New Missal

[MarkThompson]

In Latin, the final syllable of a word is never emphasized.

Except in one-syllable words. (Oh, snap! He went there! )

 

[diggerdomer]

Not that I expect most people to have one, but if you want digital access to the 2002 Latin Roman Missal, you can find it here.

Thanks! What a great reference. I wasn’t aware of it, so again thanks.

I’m still uncertain, and without current familiarity with Latin don’t understand how a “Missal” can not include the prescribed readings for a Mass. Every English Missal I have and have seen includes the readings. I’d have to know Latin to figure out if or why the link you shared does or does not include the Scripture readings. Thanks again.

 

[diggerdomer]

Extremely obtuse question: is this intended to eventually replace the Mass of Paul VI?

No

 

[Aramis]

Extremely obtuse question: is this intended to eventually replace the Mass of Paul VI?

No. See below.

The New Translation is a minor reform of the Mass of Paul VI, actually promulgated nearly a decade ago by JPII.

Wrong.

It’s a reform of the English translation, and ONLY the English translation.

The Actual Misale Romanum in Latin is not being changed at all.

 

[Phemie]

It’s a reform of the English translation, and ONLY the English translation.

The Actual Misale Romanum in Latin is not being changed at all.

The translation we’re using now is a translation of the 1975 Second Typical Edition.

This new translation is a translation of the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal that was promulgated in 2002. There are some differences between the Latin Missal of 1975 and that of 2002. We will see those differences in the new translation.

 

[japhy]

I’m still uncertain, and without current familiarity with Latin don’t understand how a “Missal” can not include the prescribed readings for a Mass. Every English Missal I have and have seen includes the readings. I’d have to know Latin to figure out if or why the link you shared does or does not include the Scripture readings.

The Missals you’re talking about are personal/private missals. They are aids for the laity, they’re not the Missal.

Up until the change in the cycle of readings (at least, for several centuries), the Roman Missal contained both the Order of Mass and all the Propers (the prayers and readings for each day). Once the two-year weekday and three-year Sunday cycle of readings came about, having all of that in one book became quite a challenge; thus, what was once a single book, the Roman Missal, was split into portions – the prayers of the Mass in the still-called Missal, and the readings of the Mass in the Lectionary.

I’ll save you some trouble: the Roman Missal, since 1969, does not include the readings. The 2002 Latin Roman Missal I have doesn’t have them. The digital one at the link I sent you doesn’t have them.

In fact, the Roman Missal, since 1969, doesn’t even include all the Propers! The Roman Missal excludes the Offertory antiphon for some bizarre reason – it’s only found in the Gradual, to the best of my knowledge. I’ve heard an explanation before at the New Liturgical Movement blog, but I don’t remember it.

 

[japhy]

It’s a reform of the English translation, and ONLY the English translation. The Actual Misale Romanum in Latin is not being changed at all.

The translation we’re using now is a translation of the 1975 Second Typical Edition.

1. The Latin Roman Missal changed slightly from the 2nd to 3rd editions.
2. We’ve never had an English translation of the 2nd edition approved for use in the US. We’re still using a 1973 translation of the 1970 1st edition.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s a reform of the English translation, and ONLY the English translation.

I was under the impression the English translation is a basis for some Asian and other translations. As there are some 7000 languages spoken in the world, it is hard not to see some domino effect here.

 

[Aramis]

I was under the impression the English translation is a basis for some Asian and other translations. As there are some 7000 languages spoken in the world, it is hard not to see some domino effect here.

Roman Rite translations are all supposed to be directly from the Latin.

Unlike the Byzantines, where some were translations of Slavonic, others of Greek… and a few from the Latin…

 

[diggerdomer]

The Missals you’re talking about are personal/private missals. They are aids for the laity, they’re not the Missal.

Up until the change in the cycle of readings (at least, for several centuries), the Roman Missal contained both the Order of Mass and all the Propers (the prayers and readings for each day). Once the two-year weekday and three-year Sunday cycle of readings came about, having all of that in one book became quite a challenge; thus, what was once a single book, the Roman Missal, was split into portions – the prayers of the Mass in the still-called Missal, and the readings of the Mass in the Lectionary.

I’ll save you some trouble: the Roman Missal, since 1969, does not include the readings. The 2002 Latin Roman Missal I have doesn’t have them. The digital one at the link I sent you doesn’t have them.

In fact, the Roman Missal, since 1969, doesn’t even include all the Propers! The Roman Missal excludes the Offertory antiphon for some bizarre reason – it’s only found in the Gradual, to the best of my knowledge. I’ve heard an explanation before at the New Liturgical Movement blog, but I don’t remember it.

No, the ones I’m talking about are not personal/private. They are publicly published, with imprimatur etc.

Since 1969, The “Missal” has been promulgated for liturgical use via the Sacramentary and the Lectionary. At least in English. Those are the official liturgical books used. The Missal contains what both the Sacramentary and Lectionary contain.

 

[japhy]

Every English Missal I have and have seen includes the readings.

No, the ones I’m talking about are not personal/private. They are publicly published, with imprimatur etc. Since 1969, The “Missal” has been promulgated for liturgical use via the Sacramentary and the Lectionary. At least in English. Those are the official liturgical books used. The Missal contains what both the Sacramentary and Lectionary contain.

We might be speaking past one another. When you’re saying “Missal”, are you talking about a single physical book, or are you talking about the collection of books (the “Sacramentary” as it has been called in English and the several volumes of the Lectionary)?

I ask this because I’ve seen how large the volumes of the Lectionary are, and imagining a single book which comprises the contents of the “Sacramentary” and all the volumes of the Lectionary conjures up an image of a book so large it would be ungainly.

I’ve never seen such a book. Like I said, the only things I’ve seen that come close to it are things like this, but that’s a three-volume set. Even if one were to make a single book of those three, it would need to be larger to be easily readable from the ambo and the altar, and things like the St. Joseph’s Daily Missal don’t contain the whole contents of the “Sacramentary”.

I have a 1985 English “Sacramentary” and a 2002 Latin “Roman Missal”. Except for the difference in language and the variations between the two editions, they’re the same… and neither has the readings for the Mass in it. The prayers and the entrance and communion antiphons, yes… but the readings, no.

 

[Brendan]

Since 1969, The “Missal” has been promulgated for liturgical use via the Sacramentary and the Lectionary. At least in English. Those are the official liturgical books used. The Missal contains what both the Sacramentary and Lectionary contain.

What we call the “Sacramentary” currently is correctly called the “Missal”. It is a distinct book from the Lectionary. Several years ago, Rome required that the English speaking bishops cease using the term “Sacramentary” and use the correct term “Missal”.

Going forward, there will still be two books, one called the “Missal” and one called the “Lectionary”

 

[diggerdomer]

We might be speaking past one another. When you’re saying “Missal”, are you talking about a single physical book, or are you talking about the collection of books (the “Sacramentary” as it has been called in English and the several volumes of the Lectionary)?

I ask this because I’ve seen how large the volumes of the Lectionary are, and imagining a single book which comprises the contents of the “Sacramentary” and all the volumes of the Lectionary conjures up an image of a book so large it would be ungainly.

I’ve never seen such a book. Like I said, the only things I’ve seen that come close to it are things like this, but that’s a three-volume set. Even if one were to make a single book of those three, it would need to be larger to be easily readable from the ambo and the altar, and things like the St. Joseph’s Daily Missal don’t contain the whole contents of the “Sacramentary”.

I have a 1985 English “Sacramentary” and a 2002 Latin “Roman Missal”. Except for the difference in language and the variations between the two editions, they’re the same… and neither has the readings for the Mass in it. The prayers and the entrance and communion antiphons, yes… but the readings, no.

When I use “Missal” I’m referring to a single book. Is that not accurate? thanks.

I have two “Missals” one for Sundays and one for weekdays. Both published since Vatican II. Both include the prayers AND readings for Mass.

 

[diggerdomer]

What we call the “Sacramentary” currently is correctly called the “Missal”. It is a distinct book from the Lectionary. Several years ago, Rome required that the English speaking bishops cease using the term “Sacramentary” and use the correct term “Missal”.

Going forward, there will still be two books, one called the “Missal” and one called the “Lectionary”

I don’t think so. Historically, the “Missal” has included both prayers (Sacramentary) and Readings (Lectionary).

 

[Phemie]

I don’t think so. Historically, the “Missal” has included both prayers (Sacramentary) and Readings (Lectionary).

Historically there was no separate name for the two. Rome has already said that the term Sacramentary for the book now in use is a misuse of the term since it is not what a Sacramentary traditionally was. The next book will be called “Roman Missal”.

I think Japhy is right. The Roman Missal in former days did contain the readings but that was manageable. Today’s Roman Missal doesn’t because it would be too unwieldy. I’m just picturing the little altar server, who sometimes struggles to put the ‘Sacramentary’ on the altar, try to lift a book that also contained all the readings.

 

[japhy]

I have two “Missals” one for Sundays and one for weekdays. Both published since Vatican II. Both include the prayers AND readings for Mass.

That sounds to me as if you have what I referred to earlier as “personal/private missals”, rather than an “altar missal”.

 

[ProVobis]

That sounds to me as if you have what I referred to earlier as “personal/private missals”, rather than an “altar missal”.

We used to call them handmissals. I wonder if priests are even allowed to use them for Mass, though they do use them for sermons and vernacular readings in the EF.

 

[DWC_RC]

Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est

 

[Aramis]

We used to call them handmissals. I wonder if priests are even allowed to use them for Mass, though they do use them for sermons and vernacular readings in the EF.

With some caveats, yes…

1. it must have the full text as approved
2. it must have the imprimateur (which generally proves #1)
3. the priest must be able to read it whilst saying the mass.
4. the bishop must not have forbidden that particular edition
5. it must have the current edition of the mass unless the priest is indulted (either by the bishop or the law itself)

There are small versions of the sacramentary that were specifically sized to 6"x9" for use by MC’s as hand-missals and by seminarians as less expensive study texts, but they also are used for traveling missals by priests who must travel light… like military chaplains, priests who go hiking, hunting, or camping, and certain missionary priests.

I’ve known a couple priests who used them as portable missals.

Current praxis also includes a number of excerpt books for special cases, like a smaller book with the texts for baptism, another for funerals, and a third for weddings.

Plus there is the Ceremonial of Bishops… which includes all the changes for hierarchical masses.

It’s not the book, per se, that’s mandated, but the text contained therein. If the text is correct, that’s all that matters.

 

[diggerdomer]

Historically there was no separate name for the two. Rome has already said that the term Sacramentary for the book now in use is a misuse of the term since it is not what a Sacramentary traditionally was. The next book will be called “Roman Missal”.

I think Japhy is right. The Roman Missal in former days did contain the readings but that was manageable. Today’s Roman Missal doesn’t because it would be too unwieldy. I’m just picturing the little altar server, who sometimes struggles to put the ‘Sacramentary’ on the altar, try to lift a book that also contained all the readings.

Rome says the term “Sacramentary” is a misuse, while at the same time the Sacramentaries in our Churches are those approved by Rome? Can you clarify?