Traditional Latin Missal question

[Anima_Christi]

What is the difference between the 1958(?) Missal and the 1962 Missal? Many traditionalist/sedevacantist schismatic groups use the 1958 Tridentine Latin Missal while indult Latin Masses that are in union with the Church use the 1962 Latin missal.

 

[Iohannes]

In the 1962 Missal, the Third Confiteor was dropped and St. Joseph was added to the Roman Canon. The first alteration of the Roman Canon for over a thousand years.

 

[Iohannes]

Somewhere after 1955, we have a change in the Holy Week, one of the biggest change included the Washing of feet of 12 Men*.

*The Latin rubrics say men.

 

[AJV]

The 1962 missal has a different calendar than the 1958 missal. I believe several feasts were erased-Chair of St.Peter in Rome and St. Peter’s chains are the only ones that come to mind- and some new ones added. The terms for feast days in the calendar were also changed- no more Doubles and Simples,etc.-everything was termed as first, second, third, fourth class and some changes were made regarding ember days which I’m not familiar with. I have heard this but never actually witnessed it- that if there is a procession at the beginning or end of the Mass then the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Last Gospel are not said. Hope this helps

 

[AJV]

Anima Christi:

Many traditionalist/sedevacantist schismatic groups use the 1958 Tridentine Latin Missal while indult Latin Masses that are in union with the Church use the 1962 Latin missal.

Are you sure that you mean the '58 missal and not the '55? Most sedevacantists and schismatics (with the exception of the SSPX and the CMRI) prefer the '55 missal as there were no substantial changes made as at that date. After that the new Holy Week was introduced( along with changes in the calendar such as the supression of octaves and vigils) which they look at as a precourser to the changes that led to the Missal of 1970.

 

[Chatter163]

No, the OP is correct in stating that some sedevacantist (and other groups to the right of the SSPX) use the missal as it was in 1958, as they state that this was the last year with what they consider to be a “real” Pope, Pius XII.

All of the differences have been noted, though some with incorrect sources. St. Joseph was added to the Canon in the 1962 edition. The kalendar was reformed (though the revisions in feast days were nothing compared to changes made in 1970), but the changes in certain classes of feasts (double and semidouble) were not made in the 1962 missal, but in Pius XII’s decree Cum Nostra in 1955. Similarly, other changes mentioned came from Blessed John XXIII’s revised rubrics, Novo Rubricarum, in 1960. These include the precept that a procession with a blessing at the beginning of Mass pre-empted the prayers at the foot of the altar, or one at the end of Mass pre-empted the blessing and last gospel. Also suppressed in the revised rubrics was the Confiteor before communion.

The footwashing rite had been part of the Maundy Thursday rites for centuries, but had not been after the gospel, but generally at the end of Mass, or even done separately. The 1955 Holy Week revisions by Pius XII made this an optional part of the Mass, after the homily that was also prescribed. In fact, the directive for a Maundy Thursday homily marked the first time that a homily was required by the rubrics.

 

[Anima_Christi]

I meant 1958 for the reason stated by Chatter, but I believe it is also true that some schismatic radical traditionalist sedevacantist sects only accept the 1955 Missal.

 

[TNT]

Anima Christi:

I meant 1958 for the reason stated by Chatter, but I believe it is also true that some schismatic radical traditionalist sedevacantist sects only accept the 1955 Missal.

WOW, I don’t think I can fit all that title on my calling card.
I think that’s a recent record-length for titling the good ol boys.
A sede is by definition a rad-trad.
Schismatic is way beyond your place of authority, unless you are the pope. The pope hasn’t ruled (your pope or any imaginary one). So,
sedevacantist sects oughta keep it short, sweet and even accurate. Not that yur into accuracy.

 

[Psalm45_9]

AJV:

The 1962 missal has a different calendar than the 1958 missal. I believe several feasts were erased

I wish we still had the Feast of the Most Precious Blood. :crying:

 

[muledog]

TNT:

WOW, I don’t think I can fit all that title on my calling card.
I think that’s a recent record-length for titling the good ol boys.
A sede is by definition a rad-trad.
Schismatic is way beyond your place of authority, unless you are the pope. The pope hasn’t ruled (your pope or any imaginary one). So,
sedevacantist sects oughta keep it short, sweet and even accurate. Not that yur into accuracy.

Like it or not, Anima Christi is correct. Groups such as the SSPV (which broke from the SSPX, which is schismatic) cannot be considered anything but radical and schismatic. They profess a so-called “true catholicism”, yet reject the very tenants which are the binding force of our Faith. They reject the current Holy Father and all after Pius XII.

The SSPV uses the liturgical books in force prior to the Holy Week changes in 1955-56 (because Abp. Bugnini was involved) The two SSPX priests who spun off to form the SSPV (Kelly and Dolan) now are separated once again, and head two different sects.

 

[SummaTheo]

Institute of Christ the King (which is a valid order within the RCC) has permission to use the missal pre 1955 but they must use the 1962 calendar.

 

[bear06]

Schismatic is way beyond your place of authority, unless you are the pope. The pope hasn’t ruled (your pope or any imaginary one).

Uh, I have noooooooooooooo problem with calling a group claiming that their has been no Pope since Pius V, VI, etc. schismatic. They are in material schism. In fact, it’s probably OK to call them heretics too.

I don’t believe that someone is in schism only if the Pope says so. Remember when Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated everyone from people belonging to Planned Parenthood to SSPX in his diocese? He ain’t the Pope. The Vatican has never said a word on the issue.

According to Canon Law, you are a schismatic if you refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. Let’s see, we have a Roman Pontiff named Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPV refuses submission to him (I don’t even think they would argue that). They are schismatics. Anima Christi didn’t decide who was a schismatic, heretic, etc. The Church did and the Church says in her Canon Law that a schismatic is one who refuses submission, blah, blah, blah. I think we’ve all seen these before but here they are again.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defn.htm

 

[Chatter163]

I don’t believe that someone is in schism only if the Pope says so. Remember when Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated everyone from people belonging to Planned Parenthood to SSPX in his diocese? He ain’t the Pope. The Vatican has never said a word on the issue.

Huh??? I am not sure what the above means or what it has to do with the subject matter.

 

[bear06]

Chatter163:

Huh??? I am not sure what the above means or what it has to do with the subject matter.

TNT said:

Schismatic is way beyond your place of authority, unless you are the pope. The pope hasn’t ruled (your pope or any imaginary one).

Someone can be guilty of schism even if the Pope has not ruled on the matter. The case of Bruskewitz is an example of this.

 

[Chatter163]

The examples in Bishop Bruskewitz’s diocese did concern excommunication by the bishop, but when did he ever declare someone in schism?

Furthermore, the earlier post stated that the Pope’s declaration of schism was by itself insufficient. That was even more difficult to understand.

 

[bear06]

]The examples in Bishop Bruskewitz’s diocese did concern excommunication by the bishop, but when did he ever declare someone in schism?

Well, Chatter, you are quite right about the Bruskewitz example. That said, schism is still the removal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is not wrong to state that someone is in schism if the Roman Pontiff has not made this statement.

Furthermore, the earlier post stated that the Pope’s declaration of schism was by itself insufficient. That was even more difficult to understand.

I don’t know where you are getting this. Of course the Pope’s declaration of schism is sufficient.

 

[adventistnomore]

1958 v. 1962 Missal

Propogated under Tolerable pope
v.
Propgated under alleged “Arch-heretic”

---

That’s really the differece for sedavacants. Ugh, my heart breaks that they might return to the unity of the Church.

 

[Chatter163]

bear06:

I don’t believe that someone is in schism only if the Pope says so.

Remember when Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated everyone from people belonging to Planned Parenthood to SSPX in his diocese? He ain’t the Pope. The Vatican has never said a word on the issue.

Sorry. I suppose the boldfaced text meant that only a papal decree concerning schism is acceptable. But without a comma after the word schism, I read it to say that papal authority alone is NOT sufficient.

 

[bear06]

Just to make sure my poor writing is understood…A person can be in schism without a papal decree on the matter. Sorry.