Yes, and there were three editions of the 1962 missal, is what I understand. One came out near the beginning of the year, one near the middle and one near the end.

This is what is so confusing about people saying they're using the 1962 missal because there are 3 editions of that missal for that year.

I've never heard of three editions, PFT. If any changes were made, they would have been made in official docuмents that would have been published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. But all there is John XXIII's Decree Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani of July 25, 1960, which laid down the changes used in the "liturgical books of 1962".

They're called "1962" because the definitive text that the printers had to use wasn't published until June 1962. So that's the earliest date that any books could exist for the 1962 liturgy.

Then it was very soon superseded by Paul VI's first post-conciliar instruction Inter Oecuмenici of September 26, 1964 which had to be used from March 7, 1965.

So the 1962 Mass was only used from (approx.) July 1962 until March 1965 - 21 months. Not much of a tradition to base the traditional movement on!

Yet another good reason not to use the 1962 missal. Breaks with tradition not only in the fact that feasts are totally abolished, but the fact that he even dared to touch the sacred Canon of the Mass even to add one word.

I absolutely agree, PFT. It's totally forbidden for anyone to change the Canon. "Canon" means the standard, the unchanging thing. And John XXIII added St Joseph to the Canon, to the prayer containing only the names of the early martyrs, as an act of personal devotion and because St. Joseph was the Patron of Vatican II.

What if every Pope added his favourite saint to the Canon???

Poor St. Joseph - first given the dreadful feast of St. Joseph the Worker, then put in charge of VII!

So the 1962 Mass was only used from (approx.) July 1962 until March 1965 - 21 months. Not much of a tradition to base the traditional movement on!

This is an excellent point!

 :applause:

I had heard that Archbishop Lefevbre didn't want to use the 1962 missal because the second confeiteor was taken out. Well, we know that the SSPX doesn't fully use the 1962 missal, or else the second confeiteor would be out.

The following text was posted in IA, regarding the 1962 missal:

«- The SSPX never used, in a general, in a unanimous and public way, the liturgical reform of 1962.

«- Archbishop Lefebvre never imposed on members of the SSPX the rubrics of the liturgical reform of 1962 as a condition of belonging to the Society.

«- Archbishop Lefebvre never forbade to follow privately the rubrics previous to the liturgical reform of 1962.

«- Before being ordained as subdeacon, I exposed to Monsignor Lefebvre my intention to follow in private the rubrics before Pius XII. There was no opposition to it, and I've been doing so for 29 years. (32 years now)

«- During 27 years and a half, I never follow privately the rubrics of John XXIII to pray the Mass, and never named in the Canon the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph.

«- As for the recitation of the Breviary and the praying of the Mass in public, I followed the SSPX's customs: to keep away largely from rubrics of John XXIII.

«Now, it is important to consider about the July-of-1960 rubrics:

«- In general, we can say that they have been enacted by whom was suspected of modernism, and whom had summoned the Second Vatican Council.

«- In detail, we have seen that they (the rubrics) were made under the direction of Ferdinando Antonelli, who latter would subscribe the New Mass, and Annibale Bugnini, the gravedigger of the Traditional Mass, the architect of the New Mass, notorious modernist and Mason.

«- History shows that, as for the past, the rubrics are based on the principles of the "deviant liturgical movement", and for the future, they were preparing the New Liturgy in general and the New Mass in particular.»


Source

.


Post

I had heard that Archbishop Lefevbre didn't want to use the 1962 missal because the second confeiteor was taken out. Well, we know that the SSPX doesn't fully use the 1962 missal, or else the second confeiteor would be out.

So that shows that the SSPX by placing that back into the 1962 missal, is picking and choosing what it did and did not like from the 1962 missal as it is strictly speaking.

Here is an excellent article on why we have a RIGHT to demand the use of the pre-1962 missal, and should, in fact, be demanding the use of a pre-1955 missal.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm

That's a good point about the picking-and-choosing aspect.  It
rather seems to be the appearance of claiming authority above
the pope, as if the SSPX is a parallel church, which ABL wanted to
avoid entirely.  It might seem like a small matter, but this is how
schism and heresy starts, with small things like that.  


I don't have a copy of the Angelus Press 1962 missal, but I have
held one in my hands and have admire the excellent craftsmanship
used to make it.  They used the best materials and highest
specifications.  The paper is superb quality, the ribbons are great,
the binding is made to last for hundreds of years, the printing is
clear, sharp and accurate, and the cover is extremely durable.  

And then, I have a friend who was using that missal until he found
out that it is an 'updated' version, a 'second step toward the
Newmass' and practically and objectively compromised in a few
places including but not limited to the fact that several saints' feast
days are not found in it.  At that point, he lost ALL respect for his
daily missal and acted like he wanted to throw it in the trash can.  

It seems to me that's a bit of an over-reaction.  There are a lot of
useful aspects to the Angelus Press 1962 missal, and so long as you
are aware of where its shortcomings or defects are, you can steer
around those.  It is a good thing for us to be informed about where
to find error or defects, so we can be capable of defending the truth.

Of course, if you simply want to have no truck with compromise,
then fine, don't use the AP 1962 missal.  But neither should you
toss it into the dust bin, as the Brits say.

.

January 1961 to March 1965 = 4 yr. 2 mo.

4 years + 2 months = (48 + 2) months = 50 months.  

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I had heard that Archbishop Lefevbre didn't want to use the 1962 missal because the second confeiteor was taken out. Well, we know that the SSPX doesn't fully use the 1962 missal, or else the second confeiteor would be out.

The following text was posted in IA, regarding the 1962 missal:

«- The SSPX never used, in a general, in a unanimous and public way, the liturgical reform of 1962.

«- Archbishop Lefebvre never imposed on members of the SSPX the rubrics of the liturgical reform of 1962 as a condition of belonging to the Society.

«- Archbishop Lefebvre never forbade to follow privately the rubrics previous to the liturgical reform of 1962.

«- Before being ordained as subdeacon, I exposed to Monsignor Lefebvre my intention to follow in private the rubrics before Pius XII. There was no opposition to it, and I've been doing so for 29 years. (32 years now)

«- During 27 years and a half, I never follow privately the rubrics of John XXIII to pray the Mass, and never named in the Canon the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph.

«- As for the recitation of the Breviary and the praying of the Mass in public, I followed the SSPX's customs: to keep away largely from rubrics of John XXIII.

«Now, it is important to consider about the July-of-1960 rubrics:

«- In general, we can say that they have been enacted by whom was suspected of modernism, and whom had summoned the Second Vatican Council.

«- In detail, we have seen that they (the rubrics) were made under the direction of Ferdinando Antonelli, who latter would subscribe the New Mass, and Annibale Bugnini, the gravedigger of the Traditional Mass, the architect of the New Mass, notorious modernist and Mason.

«- History shows that, as for the past, the rubrics are based on the principles of the "deviant liturgical movement", and for the future, they were preparing the New Liturgy in general and the New Mass in particular.»


Source

Fr. Themann told us that in order to use a pre-1962 missal, he would "have to obtain permission from his superiors." This goes directly against Quo Primum anyway, as it says no censure can be placed on anyone for the use of that missal. But if you're Fr. Themann, you think that Quo Primum was "part dogmatic and part disciplinary," which is bogus as well.