Our Lady of the Rosary Library has the best prices on new Missals.

http://www.olrl.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=O&Category_Code=bBM

Personally, I'd have to look at it, but I think that any missal endorsed by traditional Catholics in general should be before the Holy Week services had been altered by Hannibal Bugnini (considering he was a Freemason, and many prayers were taken out because of him.) I think once the archives of Pius XII are opened up, we'll find that he was against the changes to those ancient services.

Well, for those who are phobic of the "1962" missals, there is always e-bay and good luck.

For the rest of us, the one Angelus Press offers is VERY nice, albeit pricey (you get what you pay for) and includes just about everything in English and Latin, including all the prayers of the rosary (though you'll have to hunt for the "Hail Holy Queen" which is a bit further from the others, as the section the others were in was "the necessary prayers" ... whereas the "Hail Holy Queen," I think, is not one Catholics are more or less bound to learn to be Catholic. (Though of course any Catholic ought to know it.)

One of the joys for me has been learning to say the rosary in Latin using that missal, and also learning the litanies in Latin. I think it's preferable for one reason, because any translation automatically looses some of the nuances of the original language. Also the use of Latin fosters that universal and true unity of the Catholics worldwide. You can go to any country, and if they speak their own language, you are lost. If they speak Latin, and you at least have a prayer book with the Latin in it, then you can pray with them. I believe they did this at the pilgrimage to Lourds...?

Anyhow, it's a beautiful missal, though I don't care for the art. But with the rest of it, you really don't care about the art.

I'm no modernist, but it stands to reason that out of all missals printed in 1962, that not all were the same. The biggest problem with those some traditionalists use, is >gasp< St. Joseph's name was added! Horror of horrors. Never mind that, as I understand it, the names of worldly governors were once mentioned at Mass as a matter of course. But if it's St. Joseph? Oh noooo... we couldn't allow THAT to happen... He's only the patron and protector of the Church, after all.

But again, those who object to even the most traditional '62... there is always ebay.

That is neither the point, nor should it be.

The POINT is Quo Primum that said THIS. And it didn't make exception for the addition of Saint Joseph. Anyone should be appauled because they DARED to change it despite the infallable Apostolic Bull COMMANDING them NOT to, NO matter what.


All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure. (Pretty sure that means that Saint Pius V, and his predacessors would be "really ticked off" if anyone changed ANYTHING, whether it was adding or subtracting from it.)

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.

(ab·so·lute·ly  (bs-ltl, bs-ltl)
adv.
1. Definitely and completely; unquestionably.

Pretty sure that's what was meant there.)

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

(And pretty sure THIS means NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO ALTER ANYTHING IN THERE, and to COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISCARD ANYTHING CONTRARY TO IT.)

We have a RIGHT to a Mass that is UNCHANGED from that time. This docuмent was ordered by the Council of Trent (Thank Almighty God) to be written, and anything less (or more, in this case) WE SHOULD NOT SETTLE FOR.

Stop compromising. It's insulting to the Holy Ghost and the popes that kept the Faith as long as they did, especially the storm that Pope Saint Pius V weathered, for the people during the protestant revolt, and even FOR US NOW.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Stop compromising. It's insulting to the Holy Ghost and the popes that kept the Faith as long as they did, especially the storm that Pope Saint Pius V weathered, for the people during the protestant revolt, and even FOR US NOW.

To make one's self the judge of another person's soul or intentions is insulting to God, Who alone is their Judge. God, fortunately, judges each of us according to what we are aware of, what we know, what we believe to be the truth, and how culpable (in the case of being in error) we were for being in error, as well as by the naked truth or facts.

The information (including the proclamation about the traditional mass and missal), which I have heard and believe, tells me that the missal I use is the last version which could be called traditional, based upon the laws and what have you of the Church on various related matters.

But since you are not God, then you cannot know what I know, what I have heard, and why or how I understand that this papal proclamation is not a condemnation of the missal which I have. You cannot know what I have heard or read on the matter, the sources from which I have heard or read it, nor judge those sources as the Holy Ghost alone could, in the perfect light of absolute truth, and as the One Who searches hearts and minds.

So it's a bit rash for you to condemn me "for Him". It's for Him to condemn or pardon based on His all-knowing understanding of all things. There is guilt or innocence based upon a person's actual deed, and guilt or innocence based upon the circuмstances and fact surrounding that deed. The former is one thing. The latter can make the difference between a mortal sin and an eternal crown (in the case, for instance, of martyrdom... a kind of mortally endangering one's own life by one's own decisions... a category into which ѕυιcιdє also could be placed).

Only God knows how guilty any of us are in this mess. Or how innocent. And thanks be to God only God will judge us for it!

God guide all of us to the one and only truth, and have mercy on those who haven't found it or don't want it! In the meantime, I pray God would keep peace between us, and give us the sense to know that everyone here is trying his or her best to do what they are firmly convinced is the right thing, according to what they know, or think they do.

And it goes without saying, if a missal scandalizes you, or contains errors or things dangerous to your faith, of course you shouldn't get it!

My intent in the post was not to judge, but to point out an error.

If you read Quo Primum, it can't get any more plain than the Saint said it: No changes, no additions, no subtractions.

Don't you think a Saint would have the wisdom to add Saint Joseph to the canon if he was destined to be mentioned there? I would like to think so.

Considering there is a lot of questions regarding the validity of "John XXIII's" election, I think I'm well within my bounds to point out not only the insipidity of the addition of Saint Joseph (which, by ignoring the Papal Bull, he "opened the window" for other changes to be justified) but the outright error to compromise the infallable decree of a SAINT to change that which was NOT TO BE CHANGED AT ALL.

Humor me, if you like, and read this:

http://www.papalrestoration.com/

The Department of Defense docuмents exist, and I've tried to get them sent to me from the National Archives, but they've said I would have to personally come and get them in DC, which I am incapable of doing, being a mother of five. If I were, you can bet I would be taking the first flight down there to obtain them and expose what really happened at that conclave, which our government seems to have known on October 24, 1958.

Nothing good will come of going back and forth about all of this. Most people out there are pretty decided about what they hold to be true. I'm no exception. Just like you wouldn't go to a democrat's house who idolizes their political heroes and try to point out their flaws (because you wouldn't get anywhere), most of the time it's a waste of time trying to change someone's mind about something like this where everyone is basically dead-set in one fixed way or another, because everyone is so fired up about it.

For the sake of peace, I'm not going to go into it. Better to spend time discussing things where most of us can see eye to eye and benefit from it.

I would like to be corrected if I'm in error. I would hope you would like the same thing, too.

I don't shy away from truth, and I won't shy away from pointing out something I believe to be untrue.

Quo Primum is what it is, and it's not rocket science. Pope Saint Pius V said very clearly that no change, not even a minute change from the language he used, was to be done to the canon of the Mass, in an infallible decree. "John XXIII" decided he was smarter for some reason, whether you believe he was pope or not, and he went against that decree, whether you want to believe it or not, and I'm simply pointing it out.

If you want to say that you're holding fast to tradition, then do it, by not accepting even the most minute change, as innocent as it would seem, to the canon of the Mass. That's a 500 year old decree, it's not something that was written in 1958 or something. It was directly written after a Dogmatic Council of the Church, and stands legal and right in perpetuity, as it clearly says in the docuмent.

Being wishy washy isn't going to help in these times. It only causes confusion. So, you go back to what was said infallibly after the Council of Trent, and you go with that, when there is doubt. 500 years >>>>> 1962.

I find this an enlightening argument., and I hope it will be for others here still trying to figure out what to do about their missal. Go back to BEFORE there was confusion, and IMO, that is before the change to the Holy Week services, which anyone can agree were insipid in and of themselves by the mere fact that Hannibal Bugnini was a freemason, and was the one who authored the changes, and that a good many prayers were altered and removed, not to mention that the Good Friday service is one that dates back more than 1500 years, and to alter it as was done, is very questionable, especially from WHOM it was altered by.

Truth is peace, no truth is no peace. Christ is Truth and Peace.

Oh, and I just wanted to say, that if I went to a democrats house, I point out the false left/right paradigm to them, and hope that God will use me as an instrument for them to see their error. I don't shy in those situations.

Also, isn't that what the Novus Ordo "catholics" say when they don't want to talk about the Mass? "It's all the same, can't we just get along?" No. I'm sorry, it is NOT the same.