Missal changes:1969 vs.2011

With the new translation of the Roman Missal now a done deal, and with a start date on the horizon, I have a question regarding the promulgation of the original Missal of Paul VI.

The document issued by Cardinal George and the USCCB states that ***“The use of the third edition of the Roman Missal enters into use in the dioceses of the United States of America as of the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011. From that date forward, no other edition of the Roman Missal may be used in the dioceses of the United States of America.” ***

My understanding of this is that from 11/27/11, the only Missal of the OF will be the 3rd edition, and that all other editions are “abrogated”, much like the 1917 Code of Canon Law was when the 1983 CCC was promulgated.

I often hear many of the people in my community, and here at CAF, who prefer the EF talk about the 1962 Missal and that it was actually never “abrogated” and that the “Mass of the Ages” was “suppressed” by those who wanted to make the Church more “Protestant”, etc, etc, etc. We all know the arguments.

Now, I understand that the Holy Father has lifted restrictions that had been placed on the EF, and I have no problem with that. The EF is not my first choice for worship and I have no problem with anyone who prefers it, unless that person calls into question my level of “Catholicity” because I prefer the OF.

So, my question is, wasn’t it the same when the Missal of Paul the VI was promulgated in 1969?

Would not the “novus ordo”, in essence, replace the older one, much like the 3rd edition is replacing what we use now? And if this is correct, how could anyone believe that the EF was “suppressed” for the malicious reasons that I so often here from the more traditionally- minded people that I come in contact with?

Please note, I am not trying to start another OF vs. EF debate.
I am really curious about this. I know a lot of people, priests and deacons included, that do not like that changes being made to the Roman Missal, and are very vocal about it, and am wondering if the Church (at least here in the US) is going to see the same type division with this “novus ordo” that it saw with the last one?

Thoughts, comments.

For someone that doesn’t want to start another “debate”, you sure present a “loaded” question.

I’ll not question our Holy Father, Benedict XVI, when he says that the Mass of 1962 was never abrogated. There is documentation that I have seen on one of the CAF threads that backup this position.

Perhaps one of the other posters can remember where it is located.

No, because as we know, the novus ordo didn’t abrogate the Tridentine Mass. You might find Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s podcast of April 30, 2009 illuminating on this subject.

I know a lot of people, priests and deacons included, that do not like that changes being made to the Roman Missal, and are very vocal about it, and am wondering if the Church (at least here in the US) is going to see the same type division with this “novus ordo” that it saw with the last one?

That is what those critics who continue to carp publicly about the new translation are aiming to achieve, whether they admit it or not. It was one thing to object before the decision was made, no matter how ill-founded those objections. But now the decision has been made, there is no legitimate reason for continued public criticism; it has no valid end or noble purpose. It can be directed only to sowing seeds of division and dissent. We have a few too many oarsmen who need to be shaken from their daydreams of being deck officers; they need to get below decks, grab an oar, and get back to work. If not: the plank.

From Summorum Pontificum (2007), the 1962 Mass was never abrogated. (But the Holy Week cannot be celebrated as in the 1962 Mass. There have also been some other changes.)

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_lt.html

3 April 1969 Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

"We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

[LEFT]We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."[/LEFT]

Well first of all no, the novus ordo does not replace anything. I don’t even understand why your asking a scenario about the OF of the Mass being the sole form of the Mass when the Pope has already spoken on this matter that there are two forms of the Mass. The Missal of 1962 was never abrogated as Pope Benedict XVI covers in his Apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, but the Church certainly acted like it was over the years. That is why you hear of the Mass being suppressed. There is no denying it or writing this off as a “traditionalist cry” for even though it was never abrogated, the Church did its best to do away with the old and in with the new. There are reasons as to why there is the SSPX, an earlier Moto Propio that John Paul the Great made to bishops asking for them to “generously apply” the TLM yet many of them smiled and probably threw it in the trash, and priests who were punished by their bishops for offering the EF of the Mass in their parish (before the Summorum Pontificum). That is why ultimately Pope Benedict XVI cleared up the matter and allowed the priests to say the Mass without the permission of the bishop so that people could finally have access to the EF of the Mass. Two forms, one rite.

Offhand, I would just say that there is a difference between tow different missals and a new edition of the same missal. In computer-speak, if the 1962 Missal was “Mass 1.0”, the 1969 Missal would be “Mass 2.0” and the 2011 Missal would be “Mass 2.2”. :slight_smile:

The Holy Week liturgies, or more to the point the Liturgy of the Triduum, can be offered in either form, so long as it is 1) offered publicly (the one time when private liturgies are forbidden), 2) only one can be offered in a parish, and 3) IIRC, the entire Triduum is offered in one or the other form.

Missale Romanum versions promulgated, according to USCCB.
usccb.org/romanmissal/resources-background.shtml

1604 – Pope Clement VIII
1634 – Pope Urban VIII
1884 – Pope Leo XIII
1920 – Pope Benedict XV
1962 – Pope John XXIII
1970 – Pope Paul VI
1975 – Pope Paul VI
2002 – Pope John Paul II

Pope Benedict XVI said that the ordinary form and extrordinary form are two forms of one rite.

Thank you.

There is NO new edition of the Roman Missal coming out. What is coming out is a new English language translation; the Latin original (which is what constitutes an edition) is not changing. This is still the third edition from 2002.

Yes, but the mere fact that we are using the third edition, rather than the **ninth **edition, tells you that the missal of St. Pius V (1570) is not being enumerated, but that of Paul VI (1970). This at least points to the fact that the Church recognizes it as a different missal.

Yes, that is true, the series being 1970, 1975, 2002, the Novus Ordo.

They did not mention the original [FONT=Arial]Tridentine 1570, which the prior series must be of.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial](And the 1911 Pope Pius X changes must be considerd a minor revision.)
[/FONT]

No, it is unlikely. Most of the “concerns” over the new translations are not liturgical problems. They seem to arise from anger that the initial work was taken out of the hands of ICEL and completed at the Vatican level. Some are offended because they see this act as a non-conciliar one.

There are people upset with what they see as Vatican strong-arming right now. Annoyed that they are not being heard out on many issues, such as, rethinking birth control, women’s ordination, full inclusion for practicing gays and lesbians in the church, the way in which the abuse scandals have been handled, etc…

This pope strikes chords that he has traditional leanings and so, the new translations strike many as a means of forcing something traditional and anti-renewal down their throats.

They are doing a very good job of getting people confused, upset and angry over a few minor, but significant changes. Just read the comments on the National Catholic Reporter website. People are furious. Stating things like, “The day the changes are introduced, I will stand and shout ‘NO!’ NO! You cannot take my Church away from me!” Then other comments follow with, “Thank you. I will be standing with you that Sunday, shouting ‘NO’ as well.”

Funny, because these sound strangely like the cries of traditionalists.

+Mary, Queen of Peace, pray us!:crossrc:

They’re annoyed that they aren’t getting their way. I see no evidence that they haven’t been heard, as against have been rejected.

This pope strikes chords that he has traditional leanings and so, the new translations strike many as a means of forcing something traditional and anti-renewal down their throats.

Many of the same people were just fine ramming the novus ordo down people’s throats, from what I’ve been told.

Just read the comments on the National Catholic Reporter website. People are furious. Stating things like, “The day the changes are introduced, I will stand and shout ‘NO!’ NO! You cannot take my Church away from me!”

What I’m getting from this is that the first sunday in advent, we need to carry those little zapper things to Church in case the person next to us tries to disrupt. A quick dip into the NCR’s comments section is always a profoundly saddening experience—a cesspool of screaming CINOs and defeated trendies, made desperate by the knowledge that their moment has passed, and lacking even the faintest shred of empathy to connect their situation to how a lot of people must have felt when their preferred liturgy was taken from them.

Dear SimonDodd,

You don’t have to tell me any of this. I go to EF exclusively. I was trying to state the complaints, misunderstandings, whatever you want to call them, from the perspective of those causing all the confusion on the new translations.

However, we don’t need tasers to get our points across. (yes, I get the humor) We need to get down on our knees and pray for unity, fidelity to the Magestrium and that a spirit of obedience prevail at every level of the Church. If you need to correct someone on some point, do it in charity and only for the good of their soul.

For all the protestations that the Vatican II novus ordo mass didn’t replace the tridentine, it’s sure funny how there isn’t ONE tridentine mass offered in my huge parish nor are there in any of the parishes for miles and miles of here. There is ONE small parish on a school campus one hour away that offers it once per week. It’s all but DEAD here for hundreds of miles save the SSPX folks.

For not being replaced, it looks pretty replaced to me but this is anecdotal I confess…

I always thought Novus Ordo replaced the earlier Masses (1570, 1604, 1634, 1884, 1911, 1920, 1955, 1962), but found out later that 1962 was still possible. Also the 1965 and 1967 were transitional only.

Some ultraconservatives want the Pope Benedict XV Mass from 1920 with the calendar changes through 1954, which preserve the original Holy Week.

For the love of God, I’d kill for just ONE thing to return, and it’s an easy thing that they totally robbed us of in this area-----INCENSE…you have to die and have a funeral for incense to be present…I miss it so…:frowning:

Sorry, I understand. I don’t know why they do not use it, the Novus Ordo may use incense, and Gregorian Chant. (Although I know one person is allergic to the incense, so for them it is better.)

I was at a Benediction one Friday for noon Mass, at a Latin Catholic Church, and after Mass the priest incensed the Eucharist in the Monstrance, which was the beginning of the Echaristic Adoration period that day.

At another Latin Catholic Church (15 miles North of there) the priest will celebrate the weekday feasts with Gregorian Chant (he sings his parts).

Normally I assist at the Byzantine Divine Liturgy so we use incense and sing plainchant regularly.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

A loaded question, but a good one. I think the key is found in Chatter’s response.

We have to understand not just the language, but the context. This abrogation is in the context of the new translation of the current missal. There is no reason to expand the universe of the document beyond the implementation of this new translation. Thus, it is other editions of the current Roman Missal that are to be replaced.

I expect to see wide-spread compliance, though you can bet if one priest does not comply, we will hear about it right here.

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