My Local TLM

[Crusader90]

The last typical edition of the Ordo Missa and Ritus Servandus was in 1965, he said the 1967 changes were clearly transitory.

Inter Oecumenici was transitory as well, but then the new Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus of 1965/66 created some permanency to the changes in IO. Your priest is correct that no typical edition was issued in 1967 to conform to the changes in Tres abhinc annos.

They could have implemented SC well before the 2007 SP was released. I would only question why now when the SP allowed all priests to say the 1962 Missal or use the 1970 Missal.

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei allowed certain '65 changes to the celebration of the TLM. Also, in an article in Latin Mass Magazine, a letter from the PCED told the FSSP that they (the FSSP) could not forbid priests to use the 1965 liturgical books.

 

[malphono]

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei allowed certain '65 changes to the celebration of the TLM. Also, in an article in Latin Mass Magazine, a letter from the PCED told the FSSP that they (the FSSP) could not forbid priests to use the 1965 liturgical books.

The problem with that is it was dated 1997 and Summorum Pontificum was promulgated ten years later. Had PP Benedict XVI intended that the “interim Missal of 1965” be an available option, one would think he would have included that in the Motu Proprio.

 

[Crusader90]

The problem with that is it was dated 1997 and Summorum Pontificum was promulgated ten years later. Had PP Benedict XVI intended that the “interim Missal of 1965” be an available option, one would think he would have included that in the Motu Proprio.

The 1965 “missal” was still the '62 missal with a modified Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus. Summorum Pontificum stated that the missal of 1962 is to be used, and in places where the '65 changes are incorporated the '62 missal is still being used. The next new typical edition of the Missale Romanum was by Pope Paul VI (the Novus Ordo). The 1965 Ordo Missae and the Ritus Servandus were used with the 1962 Missale Romanum. Summorum Pontificum did not specify which Ordo Missae was to be used, only the 1962 Missale Romanum was to be used. It would be a different story if SP said that the 1962 Ordo Missae had to be used, but it not. Summorum Pontificum did not nullify previous decisions coming from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, this is evident because some traditional religious groups (such as the Clear Creek benedictines) still use the decisions granted by Ecclesia Dei in 1997.

 

[ProVobis]

The 1965 “missal” was still the '62 missal with a modified Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus. Summorum Pontificum stated that the missal of 1962 is to be used, and in places where the '65 changes are incorporated the '62 missal is still being used. The next new typical edition of the Missale Romanum was by Pope Paul VI. The 1965 Ordo Missae and the Ritus Servandus were used with the 1962 Missale Romanum. Summorum Pontificum did not specify which Ordo Missae was to be used, only the 1962 Missale Romanum was to be used. It would be a different story if SP said that the 1962 Ordo Missae had to be used, but it not. Summorum Pontificum did not nullify previous decisions coming from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, this is evident because some traditional religious groups (such as the Clear Creek benedictines) still use the decisions granted by Ecclesia Dei in 1997.

The 2007 SP defined the Ordinary Form of the Mass as that of Pope Paul VI and the Extraordinary Form as that of Blessed John XXIII. (The only exception I’m aware of is that the Epistle and Gospel may be read in vernacular only.)

Cardinal Arinze further clarified this by stating only priests who knew “good” Latin were allowed to use the liturgical books “as it was before the Second Vatican Council.” (see post #11.)

Even if permission was allowed to use the 1965 or 1967 Mass, the question still begs can you advertize the 1965 or 1967 Mass as an Extraordinary Form and can you can still use the SC argument to justify that promotion?

 

[Crusader90]

Even if permission was allowed to use the 1965 or 1967 Mass, the question still begs can you advertize the 1965 or 1967 Mass as an Extraordinary Form and can you can still use the SC argument to justify it?

Yes, because Summorum Pontificum clearly states the Missal of Blessed John XXIII should be used. The priest that OP is talking about is using the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. A Missal is different from the Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus. Changes can be made to the Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus without a new typical edition of a Missal as was done in 1965/66. Clear Creek advertises saying they use the Extraordinary Form, but they use the changes permitted by Ecclesia Dei.

 

[malphono]

The 1965 “missal” was still the '62 missal with a modified Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus.

Summorum Pontificum stated that the missal of 1962 is to be used, and in places where the '65 changes are incorporated the '62 missal is still being used. The next new typical edition of the Missale Romanum was by Pope Paul VI (the Novus Ordo). The 1965 Ordo Missae and the Ritus Servandus were used with the 1962 Missale Romanum.

None of which is news to me. To borrow a line from Gigi, yes, I remember it well.

Summorum Pontificum did not specify which Ordo Missae was to be used, only the 1962 Missale Romanum was to be used. It would be a different story if SP said that the 1962 Ordo Missae had to be used, but it not. Summorum Pontificum did not nullify previous decisions coming from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, this is evident because some traditional religious groups (such as the Clear Creek benedictines) still use the decisions granted by Ecclesia Dei in 1997.

Nor did Summorum Pontificum specify that the 1965 Ordo Missae could be used. (The case of Le Barroux (and by extension, Clear Creek) is not really at issue here since they Benedictine Abbeys having their own proper Constitutions in addition to the Rule.)

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, because Summorum Pontificum clearly states the Missal of Blessed John XXIII should be used. The priest that OP is talking about is using the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. A Missal is different from the Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus. Changes can be made to the Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus without a new typical edition of a Missal as was done in 1965/66. Clear Creek advertises saying they use the Extraordinary Form, but they use the changes permitted by Ecclesia Dei.

Given that argument, any Mass with the various canons and ICEL changes used prior to the week the Mass of Paul VI was first used could qualify to be in that category. This would not be acceptable to most who are very attached to the 1962 Missal. Just saying.

 

[Crusader90]

Nor did Summorum Pontificum specify that the 1965 Ordo Missae could be used.

But it never said it couldn’t, and past precedent is more in favor of allowing the 1965 changes because Ecclesia Dei had permitted there use as shown in the 1997 letter. Your argument that past decisions of Ecclesia Dei are void holds little weight.

 

[malphono]

Changes can be made to the Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus without a new typical edition of a Missal as was done in 1965/66.

In such a case, the changes would be incorporated in the next editio typica, which clearly did not happen with the 1965 version. It was, by intent, transitory, and there was no expectation of it having any permanence; the appearance of the 1967 aberration makes that abundantly clear.

 

[Crusader90]

Given that argument, any Mass with the various canons and ICEL changes used prior to the week the Mass of Paul VI was first used could qualify to be in that category. This would not be acceptable to most who are very attached to the 1962 Missal. Just saying.

True it could, but the OP’s priest said that he would not use those changes as they never appeared in any typical edition of anything so they were clearly transitory. Also, the PCED hasn’t allowed the use of what you mentioned, but they have permitted certain changes that the OP said were being done. It is also in a letter to the FSSP that they could not prohibit the use of the 1965 books. No permission has ever been given to use any of the changes that appeared post-typical editions of 1966 (except for new saints and new prefaces)

 

[Crusader90]

In such a case, the changes would be incorporated in the next editio typica, which clearly did not happen with the 1965 version. It was, by intent, transitory, and there was no expectation of it having any permanence; the appearance of the 1967 aberration makes that abundantly clear.

They would eventually be put into a new typical edition of the Missal, but from 1920 to 1962 there were many changes to rubrics and a few changes to the Ordo Missae as well as to the Holy Week, but 42 years passed before an entirely new edition of the Missale Romanum (the 1962 Missal). The new typical editions of Ritus and Ordo never indicated that it was transitory. But the fact is that the 1967 changes were never made into a new typical edition, while the 1965 changes were. If a typical edition is issued of anything then there is some intention of it being permanent.

 

[ProVobis]

True it could, but the OP’s priest said that he would not use those changes as they never appeared in any typical edition of anything so they were clearly transitory.

Yes but clearly a precedent was set so that other priests can now use that permission and request still further changes to suit their agenda. Somewhere a line has to be drawn by the commission, I would think, in order to preserve the integrity of the 2007 SP. The 1965 books, which by the way were used by the now defunct Society of St. John in the 90’s, weren’t minor changes to the 1962 Missal.

 

[h1478971]

I say write to Rome. This is a violation of the Motu Proprio SP. ALso you are better off going to the FSSP.

 

[TantumErgo90]

I say write to Rome. This is a violation of the Motu Proprio SP. ALso you are better off going to the FSSP.

The FSSP is great and they certainly will use the 1962 Missal in it’s purest form. But I don’t think that what the original poster’s priest is doing is in violation of S.P.

 

[mattheus09]

If what my priest is doing is allowed then I won’t press the issue, because those that want a pure 1962 can go to the FSSP, and those who want an updated TLM will stay. But if what he is doing is not legitimate then I will do as suggested here. So I want a definitive answer, is what he doing legitimate or not? I am not asking if what he is doing is prudent, wanted, etc. I am asking if what he is doing is lawful

 

[CradleCath]

It appears if your local TLM is using some 1965 adaptations.

However, Pope Benedict XVI has provided a broader use of the Roman Missal of 1962, explaining that he hopes to encourage “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”
It looks as if the OP. is facing a situation where, once again, liberals can’t keep their hands off the Mass. I hope he reports this to Ecclesia Dei before he moves to the FSSP. parish.
ecclesiadei.org/

 

[Crusader90]

However, Pope Benedict XVI has provided a broader use of the Roman Missal of 1962, explaining that he hopes to encourage “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”

The Priest is using the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII. There was not 1965 Missal. The last typical edition of the Missale Romanum before the Novus Ordo was the 1962 Missal. What this priest is using is the 1965 Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae. Publishers made altar editions in 1965 that incorporated those changes, but they weren’t based off of a new Typical Edition of the Missale Romanum. Summorum Pontificum authorized the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, it was silent on the revised Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus.

 

[malphono]

If what my priest is doing is allowed then I won’t press the issue, because those that want a pure 1962 can go to the FSSP, and those who want an updated TLM will stay. But if what he is doing is not legitimate then I will do as suggested here. So I want a definitive answer, is what he doing legitimate or not? I am not asking if what he is doing is prudent, wanted, etc. I am asking if what he is doing is lawful

FWIW, a couple of years back this came up in a discussion I had with a young priest friend and his answer was a resounding “no” on use of the “interim Missal of 1965.” I’ve heard that same response echoed by other clergy as well, and have never encountered even one who said differently.

From what I’ve seen in this thread, it seems that the responses from the priest and the Chancery are really a stonewall of non-answers. And it’s quite clear that there are differing readings of the matter in this forum, so a “definitive answer” is not forthcoming here. Anyway, short of the time-consuming process of contacting PCED, you might want to have a chat with one of the FSSP priests and ask him. Explain the situation in detail.

 

[laszlo]

you might want to have a chat with one of the FSSP priests and ask him. Explain the situation in detail.

The FSSP is using the 1962 missal with the the 1960 Rubrics, adding a few saints to the calendar, those canonized before 1965.

I believe the authorative source weather the 1964 and 1967 can be legally implemented into the 1962 Missal, belongs to the Ecclesia Dei

Mailing Address: Palazzo della Congr. per la Dottrina della Fede, 00193 Roma, Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11

 

[CradleCath]

The Priest is using the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII. There was not 1965 Missal. The last typical edition of the Missale Romanum before the Novus Ordo was the 1962 Missal. What this priest is using is the 1965 Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae. Publishers made altar editions in 1965 that incorporated those changes, but they weren’t based off of a new Typical Edition of the Missale Romanum. Summorum Pontificum authorized the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, it was silent on the revised Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus.

I understand. However, while this priest may be allowed to do this using the letter of the law, his actions are totally against the Spirit of the law. I don’t believe that Pope Benedict intended to “free” the Mass of 1962, only to have priests use an altar card for the Mass of '65 to modernize Pope John XXIII’s Mass. I really hope that the OP. writes Ecclesia Dei. ecclesiadei.org/