Using Missal of 1965?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oblationem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oblationem

Guest
J.M.J.
A brother priest of mine- an orthodox Spiritan Father- would like to know if it would be permissible for him to offer Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1965. I am also a bit curious myself. The texts of the Mass are a lot closer to the traditional Latin Mass, and seem a lot more reverent, especially putting more emphasis on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Both of us were ordained after the Second Vatican Council, and we have managed to already obtain some liturgically approved missals from 1965. If anyknow knows, could you answer the following questions:
  1. Would it be required to seek permission from the Bishop (or in my friend’s case, his Superiors)- and would they be allowed to give this permission?
  2. Would the use of the '65 Missal be restricted to private Masses, or if so desired, could it also be used for public Masses. We are considering the '65 just for our private Masses. For public Masses, I am more thinking of my priest-friend while he is out in the missions, trying to bring extra reverence to the liturgy.
Thanks very much for your time and effort to answer these questions. May Our Lord and His Holy Mother bless and keep you!
 
Oblationem said:
J.M.J.
A brother priest of mine- an orthodox Spiritan Father- would like to know if it would be permissible for him to offer Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1965. I am also a bit curious myself. The texts of the Mass are a lot closer to the traditional Latin Mass, and seem a lot more reverent, especially putting more emphasis on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Both of us were ordained after the Second Vatican Council, and we have managed to already obtain some liturgically approved missals from 1965. If anyknow knows, could you answer the following questions:
  1. Would it be required to seek permission from the Bishop (or in my friend’s case, his Superiors)- and would they be allowed to give this permission?
  2. Would the use of the '65 Missal be restricted to private Masses, or if so desired, could it also be used for public Masses. We are considering the '65 just for our private Masses. For public Masses, I am more thinking of my priest-friend while he is out in the missions, trying to bring extra reverence to the liturgy.
Thanks very much for your time and effort to answer these questions. May Our Lord and His Holy Mother bless and keep you!
Click to expand...
This was a somewhat transitional missal and its use was abrogated when the Ordinary Form came out. However, your friend and the rest of the United States will be able to use the revised Roman Missal that will take effect in Advent of this year. The translation is actually quite close to the 1965 missal. The language is more noble and it is a more faithful translation of the Latin.
 
Oblationem said:
J.M.J.
A brother priest of mine- an orthodox Spiritan Father- would like to know if it would be permissible for him to offer Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1965.
Click to expand...
The only two missals allowed in universal Latin Rite use are the (Forma Extraordinaria) Missal of 1962 in Latin or the (Forma Ordinaria) Missal of 1970 (actually now 2002) in Latin or in a bishop-approved translation. There was no typical edition of the 1965 Missal, or the 1967 Missal for that matter.
 
J.M.J.
So there is no way for one to use this Missal legitimately? That is a shame.
I am aware that the new Missal coming which will be approved for use this Advent is a lot more faithful to the Latin, but it is still not the same. The '65 Missal is basically a translation of the '62 Missal- it includes the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the original Roman Canon (not the altered 1970 version), the Prayers of the Priest before Communion, the traditional Offertory prayers, etc. You can see a copy of it at:
coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

None of my brother priests seem to now whether this would be permitted, but I did hear somewhere that there was a group called the Society of St. John, based out of Scranton, PA- which had received permission to use the Missal of '65. Is anyone familiar with them? Perhaps that signifies that permission could also be granted to individual priests?

May Our Lord and His Holy Mother bless and keep you.
 
Oblationem said:
None of my brother priests seem to now whether this would be permitted, but I did hear somewhere that there was a group called the Society of St. John, based out of Scranton, PA- which had received permission to use the Missal of '65. Is anyone familiar with them?
Click to expand...
I remember them because I received a lot of literature from them. Their Mass was an abbreviated version of the 1962 Latin Mass; it eliminated Psalm 42, the last Gospel, and changed the communion formula. Their order is now defunct.
 
The only Society of St John that I am aware of in Pennsylvania celebrated the 1962 Missal with innovations of their own creation. This Society was suppressed by the local bishop for financial issues as well as some other questionable activities.
 
Oblationem said:
J.M.J.
So there is no way for one to use this Missal legitimately? That is a shame.
I am aware that the new Missal coming which will be approved for use this Advent is a lot more faithful to the Latin, but it is still not the same. The '65 Missal is basically a translation of the '62 Missal- it includes the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the original Roman Canon (not the altered 1970 version), the Prayers of the Priest before Communion, the traditional Offertory prayers, etc. You can see a copy of it at:
coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

None of my brother priests seem to now whether this would be permitted, but I did hear somewhere that there was a group called the Society of St. John, based out of Scranton, PA- which had received permission to use the Missal of '65. Is anyone familiar with them? Perhaps that signifies that permission could also be granted to individual priests?

May Our Lord and His Holy Mother bless and keep you.
Click to expand...
Just be patient. Now, if you live in a diocese where the local Ordinary permits it, you can begin chanting some of the parts of the revised translation come September. The USCCB voted in June to allow the local bishops to begin a dual phase implementation of the Roman Missal so that the faithful can get accustomed to the revised musical settings of the Gloria, the Sanctus and the Memorial Acclamation.

By the way, I do own a copy of the 1965 Missal. Upon closer examination, the Gloria and the Sanctus are pretty much identical to what we will be using in September or in Advent, depending on your local bishop.
 
Permission would have to be sought and obtained from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which governs the use of the EF. They did grant permission for the Benedictine monks at Clear Creek, OK to make a limited use of the 1965 Ordo Missae for some of their Masses, but that is pretty much it. It is unlikely that permission would be granted without a compelling reason.
 
Chatter163 said:
Permission would have to be sought and obtained from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which governs the use of the EF. They did grant permission for the Benedictine monks at Clear Creek, OK to make a limited use of the 1965 Ordo Missae for some of their Masses, but that is pretty much it. It is unlikely that permission would be granted without a compelling reason.
Click to expand...
J.M.J.
Thank you, perhaps I / we should make an appeal to them. Perhaps they would be more willing to grant such permission if we would only use the '65 Missal for private Masses (ie. not publicly.)
I agree with what has been said above- the new translation authorized vs. Missal of 1965 are pretty similar in terms of the Sanctus, Gloria, “and with your spirit,” etc. Yet much is still different. Ex. the Roman Canon ('65 is much more faithful,) prayers such as the “Placeat” (if you know what that is), the traditional prayers of the priest before Holy Communion, etc. I am thinking especially of the prayers at the offertory. Compare:

***“Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation. Through your goodness, we have this bread to offer…” ***(derived from a Jewish table blessing)
VS.
"Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins…" (faithful translation of Missal of '62.)

Also, a question that has popped into my mind is the use of the Interim Breviary (issued in 1971, I believe it was called “Prayer of Christians” as opposed to our current “Christian Prayer”). Just out of curiosity, I was wondering: would using the Interim Edition satisfy one’s obligation to recite the Divine Office? I remember being shown an old copy, and so I remember there were a couple things different from the approved edition we were taught in seminary. Would anyone know about this, since it is somewhat along the same lines as the use of the Missal?

Thanks again for all your insights and help. It certainly feels unusual for a priest to have to ask laymen about matters pertaining to the Sacred Liturgy, but of course, it never came up in seminary, and none of my brother priests seem to know either.

May Our Lord and His Blessed Mother bless and keep you all!
 
Oblationem said:
J.M.J.
Thank you, perhaps I / we should make an appeal to them. Perhaps they would be more willing to grant such permission if we would only use the '65 Missal for private Masses (ie. not publicly.)
I agree with what has been said above- the new translation authorized vs. Missal of 1965 are pretty similar in terms of the Sanctus, Gloria, “and with your spirit,” etc. Yet much is still different. Ex. the Roman Canon ('65 is much more faithful,) prayers such as the “Placeat” (if you know what that is), the traditional prayers of the priest before Holy Communion, etc. I am thinking especially of the prayers at the offertory. Compare:

***“Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation. Through your goodness, we have this bread to offer…” ***(derived from a Jewish table blessing)
VS.
"Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins…" (faithful translation of Missal of '62.)

Also, a question that has popped into my mind is the use of the Interim Breviary (issued in 1971, I believe it was called “Prayer of Christians” as opposed to our current “Christian Prayer”). Just out of curiosity, I was wondering: would using the Interim Edition satisfy one’s obligation to recite the Divine Office? I remember being shown an old copy, and so I remember there were a couple things different from the approved edition we were taught in seminary. Would anyone know about this, since it is somewhat along the same lines as the use of the Missal?

Thanks again for all your insights and help. It certainly feels unusual for a priest to have to ask laymen about matters pertaining to the Sacred Liturgy, but of course, it never came up in seminary, and none of my brother priests seem to know either.

May Our Lord and His Blessed Mother bless and keep you all!
Click to expand...
I think that the Office has also been revised to bring it into conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam.
 
Oblationem said:
J.M.J.
Thank you, perhaps I / we should make an appeal to them. Perhaps they would be more willing to grant such permission if we would only use the '65 Missal for private Masses (ie. not publicly.)
I agree with what has been said above- the new translation authorized vs. Missal of 1965 are pretty similar in terms of the Sanctus, Gloria, “and with your spirit,” etc. Yet much is still different. Ex. the Roman Canon ('65 is much more faithful,) prayers such as the “Placeat” (if you know what that is), the traditional prayers of the priest before Holy Communion, etc. I am thinking especially of the prayers at the offertory. Compare:

***“Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation. Through your goodness, we have this bread to offer…” ***(derived from a Jewish table blessing)
VS.
"Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins…" (faithful translation of Missal of '62.)

Also, a question that has popped into my mind is the use of the Interim Breviary (issued in 1971, I believe it was called “Prayer of Christians” as opposed to our current “Christian Prayer”). Just out of curiosity, I was wondering: would using the Interim Edition satisfy one’s obligation to recite the Divine Office? I remember being shown an old copy, and so I remember there were a couple things different from the approved edition we were taught in seminary. Would anyone know about this, since it is somewhat along the same lines as the use of the Missal?

Thanks again for all your insights and help. It certainly feels unusual for a priest to have to ask laymen about matters pertaining to the Sacred Liturgy, but of course, it never came up in seminary, and none of my brother priests seem to know either.

May Our Lord and His Blessed Mother bless and keep you all!
Click to expand...
I believe that the Divine Office obligation can only be satisfied by the use of the current Liturgy of the Hours or the one in use in 1962.

If on is a religious then they are bound by what is in the constitutions/statues of their religious institute. They may be able to use something different with the approval of their superior.
 
Chatter163 said:
They did grant permission for the Benedictine monks at Clear Creek, OK to make a limited use of the 1965 Ordo Missae for some of their Masses, but that is pretty much it. It is unlikely that permission would be granted without a compelling reason.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the compelling reason was in Clear Creek?
 
ByzCath said:
I believe that the Divine Office obligation can only be satisfied by the use of the current Liturgy of the Hours or the one in use in 1962.

If on is a religious then they are bound by what is in the constitutions/statues of their religious institute. They may be able to use something different with the approval of their superior.
Click to expand...
You might also try asking ask PCED to receive permission.
 
ByzCath said:
I believe that the Divine Office obligation can only be satisfied by the use of the current Liturgy of the Hours or the one in use in 1962.

If on is a religious then they are bound by what is in the constitutions/statues of their religious institute. They may be able to use something different with the approval of their superior.
Click to expand...
You might also try asking PCED to receive permission.
 
TheMc said:
You might also try asking PCED to receive permission.
Click to expand...
A religious would need to start with their superior because 1) hey need their superiors approval to celebrate anything out of the ordinary and 2) they would need their superiors approval to contact PCED in the first place.
 
Oblationem said:
I agree with what has been said above- the new translation authorized vs. Missal of 1965 are pretty similar in terms of the Sanctus, Gloria, “and with your spirit,” etc. Yet much is still different. Ex. the Roman Canon ('65 is much more faithful,) prayers such as the “Placeat” (if you know what that is), the traditional prayers of the priest before Holy Communion, etc. I am thinking especially of the prayers at the offertory.
Click to expand...
If there are differences in the translations, there may be some copyright issues involved here. Many of the old Mass English translations were basically copied from the Anglican Church. Compare with the Book of Common Prayer.
"Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins…"
Click to expand...
There was much criticism of this translation. For one thing hostia was translated “host” but some theologians insist that “Victim” would have been a better way to convey that the priest is alter Christus and preserve the sacrifice aspect. If you look in the Canon, you’ll probably find the hostia is translated as “Victim” there.

If you’re going after English translations, you’re better off sticking to bishop-approved translations and not those in the Latin-English missals, even if they were imprimatured.
 
I must admit I believe that the so called 1965 Missal was probably more in line with the intentions of Sacrosanctum Concilium at the time it was drafted than the Missal of Paul VI (I also add that I normally assist at OF mass). It does seem to fit in with the concept that our current Roman Pontiff has underlined “organic development” (though the terminology is perhaps his, the principle has normally been the way the Mass has developed through millenia).
The one place it may fall short is in SC’s prescription for an expanded Lectionary.
That being said, I think that the current 3 yr Sunday cycle plus 2 year weekday cycle AND added 1st reading is a bit excessive.
I think the traditional cycle should have been kept and one of the following adopted:

A) One additional cycle without adding an OT reading

OR

B) just add the (usually OT) reading to the traditional cycle

OR

C) One additional cycle plus (usually OT) first reading
 
drforjc said:
I must admit I believe that the so called 1965 Missal was probably more in line with the intentions of Sacrosanctum Concilium at the time it was drafted than the Missal of Paul VI (I also add that I normally assist at OF mass). It does seem to fit in with the concept that our current Roman Pontiff has underlined “organic development” (though the terminology is perhaps his, the principle has normally been the way the Mass has developed through millenia).
The one place it may fall short is in SC’s prescription for an expanded Lectionary.
That being said, I think that the current 3 yr Sunday cycle plus 2 year weekday cycle AND added 1st reading is a bit excessive.
I think the traditional cycle should have been kept and one of the following adopted:

A) One additional cycle without adding an OT reading

OR

B) just add the (usually OT) reading to the traditional cycle

OR

C) One additional cycle plus (usually OT) first reading
Click to expand...
I strongly agree. Look at SC:
  1. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
    See? The council didn’t even ask that everything be revised, as it has been. It asks that
    where necessary it be revised “in the light of sound tradition.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top