How on earth would anyone be able to find out?
And that’s likely all they are. I’d leave them in the same place I left my last used tissue.
I would be shocked if this were the case.
I’ve never heard of this before, but if it were to occur, I suppose anybody who is attentive would be able to figure it out. Even if EPII was said entirely in Latin (including the readings), there’s multiple differences in the rubrics that would be noticeable. If this were true, and I have my doubts, perhaps some FSSP priests might use it in the context of private Masses when they are in a pinch for time.
I have heard this story as well.
I hate to say it, but if it took place, I have to think that it constitutes a liturgical abuse. The OF and EF missals are not meant to be “mashed up” in this way — it would be “forcing a round peg into a square hole”. The 1962 missal, AFAIK, does not allow for any variations taken from outside the missal. EP2 didn’t even exist in 1962.
Maybe he used the OF Missal?
You missed the wink
Seeing as the EP2 is one of the most contented points of the new liturgy I really can’t believe that’d be true. Not for the FSSP either.
So rumors is the key word here. Nothing but rumors that I highly, highly doubt are true.
It started in a Benedictine monastery of the Solesmes congregation that uses the OF.
You missed the wink
No, I saw the wink. We are still talking about rumorsYou missed the wink
That said, as I noted, abuses are not the sole province of the OF
Personally, I tend to keep my eyes lowered during whatever Mass I attend so as not to let myself get distracted (doesn’t always work, of course). Even so, it would be impossible for me to not notice the differences between the old and new Mass forms and even the differences between those two Eucharistic prayers. It’s not just different words but different gestures. There are three words that are supposed to be said “out loud”, too, that are not in Eucharistic prayer 2 (nobis quoque peccatoribus).
The rumour about EP II is indeed a rumour. That abuses and errors occurred and still occur in the Tridentine Mass is a fact. Otherwise why would a 1935 Ceremonial dedicate a whole chapter to it?
I can not comment, having not read that chapter of that particular book. It is from, what I understand, a book reprinted by the seminary of the SSPX now, to aid learning to say the TLM. From what I understand it is an aid in helping to prevent mistakes being made. I am not sure what abuses he is speaking of,again, having not read the book but in comparing 1935 to 2019, I suspect he would have a lot to say about what is seen today in the OF, probably even be shocked. I am glad to know that there was something written to correct mistakes and abuses.
Here’s an example. Bear with me, I’m translating from the French:
Interestingly, one of the most common abuses cited on CAF about the pre-Conciliar Mass, is rushing it. This has been confirmed with the 80 y.o. monk I work with, who was an acolyte when in seminary as a youth, where the priest would be finished the consecration before the acolytes were finished chanting the Sanctus. Clearly it was a frequent enough occurrence so as to merit mention in the chapter on faults.
I can’t say I agree and it strikes me that this is a logical fallacy. Having several options does not cause a priest to deviate from the rubrics by doing his own thing. Indiscipline does. Moreover, there were so many rubrics and minutiae, that there were many more rules to break in the pre-Conciliar Mass and many more opportunities to make mistakes. Our abbot mentioned, as I said, that this actually made it hard for the priest to pray the Mass as he’d be so concentrated on avoiding even mistakes that would appear trivial to most.
Or again:
It’s not having three penitential options that leads to an abuse: it is omitting it! We have to be careful not to confuse the priest taking an option we prefer least, with being an abuse, something I’ve seen here on CAF frequently.