Usus Antiquor - question
#11
(05-22-2018, 10:08 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Either way, it's considered the last missal prior to the changes (and it would be considered a slight to John XXIII to use anything else), so that's why the Pope Benedict XVI picked it to be used in SP.

I think another reason might have been that the DO is much shorter. I think that JP II and B XVI thought that since McOffice was so short, it wouldn't be fair to require the Trad institutes to recite the pre-Johannine Office. And it wouldn't have made much sense to grant an earlier Missal, but the John XXIII Breviary.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#12
(05-22-2018, 10:08 PM)GangGreen Wrote: FSSP, ICKSP, SSPX all use the 1962. There are certainly enough trads who want to go back to a pre-1955 missal, but I believe AB Lefebvre agreed to use 1962 as a concession to Rome in hopes of moving reconcilation along. Unless I remember the story wrong. Either way, it's considered the last missal prior to the changes (and it would be considered a slight to John XXIII to use anything else), so that's why the Pope Benedict XVI picked it to be used in SP.

I had heard it was because there were a number of priests who were, or at least leaning, sedevacantist, so the Archbishop picked the 1962 books to show his belief that John XXIII was a valid Pope.

The 1962 Missal isn't that different from previous editions, other than the calendar. The Breviary's a whole different story.
Reply
#13
(05-22-2018, 10:08 PM)GangGreen Wrote: FSSP, ICKSP, SSPX all use the 1962. There are certainly enough trads who want to go back to a pre-1955 missal, but I believe AB Lefebvre agreed to use 1962 as a concession to Rome in hopes of moving reconcilation along. Unless I remember the story wrong. Either way, it's considered the last missal prior to the changes (and it would be considered a slight to John XXIII to use anything else), so that's why the Pope Benedict XVI picked it to be used in SP.

The 1963 Missal (often called the 1962 Missal, because it was officially issued in very last 1962, but printed in early 1963 in most places) was the last typical edition of the pre-Novus Ordo Missale Romanum.

The so-called 1965 and 1967 Missals were all products of local bishop conferences acting on indults, permissions and local bishop conference decisions to produce those. The Holy See never issued a new typical edition of the Missal between 1962 and 1969.

This is because all of the modifications were either the optional omission of parts, the optional use of the vernacular in parts, or minor changes to the rubrics (e.g. allowing a bishop to celebrate a Solemn Mass or Sung Mass like a priest—before 1964 if he were not a missionary bishop had three options : Pontifical Low Mass, Pontifical Mass at the Faldstool, Pontifical Mass at the Throne and could not licitly offer a Solemn Mass or Sung Mass like a priest).

As a result there was no need to issue a new typical edition because it had no effect on the Latin texts, and the vernacular languages were kicked to the bishops' conferences to handle.

To clarify, however, the new rubrics under John XXIII were issued in 1960, not 1962. They were based on the 1955 simplifications by Pius XII but meant to reorganize the whole into a more systematic whole.

To an earlier comment, Archbishop Lefebvre initially used the "1965" Mass at Ecône, but soon afterward decided that because these were option changes and not attached to a typical edition, and further since the Society was international, the Latin edition needed to be used, and the last one issued was 1962. The use of the 1956 OHS instead of the 1962 Missal was also chosen for practicality : It was the only edition available.

He allowed various priests to do their own thing, until the 1983 case when the nine Sedevacantists who tried to steal the Society's US properties (and succeeded only in part), made rejection of the 1962 a point of contention.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)