EWTN's 2002 Latin GIRM not identical to 2002 Missale Romanum's GIRM

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
I’ve found at least one major deviation between the 2002 Latin General Instruction of the Roman Missal (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdwlgrm.htm) on EWTN and the version found in the front of the 2002 Latin Missale Romanum.

The deviation is found in nn. 256-258. Here’s EWTN’s version:
256. Sacerdos, facta altari profunda inclinatione, stans ante altare, signat se signo crucis, dicens: In nómine Patris; conversus ad ministrum, eum salutat, unam e formulis propositis eligendo; et peragit actum paenitentialem.
  1. Deinde accedit ad altare idque osculo veneratur; vertit se deinde ad missale in latere sinistro altaris, ubi remanet usque ad expletam orationem universalem.
  2. Tunc legit antiphonam ad introitum; et dicit Kýrie et Glória, iuxta rubricas.
    And here’s the Missale Romanum’s version (courtesy of CLERUS.org: clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/pt/2f.htm#bjt):🙂
  3. Sacerdos ad altare accedit et, facta cum ministro profunda inclinatione, osculo veneratur altare et sedem petit. Si libet, sacerdos potest ad altare manere; hoc in casu, ibi etiam missale paratur. Tunc minister vel sacerdos dicit antiphonam ad introitum.
  4. Deinde sacerdos cum ministro, stans, signat se signo crucis et dicit: In nómine Patris; conversus ad ministrum eum salutat, unam e formulis propositis eligendo.
  5. Deinde peragitur actus paenitentialis, et, iuxta rubricas, dicitur Kyrie et Glória.
    The difference is in the order of events: EWTN has “stand before altar, sign of the cross, penitential rite, approach and kiss altar, entrance antiphon, kyrie”, whereas the MR has “approach and kiss altar, go to chair (or remain at altar), entrance antiphon, sign of the cross, penitential rite, kyrie”.
So, if you are going to refer to the 2002 Latin GIRM for anything, I strongly suggest referring to the version found in the actual Missal, rather than EWTN’s stand-alone version.
 
There are many other differences as well. The thing is that EWTN’s version was actually the preliminary Latin version that was released before the 2002 editio typica in 2000. When it appeared in the 3rd editio typica of the Missal, it contained some changes. If you compare the two documents further you’ll notice some other notable changes like the position of the sequence or more explicit directions.

In the place where you quoted, the 2000 GIRM continued the practise of the previous GIRM’s which were essentially, observing roughly for a Mass with one minister, the order of the rites as they were before 1970. Hence unlike a Mass with the people, the Act of Penitence preceded the kissing of the altar after which the Introit Ant. was recited followed by the Kyrie. In the 2002 edition, there is no longer such a distinction.
 
Why I’m glad the 1962 Missale Romanum is back out. No confusion in word or structures of the Mass, compared to your 1962 missal you buy. To many darn variances in the NO Mass.
 
I don’t believe there is a GIRM that pertains to Los Angeles…:cool:

james
 
bkovacs said:
Why I’m glad the 1962 Missale Romanum is back out. No confusion in word or structures of the Mass, compared to your 1962 missal you buy. To many darn variances in the NO Mass.
Click to expand...
Your comments makes no sense.

It’s not the “NO Mass.” It’s the Mass of Pope Paul V. There are ZERO variances to ANY Mass (ordinary or extraordinary forms) unless men put them there.

All Masses have complete documentation from the Church that is free from “variances.”
 
Spiller said:
Your comments makes no sense.

It’s not the “NO Mass.” It’s the Mass of Pope Paul V. There are ZERO variances to ANY Mass (ordinary or extraordinary forms) unless men put them there.

All Masses have complete documentation from the Church that is free from “variances.”
Click to expand...
I believe the poster shortened ‘Novus Ordo’ to “NO”.

Kind of a long phrase for some to spell out it would seem, even while the term still causes confusion for some, much more the abreviation of it.

Although I admit its not the officially Church sanctioned title for the Missal of Paul VI.
 
Catholic29 said:
I believe the poster shortened ‘Novus Ordo’ to “NO”.

Kind of a long phrase for some to spell out it would seem, even while the term still causes confusion for some, much more the abreviation of it.

Although I admit its not the officially Church sanctioned title for the Missal of Paul VI.
Click to expand...
Using the term “NO Mass” is extremely inflammatory. Novus Ordo is fine, but “NO” is bad practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top