New Missal

[Phemie]

I have a Daily Roman Missal (in English) that was published in 2004 with 2003 Imprimatur from Francis Cardinal George and it contains the readings from the lectionary. I guess that the Roman Missal comes either with or without lectionary readings.

I had wondered what you were talking about and now I know.

AFAIK, there has not been a permanent daily Missal in Canada since the OF came into use. We get annual ones (Novalis & St. Joseph) but I’ve never seen anyone with a Missal like we used to see prior to Vat. II.

I doubt very much that they will make those a priority with the new translation. I have a feeling that they will be printing disposable aids for a while before they publish a permanent daily Missal for the people to purchase.

 

[jeanannemarie]

I have recently acquired, quite by accident what is called a “New …Saint Joseph Daily Missal And Hymnal” that is “In accordance with the New Revised Liturgy as directed by Vatican Council II.” It was published in 1966 by Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y. I am very confused now because it has more of a TLM feel to it than the NO Mass. It seems very reverent and traditional. It has Latin and I have also noticed some of the things in it that the reform is trying to implement. It has “and with your spirit.” It also has “Lord I am not worthy that You should come under my roof.” I have not taken time to look up everything and make a complete comparison with then, now and what is coming, but in my limited experience with the TLM it certainly seems to follow that more closely than the NO I am familiar with. I don’t understand how we got to what we do in Mass now from this post Vat II missal. Has anyone else seen one of these missals? I am a convert from 1995 and have not had a lengthy experience with the Mass. So much confusion for me!

 

[benedictgal]

I have recently acquired, quite by accident what is called a “New …Saint Joseph Daily Missal And Hymnal” that is “In accordance with the New Revised Liturgy as directed by Vatican Council II.” It was published in 1966 by Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y. I am very confused now because it has more of a TLM feel to it than the NO Mass. It seems very reverent and traditional. It has Latin and I have also noticed some of the things in it that the reform is trying to implement. It has “and with your spirit.” It also has “Lord I am not worthy that You should come under my roof.” I have not taken time to look up everything and make a complete comparison with then, now and what is coming, but in my limited experience with the TLM it certainly seems to follow that more closely than the NO I am familiar with. I don’t understand how we got to what we do in Mass now from this post Vat II missal. Has anyone else seen one of these missals? I am a convert from 1995 and have not had a lengthy experience with the Mass. So much confusion for me!

I think that this was the first stab at translations. I actually own a similar Roman Missal, the actual altar book, that a priest friend of mine gave me. I am going to dig it up to see if that translation matches up with the new one.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think that this was the first stab at translations. I actually own a similar Roman Missal, the actual altar book, that a priest friend of mine gave me. I am going to dig it up to see if that translation matches up with the new one.

Shouldn’t you donate that to a poor parish that can’t afford one?

 

[benedictgal]

Shouldn’t you donate that to a poor parish that can’t afford one?

Not if it’s obsolete. One cannot licitly use it, Mark. That is why he gave it to me. It was a bridge Roman Missal, taking from what we now know as the EF and the OF. Anyhow, you can’t mix and match forms. It does show a slow transition in the liturgy. You just can’t use it.

 

[CDNowak]

Shouldn’t you donate that to a poor parish that can’t afford one?

If the publication date is 1966, it is an oddity: it pre-dates the OF by a few years. (I have had a permanent pew Missal of the type, it may be a “transitional Missal”, that was briefly and narrowly used, largely a translated EF, IIRC).

–
[Bjeanannemarie,** I have a 1970 by the same title (OF,current translation) and a recently acquired 1966 Maryknoll (EF, all English except the canon.) I expect this is similar to what you have?

 

[diggerdomer]

But the modern Roman Missal is called a Missal. I have a 2002 Roman Missal in Latin, and it doesn’t have the readings in it. It’s not called in Sacramentary (in Latin).

Thanks. I’m not familiar with that reference, i.e. I don’t have a 2002 Roman Missal in Latin, so I can’t provide any helpful follow up comments.

 

[benedictgal]

If the publication date is 1966, it is an oddity: it pre-dates the OF by a few years. (I have had a permanent pew Missal of the type, it may be a “transitional Missal”, that was briefly and narrowly used, largely a translated EF, IIRC).

In my case, it would be pointless to have a poor parish use this book since this particular Missal is outdated. The same would hold true for the Lectionary because here in the US, we presently use the one that was promulgated in 1998, rendering the previous one as obsolete. You don’t donate items for liturgical use that are obsolete.

 

[MarkThompson]

Not if it’s obsolete. One cannot licitly use it, Mark. That is why he gave it to me. It was a bridge Roman Missal, taking from what we now know as the EF and the OF. Anyhow, you can’t mix and match forms. It does show a slow transition in the liturgy. You just can’t use it.

Ah, my apologies, somehow I missed that it was from 1966.

 

[japhy]

Thanks. I’m not familiar with that reference, i.e. I don’t have a 2002 Roman Missal in Latin, so I can’t provide any helpful follow up comments.

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.

 

[japhy]

a “New …Saint Joseph Daily Missal And Hymnal” that is “In accordance with the New Revised Liturgy as directed by Vatican Council II.” It was published in 1966 by Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y. I am very confused now because it has more of a TLM feel to it than the NO Mass. It seems very reverent and traditional. It has Latin and I have also noticed some of the things in it that the reform is trying to implement. It has “and with your spirit.” It also has “Lord I am not worthy that You should come under my roof.”

The “Novus Ordo” Mass was not promulgated until 1969. Between 1963 and 1969, the Mass went through many changes as certain elements were made optional or removed, and certain parts were permitted to be spoken in the vernacular. The English translation of that intermediate Missal was rather reverent and more accurate than the English translation we got in the 1970’s. The new English translation restores some of those qualities.

I have seen interim personal missals from the 1960’s. They’re useful for historical purposes, to see how the Mass was being changed between 1963 and 1969, but since Mass is not celebrated according to those interim versions anymore, they’re not useful for liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

I have recently acquired, quite by accident what is called a “New …Saint Joseph Daily Missal And Hymnal” that is “In accordance with the New Revised Liturgy as directed by Vatican Council II.” It was published in 1966 by Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y. I am very confused now because it has more of a TLM feel to it than the NO Mass. It seems very reverent and traditional. It has Latin and I have also noticed some of the things in it that the reform is trying to implement. It has “and with your spirit.” It also has “Lord I am not worthy that You should come under my roof.”

None of the English in handmissals prior to 1970 was official. Not the 1966 one nor the 1942 one. It might have had an imprimatur stamped by a bishop but that means it was okay to use it as a personal tool and might also be of some limited value to the priest, as in sermons or in whatever other capacity necessary to comply with his bishop’s requests. (The vernacular was gradually moved into the Mass before 1970.) English and all the other vernaculars were not, however, approved for normal use by the Church until the 1970 Missal was promulgated. Not as far as I remember anyway.

 

[CDNowak]

None of the English in handmissals prior to 1970 was official. Not the 1966 one nor the 1942 one. It might have had an imprimatur stamped by a bishop but that means it was okay to use it as a personal tool and might also be of some limited value to the priest, as in sermons or in whatever other capacity necessary to comply with his bishop’s requests. (The vernacular was gradually moved into the Mass before 1970.) English and all the other vernaculars were not, however, approved for normal use by the Church until the 1970 Missal was promulgated. Not as far as I remember anyway.

The 1966 I am looking at appears semi-official, at least it claims: “This edition, from the Roman Missal, with English translations approved by the National Conference of Bishops of the United States, is published by license of the Bishop’s Commission nm the Liturgical Apostolate,…”

Oration and prefaces taken from another NCCB approved Missal, Readings from the Confraternity Edition. The argument could be made that the NCCB was competent to approve such a missal in 1964 (citing SC 36.3)

 

[ProVobis]

The 1966 I am looking at appears semi-official, at least it claims: “This edition, from the Roman Missal, with English translations approved by the National Conference of Bishops of the United States, is published by license of the Bishop’s Commission nm the Liturgical Apostolate,…”

Oration and prefaces taken from another NCCB approved Missal, Readings from the Confraternity Edition. The argument could be made that the NCCB was competent to approve such a missal in 1964 (citing SC 36.3)

That makes sense since the ICEL began its work right after the council, if not during. But I don’t think the Vatican authenticised any vernacular until later.

Just curious, though, what are the words of consecration in that 1966 edition? I heard the ICEL decided on “for you and all men” in 1967.

 

[Lycorth]

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

 

[CDNowak]

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

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

 

[benedictgal]

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

It was mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam, promulgated in 2001. It all started because ICEL had sent a revision of the Rite of Ordination. Cardinal Medina, then-prefect of the CDWDS, put the breaks on it and eventually did not grant it recognitio because he found it teeming with errors. This led to the CDWDS looking at all of ICEL’s work and the Holy See ordering, through LA, a wholesale revision and the creation of the Vox Clara Commission.

 

[MarkThompson]

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, Jeff, I didn’t know that was out there!

 

[jeanannemarie]

I just wanted to be sure and thank everyone who helped explain the 1966 Missal that I have been reading. I had no idea of all the transitional things. Thanks to all.

 

[japhy]

Thanks, Jeff, I didn’t know that was out there!

You’re welcome. It suffers from a few typos, some more notorious than others. It begins the Apostles’ Creed with Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem caeli et terrae; the Apostles’ Creed does not say “I believe in one God”, but simply “I believe in God”. Also, sometimes it gets the pronunciation accents wrong, for example: Misereátur nostri omnípotens Deus et, dimissís peccátis nostris, perdúcat nos ad vitam aetérnam. In Latin, the final syllable of a word is never emphasized. dimissís should be dimíssis.