Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: HeidtXtreme on January 01, 2026, 08:40:55 AM
-
If the second Misreatur vestri and Indulgentian absolutionem (as well as the second Confiteor) were removed from the 1962 missal, venial sins at 1962 Masses are not remitted before one approaches Communion. Is this a sacrilege? Is prevention of such a sacrilege why the Church put these prayers in the Mass in the first place. Is this why the SSPX generally inserts this part into their Masses, even though that isn’t strictly following the 62 missal?
-
No, it's not a sacrilege. Reception of Holy Communion on its own remits venial sin provided that you're contrite, and of course the absolution only remits the sin for those who are contrite. If you can commit venial sin during Mass between the First Confiteor and Holy Communion, then you could probably do the same between the Second Confiteor and Holy Communion also. I suspect the reason the Second Confiteor was added was because technically you could meet your Sunday obligation if you arrive before the Offetory (after the First Confiteor), and I suspect that was the thinking in doing the second one ... and also because when you have an abbreviated Holy Communion Rite (outside of Mass) that's where it would appear.
It's probably better to have it there, which is why SSPX kept it.
Also, as others have pointed out, there's not really a monolithic "1962 Missal", as the Ecclesia Dei types would have you believe, with much varitaion, many informa changes where even today I see older Missals with stuff penciled in (rather than buying a brand new Missal for each incremental change), and even a page or two inserted here or there (for some newer feast days).
Overall ... it's better to have it there in case someone has arrived at Mass after the First Confiteor but still wishes to receive Holy Communion, but even if someone receives Holy Communion in a state of venial sin, if they're contrite, the Holy Communion itself would remit that sin.
-
If the second Misreatur vestri and Indulgentian absolutionem (as well as the second Confiteor) were removed from the 1962 missal, venial sins at 1962 Masses are not remitted before one approaches Communion. Is this a sacrilege? Is prevention of such a sacrilege why the Church put these prayers in the Mass in the first place. Is this why the SSPX generally inserts this part into their Masses, even though that isn’t strictly following the 62 missal?
I've never been to a Traditional chapel, SSPX or otherwise, 1962 or otherwise, that doesn't have the second Confiteor.
Maybe some Indult groups follow the 1962 "to the letter" because they have to or something, but I've never been to such a Mass.
-
I've never been to a Traditional chapel, SSPX or otherwise, 1962 or otherwise, that doesn't have the second Confiteor.
Maybe some Indult groups follow the 1962 "to the letter" because they have to or something, but I've never been to such a Mass.
I have. A few times.
I have been told that this was the norm in most places before vatican ii. And that it was the sspx that made the second confiteor the norm. Not that it's bad. It was a sspx priest that told me this.
-
If the second Misreatur vestri and Indulgentian absolutionem (as well as the second Confiteor) were removed from the 1962 missal, ...
Happy & Holy New Year. Puer natus es...
Objectively speaking, communion of the faithful is NOT part of the mass. A priest can celebrate mass alone (normally though with a servant) and it is completely legit and valid, of course. You don't need any faithful present for the Trad mass. It is the unbloody Sacrifice offered to God by the priest.
My old 'Missel Quotidien St Joseph' missal (Copyright 1962) has a clear demarcation for what is the : "Communion of the Faithful". The French rubric says: 'If communion is not distributed, we pass over the part in red Brackets'. see attached photo.
(https://i.imgur.com/nGp3woH.jpeg)
But then you get these modernists who insist that the mass is basically a meal, "Supper", people of God, community blah blah... The New Mass is, I suppose, really awkward if no one is present. So the N.Ordo ommision reflects this bigtime: They removed the second Confiteor because now communion has become an integral part of their NEW LITURGY.
In days gone by, with the strict fast from water or food from midnight, it was a practice to give communion very early Sunday mornings, so, outside of mass, as Lads alluded to. My parents told me this. After that communion, people would go have breakfast at the relatives...some would have fainted otherwise, esp expecting mothers...
In my opinion, the removal of the Second Confiteor is a creeping modernist decision.
I also remember Fr. Paul Aulagnier, R.I.P.+ ( the first one to contact +L waaay back), told us in Suresnes that he was travelling with 3 others in a car (de Mallerais etc. ) and they were discussing if the second Confiteor should be kept or not - as they were driving!!! He said: "THE FUTURE of the Mass is in this car!" He ended with a big laugh, as usual.
SSPX has always kept it - now you know!!
-
Pre Covid, St. Joseph parish in Kennewick, WA had a 1962 missal Low Mass twice a month. Until last summer St. Patrick parish in Walla Walla, WA had a 1962 missal High Mass on the second Sunday of the month. At Mary Queen of Heaven in Sprague, WA a priest from the Benedictine Whitestone Monastery offers a 1962 missal Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, typically a High Mass. When Father Miller isn't available one of several priests of the Diocese of Spokane steps in. Whenever I've attended any of these Masses they have always included the third Confiteor (the one just before the peoples Communion). Even though the third Confiteor isn't included in the 1962 missal its usage is often retained by the "Indult groups".
It is interesting to note that the Confiteor said at the beginning is technically not part of the Mass. The Mass begins with the Introit and the two Confiteors are part of the preparatory Prayers at the Foot of the Altar before Mass begins. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostrm, used by Eastern Catholics, does not contain a Confiteor, penitential rite, or similar prayers of any kind.
-
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostrm, used by Eastern Catholics, does not contain a Confiteor, penitential rite, or similar prayers of any kind.
Well, there's is generally a combined act of faith in the Real Presence, and a profession of unworthiness, and begging God's Mercy. There's no absolution, but I would consider that prayer to most certainly be a penitential Rite of sorts.
I believe, O Lord, and confess that You are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Accept me this day, O Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not tell Your Mystery to Your enemies, nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief, I confess to You: † Remember me, O Lord, when You come into Your kingdom. † Remember me, O Master, when You come into Your kingdom. 19 † Remember me, O Holy One, when You come into Your kingdom. May the partaking of Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be unto me not for judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of soul and body. † God, be merciful to me, a sinner. † God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me. † I have sinned without number, forgive me, O Lord.
I do have some concern about the Eastern Rite's lack of emphasis on Confession, often wondering how many people say this prayer and think they can therefore receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin. I know that the Ukrainian priest I know (brother of Major Archbishop Shevchuk) often appealed to the faithful to go to Confession from the pulpit, but he never clearly explained that "if you're in a state of mortal sin, you can't receive Holy Communion". I have this sneaking suspicion that for many of them, unless they've committed murder, grand theft, adultery, or fornication, they probably don't understand what a mortal sin even is.
I actually severed ties with Father Shevchuk a couple years ago. I got annoyed with his shilling for Ukrainians vs. Russia, evidently unaware that the same Jews behind the Holodomor and Communism are the ones behind this absurd war that's doing nothing but sending Ukrainians into the meat grinder. But that was just annoyance. When at one Divine Liturgy they were praying for "the IDF" during the Divine Liturgy, after October 7, when they were perpetrting genocide already, and they prayed for them during the Liturgy, which I considered to be a sacrilege.