal, either from the old days or one of the new editions, all the pages will be the same.”
But that is not so. Does anyone understand this?
R
Rosella
Guest
Regarding my previous post asking should the page numbers be the same in the Adoremus and Baronius 1962 Missal (and the “original”) – I called someone from my parish and it seems maybe I misunderstood the priest:
Both missals are accurate, but have different formats, is what we can figure out.
Not being an expert, to me they seem different, for example, the Adoremus has explanatory notes along the margins. Also, it’s not clear to me exactly when we sit, kneel, stand, or when we recite with the servers or just follow silently.
I have been following the TLM issues for years, and have seen it on EWTN and YouTube, but this will be my first time attending, hence my nervousness to be sure I’m following along correctly. This will be a low Mass, weekday, with no music, so not at all like the elaborate versions seen recently by FSSP, etc.
Sorry, I hope I did not cause confusion on this forum by my questions. It’s not easy to figure this Mass out, I need a “TLM for Dummies”!
Both missals are accurate, but have different formats, is what we can figure out.
Not being an expert, to me they seem different, for example, the Adoremus has explanatory notes along the margins. Also, it’s not clear to me exactly when we sit, kneel, stand, or when we recite with the servers or just follow silently.
I have been following the TLM issues for years, and have seen it on EWTN and YouTube, but this will be my first time attending, hence my nervousness to be sure I’m following along correctly. This will be a low Mass, weekday, with no music, so not at all like the elaborate versions seen recently by FSSP, etc.
Sorry, I hope I did not cause confusion on this forum by my questions. It’s not easy to figure this Mass out, I need a “TLM for Dummies”!
D
demerzel85
Guest
The translation in the Angelus and Baronius should be exactly the same since the translator is the same. Feature wise, the Baronius is based on the Daily Missal and Liturgical Mass while the Angelus Missal is based on the Ideal Missal.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Well you don’t have to follow everything line by line. In general if fine to know which part of the mass you are at. For the Canon, well you know where you are just by following the gestures of the Priest. Just know abit of the commentary of St Thomas Aquinas on those and well it’d be beautiful.
- Status