Is it possible the EF could ever have a new typical edition Missal?

I was just curious, the EF uses the 1962 Missal which was the last typical edition of the Missal of Pius V before the Mass of Paul Vl was introduced in 1970.
However interestingly, Pope Benedict XVl did say the Missal was never abrogated and should not be viewed as some sort of museum piece stuck in 1962.
With that said, is it theoretically possible that the EF could in the future have a new typical edition which may update the saints to include newer ones etc? Or do you think most people who attend the EF go exactly for the purpose that it is unchanging? Just thought it was interesting to ponder and wanted your opinions.

As someone who prefers the EF, I definitely wouldn’t mind seeing the calendar updated to include some of the newer canonized Saints. I do not know anyone who is against it among my friends who also prefer the EF. What I’d really like to see though is for the OF and EF to share the same calendar. It is very annoying to switch between the two: for example, in the EF, today is the 9th Sunday after Pentecost. But in the OF it’s the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time.


That would be difficult to do though, without altering one or the other completely.
For example the calendar has a lot to do with the liturgical cycle. There is no Septuagesima season, or Passiontide, or Pentecost Octave in the OF, among others. These are things which most people who celebrate the EF are drawn too.
I would prefer seeing the pre Paul Vl calendar restored and having new saints on it. But I don’t think we will ever see that. It would kind of cause dissent among the Church so I don’t think the calendars will ever be exactly the same.

I don’t like the term Ordinary Time. I know it means ordered but most people don’t know that and probably think it is just well, ordinary.


Like the dissent when they changed it forty years ago? That concern didn’t seem to stop anyone then.

I think people can get over it. Changing the calendars is relatively minor. If something like that can’t be changed, then neither form can help the other. Then the EF is either to remain a museum piece or just be unilaterally changed to be the OF.

I’m aware the liturgical seasons are slightly different between OF and EF. I think those seasons like Septuagesima should be brought back. The OF can then use times like that in its calendar, and the EF can update its calendar with newer Saints.

The parish I go to the priest does both forms and loves the EF. One thing he enjoys doing is having mass on Saint days that are on the EF calendar but not on the OF that are well known to people. For example he promoted a mass on Saint Valentines Day which is not on the OF calendar. Who is it on February 14 in OF I think Saints Cyril and Methodius. So in that way the two calendars can complement each other. We had good turnout for that Valentines Day mass too.
Then people after were wondering why it was eliminated from the new calendar so now we live in a culture where Valentines Day isn’t even on the OF calendar. I mean some people were saying how nice it is to go to Mass for Valentines Day with their significant other. That’s so great!

I never knew that. I thought it did, indeed, mean “ordinary”, kind of a throwaway term meaning “Sundays that aren’t part of any particular season”. Never really cared for it, for that reason. And I just prefer the traditional terminology and calendar on general principles.


Even if it were to mean “ordinary” as in “plain”, is that such a bad thing? If every day is a special day such as a feast, then it loses its meaning. You need contrast to make a day special. Monks tell me they spent so much time in the festival psalter, that they started to look forward to ordinary ferias, for a break from the monotony. “Feast” had lost its true meaning and things were flipped on their heads: the ordinary days became anticipated, instead of feasts. That and removing saints that are more legendary than historical were two reasons for cleaning up the saint’s calendar.

I’m not in favour of Septuagesima either. A preparation for a preparation seems redundant to me. As for the Octave of Pentecost, that was discussed at length a not that long ago. There were excellent theological reasons to not extend the Easter season beyond 50 days, and instead focus on preparation for the manifestation of the Holy Spirit between Ascension and Pentecost, through the texts and chants of the liturgy, such as the hymn Veni Creator Spiritus and the response Spiritus Paraclitus.

Septuagesima makes more sense if you look at Lent as a journey into the wilderness. If you were going to be journeying through the desert for forty days would you not prepare yourself before the journey? That is how it was explained to me and it helped with my understanding of it.

St Anthony of Padua also wrote a series of sermons for Sunday’s and Feasts which starts on Septuagesima and continues throughout the calendar as it existed in the 1200s. He doesn’t really speak about Septuagesima so much as he breaks down the readings and finds concordances in them. As somebody who almost exclusively attends the EF, seeing how little the calendar changed from the 1200 to 1962 in terms of Sunday readings really cool.


So to clarify, does “ordinary” mean something significantly different when the noun it modifies is “form” rather than “time”?

In Latin it is called Tempus per annum, or “time through the year.” As for calling it Ordinary time in English, I don’t know why they chose that. It isn’t even a good translation.

I think the only thing that needs to be updated in the EF liturgical calendar are the addition of feast days of the Saints canonized after 1962 - leave the rest alone.

I should note, it also depends on what parish you go to. If you attend an FSSP or ICKSP run parish, they have been granted in indult by the Holy See to use the pre 1950’s Holy Week liturgy. A move that has proved to be especially popular in the traditional communities.

If you attend a diocesan run parish, they are still required to only use the 1962 liturgical books.

I like that they’re allowed to use the pre-1950’s liturgy, but I thought only certain FSSP/ICKSP parishes got permission to do that, as opposed to all of both.

I never give this sort of thing much thought. I like Mass the way it is and I like the Missal the way it is. Thanks be to God! :pray::pray::pray:

I agree. Keep the Traditional Latin Mass and missal/calendar as it is.

Does the SSPX have this indult too? Haven’t they always used the 1962 Missal?
I think that is why the SSPV broke from them because they wanted to go earlier but Lefebvre insisted on the 1962 Missal.

Right. Each FSSP or ICRSS apostolate must request and receive permission to use the pre-1955 Holy Week liturgy.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit