What Missal is a 1962 Missal?

[Carlos_Palad]

Recently, through the generosity of a member of Una Voce America’s Board, the former “indult” Filipino Traditionalist community received 3 copies of the 1962 Roman Missal currently made published by Roman Catholic Books and Neumann Press. We are indeed thankful for his generosity and kindness, which will enable a few more Filipino priests to finally celebrate the TLM, as they had yearned to do all these years.

It is my understanding that this particular edition of the Roman Missal, which was published with the “gracious permission” of the late Cardinal O’Connor, is the most widely-bought among recently-published versions of the Roman Missal. This increases our joy in having the Missals.

Anyway (and without meaning to somehow “downgrade” or devalue the generosity we have received), a closer inspection of this particular edition of the Roman Missal showed that it is does not include the name of St. Joseph. (Hence the inclusion with a Missal of a piece of paper in an envelope, containing the proper wording of the initial portion of the Communicantes when recited with the name of St. Joseph, and to be attached to the appropriate Missal page at the discretion of the Missal’s owner). The rubrics follow the June 26, 1960 decree of the Sacred Congregation for Rites which came into force on January 1, 1961 and which is inserted in the initial pages. The Missal also has 16 Prefaces – the 15 Prefaces plus the Preface for the Chrism Mass.

However, I’ve recently found out that there is another Altar Missal out there in the market, available from St. John Cantius, which is essentially a reprinting of the 1962 Regensburg Pustet Missal. In addition, the NLM website has published information on an up-and-coming reprint (February 2008) of the Benziger “1962 Missal” by Preserving Christian Publications. These two editions include, in addition to the 15 Prefaces, the five Gallican Prefaces which, as the blurb for the latter of these two editions says, were added for ad libitum use on JULY 1962.

These five Gallican Prefaces are for 1) Advent, 2) St. John the Baptist, 3) the Most Holy Sacrament, 4) the Dedication of A Church and 5) All Saints and Holy Patrons. The Baronius Press Missal (for pew use) also has these five Prefaces. In comparison, the Angelus Press Daily Missal has all these prefaces EXCEPT for that of St. John the Baptist. (I wonder why.)

These two Altar Missal editions, as well as the Baronius and Angelus hand missals, also have the name of St. Joseph in the Canon.

 

[Carlos_Palad]

Continuation:

To add to my perplexity, though, there seems to be a mix-up of dates. The Latin edition of the 1962 Missal which can be found online at the Archivium Liturgicum bears a letter from the SCR dated June 23, 1962 promulgating the “1962 Missal”. I have no idea if this particular document is in the Pustet and Benziger editions mentioned above, but my guess would be that it is. This letter, on the other hand, is absent from the Roman Catholic Books edition of the “1962” Altar Missal, which makes me think that the RCF Altar Missal is better called “1961 Missal.” (since it only refers to the 1960 documents that came into force on January 1, 1961). Further research I’ve made indicate that while the 1960 documents reforming the rubrics came into force on January 1, 1961, the first “editio typica” of the Missal that incorporates the 1960 rubrical reforms was approved on October 21, 1961. (However, the RCB Altar Missal has no references to any October 1961 document either.) Nevertheless, the fact remains that by the authority of Cardinal O’Connor it was reproduced as the 1962 Missal. I’ve been thinking that, given the difficulty with which it took at the time to print as huge a book as the Roman Missal in such large quantities, perhaps it was not until early 1962 that the October 1961 editio typica of the Roman Missal began to be published in many areas of the world – thus turning the 1961 Missal into something that also deserves to be called 1962 Missal, the same way that we often refer to the Novus Ordo (which came into effect on November 30, 1969) as the “1970 Missal”.

Furthermore, it is public knowledge that the name of St. Joseph was inserted into the Canon Missae on November 13, 1962 and made obligatory only on December 8, 1962. Indeed, it is the first true “Vatican II” liturgical reform! From what I know, no other “editio typica” of the Missal save that of June 23, 1962 was published in 1962 or even in 1963 and 1964. The Church had to wait for the publication of a new Ordo Missae on January 27, 1965 to have an editio typica that would incorporate all the changes promulgated between 1962 and 1964. However, I remember seeing a copy of an Altar Missal from 1963 that does have the name of St.Joseph. Besides, the editio typica dates to JUNE of 1962, while the Gallican Prefaces were inserted – for ad libitum use only – on the following JULY. If my data is correct, then, would we not be better of using the term “1963 Missal” to denote the Missal with Ordo Missae incorporating the name of St. Joseph and with the five Gallican Prefaces?

In addition, I am also aware that more revisions and simplifications of the Roman Missal’s rubrics were imposed sometime in April, 1962. The Catholic Liturgy website’s Tridentine Ordo Missae bears the date “April 11, 1962”. I also have a copy of a Philippine newsletter for priests and seminarians dating from July 1962, headlined “Changes in the Rubrics (Effective since April)” and which outlines the following changes to the rubrics of the Mass:

 

[Carlos_Palad]

Continuation:

[Begin Quote]

*1) Burial Rite:
a) Since in many parishes the cemetery is far from the Church, the Canticle Benedictus, with its antiphon ‘Ego Sum’ (and other prayers, should the length of the journey require), is recited on the way to the cemetery and not at the graveside.

1. NO BIRETTAS ARE TO BE WORN AT MASS (all caps mine – Carlos)
2. Rules about bows:
   a) The difference between a deep bow of the head and a moderate bow of the body has been dropped, while the difference between a deep bow of the body and a moderate one still remains."
   b) Rubrics requiring that at the bow at Gloria Patri, or Jesus when made from the center of the altar should be towards the altar cross, or that at the name of our Lady or a saint on his feast day should be made towards his image if set above the altar, have been eliminated. All bows at the corner of the altar are to be towards the Missal. The bow at the Per Dominum… of the Collect and Postcommunion is also towards the book.
3. Position of Hands when extended in Prayer:
   The exacting rule about the position of the hands when extended in prayer that they should not exceed the height or width of the shoulders has been replaced by the simpler “(celebrans) manus ante pectus extendit, digitis simul junctis.”
4. Position of the Celebrant at the Epistle in Solemn Mass
   Now that he no longer reads this, the celebrant is to sit and listen to the Epistle; he returns to the altar immediately after, and at the Epistle corner blesses the subdeacon and reads the Gradual, etc.
5. Holy Communion
   a) A warning bell is rung by the server shortly before the time of Communion
   b) Only one genuflection is made before turning around to give Communion, whether the sacred Hosts are on the corporal or in a ciborium on the table of the altar or in the Tabernacle; and only one genuflection after Communion – whether the ciborium remains on the altar or is replaced in the Tabernacle. In practice the priest willl genuflect once only when opening the tabernacle and a second time when closing it after the people’s Communion.
6. Preparatory and thanksgiving prayers before and after Mass:
   The prayers given in the Missal as the celebrant’s preparation and thanksgiving, which hitherto were of obligation in part, are now entirely ad libitum. *
   [End Quote]

From what I know, these rubrics were already included in the June 23, 1962 Editio Typica of the Roman Missal,

Now, here’s the catch: if indeed the June 23, 1962 Missal – containing the April (11?) 1962 changes to the rubrics – IS the 1962 Missal, then why is the worldwide Trad movement not following its rubrics? The April 1962 rubrics FORBID birettas and abolish the bows to the crucifix and the statues of the saints: but are not these practices nearly universal in today’s TLMs? (And, frankly, I’d hate to see the birettas and the bows to the crucifix go.)

Finally: the reform of the rites for the sacraments that largely took place after the Council, actually began on April 16, 1962, when the SCR promulgated the new rite for the Baptism of Adults (see AAS 54 1962 pp. 310 -338). This rite practically revived the ancient catechumenate by allowing for the rite to be “broken up” and celebrated in several distinct stages, and was noted for its simplification of the previously obtaining rite. Therefore, if we speak of the “1962 Liturgical Books”, then are we not also including this reformed rite of baptism?

 

[Carlos_Palad]

To summarize:

July 25, 1960: John XXIII issues Motu Proprio “Rubricarum Instructum”, simplifying the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary
July 26, 1960: The Sacred Congregation for Rites issues "Decretum Generale quo novus rubricarum Breviarii ac Missalis Romani Codex promulgatur. "
January 1, 1961: Reform and simplification of the Breviary and Missal go into effect.
April 5, 1961: New editio typica of the Roman Breviary
April 13, 1961: Partial revision of the Roman Pontifical
October 21, 1961: New editio typica of the Roman Missal [the ed. published by RCB?].
April (11?), 1962: More revisions / simplifications of the rubrics of the Missal
April 16, 1962: Reform of the Rite of Baptism for Adults
June 23, 1962: New editio typica of the Roman Missal. (No other “editio typica” published until 1965?)
July 1962: Insertion of the Gallican prefaces “ad libitum”
November 13, 1962: Pope John XXIII decrees insertion of the name of St. Joseph into the Canon Missae
December 8, 1962: Insertion of the name of St. Joseph into the Canon Missae goes into effect.
1963 (?): First publication of Roman Altar Missals that have both Gallican Prefaces and the name of St. Joseph.

I find all of these really confusing.

Apparently, the term “1962 Missal” is presently employed to describe any of the following kinds of liturgical practices (or combinations thereof):

1)The Missal as published in 1961 according to the 1960 decrees, but with the name of St. Joseph included;

1. The Missal as reformed in 1961 according to the 1960 decrees, and as promulgated with some more changes and in editio typica form on July 23, 1962, BUT with the April 1962 rubrical reforms more or less disregarded;
2. The Missal as reformed in 1961 according to the 1960 decrees and as further rubrically reformed in April 1962 and as promulgated in editio typica form on July 23, 1962, with the name of St. Joseph and the Gallican prefaces;
3. The Missal as reformed in 1961 according to the 1960 decrees and, with some more changes, as promulgated in editio typica form on July 23, 1962 AND with the name of St. Joseph included BUT with the April 1962 rubrical reforms and the Gallican prefaces more or less disregarded;
4. The Missal as reformed in 1961 according to the 1960 decrees and as promulgated in editio typica form on July 23, 1962 AND with the name of St. Joseph and the Gallican prefaces included BUT with the April 1962 rubrical reforms more or less disregarded;

Of these five combos or stand-alones of liturgical practice mentioned, it seems that nos. 4 is the most prevalent. Those who would strictly stick to the RCB Missal would actually be doing number 1, while a strict use of the 1962 Pustet Missal sold by St. John Cantius would entail doing # 3.

It seems to me that “1962 Missal” is a confusing term at best, since 1962 saw a massive welter of changes in the Roman liturgy, and the liturgical books would have been in different stages of reform at any given time in 1962. Perhaps the PCED must first clarify what is meant by “1962 Missal”. Is it the June 23, 1962 Editio Typica of the Missal, or does “1962 Missal” really mean as follows: “the Roman Rite as it stood at the end of 1962”?

In either case too, the authority of the April 1962 reform of the rubrics must be clarified, because the near-universal practice in the TLM world – either “Motu Proprio” or SSPX – is to ignore at least some of these reforms (especially with regards to head bows and birettas) in favor of the rubrics as these stood in 1961 or – in the case of the ICRSP and some FSSP and SSPX – as these stood prior to 1955, for at least some cases.

Furthermore, between 1989 and 1993, the PCED released several decrees that allowed for further modifications of the TLM in the light of Novus Ordo practice (on one hand) and (on the other hand) for the retention of certain pre-1962 practices (Second Confiteor). The question has to be asked: can these be used in conjunction with the Missal(s) of Bl. John XXIII and not be guilty of mixing rites?

If I have errors of fact, please hasten to correct me. For now, though, I’d love to have your thoughts.

 

[jj2011]

It seems to me that “1962 Missal” is a confusing term at best, since 1962 saw a massive welter of changes in the Roman liturgy, and the liturgical books would have been in different stages of reform at any given time in 1962. Perhaps the PCED must first clarify what is meant by “1962 Missal”. Is it the June 23, 1962 Editio Typica of the Missal, or does “1962 Missal” really mean as follows: “the Roman Rite as it stood at the end of 1962”?

In either case too, the authority of the April 1962 reform of the rubrics must be clarified, because the near-universal practice in the TLM world – either “Motu Proprio” or SSPX – is to ignore at least some of these reforms (especially with regards to head bows and birettas) in favor of the rubrics as these stood in 1961 or – in the case of the ICRSP and some FSSP and SSPX – as these stood prior to 1955, for at least some cases.

Furthermore, between 1989 and 1993, the PCED released several decrees that allowed for further modifications of the TLM in the light of Novus Ordo practice (on one hand) and (on the other hand) for the retention of certain pre-1962 practices (Second Confiteor). The question has to be asked: can these be used in conjunction with the Missal(s) of Bl. John XXIII and not be guilty of mixing rites?

I believe our efforts have to be in promoting the return of the traditional mass, the ending of all de facto and de jure restrictions on it, and lobbying Rome to depose disobedient bishops.

You have had great posts, Carlos, and are doing great work, but I see no good coming from this line of inquiry. PCED should allow some leeway in lesser rubrical matters. Let’s focus on the big picture: the return of the mass.

 

[AJV]

1. NO BIRETTAS ARE TO BE WORN AT MASS (all caps mine – Carlos)

The April 1962 rubrics FORBID birettas and abolish the bows to the crucifix and the statues of the saints: but are not these practices nearly universal in today’s TLMs?

The bows toward to the crucifix are unrubrical, however, the biretta is not abolished- the obligation for it was only relaxed. The Ritus still mentions the biretta.

The reason for seeing a relaxation in the use of the biretta by some, was the following change.

The Ritus Servandus prior to 1960/1 read

Sacerdos, omnibus paramentis indutus, accipit manu sinistra Calicem, ut supra praeparatum, quem portat elevatum ante pectus, Bursam manu dextera super Calicem tenens, et facta reverentia Cruci, vel imagini illi, quae in Sacristia erit, capite cooperto accedit ad Altare, ministro cum Missali et aliis ad celebrandum necessariis (nisi ante fuerint praeparata) praecedente, superpelliceum induto.

The Priest, all the vestments having been put on, takes the Chalice with his left hand, prepared as above, which he carries elevated before his breast, holding the Burse with his right hand upon the Chalice, and a reverence having been made to the Cross, or those images, which are in the Sacristy, with covered head proceeds to the Altar, preceded by the minister with the Missal and the other things necessary for the celebration (unless they were prepared before), wearing the surplice.

However the revised Ritus Servandus for this section reads

Sacerdos, omnibus paramentis indutus, accipit manu sinistra calicem, ut supra praeparatum, quem portat elevatum ante pectus, bursam manu dextera super calicem tenens, et facta reverentia Cruci, vel imagini illi, quae in Sacristia erit, **accedit ad altare, **ministro cum missali et aliis ad celebrandum necessariis (nisi ante fuerint praeparata) praecedente, superpelliceum induto.

The priest, all the vestments having been put on, takes the chalice with his left hand, prepared as above, which he carries elevated before his breast, holding the burse with his right hand upon the chalice, and a reverence having been made to the Cross, or those images, which are in the sacristy, proceeds to the altar, preceded by the minister with the missal and the other things necessary for the celebration (unless they were prepared before), wearing the surplice.

Accordingly many rubricians interpreted the omission of the “covered head” as a relaxation, for the Mass without deacon and subdeacon at least, in the wearing of the biretta. They also looked for support to new reference in the Ritus in the rubrics at the vesting. “Postremo sacerdos accipit planetam et, convenientur, caput tegit.” Convenientur (fittingly, suitably) was interpreted as giving some leeway in the matter, though the more conservative rubricians insisted that it was not *too *much leeway as opposed to say, laudabilitur (laudable, praiseworthy)

 

[AJV]

1. NO BIRETTAS ARE TO BE WORN AT MASS (all caps mine – Carlos)

The April 1962 rubrics FORBID birettas and abolish the bows to the crucifix and the statues of the saints: but are not these practices nearly universal in today’s TLMs?

The bows toward to the crucifix are unrubrical *, however, the biretta is not abolished- the obligation for it was only relaxed. The Ritus still mentions the biretta.

• Unless I suppose one argues along the lines of "well, it doesn’t explicitly say I should bow my head to the front, it only says I should bow my head " but I think that would be a modern argument. At that time, generally when such explicit references are omitted in a passage otherwise the same, and especially in the Traditional missal which is detailed on the matter, it was interpreted as a suppression. Plus, if one leaves such a thing open to interpetation, that opens a can of worms since then the priest could logically bow in any direction he wants.

The reason for seeing a relaxation in the use of the biretta by some, was the following change.

The Ritus Servandus prior to 1960/1 read

Sacerdos, omnibus paramentis indutus, accipit manu sinistra Calicem, ut supra praeparatum, quem portat elevatum ante pectus, Bursam manu dextera super Calicem tenens, et facta reverentia Cruci, vel imagini illi, quae in Sacristia erit, capite cooperto accedit ad Altare, ministro cum Missali et aliis ad celebrandum necessariis (nisi ante fuerint praeparata) praecedente, superpelliceum induto.

The Priest, all the vestments having been put on, takes the Chalice with his left hand, prepared as above, which he carries elevated before his breast, holding the Burse with his right hand upon the Chalice, and a reverence having been made to the Cross, or those images, which are in the Sacristy, with covered head proceeds to the Altar, preceded by the minister with the Missal and the other things necessary for the celebration (unless they were prepared before), wearing the surplice.

However the revised Ritus Servandus for this section reads

Sacerdos, omnibus paramentis indutus, accipit manu sinistra calicem, ut supra praeparatum, quem portat elevatum ante pectus, bursam manu dextera super calicem tenens, et facta reverentia Cruci, vel imagini illi, quae in Sacristia erit, **accedit ad altare, **ministro cum missali et aliis ad celebrandum necessariis (nisi ante fuerint praeparata) praecedente, superpelliceum induto.

The priest, all the vestments having been put on, takes the chalice with his left hand, prepared as above, which he carries elevated before his breast, holding the burse with his right hand upon the chalice, and a reverence having been made to the Cross, or those images, which are in the sacristy, proceeds to the altar, preceded by the minister with the missal and the other things necessary for the celebration (unless they were prepared before), wearing the surplice.

Accordingly many rubricians interpreted the omission of the “covered head” as a relaxation, for the Mass without deacon and subdeacon at least, in the wearing of the biretta. They also looked for support to new reference in the Ritus in the rubrics at the vesting. “Postremo sacerdos accipit planetam et, convenienter, caput tegit.” Convenienter (fittingly, suitably) was interpreted as giving some leeway in the matter, though the more conservative rubricians insisted that it was not *too *much leeway as opposed to say, laudabilitur (laudable, praiseworthy)

 

[Carlos_Palad]

I believe our efforts have to be in promoting the return of the traditional mass, the ending of all de facto and de jure restrictions on it, and lobbying Rome to depose disobedient bishops.

You have had great posts, Carlos, and are doing great work, but I see no good coming from this line of inquiry. PCED should allow some leeway in lesser rubrical matters. Let’s focus on the big picture: the return of the mass.

I agree that our focus should be on a return of the mass, but that doesn’t mean that we should just let priests do any version or recension of the Tridentine rubrics that they prefer. We are Catholics after all, not Anglo-Catholics, and while I’m all for legitimate variety (even within the context of the TLM) I think the question of “which rubrics” should be regarded as normative or default for the growing Trad community ought to be clarified once and for all.

Indeed, the return of the Mass will inevitably give rise to the question “which rubrics”. From my experience at least, priests who want to learn the TLM want to learn and to stick to the “correct rubrics” precisely because they the TLM as representing order in the liturgy. The reality of uniformity and variety is, of course, a lot more different from their conceptions. Still, we owe these priests an idea as to what to follow – and what to expect when they go to other locales that celebrate the TLM. From my experience, even variations in the use of the biretta and the solita from one locale to another, could give rise to some vexations (like a visiting priest giving his servers ***that *** quizzical look when the latter do something slightly different from what he is accustomed to).

I agree that there should be “some leeway in lesser rubrical matters.” PCED has historically given Traditional communities much leeway in the rubrics, and I don’t think that there is any danger of this leeway disappearing. I might add that even prior to 1962, the way the TLM was celebrated throughout the world saw innumerable local variations come into play. For example, we Filipinos retained the use of curtains or tapestries to hide the altar and sanctuary during Lent, and the use of “pax bredes” for the “sign of peace” in Solemn High Masses, until the mid-1950’s. In some Spanish cathedrals, the servers wore tunicles. I am also aware, from my own training as server, that there are differences between the traditional Filipino (derived from the Spaniards) and the French styles of ringing the bell at various parts of the Mass. And then there is the whole question of the solita oscula, a question that has not died to this very day.

Thus, the ICRSP, the Inst. of St. Philip Neri and a few parishes are allowed to use a hybrid of the pre-1955 and the Pius XII Holy Week Ceremonials. The FSSP, SSPX and the Oratorians adhere to the 1961/62 rubrics, but in varying degrees and ways (I hear, for example, that the Oratorians have no second confiteor). At the other end of the spectrum are the Le Barroux and Fontgombault families of Benedictine monasteries, which celebrate their Conventual Masses according to the 1962 Missal but with some of the 1965 and 1967 reforms and with further simplifications introduced by the PCED c. 1990.

Please take note, though, that even these variations from the norm had to receive proper permission first from the PCED. In the absence of proper permission, only long-standing custom could justify the use of these variations. Now, as new communities and Masses are being instituted left and right, these cannot claim either custom or PCED indult, and will have to abide by the “1962 Missal” (whatever that means). Hence the need to determine what “1962” rubrics are, and what variety is allowed for by it.

Believe me, I actually prefer the pre-1955 Missal and its rubrics. Still, I am not the PCED, I am not even the bishop, and when the time comes for me to help train more priests to celebrate the Mass (which is pretty soon) I’ll have to train them according to the 1962 Missal.

I think this is important, lest the Traditional community – newly freed and experiencing sudden enlargement thanks to Summorum Pontificum – face its own phenomenon of DIY rubrics and “creativity.”

 

[Carlos_Palad]

The bows toward to the crucifix are unrubrical *, however, the biretta is not abolished- the obligation for it was only relaxed. The Ritus still mentions the biretta.

Oops. The bow towards the crucifix is universal in Philippine TLMs.

 

[AJV]

Oops. The bow towards the crucifix is universal in Philippine TLMs.

I think it may be so elsewhere. Wasn’t it present at the September 14 TLM broadcast on EWTN?

I am also aware, from my own training as server, that there are differences between the traditional Filipino (derived from the Spaniards) and the French styles of ringing the bell at various parts of the Mass. And then there is the whole question of the solita oscula, a question that has not died to this very day.

If you don’t mind a small tangent, I’d love to hear more about this (and any other stuff)

And about the Gallician prefaces: was St. John the Baptist also conceded ad libitum universally?

 

[jj2011]

when the time comes for me to help train more priests to celebrate the Mass (which is pretty soon) I’ll have to train them according to the 1962 Missal.

Laetificasti cor meum, frater…

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Palad
I think this is important, lest the Traditional community – newly freed and experiencing sudden enlargement thanks to Summorum Pontificum – face its own phenomenon of DIY rubrics and “creativity.”

Dear Carlos,

 For most of us attached to the traditional liturgy, I do not think that DIY rubrics ever crosses our minds.  The myriads of changes wrought between 1960 and 1962, and then proceeding full throttle afterward until 1969, has made it challenging, to say the least, in making the determination of what the "correct" 1962 rubrics are.  The Philippine newsletter for priests and seminarians dating from July 1962 that you quoted is an interpretation, and not merely a listing, of the changes mandated by Rome in 1962.  

 Regarding the bows to the crucifix, the word *cruci *was indeed removed from Ritus in regard to the bow of the head, but it was not replaced by *missali*. Therefore, the rubric is ambiguous.  Normally, since our tradition is organic, an ambiguous rubric is interepreted by returning to its font --its source-- which, in this case, is the previous Ritus, which instructs that bows be made to the crucifix.  Custom, too, is considered the best interpreter of law, and, as you have admitted, it is the present, almost universal custom (NOT contrary to law) to bow to the crucufix. I am  well aware that many liturgists, including O'Connell (and apparently the author of the newsletter you quoted), were of the opinion that bows should be made to the book.  But the fact remains that the law itself is ambiguous, and a doubful law does not bind.  Those of us who have carefully weighed the evidence and are acting in good conscience should not be accused of DIY rubrics.

 A similar argument has already been posted for the biretta.  It is indeed optional, but not forbidden by the 1962 rubrics, as the newsletter you quoted declares.

 I have been assured by members of the FSSP, whose seminary I visited last month, that they have specific instructions from the Ecclesia Dei commission to allow the custom (admittedly contrary to law) of the second confiteor to remain in

places where the faithful are accustom to it. I am not a member of the FSSP, and therfore I do not use it.

I am glad that you brought up this topic, because it shows how much you love God and love His Church in trying to follow what Holy Mother Church has prescribed.  However, let us always remember to proceed in charity, and not be too rash in delaring that anyone is deliberately violating the rubrics Holy Mother Church has given us.  We will all have to give an account to God, and, if anyone is doing something wrong, in ignorace or otherwise, a charitable fraternal correction will go much further than anything else.

May God bless you!

Fr. Boyd

 

[jj2011]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Palad
I think this is important, lest the Traditional community – newly freed and experiencing sudden enlargement thanks to Summorum Pontificum – face its own phenomenon of DIY rubrics and “creativity.”

Dear Carlos,

 For most of us attached to the traditional liturgy, I do not think that DIY rubrics ever crosses our minds.  The myriads of changes wrought between 1960 and 1962, and then proceeding full throttle afterward until 1969, has made it challenging, to say the least, in making the determination of what the "correct" 1962 rubrics are.  The Philippine newsletter for priests and seminarians dating from July 1962 that you quoted is an interpretation, and not merely a listing, of the changes mandated by Rome in 1962.  

 Regarding the bows to the crucifix, the word *cruci *was indeed removed from Ritus in regard to the bow of the head, but it was not replaced by *missali*. Therefore, the rubric is ambiguous.  Normally, since our tradition is organic, an ambiguous rubric is interepreted by returning to its font --its source-- which, in this case, is the previous Ritus, which instructs that bows be made to the crucifix.  Custom, too, is considered the best interpreter of law, and, as you have admitted, it is the present, almost universal custom (NOT contrary to law) to bow to the crucufix. I am  well aware that many liturgists, including O'Connell (and apparently the author of the newsletter you quoted), were of the opinion that bows should be made to the book.  But the fact remains that the law itself is ambiguous, and a doubful law does not bind.  Those of us who have carefully weighed the evidence and are acting in good conscience should not be accused of DIY rubrics.

 A similar argument has already been posted for the biretta.  It is indeed optional, but not forbidden by the 1962 rubrics, as the newsletter you quoted declares.

 I have been assured by members of the FSSP, whose seminary I visited last month, that they have specific instructions from the Ecclesia Dei commission to allow the custom (admittedly contrary to law) of the second confiteor to remain in

places where the faithful are accustom to it. I am not a member of the FSSP, and therfore I do not use it.

I am glad that you brought up this topic, because it shows how much you love God and love His Church in trying to follow what Holy Mother Church has prescribed.  However, let us always remember to proceed in charity, and not be too rash in delaring that anyone is deliberately violating the rubrics Holy Mother Church has given us.  We will all have to give an account to God, and, if anyone is doing something wrong, in ignorace or otherwise, a charitable fraternal correction will go much further than anything else.

May God bless you!

Fr. Boyd

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Father. It seems that there is no one monolithic set of “'62” rubrics that settles everything, etiam in minimis. A little bit of leeway is fine.