Pope To Release Whole New Missal

[malphono]

If this is true, the only thing that worries me is what may be come of the 1963 breviary. With the EF also taking on the new calendar and lectionary (Can you imagine the EF with NAB or NRSV readings? bleh…) the brevarium romanum becomes rather impractical; it wouldn’t line up at all. And we all know how trads feel about the LOTH.

I wouldn’t get too worked up about it at this stage. At this stage it’s all merely a rumor, but even so, there’s nothing there to suggest that the OF calendar will “win out.” IMHO, the EF calendar makes much more sense, and if they want to tweak the sanctoral cycle a little to accommodate some new additions, that’s not a problem. It’s been done very many times over the centuries, and there’d be no reason not to do it again. Not a big deal. I’d prefer to retain the EF cycle of readings too, but even there, what’s to preclude the addition (actually the restoration) of a reading?

 

[Maureen_L]

Should I delay my purchase of the 1962 missal then? And can I ask, also, what is the difference between the 1962 and 1959 missals? I have an old one from schooldays, but I gather that it is not the missal used now in the Extraordinary form of the Latin Mass which I have just started attending.

 

[cspb56]

The pope has expressed a desire to move the sing of peace. That move was proposed years ago by liturgists and ignored by Rome so kudos to Benedict. It actually makes more sense. This rite has its basis in scripture. That before approaching the altar we reconcile with those who we have offened and then bring out gifts to the altar (sorry I’m not real good at exact scriptyre quotes). But it is a very ancient rite and is also a part of the High Tridetine mass but only for the clergy.

 

[maurin]

This rite has its basis in scripture. .

Forgive me, but I don’t mean this unkindly. I would only like to point out that this is not accurate. It is the Scripture that has its basis in the Rite. The Mass was celebrated for decades before the Scriptures were written, and centuries before the Canon of Scriptures was set.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Should I delay my purchase of the 1962 missal then? And can I ask, also, what is the difference between the 1962 and 1959 missals?

**If you want to get a 1962 missal, go ahead. THIS is the authorized recension of the Extraordinary Form, and I really doubt it’s likely to change.

OTOH, the differences between the missals of 1962 and 1959, except for some Holy Week ceremonies, would hardly affect the parishioner in the pew.

Mostly it’s in a simplification of the rubrics, technical terminology (First Class Feast i/o Double of the First Class), reduction of the Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion to just one instead of three, and minor things like that.**

 

[James0235]

Should I delay my purchase of the 1962 missal then?

Right now it is just a rumor on an internet forum. Nothing official has been said. And, even as far as rumors go, it is not a particularly compelling one at this point. Only one person is reporting it.

I personally would not delay purchasing a Missal based on this.

And can I ask, also, what is the difference between the 1962 and 1959 missals? I have an old one from schooldays, but I gather that it is not the missal used now in the Extraordinary form of the Latin Mass which I have just started attending.

There is very little difference between a 1959 and a 1962 Missal. bpbasilphx basically listed the differences above. And these should not give you any difficulty at all with following along.

For the past 3 years or so I have used the 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal by Angelus Press. But, for maybe 2 years before that, I used a reprint of the 1945 St. Andrew Daily Missal. It has more differences with the 1962 Missal than a 1959 Missal would and I had no problem following along with it.

God bless,

James

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Forgive me, but I don’t mean this unkindly. I would only like to point out that this is not accurate. It is the Scripture that has its basis in the Rite. The Mass was celebrated for decades before the Scriptures were written, and centuries before the Canon of Scriptures was set.

Ooo that’s a good point!!

 

[bobzills]

Right now it is just a rumor on an internet forum. Nothing official has been said. And, even as far as rumors go, it is not a particularly compelling one at this point. Only one person is reporting it.

I personally would not delay purchasing a Missal based on this.

There is very little difference between a 1959 and a 1962 Missal. bpbasilphx basically listed the differences above. And these should not give you any difficulty at all with following along.

For the past 3 years or so I have used the 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal by Angelus Press. But, for maybe 2 years before that, I used a reprint of the 1945 St. Andrew Daily Missal. It has more differences with the 1962 Missal than a 1959 Missal would and I had no problem following along with it.

God bless,

James

What about the prayers after Mass at the foot of the altar. For example, the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.

 

[James0235]

What about the prayers after Mass at the foot of the altar. For example, the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.

The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are the same in the 1945, 1959, and 1962 Missals.

The Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is something different entirely. It is not a part of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar - these prayers are at the beginning of the Mass.

The Prayer to St. Michael along with the Hail Holy Queen is actually said after Mass - and only after a Low Mass at that. I believe I remember reading once that with the 1962 Missal these prayers after Mass were no longer required they are still customarily said and are printed in the recent Angelus Press and Baronius Press 1962 Missals.

God bless,

James

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
The Prayer to St. Michael along with the Hail Holy Queen is actually said after Mass - and only after a Low Mass at that.**

**And even then, not necessarily after every Low Mass.

For example, they need not be said after a Low Mass on Sunday with homily, if this is the Parish’s principal mass, or after a nuptual mass, or if any liturgical ceremony immediately follows the mass.

Furthermore, their original intention (prayers for the restoration of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope over the Papa States) was changed by Pius XI to “for the conversion of Russia” after the settlement of the Roman Question by the Lateran Treaty, though this is NOT how the instruction to change the intention was originally phrased.

Since all faiths, including the Catholic faith, are now free in Russia, what is the point of continuing with this intention? (I’m saying nothing about the prayers themselves.)**

 

[Ahlman]

The Pope is studying the possibility of suppressing Eucharistic prayers 2 and 4…

One of the things that irritates me the most is priests using Eucharistic prayer II exclusively - Sundays, Christmas and Easter, solemnities, Maundy Thursday, you name it - even though the GIRM says it’s meant to be used on weekdays and “special occasions”. And this isn’t just some few priests - quite the countrary. It inevitably gives me the impressions that they want to finish the Mass as quick as possible and that they really haven’t even read the GIRM. You don’t even have time to settle down after the Sanctus before the consecration starts. And the only word in it that speaks of a sacrifice, “offerimus”, is in many languages translated into something like “bring”, making the sacrificial character of it extremely vague. So even if EPII is based on one of the most ancient anaphoras in the Church, I would be very grateful if it would be suppressed (at least on other days than weekdays).

EPIV, however, I am very fond of. It gives a summary of the whole salvation history, and makes use of the riches of the eastern tradition. But I have never ever heard it on a Sunday, even if it can be used on Sundays of Ordinary time, and hardly ever on weekdays either. The only reason I see for suppressing it is just this fact, that it is hardly ever used. But I suppose the main reason for this is that the GIRM doesn’t say when it can be used, only when it cannot be used. Instead of suppressing it, I would like to see it used more often, and that the GIRM positively states when that could be done. But what are the reasons for suppressing it totally?