Mass didn't seem to follow 1962 missal

[Joel_Tunnah]

I attended my first Tridentine mass at Our Lady of Peace, in Brooklyn, this morning. I have the 1962 missal, printed by Baronius Press.

My question is, do some parishes skip around, or omit parts of the “Ordinary of the Mass”? For example, I didn’t hear the “Gradual” at all, and I believe the gospel reading came after communion. Whenever I thought I was caught up, we seemed to skip 10 pages. The whole mass was under 45 minutes, which seems short to me after looking at all the text in the Ordinary and all the readings for the first sunday in advent (pg 143-149).
Are they using a different missal?

Joel

 

[palmas85]

I attended my first Tridentine mass at Our Lady of Peace, in Brooklyn, this morning. I have the 1962 missal, printed by Baronius Press.

My question is, do some parishes skip around, or omit parts of the “Ordinary of the Mass”? For example, I didn’t hear the “Gradual” at all, and I believe the gospel reading came after communion. Whenever I thought I was caught up, we seemed to skip 10 pages. The whole mass was under 45 minutes, which seems short to me after looking at all the text in the Ordinary and all the readings for the first sunday in advent (pg 143-149).
Are they using a different missal?

Joel

You would not have heard the gradual in any event and the homily would not have occurred after Communion. Was the Mass a Low Mass or a High Mass? There is a difference. Also, the homily in the Traditional Mass is sometimes omitted for whatever reason and in many cases is abbreviated in comparison to the Pauline Rite, It is not an essential element in the Traditional Mass and never has been.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I still find it hard to follow along using my Missal even though I have attended the Tridentine Mass every week for months now.

As the previous poster said, the type of Mass that you attend does make a difference. I attend a Missa Cantata and this has a lot more than the ordinary low Mass.

Talk to your Priest and ask him to show you how to follow along using the Missal. My Priest was great; he placed the ribbons in all of the correct places and talked me through the Mass. Yours may do the same.

 

[AJV]

You would not have heard the gradual in any event and the homily would not have occurred after Communion. Was the Mass a Low Mass or a High Mass? There is a difference…

Out of curiosity, why would the Gradual not have been heard in any case? Would this be because even though the priest is speaking “clara voce” it is no audible to some in the pews because of acoustics, no microphones, etc. , or did you have another reason in mind?
Joel Tunnah:

and I believe the gospel reading came after communion

The Gospel for the Sunday? (sorry if it’s a slightly stupid question, just wondering)

Was it something you heard or something you saw or did?

 

[tradcathconvert]

The Gospel after communion was probably the last Gospel: John 1:1-14 which comes at the very end of the TLM. The priest says the ite, missa est, turns around and silently prays, faces the people for the blessing, then reads the last Gospel from the altar card at the left side of the altar. During that Gospel, everyone genuflects at the words :et verbum caro factum est.
After the Epistle and Gradual, was the missal moved to the other side while the priest prayed in the middle? If that happened, he said the prayer, and went to the mssal to read the Gospel for today. At least that is what should have happened.
I like the suggestion of talking to the priest. He should be willing to help you.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Thanks for the responses. I can’t answer the questions about what the priest was doing, because I was too busy flipping through the book.

Another thing I thought odd was that the Epistle, which was the only reading done in English, was from the NAB - not the Douay translation in the 1962 missal.
That’s where I got the idea that maybe they were not using the same missal in this parish.

 

[kleary]

Thanks for the responses. I can’t answer the questions about what the priest was doing, because I was too busy flipping through the book.

Another thing I thought odd was that the Epistle, which was the only reading done in English, was from the NAB - not the Douay translation in the 1962 missal.
That’s where I got the idea that maybe they were not using the same missal in this parish.

If the Mass was 45 minutes you attended Low Mass. Mostly in Low Mass the priest reads the Latin the same way you would read English- and if you do not know Latin it would have been extremely hard to follow using the Missal. Solemn Mass or Sung Mass is easier to follow because the priest sings the Latin and it is done much slower.

As of SP- the priest has the “option” of reading the Epistle and Gospel in the Vernacular using any approved translation including the NAB DURING THE SERMON. He is NOT allowed to read the vernacular translation in place of the Latin Text during the Mass (the Sermon is NOT part of the Mass)

Also, most likely no matter what, the English version of the Epistle and Gospel may not be the same as in the Red ED Mass booklets or the same one in any hand missal. The priest basically has his own personal choice of what translation to use. Remember the 1962 Roman Missal DOES NOT have “an official translation”…just approved ones for use by lay people.

Ken

 

[AJV]

As of SP- the priest has the “option” of reading the Epistle and Gospel in the Vernacular using any approved translation including the NAB DURING THE SERMON. He is NOT allowed to read the vernacular translation in place of the Latin Text during the Mass (the Sermon is NOT part of the Mass)

How do you know that is it during the sermon? What would be the point of mentioning that specially in SP, when the priest can do so anyway during the sermon, since the rubrics for that are not regulated?

 

[cam100]

For example, I didn’t hear the “Gradual” at all, and I believe the gospel reading came after communion.

Joel, was this mass celebrated in a church that is recognized by the diocese? I’m asking because in a few churches that are not recognized by the diocese, the priests use a missal older than 1962. I believe it is from 1914. On certain days, this older missal replaces the last gospel (the one after communion) with what is called the a “proper last gospel” – it varies according to the day. It is different from the usual gospel of St. John which is shown in your missal.

I’m not sure if last Sunday was one of those days that would have a different last gospel, but I’m just throwing this out there a possible explanation.

 

[AJV]

Joel, was this mass celebrated in a church that is recognized by the diocese? I’m asking because in a few churches that are not recognized by the diocese, the priests use a missal older than 1962. I believe it is from 1914. On certain days, this older missal replaces the last gospel (the one after communion) with what is called the a “proper last gospel” – it varies according to the day. It is different from the usual gospel of St. John which is shown in your missal.

I’m not sure if last Sunday was one of those days that would have a different last gospel, but I’m just throwing this out there a possible explanation.

I don’t think it could have had a Proper Last Gospel because the first Sunday of Advent was a I Class Sunday, and consequently, cannot be outranked even by a Double of the I Class.

 

[Silver_Thread]

I attended my first Tridentine mass at Our Lady of Peace, in Brooklyn, this morning. I have the 1962 missal, printed by Baronius Press.

My question is, do some parishes skip around, or omit parts of the “Ordinary of the Mass”? For example, I didn’t hear the “Gradual” at all, and I believe the gospel reading came after communion. Whenever I thought I was caught up, we seemed to skip 10 pages. The whole mass was under 45 minutes, which seems short to me after looking at all the text in the Ordinary and all the readings for the first sunday in advent (pg 143-149).
Are they using a different missal?

Joel

Take some time before Mass and read the instructions in front of your Missal. It does take time but it is worth it. You should not have to flip around if your ribons are in order. Sunday Masses are easier because the prayers are in order and you can follow no matter what you can or can’t hear. Sometimes you may come upon a passage that strikes your heart, it’s ok to meditate upon it at that time and let go. The Priest can do it on his own. Pick up somewhere else. It’s not cut and dried how we participate. If you have a question ask your Priest, he is obligated to give you a straight answer. Hang in, it gets easier as time goes on. Rome wasn’t built in a day… it just looks that way …

 

[kleary]

How do you know that is it during the sermon? What would be the point of mentioning that specially in SP, when the priest can do so anyway during the sermon, since the rubrics for that are not regulated?

I know it is “during the sermon” because to sing the Epistle and Gospel in English would sound “yucky” .

Believe me… “Yucky” plays a big role with Traditionalists… my pastor would not sing the Chaplet of Divine Mercy when we had our Divine Mercy procession outside because of how horrible the English chant of it sounded.

Anyway…the design of the TLM has Latin as the language of the Mass for specific reasons. We can all go back and re-read posts as to the Latin Language in the Liturgy and reasons for it.

The language of the TLM is Latin, with of course a little Greek (Kyrie) and Hebrew, “Alleluia”.

The “Epistle” and “Gospel” have been customarilly read by the priest in the native tongue, in an “authorized translation” during the sermon that is NOT part of the Mass. We all know that. The rubrics for the 1962 Missal that are governed by the 1962 Missal do not allow the priest to do anything in the vernacular languages during the Mass. Therefore the useage of the “authorized translations” for the readings are for the readings during the sermon and NOT during the Mass itself.

The point for SP mentioning using the ICEL translation for the readings (during the sermon) is because they are NOT currently used for readings during the sermon. Priests who say the TLM do the readings during their sermon in another translation other than ICEL’s…they NEVER use ICEL or the current NAB translation.

Allowing new TLM locations under SP to use ICEL translations when doing the readings during the sermon is an issue to some priests who would choose an English translation to read to the people…most especially since Traditionalists dislike the ICEL translation. Newcomers to the TLM are used to the ICEL translation and therefore when doing the readings in the vernacular at the sermon would be beneficial - so to say- coming from the Vatican’s point of view.

Ken

 

[AJV]

The “Epistle” and “Gospel” have been customarilly read by the priest in the native tongue, in an “authorized translation” during the sermon that is NOT part of the Mass. We all know that.

Because, previously under the Indult, unless specifically requested or established by custom, the readings could not be in the vernacular.

I don’t think a direct appeal to the rubrics of the Missal can be made because if you look in the rubrics themselves, there is nothing about Latin or the vernacular. In the 1962 rubrics there is one reference added which concerns the Litany of Saints at the Rogation.

I would draw with an analogy with the indults in force in 1962 (with the selfsame Latin rubrics) which allowed the vernacular readings either in place of the Latin, or immediately after (or even simultaneously). You remember the SSPX Mass on YouTube at St. Nicholas- they use the practise authorized by the 1958 De Musica Sacra. The 1962 rubrics did not contradict the 1958 Instruction.

Allowing new TLM locations under SP to use ICEL translations when doing the readings during the sermon is an issue to some priests who would choose an English translation to read to the people…most especially since Traditionalists dislike the ICEL translation. Newcomers to the TLM are used to the ICEL translation and therefore when doing the readings in the vernacular at the sermon would be beneficial - so to say- coming from the Vatican’s point of view.

Four things occured to me:

• SP says “editions approved by the Apostolic See”. So technically if the NAB is meant, also included are the RSV, the JB, and other translations included in English-speaking countries.
• it is not a mandatory requirement. So technically, priests uncomfortable could go on using whatever they using. I feel that, then, would defeat the purported purpose of the article (as you are viewing it)
• I doubt there is a translation of the readings at Mass exactly in the NAB. The Traditional lectionary does not always take up the biblical text word for word exactly.
• Comfort level of English (or rather, the English speaking world that uses the NAB) attendees? SP is an universal document, so I doubt that the same situation would apply everywhere. Secondly, what is there to be familiar with, if the readings are not the same as in the NO?

I freely admit that the matter could use clarification which everyone says will be given by a document from Ecclesia Dei. But I feel that, until then, a blanket statement should not given on the matter. Rather, it can be suggested that it is more prudent that the current arrangement of reading during the sermon be observed until the clarification is obtained.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Joannm]

I may be wrong here, but insn’t ICEL just responsible for translating liturgical texts, not the readings in Lectionary? Isn’t there another body that is responsible for the NAB?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

First, I’m with AJV on the vernacular readings. I actually think the pope intends to allow them to be done in the vernacular alone, but that article has proven so contentious that we just need to wait and see.

As some advice in general, might I suggest that part of what threw the OP off was the omission of the Gloria because of Advent. If you’re new to the Mass and something turns up missing it can really throw you off, especially if you’re not looking for the physical cues as to how the Mass is progressing.