Guest Post: Vintage Missals
Thanks, as always. to Jonny for this guest post.
The first one was published by the
“Confraternity of the Precious Blood” copyright 1942 and 1944. It
claims to have the “all new Pulpit Text of all Epistles and Gospels as read from
the Pulpit.” Also, it states in the introductory matter: “A new
pulpit text from the new authorized translation of the New Testament is now read
from the pulpit each Sunday. […]
Occasionally, even the present new translation
is altered where necessary to conform to the reading of the “Roman Missal” used
at the altar.” Indeed it has what is commonly referred to as the
“Confraternity Version” of the New Testament, and the Douay Old Testament… but
the Latin text is not even listed, except in the ordinary. I get
the impression that the prayers and readings were being recited in English in
the Mass as early as 1942! The other interesting thing about this
missal is that it lists the option for a “Dialogue” or “Community” Mass in the
ordinary. It explains that this means the congregation may now,
upon the approval of the Bishop, recite aloud the same responses as the server,
and also in union with the priest during the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei,
and the “Lord, I am not worthy….” The missal claims that this was
already being done in 100 dioceses in the USA.
The other missal I picked up was a “St. Joseph
Continuous… Sunday Missal” copyright 1957 and 1958. This one also
claims it contains the “Confraternity Version Word-for-Word as Read from the
Pulpit.” This one does not include the Douay Old Testament, but
rather a unique adaptation of the Confraternity Old Testament, and the 1955 CCD
Psalter which appears to be taken word for word. Again, the
Confraternity New Testament translation is used. The other
interesting thing about this missal is that the ordinary is not listed in Latin
at all! I wonder if, as early as 1957, dioceses began allowing the
Mass to be said totally in English!
It just so happens that I was in a discussion recently
with someone from my parish who remembers celebrating the Mass when she was a
child in the early 60’s. She remembers the responses being in English, and specifically remembers saying “and with your spirit.”
As I am a 33 year old convert, I am really in the dark about how the
liturgy evolved in the 40’s through the 60’s. Perhaps a reader may have a link, or maybe some older readers on your blog might have some insights
to share?
The first one was published by the
“Confraternity of the Precious Blood” copyright 1942 and 1944. It
claims to have the “all new Pulpit Text of all Epistles and Gospels as read from
the Pulpit.” Also, it states in the introductory matter: “A new
pulpit text from the new authorized translation of the New Testament is now read
from the pulpit each Sunday. […] 
Occasionally, even the present new translation
is altered where necessary to conform to the reading of the “Roman Missal” used
at the altar.” Indeed it has what is commonly referred to as the
“Confraternity Version” of the New Testament, and the Douay Old Testament… but
the Latin text is not even listed, except in the ordinary. I get
the impression that the prayers and readings were being recited in English in
the Mass as early as 1942! The other interesting thing about this
missal is that it lists the option for a “Dialogue” or “Community” Mass in the
ordinary. It explains that this means the congregation may now,
upon the approval of the Bishop, recite aloud the same responses as the server,
and also in union with the priest during the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Agnus Dei,
and the “Lord, I am not worthy….” The missal claims that this was
already being done in 100 dioceses in the USA.
The other missal I picked up was a “St. Joseph
Continuous… Sunday Missal” copyright 1957 and 1958. This one also
claims it contains the “Confraternity Version Word-for-Word as Read from the
Pulpit.” This one does not include the Douay Old Testament, but
rather a unique adaptation of the Confraternity Old Testament, and the 1955 CCD
Psalter which appears to be taken word for word. Again, the
Confraternity New Testament translation is used. The other
interesting thing about this missal is that the ordinary is not listed in Latin
at all! I wonder if, as early as 1957, dioceses began allowing the
Mass to be said totally in English!
It just so happens that I was in a discussion recently
with someone from my parish who remembers celebrating the Mass when she was a
child in the early 60’s. She remembers the responses being in English, and specifically remembers saying “and with your spirit.”
As I am a 33 year old convert, I am really in the dark about how the
liturgy evolved in the 40’s through the 60’s. Perhaps a reader may have a link, or maybe some older readers on your blog might have some insights
to share?
23 comments:
"I wonder if, as early as 1957, dioceses began allowing the Mass to be said totally in English!"
No. The first use of English, at least in the States, was in Advent of 1964. Some hand missals published before that time probably thought that the use of English in the main text (often with the Latin in an appendix), would be a better aid to understanding what was going on at Mass, and subsequently, that a two languages side by side would add pages or hamper readability.
I was around back then, but was just a wee lad.
The 'Confraternity Old Testament' is actually the 1970 NAB Old Testament...well it's not exactly the same, before being bound in one volume as the 'NAB', the book of Genesis was revised to match the rest of the Old Testament....so there are some differences in the book of Genesis, otherwise the text is the same as the 1970 NAB Old Testament.
There was some work done on revising the Douay Old Testament between 1941 and 1944, when the decision was made to scrap the idea of revising the Douay Rheims and decided to make a brand new translation directly from the Greek and Hebrew.
But to my knowledge that work that was done between 1941 and 1944 has never been published.
As David says, the first use of the vernacular was in Advent of 1964, with what was proclaimed to be the "Mass of Vatican II", the 1965 Missal. This 65 Missal was much closer to the TLM/EF/1962 Missal of John XXIII, albeit with some repitition eliminated, and the rubrics slightly simplified. Current rumors claim during this "Year Of Faith", the Magestarium is going to reinstate the 1965 Order of the Mass into the current Roman Missal, and supress the Novus Ordo Order of The Mass. We'll see if it happens. (My own personal opinion is the Novus Ordo is too much of a Catholic-Protestant hybrid Mass, and going to the 1965 Order adapted to the current Missal, would be greatly welcome, and a great start to reclaim our "lost" Catholic identity that the USCCB has spoken of at their conference).
As David says, the first use of the vernacular was in Advent of 1964, with what was proclaimed to be the "Mass of Vatican II", the 1965 Missal. This 65 Missal was much closer to the TLM/EF/1962 Missal of John XXIII, albeit with some repitition eliminated, and the rubrics slightly simplified. Current rumors claim during this "Year Of Faith", the Magestarium is going to reinstate the 1965 Order of the Mass into the current Roman Missal, and supress the Novus Ordo Order of The Mass. We'll see if it happens. (My own personal opinion is the Novus Ordo is too much of a Catholic-Protestant hybrid Mass, and going to the 1965 Order adapted to the current Missal, would be greatly welcome, and a great start to reclaim our "lost" Catholic identity that the USCCB has spoken of at their conference).
"Current rumors claim during this "Year Of Faith", the Magestarium is going to reinstate the 1965 Order of the Mass into the current Roman Missal, and supress the Novus Ordo Order of The Mass."
And what exactly would be the point of spending nearly 10 years on a re-translation of the 1969 Missal if it is just going to be suppressed a little more than a year later?
I'm sorry but that rumor doesn't make any sense.
That is simply not going to happen. Mass will be available in both forms for the foreseeable future in the Latin rite.
Thank you, for your insight, David and Jonathan.
It is possible the St. Joseph 1957 missal simply ommited the latin to cut down on the bulk of the book. That particular Sunday missal has no "ordinary" section so the reader did not have to flip between sections, which makes it bulkier to begin with.
I would like to highlight one thing in case you missed it in the post... both missals (1942 & 1957)explicitly state the english version, the Confraternity New Testament, was being read in the Mass in lieu of the latin. Does anyone remember that? I am just curious!
Hi,
I think that there is a difference of audiences between the ones who attend daily mass and the others who attend only Sunday mass. The daily mass followers usually use their own missal. For them, it would be easy to follow the mass in Latin.
I think that a mass in Latin can be a good experience, in order to have another way to experience mass, another way to attend it.
I don't think the Latin Mass is very hard to follow even if you don't have a missal, although obviously a missal helps.
Jonathan,
I think that for likely my lifetime, both forms will exist. Following on the CNS article you mentioned, I think the hope, at least from the Pope, is that there will be some cross-pollination between the two over the coming years. But whenever the time comes, I doubt we will simply go back to the Extradordinary Form. The use of the vernacular, in some sense, will remain as well as the expanded Roman Lectionary, both fruits of the Second Vatican Council.
That being said, I worship at a parish that regularly uses Latin during the major Mass parts of the Novus Ordo Mass, which I very much prefer. Also, the same parish offers the Extraordinary Form as well. While I greatly prefer the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form), I also appreciate the greater reverence at the Extraordinary Form as well as the Ad Orientem eastward orientation of a priest celebrating Mass.
The Holy Father just last week established a Pontifical Academy for the study of Latin...this is an important step for the revival of Latin, but it is only a first step, it will take at least a generation for knowledge of Latin by the clergy to be revived sufficiently enough for them to be able to offer Latin Mass...even if he wanted to, the Holy Father couldn't just declare a return to the Latin Mass because most priests have never been trained in the Latin Mass, and many don't even know how to read and speak Latin well enough to do it even if they were trained....
@ Timothy.
Then you, sir, are very lucky to belong to a parish that celebrates the OF reverently and even includes some Latin. At my parish, the OF doesn't even seem like a religious liturgy. Rather it seems like a social worker pep rally. Our pastor's homilies are 99% about helping the poor, and being good to others... all very crucial to be sure, but just once, I'd like to actually hear a homily about faith and spirituality, even miracles. The "liturgical music" we have is all contemporary pap that emphasises "me" and "we", and hardly ever mentions God, Jesus, Mary or the angels and saints. Yes, Timothy, be very thankful for your parish... and say a prayer for those of us who aren't so lucky, and who only have these rumors to give us hope.
Biblical Catholic said: "
And what exactly would be the point of spending nearly 10 years on a re-translation of the 1969 Missal if it is just going to be suppressed a little more than a year later?"
Kind of like the constant revising and re-translating of the Bible, eh?
The difference is however that the publication of a new Bible doesn't eradicate the previous ones from existence...
Biblical Catholic, I too have heard such rumors about the Ordinary Form from "very reliable sources" at the "top levels of the Vatican", but you seem a little confused to the facts. First, the OF will remain a vernacular form, with perhaps some Latin mandated. It will not be fully Latin like the EF. Second, the 2002 revision of the Roman Missal will remain the same. The 10 years of work will not be wasted. What will change, according to the rumors, is only the Order of the Mass, to make it more in line with the EF, ie, as the 1965 Missal has, the return of the prayers at the foot of the Altar, only having one form for the Penitiential rite, rather than three options (and reinserting the intercession of the saints by name into the Confiteor), eliminating the so-called "protestant part" of the Our Father and perhaps the Kiss of Peace and only having the Roman Canon and EP3 while EP2 will only be an option for weekday Mass, and the other EPs supressed. The most important changes would be not the words but the actions: the rubrics. The Celebrant (no longer a performing presider) will be more reverent while offering the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientum (Liturgy of the Word may still have versus populum as an option), the people will kneel during blessings and when receiving communion. Also of note would be the new English translation. Since most of the Order of the Mass has the same words OF or EF (Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, etc), the work on the new English translation would not be in vain, it would just be carried over to this revised 65 Order of the Mass. Also, the EF will remain exactly as is. I hope this clears some things up. The Roman Missal is NOT changing, but according to the rumors, the Order Of The Mass may.
But that's not what was said above, what was said above is that the Novus Ordo itself is being 'suppressed' i.e. no one will ever be allowed to say the Novus Ordo ever again, which is what I described as a 'rumor that doesn't make sense', because you don't spend 10 year re-translating the Mass only to abolish it a little more than a year later. Reform? Sure, anything is possible I suppose, but not suppression.
Of course, if a priest does feel comfortable with his Latin, he could always, even since 1970, pray the Novus Ordo in Latin as well.
Biblical Catholic, sorry you are wrong. Jonathan B said "supress the Novus Ordo order of the Mass". Read his post again.
Yes, that's exactly right, suppressing it, not reforming it, suppressing it.....there's a radical difference between those two things....introducing minor changes like removing the sign of peace (which is long overdue IMO) would not be a 'suppression'....to 'suppress' means to forbid....
But "order" of the Mass - which was bolded - is much different from the Mass itself; the other comments give a hint on how the current Novus Ordo order of the Mass could be suppressed, without suppressing the Mass itself.
In fact, it's quite common for orders of Mass to be suppressed when a new order is promulgated, if I know any church history.
I will admit that I don't know much about the theology behind the liturgy and whatnot, but isn't the phrase 'Novus Ordo order' redundant? Is that standard terminology?
Certainly, if the Novus Ordo is being modified or reformed, then the old form will probably no longer be used..
I admit I don't understand the terminology that was used earlier in this thread..
It is a well known fact that the Holy Father favors what has been called 'a reform of the reform' of the Mass..as a kind of 'middle path' between an outright return of the Tridentine Mass and an abolition of the Novus Ordo on the one hand, and the current litugical madness on the other....he has publicly advocated a 'reform of the reform' in books such as 'The Spirit of the Liturgy'...so it frankly would not surprise me in the slightest if he ended up making some fairly significant changes to the Mass in the next few years, certainly no one who has been following his career over the last 25 years or so will be surprised by such changes if he makes them.
As a side note, I do want to say that I generally tend to avoid the use of the term 'Novus Ordo' or 'New Mass', I know it is an official term which was used by the Pope himself when he published it in 1969, but in my experience some extreme Traditionalists who believe the New Mass is invalid tend to use the term 'Novus Ordo' in a derogatory sense..therefore in order to avoid any confusion I tend to prefer terms like 'The Pauline Mass' or 'The Roman Missal of 1969'....
I'm not saying that anyone who does use the term Novus Ordo is wrong or intends it in a derogatory fashion, indeed as I noted, the term 'Novus Ordo' is official so there's nothing wrong with it...it's just my personal preference is all.
Novus Ordo is often used in a derogatory sense, it is true. Some of the more extreme Trads like to abbreviate it thus: "the NO mass", to imply that it is "no mass" at all.
I believe the most correct terms are, today, "Ordinary Form" (Novus Ordo) and "Extraordinary Form" (Tridentine), but "Novus Ordo" and "Tridentine" are interchangeable, respectively.
I find it very interesting that Annibale Bugnini, the main fabricator of the Novus Ordo, speculated the Novus Ordo would have a lifespan of approximately 40 years, then be replaced with a new form of the Mass. Here we are, 42 years after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, and Holy Father Benedict seems to have initiated the beginning of the end of the Novus Ordo. I fully expect to see the Ordinary Form Order of the Mass be changed to the 1965 or even 1962 Order during his pontificate, with a full elimination of the Novus Ordo Missal within 20 years.
Post a Comment