Rorate Caeli

50 years of the 1962 Missal
The actual Mass of the Council



The Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites establishing the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum was promulgated exactly 50 years ago today: June 23, 1962, a few months before the opening of the Second Vatican Council and with all rubrics and classifications fully aligned with the Codex Rubricarum promulgated along with the motu proprio Rubricarum Instructum of 1960. 

It is the edition used by traditional Catholics all over the world, as defined by Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum - the "Missal of John XXIII". Or is it? As you will see in our series dedicated to the Missal of 1962 in the upcoming weeks and months, even the recognition of the definitive edition of the 1962 Missal is tricky - several details would still be added, including the famous addition of Saint Joseph to the Canon, to reach the text we have today in most sacristies. A text that, despite being quinquagenarian, has indeed been "free", following a short period in force and decades of persecution and offensive limitations, for a very short time, under five years. We know it has never been abrogated: let us get to know it better. (And if you wish to contribute your own articles, texts, and artwork to this series, please send them to us.)

28 comments:

New Catholic said...

Let us avoid uninformed comments, please.

sam said...

Here's a good comparison to review for this discussion:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=18&catname=6

What is strange is that some of the feasts that have been abolished in the 1962 Mass are still celebrated by the Eastern Catholics, ex: St. Peter in Chains.

It would be interesting to examine the reasons why some things have been abridged, modified, or abolished in the 1962 Mass. And also to see if this is the direct trajectory for the liturgical development of the Novus Ordo, meaning is this natural liturgical development of the Roman Latin Mass or is this an act revisionism that started prior to the Novus Ordo (i.e. that saw its fruition in the current Mass.)

Kumquat said...

"What is strange is that some of the feasts that have been abolished in the 1962 Mass are still celebrated by the Eastern Catholics, ex: St. Peter in Chains."

I don't know where the writer got this.

This commemoration is on NO Byzantine calendar.

Just as not all Catholics are Latin, so not all Eastern Catholics are Byzantine. There are Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, and others.

Joseph said...

The addition of St. Joseph was the one thing that should not be questioned. We live in an era when men desperately need the example of his life and the virtues it represents...not to mention his heavenly intercession.

P.K.T.P. said...

This is a great day because the Pope could have used this as an opportunity to introduce changes, but he has'nt. I've been waiting for this day all year long.

P.K.T.P.

sam said...

Kumquat said: "I don't know where the writer got this.

This commemoration is on NO Byzantine calendar."

I had assumed it was, but I know that the Antiochan Syriac Maronite Church celebrates this feast on the 16th of January and it is literally called: "The Chains of Peter Head of the Apostles."

The Syriac Catholic Church celebrate on the 16th of January.

The Latin Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast on 1st of August.

The question sill remains as to why it was removed from the 1962 edition of Missal.

Throckmorton P. said...

With apologies for continuing off topic. . .

"Joseph said...
The addition of St. Joseph was the one thing that should not be questioned. We live in an era when men desperately need the example of his life and the virtues it represents...not to mention his heavenly intercession."

23 June, 2012 21:38

Except it was done in the Canon; if the Canon of the Mass may be altered why stop there; why not fabricate a whole new Liturgy?

Romanitas said...

I hope discussion of the 1962 Missal might lead its users to question or to delve further into the wisdom of its use, as opposed to a Missal printed before 1955—complete with the old Holy Week, octaves, commemorations, proper Last Gospels, and other feasts. Indeed use of this Missal is something of a historical accident. A former SSPX seminarian from the Society's earliest times tells me they used 1965 in Econe at first. The choice of 1962 was not for any theological or liturgical advantage latent in that Missal, but to ward off potential sedevacantists. I think you would be hard pressed to find any priest saying the old Mass who follows 1962 perfectly; most wear birettas, bow to the cross, say the Confiteor at communion; some read the Epistle and Gospel at solemn Mass or just use older editions altogether.

Matt said...

I look forward to the coming articles on this subject. RC and others have written most carefully and sensitively on such Traditional subjects and have been very informative. The "Or is it?" was nice tease. It's going to be quite interesting getting the answer to that question. :-)

Prof. Basto said...

I believe that it is right that the 1962 Missal is used as the Missal representing the traditional form of the Roman Rite (now called usus antiquior or extraordinary form).

Firstly, I see no reason to challenge the authority of the code of rubrics approved by the Motu Proprio Rubricarum instructum of 1960 and made public by the decree Novo rubricarum Breviarii ac Missalis of the Sacred Congregation for Rites.

Pius XII had made changes to Holy Week, St. Pius X had made changes to the Breviary and to the code of rubrics of the Missal. Benedict XV approved a new edition of the Missal, incorporating the changes made under St. Pius X. Earlier Popes, such as Clement VIII, also altered the Codification first approved by St. Pius V. The original edition promulgated by Pius V was prior to the Clementine Vulgate, so under Clement VIII the readings of the Missal were adapted to the Vulgate. In 1634 Urban VIII also approved a revision of the Missal.

The changes introduced under bl. John XXIII are all minor, even if they are sometimes historical firsts - such as the inclusion of St. Joseph in the Canon, the first modification of the Canon, not in history, but since the Tridentine Codification. But a change that adequately reflects the new reality created since the 19th century, by bl. Pope Pius IX, who proclaimed St. Joseph Patron of the Church universal.

Some changes we may not like, such as the removal of the second Confiteor, but that is not enough reason to repudiate a Missal issued by legitimate authority. Also, it is not a good enough reason to consider that the 1962 Missal is not part of the great tradition of the usus antiquior.

Precisely because the 1962 Missal of bl. John XXIII IS A LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVE of the usus antiquior, that Missal should be now used, and NOT earlier editions.

The 1962 edition is the most recent edition of the Traditional Missal.

Ruputre, that does exist in the practical, disciplinary field of the liturgy, was introduced only by the Second Vatican Council and by subsequent actions of the Holy See that were either based on, or that claim to be based on, the authority of the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy.

The 1965 Ordo Missae, the instructions issued from 1964 onwards are all tainted because they are already acts of implementation of the Conciliar liturgical reform, even if those initial steps precede the Novus Ordo. But the 1962 Missal cannot be considered a part of the Conciliar reform, since it precedes the Conciliar Constitution and even the opening of the Council.

The fork was stuck on the road with the approval of Sacrosanctum Concilium by the Council under Paul VI.

Under the Council's mandate for liturgical reform, a new form of the Roman Rite was created, that cannot be said to be in continuity with the previous form. It is a new composition.

That's why the reformed Missals do not contain the Apostolic Constitution of St. Pius V, but that of Paul VI. The novus ordo is a new Rite, different from the traditional Rite codified by St. Pius V.

The Pian Codification substantially remained, even with modifications, after the reforms of Clement VIII Urban VIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Ven. Pius XII and bl. John XXIII.

The Pauline Missal, on the other hand, codifies a new creation.

That is why the 1970 Novus Ordo Missal and subsequent editions, up to and including the current third edition, are numbered from Paul VI's Constitution Missale Romanum.

If the 1962 Missal was already part of the liturgical reform, then it would have been abrogated by the subsequent acts of that reform. Yet the 1962 Missal is not abrogated. And it is not abrogated precisely because the "new path" came after it. So the 1962 Missal is to date the most recent and current example of the "old path".

Prof. Basto said...

Leo I directed that the words "sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam" be included in the Canon.

So, is the Supra quae a fabrication?

People need to stop whining about the inclusion of the Patron of the Universal Church in the Canon.

I think we can all agree that the position of Patron of the whole Catholic Church is a very very important thing, a super major patronage.

Yet devotion to St. Joseph only evolved in more recent centuries, and he was only declared Patron of the Church universal in the 19th century, by bl. Pius IX.

His addition to the Canon about one century afterwards by bl. John XXIII is a fitting inclusion to ask for the intercession of the Patron of the Universal Church, spouse of the blessed Virgin Mary, and guardian of Our Lord in his youth.

It is not like the Canon was changed for no reason. Nothing of sacred was removed from it. It was an ADDITION. In the same vein of the addition that Leo I had made in his days. Not a SUPPRESSION. If other people later came and suppressed things and removed sacred parts, that is not the fault of the addition of St. Joseph in 1962.

It was the first addition to the Canon since the Tridentine Codification, yes, but hey, the Church universal now had a new Patron Saint, since 1870, and, you know, since being the Patron Saint of the Church universal is a big deal, St. Joseph deserved his place in the Canon.

JTLiuzza said...

I agree with Matt above. As a "post VII" Catholic, which is to say my entire education occurred after the council, I am looking forward to this series. I am certain I will learn quite a bit. Thanks.

New Catholic said...

LET ME BE CLEAR: THIS IS NOT INTENDED SO THAT SOME COMMENTERS CAN CRITICIZE THE 1962 MISSAL AND THE 1960 RUBRICS. IT WON'T HAPPEN: GO FIND A SEDEVACANTIST CROWD ELSEWHERE.

Anonymous said...

Sam,
As far as I can see, a priest can still offer a votive Mass of St. Peter in Chains - it appears in an appendix (proprium sanctorum pro aliquibus locis)at the end of the 1962 missal, with other masses : see too, no. 311 'of the saints may be celebrated as votive the Masses of any canonized Saint having an eulogy in the Roman martyrology or in its Appendix approved for the particular Church'.
Romantias : The rubric (Ritus Servandus... I, 3) concerning the priest covering his head after vesting actually says 'Postremo sacerdos accipit planetam et, convenienter, caput tegit'. The vernacular may be used (approved text) for the readings according to 'Summorum Pontificum'. There was (and is ?) the custom of reading them in the vernacular after it was sung, at least in some English-speaking countries. As for the second confiteor, it was abolished. I doubt that it fulfils the critera of a liturgical custom 'contra legem', unless, in some places, it is on the way to being so. Thank you Rorate Coeli for highlighting this anniversary. I look forward to the future posts.

Salve Caput said...

How exceptionally ironic has this missal as well as the debates surrounding it on all sides turned out to be!

Fr. A.M. said...

The previous anon. comment in response to Sam and Romanitas was by me, sorry.

NIANTIC said...

Thank you Prof.Basto for your contribution regarding the 1962 Missal and St.Joseph.
I agree with you. Pax Christi.

Kumquat said...

Concerning the addition of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon:

The Ambrosian Liturgy uses the Roman Canon, with the addition of local Milanese saints. Also the final paragraph Per ipsum shows some distinct difference from the Roman form.

In other words, contrary to the view of some people, the Roman Canon was never cast in concrete and immutable.

Malta said...

Joseph said...
The addition of St. Joseph was the one thing that should not be questioned. We live in an era when men desperately need the example of his life and the virtues it represents...not to mention his heavenly intercession.


I completely agree!

Next to Mary, the Foster Father of Jesus was closest to Him on this earth.

John said...

I was of the understanding that the changes in the Mass were at the feet of infamous Cardinals and the blame or guilt that could be lain at that of the Popes would be a certain passivity of the change itself, and nothing more. I was of the opinion that this showed the protection of the Pontiff from error by the Holy Ghost. Am I wrong?

New Catholic said...

Donald, Your first comment prompted my response. And you still insist? It was not an academically enriching view of the 1960 rubrics, but one that ridiculed the 1962 edition of the Missal, which is the Traditional Roman Missal. In your first comment, you actually said, "[the 1962 Missal] is not the missal of Tradition nor of Trent." The view present in this kind of comment is one that is intrinsically anti-Catholic, historically deceptive, typically Sedevacantist: in sum, it is a lie. We will not allow it here and we do not even welcome those who espouse it.

Your second comment has just been deleted.

NC

Athelstane said...

Hello Prof. Basto:

The fork was stuck on the road with the approval of Sacrosanctum Concilium by the Council under Paul VI.

Under the Council's mandate for liturgical reform, a new form of the Roman Rite was created, that cannot be said to be in continuity with the previous form. It is a new composition.


I often think - I hate to say it, but I do - that we dodged a bullet in having Paul VI push for a wholly new Roman missal, a new rite.

Because if he had adopted a more modest program of changes - say something closer to the '65, which is to say, something reasonably in line with what the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium appears to call for - we might have something which would still be, arguably (but barely) the Roman Rite, albeit impoverished and stripped down. And we might have had a harder time getting approval for celebration of the '62 missal.

Of course, the cost of that was that 99% of Catholics attend mass every week ended up getting . . . well, the novus order, rather than something still structurally the old Roman Rite, however stripped down and questionably translated.

sam said...

Fr. A.M. thank you for your informative response.

So according to the Latin (proprium sanctorum pro aliquibus locis), it is permitted for certain areas. I'm guessing that those areas have a long held tradition of honouring "St. Peter in Chains".

I look forward to the future postings on this topic in Rorate Caeli series.

Matt said...

New Catholic said, "THIS IS NOT INTENDED SO THAT SOME COMMENTERS CAN CRITICIZE THE 1962 MISSAL"

Yes, please, folks, don't critize said Missal. What we have is what we have. We should appreciate it. The 1962 edition is the last of the truly Tridentine Missals before everything blew up. This is like going through a war-ravaged church and finding some precious treasure miraculously preserved and untouched (by God's grace). For it to have survived all this time through the madness of what has transpired over the past fifty years is truly the Hand of God, IMO. This Missal was also stipulated in Summorum Pontificum. It implies all previous editions are no longer valid for Mass. The SSPX even uses the 1962 Missal.

I think it's good folks are able to discern what was lost from the previous editions but those editions can't be used anymore. It's highly doubtful any of those changes will be restored to it, at least not in our lifetime, if at all. Same as the Novus Ordo crowd not being able to use their previous editions before the Corrected Translations.

One thing should be pointed out, the changes made to the Missal before 1962 were minor, some perhaps unwise, but still were made. Despite the changes, however, the entire infrastructure and mindset of the Church was still behind it whole and entire. Those changes to the Missal did not have the devastating impact on the Church as did the Novus Ordo and Vatican II with its resulting alternate universe. It is now that any changes to the 1962 Missal is to be regarded with suspicion simply because the effort to change it is not to enhance its superiority but to dilute it with the modernity of now. This what we must implore the Holy Spirit for protection and guidance.

!

Anonymous said...

Throckmorton P. said...

With apologies for continuing off topic. . .

"Joseph said...
The addition of St. Joseph was the one thing that should not be questioned. We live in an era when men desperately need the example of his life and the virtues it represents...not to mention his heavenly intercession."

23 June, 2012 21:38

Except it was done in the Canon; if the Canon of the Mass may be altered why stop there; why not fabricate a whole new Liturgy?


But the canon itself was "fabricated" at some point, so the addition of St. Joseph is of no consequence. He belongs there.

The earliest Christians didn't have the "Roman canon" as we know it in the 1962 missal; how could they? It mentions such saints as Cosmas and Damian, who died c. 287 AD.

- DJR

LeonG said...

The 1962 Missal is not the last truly Tridentine Missal - this can only be the edition of The Missal produced by Pope Pius V and The Trent Councils. Please let us have some accuracy and good sense. All subsequent editions are modified ones.

Hugh said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fr. A.M. said...

LeonG 'The 1962 Missal is not the last truly Tridentine Missal - this can only be the edition of The Missal produced by Pope Pius V and The Trent Councils. Please let us have some accuracy and good sense. All subsequent editions are modified ones.'

Leaving aside the 'missal of 1965', I think a comparison with the title page of any 1962 missal with the pauline missal would suggest that the 1962 missal is the 'Tridentine missal'. This has not stopped the Roman pontiffs making corrections, revisions, etc. throughout history. It is the same missal.