Author Topic: The 1962 Missal (Read 1326 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #30 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:29:27 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on Yesterday at 07:25:57 PM

Obeying non-dangerous commands of Christ's Vicar on Earth is Traditional and Catholic.

Playing with schism (sedevacantism) is neither Traditional nor Catholic.

This is a resistance website.

We are delighted to be schismatic from the conciliar Church.

I think you are in the wrong place.

NIFH · « **Reply #31 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:31:11 PM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Yesterday at 07:29:27 PM

This is a resistance website.

We are delighted to be schismatic from the conciliar Church.

I think you are in the wrong place.

That's bad grammar. To be in schism with a schism is a double negative.

The poor humans who sit in authority in our Catholic Church spend all their time and energy building a man-centered sect on the side to eclipse the Church they hold authority in. This is why there's very little contact left between them and Traditional Catholics. There is hardly any opportunity to obey their commands because everything is aimed at constructing their new sect.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #32 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:30:58 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on Yesterday at 06:53:31 PM

Well, if the missal does not mention it, it cannot be added, right? This is how I understand it. The missal must be followed scrupulously. Nothing can be added or removed.

Strictly speaking, the communion of the faithful is an interruption of the Mass, not part of it, and the second Confiteor is part of that interruption. To treat it as an illicit "addition" would mean that none of the faithful could ever receive communion at Mass. (Indeed, in times past, communion was often administered outside of Mass.)

Traditionally, the sermon has been seen the same way, as an interruption, though the 1983 CIC refers to the sermon as an integral part of the Mass (presumably they have in mind the Novus Ordo).

Philip · « **Reply #33 on:** **Today** at 05:16:04 AM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on Yesterday at 10:30:58 PM

Strictly speaking, the communion of the faithful is an interruption of the Mass, not part of it, and the second Confiteor is part of that interruption. To treat it as an illicit "addition" would mean that none of the faithful could ever receive communion at Mass. (Indeed, in times past, communion was often administered outside of Mass.)

Traditionally, the sermon has been seen the same way, as an interruption, though the 1983 CIC refers to the sermon as an integral part of the Mass (presumably they have in mind the Novus Ordo).

But if that is the case why are there specific rubrics in MR1962 covering both the distribution of Communion and the homily?

R.G. 502 "Tempus proprium sanctae Communionis fidelibus distribuendae est infra Missam, post Communionem sacerdotis celebrantis, qui ipsemet eam petentibus distribuat, nisi propter grandem communicantium numerum conveniat, ut ab alio vel aliis sacerdotibus adiuvetur." [My emphasis]

Previous typical editions of the MR did not contain any reference to a homily in the rubrics but MR1962 has the following:

R.G. 474 "Post Evangelium, praesertim in dominicis et diebus festis de praecepto, habeatur, iuxta opportunitatem, brevis homilia ad populum. Homilia vero, si fiat ab alio sacerdote ac celebrante, non superimponatur Missae celebrationi, impediendo fidelium participationem; proinde, hoc in casu, Missae celebratio suspendatur, et tantummodo expleta homilia resumatur." [My emphasis and note the further direction of not impeding the 'participation of the faithful.]

As to discussion about the use of the Confiteor before communion MR1962 has a rubric that specifically states it is omitted:

R.G. 503 "Quoties sancta Communio infra Missam distribuitur, celebrans, sumpto sacratissimo Sanguine,omissis confessione et absolutione, dictis tamen Ecce Agnus Dei et ter Domine, non sum dignus, immediate ad distributionem sanctae Eucharistiae procedit."

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The 1962 Missal (Read 1326 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: The 1962 Missal

NIFH

Re: The 1962 Missal

SimpleMan

Re: The 1962 Missal

Philip

Re: The 1962 Missal