Is there going to be a new Missal published?

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

codefro

Guest
Due to adding St. Joseph’s name to the OF, are they going to already be reprinting new Missals for that?
 
At several hundred dollars a copy, Post-It notes should fill the need for quite a while.
 
codefro said:
Due to adding St. Joseph’s name to the OF, are they going to already be reprinting new Missals for that?
Click to expand...
New Missals? Hardly. The English translation of the 2001 Roman Missal was just finalized a year and a half ago, and many language groups are still in the translation process. In fact, the 1986? Roman Missal was never given an official English translation - by the time they were almost done, the 2001 missal was promulgated. It takes years to promulgate and translate new Missals. The more likely scenario is that they simply write an addendum with just Eucharistic Prayers 2, 3, and 4 (remember, Eucharistic Prayer 1, the Roman Canon already had Joseph’s name) or ask the pastors to pencil Joseph’s name into the prayers.
 
bben15 said:
So that means every time my priest says Mass, it is illicit?
Click to expand...
I suppose, technically, but he probably doesn’t know. Perhaps you can print a copy of the letter and any accompanying literature from your diocese or the USCCB and give it to him.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I imagine that once the current stock is sold out, the replacements will have it.
Click to expand...
That would be my guess too. However long it takes them to go through their current printed stock.

By that time though, most priests will have probably memorized it.
 
Our pastor just wrote it in the Missal. He also does that with the bishop’s name in case we have visiting priests, which we do have a lot of, especially during the summer.
 
bben15 said:
So that means every time my priest says Mass, it is illicit?
Click to expand...
Can he not remember to add it into the prayer? This is what I have seen done by most of the priets I have served with since the letter. One priest I know taped a little note in the space to remind himself.
 
bben15 said:
So that means every time my priest says Mass, it is illicit?
Click to expand...
We must get out of our heads the belief that because one element of the Mass is done wrongly, that the whole Mass is condemned as illicit. There are minor transgressions, and there are major ones, and a whole spectrum in between. I have noticed a few priests who still forget to add in St Joseph’s name in the EP, but it does not mean that they are causing sacrilege. The addition of St Joseph’s name is a relatively recent phenomenon, and we must give allowances for mistakes, even as we exhort them to obey the law with greater fidelity. 🙂
 
IIRC, when John XIII added St Joseph to the Roman Canon, there was some confusion about it in the various publishing houses. At least some of them had printed the 1962 edition without it, but it was corrected prior to release by using a “sticker” printed with the added text included, which was pasted in place.
 
Filii_Dei said:
We must get out of our heads the belief that because one element of the Mass is done wrongly, that the whole Mass is condemned as illicit. There are minor transgressions, and there are major ones, and a whole spectrum in between. I have noticed a few priests who still forget to add in St Joseph’s name in the EP, but it does not mean that they are causing sacrilege. The addition of St Joseph’s name is a relatively recent phenomenon, and we must give allowances for mistakes, even as we exhort them to obey the law with greater fidelity. 🙂
Click to expand...
How dare you take a reasonable, well thought out and balanced position. :mad:
-Tim-
 
malphono said:
IIRC, when John XIII added St Joseph to the Roman Canon, there was some confusion about it in the various publishing houses. At least some of them had printed the 1962 edition without it, but it was corrected prior to release by using a “sticker” printed with the added text included, which was pasted in place.
Click to expand...
You’re right about that. Many didn’t know about that change (as well as the removal of the 2nd confiteor) although it did make it into the English version of the 1965 Missal.

But the interesting part is that it was published in the 1965 as “Blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin” later changed to “Blessed Joseph, Her Spouse” by the ICEL. It looks like “Her Spouse” made it into all the translations now, although the Roman Canon (EP1 in Latin) still has “eiusdem Virginis Sponsi,” which Pope John XXIII intended.
 
ProVobis said:
You’re right about that. Many didn’t know about that change (as well as the removal of the 2nd confiteor) although it did make it into the English version of the 1965 Missal.

But the interesting part is that it was published in the 1965 as “Blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin” later changed to “Blessed Joseph, Her Spouse” by the ICEL. It looks like “Her Spouse” made it into all the translations now, although the Roman Canon (EP1 in Latin) still has “eiusdem Virginis Sponsi,” which Pope John XXIII intended.
Click to expand...
There seems to be some confusion here. Taking the last item first, ICEL’s translation was “we honor Joseph, her husband.” This was used from 1967-2011. Next, the reason that one sees altar missals published in 1962 that do not include the name of St. Joseph is because said missals are not actually 1962. See wdtprs.com/blog/2007/08/caveat-emptor-a-missal-on-sale-advertised-as-1962/ Additionally, what is not mentioned here is the fact that the four so-called Gallican prefaces are also included in the appendix of the 1962 missal. These include ferial, solemn and high solemn tones for: advent, the dedication of a church, all saints and patrons, and the Blessed Sacrament.

The assertion about the second Confiteor was in error. First of all, the altar missals prior to 1962 never included this in the Order of Mass, because the rite of reception of Holy Communion by the people was not seen as part of the Mass rite. It was done everywhere, but one does not see it in the Order of Mass. Secondly, contrary to a widespread misconception, the Confiteor was not dropped in 1962, but in 1960. Blessed John XXIII;s new rubrics of 1960 proscribed this in general rubric 503.
 
Chatter163 said:
The assertion about the second Confiteor was in error. First of all, the altar missals prior to 1962 never included this in the Order of Mass, because the rite of reception of Holy Communion by the people was not seen as part of the Mass rite. It was done everywhere, but one does not see it in the Order of Mass. Secondly, contrary to a widespread misconception, the Confiteor was not dropped in 1962, but in 1960. Blessed John XXIII;s new rubrics of 1960 proscribed this in general rubric 503.
Click to expand...
You may be onto something there as the 2nd Confiteor was/is not recited by the priest but the acolyte/servers. But now after I checked some handmissals, I find in the 1959 St. Joseph there was no absolution by the priest prior to communion, although the earlier ones have/had the Misereatur and the Absolution.
 
ProVobis said:
You may be onto something there as the 2nd Confiteor was/is not recited by the priest but the acolyte/servers. But now after I checked some handmissals, I find in the 1959 St. Joseph there was no absolution by the priest prior to communion, although the earlier ones have/had the Misereatur and the Absolution.
Click to expand...
People’s hand missals were not official liturgical books of the Church; they were privately published missals sold for commercial purposes. Yes, they had imprimaturs, but no official translations of the Order of Mass existed at that point. A publisher generally got a priest to make a translation, then they got a bishop to sign off and give an imprimatur, and then published the missal and sold it. These were not authoritative, and each publisher used its own translation, along with its own pictures and commentary.

Many of these missals, being designed for the laity, included the rite of receiving communion, with its second (OK, actually third) Confiteor and absolution. along with the Ecce, Agnus Dei and Domine, non sum dignus. But these did not appear in the Missale Romanum on the altar. That was the official book, and it did not include the rite of receiving communion within the Order of the Mass. This was because over the centuries, the reception of communion had become infrequent, and its reception often occurred outside of Mass, often immediately before or immediately after. St. Pius X encouraged more frequent reception of communion, and throughout the twentieth century, the numbers receiving communion continued to increase. However, the Missale Romanum, including the typical editions of 1920, 1960 and 1962, did not change the practice of not including the communion rite in the Order of the Mass. The revised rubrics of Blessed John XXIII sort of took notice of the practice, by indicating that the confession and absolution before communion were to be omitted. Part of this was because the Dialogue Mass was becoming more common and people would presumably be following, if not actually responding to, the prayers at the foot of the altar at Low Mass.

A dubium submitted to the Sacred Congregation of Rites inquired about the omitted* Confiteor* in 1962. The Holy See’s reply stated that where long-standing local custom was to include the Confiteor before communion, could continue to be “tolerated.” (This is typical Roman terminology and it is listed in a footnote in the last edition of Fortescue/O’Connell’s Mass of the Roman Rite, and is included in the updated reprinted editions of recent years.) It is on this basis that many EF parishes and communities today continue the third Confiteor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top