S
SlavesOfJesusandMary
Guest
Hello, I was wondering how to use the father lasance missal at TLM, I attend mainly high mass and I just got the father lasance Roman missal!
- Status
Crusader13
New member
Dr. Taylor Marshall has a short, but good video on how to set up your missal. It should answer some of your questions and he references your exact missal, as that is the one he primarily uses as well.
T
ThomasMT
Guest
First and foremost, congrats for your wonderful investment! Don’t forget to get it blessed the next chance you get )
As you get comfortable using it, it is important to realize that basic usage for Sunday Mass is fairly straightforward and simple. You only need two ribbons, one for the Ordinary, and one for the Propers of that Sunday. So, for this comming Sunday…
One ribbon on pg 753 (High Mass starts here), or 756 (Low Mass starts here, but High Mass ends up here also) — This is your start for every Mass.
Your second ribbon (for this comming Sunday, the 16th - Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost, Green vestments) goes on page 675.
Follow the Ordinary. When prompted, jump to the Propers. After the section in the Propers (be it the Introit, or Epistle, etc.), jump back to where you left off in the Ordinary.
When you get to the PostCommunion, you can leave your ribbon where it is, as it will be upon the proper for the following Sunday. Your first ribbon you can reset back to the beginning of the Ordinary (or Asperges).
That’s pretty much all there’s to it.
Finer details will come in due course, as will your preference for usage of remaining ribbons. For example, I myself also like to mark pages 1799 ( for pre-Mass preparation), pg 1814 ( before Communion prayers), and pg 1816 (after Communion prayers).
Oh… and if you plan to attend TLM this Saturday, for the Assumption, the proper for that Mass is on pg 1159.
I’m new to the TLM as well, but am happy to help and try to answer any other questions that you may have.
As you get comfortable using it, it is important to realize that basic usage for Sunday Mass is fairly straightforward and simple. You only need two ribbons, one for the Ordinary, and one for the Propers of that Sunday. So, for this comming Sunday…
One ribbon on pg 753 (High Mass starts here), or 756 (Low Mass starts here, but High Mass ends up here also) — This is your start for every Mass.
Your second ribbon (for this comming Sunday, the 16th - Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost, Green vestments) goes on page 675.
Follow the Ordinary. When prompted, jump to the Propers. After the section in the Propers (be it the Introit, or Epistle, etc.), jump back to where you left off in the Ordinary.
When you get to the PostCommunion, you can leave your ribbon where it is, as it will be upon the proper for the following Sunday. Your first ribbon you can reset back to the beginning of the Ordinary (or Asperges).
That’s pretty much all there’s to it.
Finer details will come in due course, as will your preference for usage of remaining ribbons. For example, I myself also like to mark pages 1799 ( for pre-Mass preparation), pg 1814 ( before Communion prayers), and pg 1816 (after Communion prayers).
Oh… and if you plan to attend TLM this Saturday, for the Assumption, the proper for that Mass is on pg 1159.
I’m new to the TLM as well, but am happy to help and try to answer any other questions that you may have.
Last edited:
I have been using the Father Lasance missal for 25 years, and I use the ribbons much the same way as @ThomasMT describes. I use the “extra” ribbons to mark devotional prayers, Easter, Christmas, and other things, really “just because they’re there” and I have to do something with them. Agreed, you really only need two ribbons, one for the Ordinary — the part that doesn’t change — and one for the Propers.
I have never used a TLM missal that I liked as well as the Lasance. Good investment. I keep one of the old Father Stedman missals in the center well of my car, and sometimes use it for private prayer even at the Novus Ordo.
Last edited:
Just two different missals.
Possibly one reason I like the Lasance so much, is because it’s what I’ve become used to. I have another missal, Sheed and Ward publishers, IIRC with readings from the Knox Bible, and I’ve found it a little… weird. Not heterodox, nothing “wrong” with it, just too far removed from what I’m accustomed to.
Possibly one reason I like the Lasance so much, is because it’s what I’ve become used to. I have another missal, Sheed and Ward publishers, IIRC with readings from the Knox Bible, and I’ve found it a little… weird. Not heterodox, nothing “wrong” with it, just too far removed from what I’m accustomed to.
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
Really? I thought the Lasance missal was a 1955 missal.
F
Fauken
Guest
It would be, yes. And I’m not sure I understand your second question, could you clarify it a bit please?
F
Fauken
Guest
They did, yes, but not with the 1962 calendar.
T
ThomasMT
Guest
'45
…
F
Fauken
Guest
Ah, thank you. Glad I was right at least about it being pre-62… I was just off by 10 years. 
HomeschoolDad:
Really? I thought the Lasance missal was a 1955 missal.
Lasance is indeed 1945, and omits the changes to the prayers for the Jews on Good Friday, does not contain the name of St Joseph in the Canon, and refers to the second Confiteor. I was totally asleep at the wheel when I conflated the Lasance and Angelus missals.Fauken:
'45
The St Joseph and second Confiteor changes are not ones I would have made, but in the wake of the Holocaust, I think the least the Church could do, was to remove the word “perfidis”. Bear in mind, too, that this was not a change to the Mass itself.
My edition is from 1993 and contains the following changes:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
T
ThomasMT
Guest
To be clear, these are all additions, not revisions right?
In all honesty, I really don’t know. I accept the 1962 Missal as a perfectly unproblematic revision, but I’m not terribly nitpicky about what changes were made, and when, prior to 1962. Adding St Joseph to the Canon and removing the second Confiteor are not changes I would have made, but I accept them on the authority of the Church.
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Fair enough, but I cant help to wonder how much change a work is permitted before the original Imprimaturs lose applicability. I’m not sure how that works.
Last edited:
It’s a fair question, but I don’t really think anyone would view this as a concern. We know the original work had an imprimatur, and it’s pretty far-fetched to think that any revisions such as these, could in any way be contrary to Catholic faith or morals, which is what imprimaturs guard against in the first place. If the changes were promulgated by the Church, Catholics would be generally agreed that the Holy Spirit would not allow such changes to threaten Catholic faith or morality. (A very hard-nosed sedevacantist here or there could take issue.)
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Perhaps, but your reasoning begs the question… this Missal contains 2 Imprimaturs. One in 1936 and then another in 1945. Should the '36 not suffice?
Personally, I agree with your general sentiment. I don’t necessarily mind “changes” that add feast days, adapt date changes, and so forth. However, I do want assurance that all old prayers, outdated fasting requirements, etc. are left intact, not only because one is free to utilize them for personal devotion, but also because they preserve the history and heritage of our Church.
Don’t said changes need to be promulgated ex cathedra in order for the Church to be assured divine “checks,” for lack of a better term?
Personally, I agree with your general sentiment. I don’t necessarily mind “changes” that add feast days, adapt date changes, and so forth. However, I do want assurance that all old prayers, outdated fasting requirements, etc. are left intact, not only because one is free to utilize them for personal devotion, but also because they preserve the history and heritage of our Church.
Last edited:
I thank you for your rare, correct use of the term “begging the question” (petitio principii, better translated as “assuming the conclusion”). For the more modern, and incorrect, use of this expression, I say instead “the question that begs to be asked” or “the question that begs to be answered”. When I hear “begging the question” in modern usage and journalism, I say to myself “people who are just educated enough to know the term, but not educated enough to use it correctly”. As they would have said in the little hamlet where I grew up, people trying to sound smart. I once heard a pitiful, embarrassing attempt by a copy editor, in a printer’s shop where I worked just out of college, to defend the “greengrocer’s apostrophe” — “banana’s”, “watermelon’s”, and so on — by asserting that “possession denotes plurality”, or it may have been “plurality denotes possession”. She’d heard something like this in Freshman Composition 101, was humiliated that I called attention to the fact that she didn’t know better, and came up with something that sounded superficially erudite. Pathetic. I would have felt sorry for her, if she hadn’t been so haughty and defensive about it.
Anyway, I did not mean to use specious reasoning. I did not realize that Lasance had two separate imprimaturs. Using my reasoning, the 1936 imprimatur would make the 1945 imprimatur unnecessary, but regardless, later imprimaturs trump earlier ones, and provide permission for the publication of those changes made in the 1945 edition. Lasance does not contain an imprimatur that includes the revisions and changes I illustrated in my photo.
Not according to those who feel the need to defend the Church’s promulgation of the Novus Ordo. One of the “rules of engagement” for traditionalists who wish to get permission for the TLM, is to affirm that the Novus Ordo is equally valid, licit, contains nothing dangerous to Catholic faith, and omits nothing that is needed for a holy and reverent celebration of the Mass. In a nutshell, you can’t attack the Novus Ordo. The principle behind all of this, is that the Holy Spirit is always with His Church, in the promulgation of her liturgy as in all things.HomeschoolDad:
Don’t said changes need to be promulgated ex cathedra in order for the Church to be assured divine “checks,” for lack of a better term?
Lasance is a curious hybrid of a museum piece of sorts, and a missal adapted for contemporary usage in assisting at the TLM. These quirks do not keep me from using it profitably.
- Status