Was the Novus Ordo suppressed by the more recent changes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dochawk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dochawk

Guest
In all seriousness . . .

+Bendedict noted that the 1962 Missal was not suppressed on publication of the Novus Ordo in 1970, while such suppression has always been the norm historically.

The 1970 Missal was tabled as the Novus Ordo Missae, while more recent editors do not.

Were the 1970 to 2002 Missals suppressed by the 2008 (and intermediate?) publications?

hawk
 
dochawk said:
In all seriousness . . .

+Bendedict noted that the 1962 Missal was not suppressed on publication of the Novus Ordo in 1970, while such suppression has always been the norm historically.

The 1970 Missal was tabled as the Novus Ordo Missae, while more recent editors do not.

Were the 1970 to 2002 Missals suppressed by the 2008 (and intermediate?) publications?

hawk
Click to expand...
It’s not a new Missal. The Latin version didn’t change. It was the English translation that changed.

Pope John Paul II wanted the national conferences to come up with better, more literal translations that were much closer to Latin instead of the dynamic equivalence translations we had.
 
The 1962 Missal was continually in licit use all the way from 1962 to the present, whether among aged priests or under various indults, and now Summorum Pontificum. It was never juridically abrogated (JPII had a commission of Cardinals study the question). The same cannot be said for prior versions of the EF or subsequent versions of the OF.

EDIT: here’s an article that discusses some of the juridical history, demonstrating that it was not abrogated.

Library : Dossier on the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI: Summorum Pontificum cura

Dossier on the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI: Summorum Pontificum cura This dossier provides an overview of ecclesiatical documents which pertain to the celebration of the 1962 Missale Romanum (popularly referred to as the
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
In all seriousness . . .

+Bendedict noted that the 1962 Missal was not suppressed on publication of the Novus Ordo in 1970, while such suppression has always been the norm historically.

The 1970 Missal was tabled as the Novus Ordo Missae, while more recent editors do not.

Were the 1970 to 2002 Missals suppressed by the 2008 (and intermediate?) publications?

hawk
Click to expand...
Missale Romanum, John XXIII, 1962 (now the extraordinary form)
Missale Romanum, Paul VI, (now the ordinary form)
1 first typical edition, March 22, 1970.
2 first typical edition, emended, 1971
3 second typical edition, 1975
4 third typical edition, 2002
5 third typical edition, emended 2008
 
It is what it is. Too much speculation and conjecture can be detrimental to our faith. There - I said it.
 
Vico said:
. . .
5 third typical edition, emended 2008
Click to expand...
Yes–but are the editions from 1970 to 2002 suppressed, or could some type of neo-traditionalist (or would it be traditional neolist? 😜😲) use, say, the 1975 version?
tafan2 said:
With all due respect, why do you care?
Click to expand...
“Care” would be far too strong a word 🙂

It just kind of popped into my head a couple of days ago when yet another post about the EF not being suppressed still called the current Mass “Novus Ordo”, and sitting there with the thoughts side by side, I was wondering if the door is open for yet another group. The actual NO broke the pattern of suppressing the prior usage; is that still done?

hawk, who is quite literally a professional paranoid, paid to worry about things that could happen , , ,
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
Yes–but are the editions from 1970 to 2002 suppressed, or could some type of neo-traditionalist (or would it be traditional neolist? 😜😲) use, say, the 1975 version?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the Latin version but the decree that accompanied the promulgation of the English translation of the Third edition said that
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
dochawk said:
or would it be traditional neolist? 😜😲) use, say, the 1975 version?
Click to expand...
I suppose that would be tantamount to an EF using, say, a 1920 Missal. I think they’ve now allowed it but I’m not sure.
 
Every Missal before 1962 was suppressed by its successor, so not allowed (barring things such as the recent permission for an older version of Holy Week series).

But, yes, that’s the comparable situation to what I’m thinking.
 
The Order of Mass as offered in 1962 was not technically suppressed for the fact that this simply could not be done. However, in practice the opposite unfortunately seemed to largely be the case to the point where people believed the “old Mass” was just that. Also I remember 2011 to have been the year where the English translations were fixed. The US Bishops in the 90s put together an entirely new translation that was to have been put into use in 1998 though this was quashed by then Cardinal Ratzinger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top