My Local TLM

[malphono]

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

Yes, I know what the FFSP uses in practice. The OP’s question was about the practice at the local parish, not the FSSP parish. Perhaps you misunderstood my intent, but I notice the first part of the final sentence in my previous post is missing from the quote, which of course changes the context. For the sake of clarity, it’s repeated and bolded below:

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.

IOW, if the FSSP are unable to answer the question, the final recourse is with PCED.

 

[TantumErgo90]

I don’t know if he can use the entire 1965 books; however it is his perogative to use the various changes that appeared in 1965 that are permitted by the PCED. A priest may also use an option permitted by the PCED, even if it deviates from the rubrics and text of the 1962 Missal.

 

[mattheus09]

I’ll ask my FSSP priest later this afternoon, I’ll go there for confession and catch him when he after confessions are over.

 

[laszlo]

IOW, if the FSSP are unable to answer the question, the final recourse is with PCED.

I am sorry, my mind abhors the New English (Orwell 1984) and do not read the sentences with abbreviations. The only difference what I comprehend is the FSSP and the SSPX because I have a feeling the the abbreviations are more widely known than the expansion of them.

 

[malphono]

I am sorry, my mind abhors the New English (Orwell 1984) and do not read the sentences with abbreviations. The only difference what I comprehend is the FSSP and the SSPX because I have a feeling the the abbreviations are more widely known than the expansion of them.

I’m not a fan of it either, but it does save some typing, and my fingers aren’t what they used to be. Anyway

IOW = in other words
PCED = Ecclesia Dei Commission

 

[Layman]

What’s the benefit of using a transitional Missal, anyway? I don’t get it. I really do wonder at the urge to tinker with a rite. Even occultists are wary of that.

You read about people who perceive the Divine Court at Mass. Be nice if more priests were psychic, maybe?

 

[CradleCath]

Yes, I know what the FFSP uses in practice. The OP’s question was about the practice at the local parish, not the FSSP parish. Perhaps you misunderstood my intent, but I notice the first part of the final sentence in my previous post is missing from the quote, which of course changes the context. For the sake of clarity, it’s repeated and bolded below:

IOW, if the FSSP are unable to answer the question, the final recourse is with PCED.

Absolutely. The people in Croatia, Archdiocese of Zagreb, who wanted a Latin Mass & were denied so many times by the clergy there, wrote the PCED. Following is the answer they received

Vatican City, 25 November 2010

Dear Mr. —,

This Pontifical Commission would like to thank you for your kind letter of 8 November 2010.

This Pontifical Commission is able to inform you that **after contacting His Eminence Josip Cardinal Bozanić, it has received the assurance of His Eminence that the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form will be celebrated in one of the churches in Zagreb.**With every good wish, I remain.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Mons. Guido Pozzo

If all other persons involved…the parish priest, the Bishop, the Archbishop have turned you down…enclose copies of your correspondence with them to the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei & they WILL intervene. They are very aware of the reluctance of some Bishops to allow the Mass of 1962, **though they have no right to do so. ** A priest does not need his Bishop’s consent, but said Bishop can make life pretty miserable for the priest who does so. In turn, the PCED can make life pretty miserable for the Bishop who disallows it…or allows it to be abused.

 

[mattheus09]

So I went to confession and waited for the FSSP priest to come out and as him. He sighed and said that what is happening is happening some other places too. He said that unfortunately there is nothing I can really do, because the priest has the right to make the changes permitted by Ecclesia Dei. He said that in the FSSP a few years ago there was pressure from certain members of the Ecclesia Dei Commission to use the 1965 “Missal”, and the superior general at the time (Fr. Devillers) wasn’t against it. He said Ecclesia Dei is comfortable with the 1965 Order and Rubrics and probably would tell me that while it is unfortunate that the priest is doing something that is not desired by certain members of his congregation, they would defend his right to do what he is doing and possibly express their desire that more priest introduce similar changes. He said he knows the priest that celebrates the diocesan Mass in question and he does not question his orthodoxy and liturgical soundness, but only his prudence in the matter. To close the priest said that it wouldn’t surprise him that in the coming years most traditional Masses celebrated by non-FSSP priest and those belonging to similar institutes would closely follow what my priest is doing. He said there are priests who use the pre-1962 books and some latitude has been given to that preference in and outside the FSSP, and thinks that the same latitude would be given to those priests who desire to celebrate using 1965 rubrics.

 

[malphono]

So I went to confession and waited for the FSSP priest to come out and as him. He sighed and said that what is happening is happening some other places too. He said that unfortunately there is nothing I can really do, because the priest has the right to make the changes permitted by Ecclesia Dei. He said that in the FSSP a few years ago there was pressure from certain members of the Ecclesia Dei Commission to use the 1965 “Missal”, and the superior general at the time (Fr. Devillers) wasn’t against it. He said Ecclesia Dei is comfortable with the 1965 Order and Rubrics and probably would tell me that while it is unfortunate that the priest is doing something that is not desired by certain members of his congregation, they would defend his right to do what he is doing and possibly express their desire that more priest introduce similar changes. He said he knows the priest that celebrates the diocesan Mass in question and he does not question his orthodoxy and liturgical soundness, but only his prudence in the matter. To close the priest said that it wouldn’t surprise him that in the coming years most traditional Masses celebrated by non-FSSP priest and those belonging to similar institutes would closely follow what my priest is doing. He said there are priests who use the pre-1962 books and some latitude has been given to that preference in and outside the FSSP, and thinks that the same latitude would be given to those priests who desire to celebrate using 1965 rubrics.

Interesting response. But OK, it looks like it’s time for the next step, and see what the PCED itself has to say.

If they agree, fine, the “interim Missal of 1965” isn’t the worst thing in the world: a small handful of rubrics and scant few deletions (the Psalm Judica Me and the Last Gospel, which are, I might add, liturgically sound deletions). Personally I could live with that. I would, however, have major problems with the introduction of a posture other than ad orientem. If they disagree, the priest (and his bishop) are back to the 1962 books without amendment.

Bottom line is, you won’t know for certain unless you ask PCED.

 

[mattheus09]

Interesting response. But OK, it looks like it’s time for the next step, and see what the PCED itself has to say.

If they agree, fine, the “interim Missal of 1965” isn’t the worst thing in the world: a small handful of rubrics and scant few deletions (the Psalm Judica Me and the Last Gospel, which are, I might add, liturgically sound deletions). Personally I could live with that. I would, however, have major problems with the introduction of a posture other than ad orientem. If they disagree, the priest (and his bishop) are back to the 1962 books without amendment.

Bottom line is, you won’t know for certain unless you ask PCED.

The Mass is Ad Orientem for prayers at the foot of the altar, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The readings are facing the people, and everything else is at the chair. I will be writing to PCED. How long do they take to respond?

 

[malphono]

The Mass is Ad Orientem for prayers at the foot of the altar, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The readings are facing the people, and everything else is at the chair.

The reading I understand, but funny, but I don’t remember anything about the “chair” (other than an electric chair). But that’s neither here nor there.

I will be writing to PCED. How long do they take to respond?

Ive no personal experience, but looking at what [post=7364174]CradelCath[/post] posted earlier, it seems to be possible to get a quicker response than I would have expected.

 

[ProVobis]

(the Psalm Judica Me and the Last Gospel

But they are the only two prayers (besides the Credo) which I’ve committed to memory.

To be fair, however, I suppose it’s not quite as big a deal to give up as those who’ve grown up with the old ICEL version of the Gloria and Creed, and have to memorize the new translations coming out. We seem to be very attached to those things we’ve memorized.

 

[malphono]

But they are the only two prayers (besides the Credo) which I’ve committed to memory.

Well … what can I say? Psalm 42 was never part of the Requiem anyway, so it’s evidently dispensable. And the Last Gospel is really rather extraneous. It’s the one thing that, even when I was a kid (when dinosaurs roamed the earth ), made no sense to me. The absence of both I could live with very nicely. Not so, however, for the abbreviated communion formula. That one I despised even in 1965 when it was introduced.

 

[ProVobis]

Well … what can I say? Psalm 42 was never part of the Requiem anyway, so it’s evidently dispensable. And the Last Gospel is really rather extraneous. It’s the one thing that, even when I was a kid (when dinosaurs roamed the earth ), made no sense to me. The absence of both I could live with very nicely. Not so, however, for the abbreviated communion formula. That one I despised even in 1965 when it was introduced.

Well, I’m only trying to defend the “7 minute” Mass. In the 65 Mass we shortened that to 5 minutes. (I’m exaggerating, of course.)

 

[malphono]

Well, I’m only trying to defend the “7 minute” Mass. In the 65 Mass we shortened that to 5 minutes. (I’m exaggerating, of course.)

Now that’s cute …

 

[mattheus09]

Wrote the letter, it will be sent in the mail tomorrow. Part of me wants the PCED to say it’s ok, because the priest who says that Mass really is a great priest and a wonderful confessor. And the other part of me wants them to say '62 all the way. I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that they will say it is ok though. What do you guys think?

 

[Crusader90]

Now that’s cute …

haha, I agree. I think we can all agree on that no matter what Mass is being said, a 5 or 7 minute Mass is not a good idea.

Wrote the letter, it will be sent in the mail tomorrow. Part of me wants the PCED to say it’s ok, because the priest who says that Mass really is a great priest and a wonderful confessor. And the other part of me wants them to say '62 all the way. I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that they will say it is ok though. What do you guys think?

Do let us know what the response is. I bet they will say it’s ok based on past precedent. With that said, I hope they have some sort of statement in their response that the wishes of the group requesting the Mass be requested.

 

[Bakuryokuso]

I think everyone should just use the 1570 missal, and we wouldn’t have these sort of problems

 

[ProVobis]

I think everyone should just use the 1570 missal, and we wouldn’t have these sort of problems

Not a bad idea using the liturgical books of that time, but we’d have lost a few saints, including St. Joseph in the Canon. People generally don’t hold too favorably when items are removed from the Mass, especially from one which they travel great distances to attend. They feel shortchanged for the most part. Just saying.

 

[Bakuryokuso]

Not a bad idea using the liturgical books of that time, but we’d have lost a few saints, including St. Joseph in the Canon. People generally don’t hold too favorably when items are removed from the Mass, especially from one which they travel great distances to attend. They feel shortchanged for the most part. Just saying.

Yeah my first old school missal was a 1960 one which I bought second hand for almost nothing. But no St Joseph in the canon! So I picked up the SSPX Daily Missal. Very pleased with it, but lots of pages to flip…!

I think that’s why the Novus Ordo is so radical… because they took so much out… up until then, liturgical changes were mainly additions, not subtractions.