Author Topic: TLM Missals (Read 8332 times)

Croix de Fer · « **on:** April 24, 2012, 05:12:53 AM »

What Missal does SSPV and CMRI use? How do they differ from each other; and how do they differ from the 1962 Missal?

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:40:50 PM »

The CMRI obey Pope Saint Pius V. Pope Saint Pius V ordered in Quo Primum Tempore in A.D. 1570, that the

Traditional Latin Mass was not to be changed.

Annibale Bugnini changed it in A.D. 1962, and changed one of the parts of the Mass which the Church said should

not be changed.

The CMRI celebrate the A.D. 1570 Mass.

It is the true Mass

They also follow some of the Liturgical changes which occurred prior to the death of Pope Pius XII in A.D. 1958.

The CMRI do not follow the invalid changes made by the evil Antipope John XXIII.

The SSPV should simply be avoided.

The SSPV are not good.

Please steer clear of the SSPV.

Cheryl · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2012, 12:59:05 PM »

I'm CMRI and I use an old Marian Missal and my husband uses a new one. I've seen people use St. Joseph's, St. Andrew's, etc. It's all a matter of individual choice. You want one copyrighted 1955 or sooner.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2012, 02:32:11 PM »

Quote from: ascent

What Missal does SSPV and CMRI use? How do they differ from each other?

The main difference centers around the new Holy Week introduced in 1955 by Pius XII. CMRI accepts and uses the 1955 changes; the SSPV does not. If you go to Mass at one or the other, why not ask the priest about the particulars? I'm sure he'd be happy to assist. Perhaps a Google search is in order?

Quote

how do they differ from the 1962 Missal?

One of the main changes to which some object is that in 1962 St. Joseph's name was placed in the Canon. The following does not end the discussion, but it is a fact that this exact change had been proposed during the 19th century; Pius IX shot it down. There are other objections, too, such as the elimination of one of the Confiteors, etc. Contrary to what might call liturgical urban legends, no one who objects to the 1962 Missal has a problem with St. Joseph himself nor does anyone believe the 1962 changes invalidate anything; the issue centers around the disastrous effect produced by altering a part of the Mass that had not been touched since the time of St. Gregory the Great. There is more to it, but I have this strange, dare I say novel idea that it might help more than harm you if you do a little bit of the leg work yourself. There is plenty of information available online and I'd guess that your computer accesses the same search engines mine does. Happy hunting! If you run into a snag or don't understand something you read, let us know and I am sure someone will be happy to assist.

Sede Catholic,

Is your stance on SSPV consistent with what the CMRI says about them or is it based upon your own ideas/experience? I am just wondering, not giving you grief. In my past experience with the CMRI, none of the priests said anything one way or another about the SSPV, the "approachability" of their Masses, etc. Thank you in advance for your reply.

Cheryl,

Unless I am completely mistaken, the OP is asking about the Missal used by the priest at the altar, not those used by laymen assisting at Mass. If it turns out that I am mistaken, I beg your pardon :)

Sigismund · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2012, 06:55:37 PM »

The SSPV would not give Communion to someone form a CMRI parish, not matter what missal the CMRI uses, correct?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2012, 07:10:06 PM »

That is true, Sigi. However, there is no obligation to tell anyone, layman or priest, about past or present associations. To be sure, it is good to tell the truth IF asked, but there is no need to volunteer information that will jeopardize one's ability to receive the Sacraments. Just as an unjust law need not be obeyed, so an absurd policy need not stop anyone from receiving the spiritual goods to which all Catholics have a right.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2012, 07:22:13 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

The SSPV would not give Communion to someone form a CMRI parish, not matter what missal the CMRI uses, correct?

That is correct, if the priest KNOWS they are CMRI affiliated. They make every effort to know what affiliation a person has when they come to their chapels. I dont think they will give communion to SSPXers either.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2012, 08:25:16 PM »

I wonder what Jesus thinks of SSPV and CMRI being divided over small details relative to the 99.9% of the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith they both share. Same with SSPX and the aforementioned...

Satan is effective in using human pride to the divide even the truly Catholic faithful. What a shame.

Sigismund · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2012, 09:46:05 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

That is true, Sigi. However, there is no obligation to tell anyone, layman or priest, about past or present associations. To be sure, it is good to tell the truth IF asked, but there is no need to volunteer information that will jeopardize one's ability to receive the Sacraments. Just as an unjust law need not be obeyed, so an absurd policy need not stop anyone from receiving the spiritual goods to which all Catholics have a right.

Do they ask?

And it is nice to see you again, GV.

ora pro me · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2012, 11:25:13 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
That is true, Sigi. However, there is no obligation to tell anyone, layman or priest, about past or present associations. To be sure, it is good to tell the truth IF asked, but there is no need to volunteer information that will jeopardize one's ability to receive the Sacraments. Just as an unjust law need not be obeyed, so an absurd policy need not stop anyone from receiving the spiritual goods to which all Catholics have a right.

Do they ask?

And it is nice to see you again, GV.

I was going to say the same thing, Sigismund, and I second that sentiment. Yes, it's good to see your helpful explanations on this site again, GV. It's generous of you to take the time to help your fellow Catholics. May Our Lord and Our Lady reward you.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #10 on:** April 26, 2012, 01:33:23 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: ascent
What Missal does SSPV and CMRI use? How do they differ from each other?

...
Quote
how do they differ from the 1962 Missal?

One of the main changes to which some object is that in 1962 St. Joseph's name was placed in the Canon... There are other objections, too, such as the elimination of one of the Confiteors, etc. Contrary to what might call liturgical urban legends, no one who objects to the 1962 Missal has a problem with St. Joseph himself ... the issue centers around the disastrous effect produced by altering a part of the Mass that had not been touched since the time of St. Gregory the Great. There is more to it, but I have this strange, dare I say novel idea that it might help more than harm you if you do a little bit of the leg work yourself. There is plenty of information available online and I'd guess that your computer accesses the same search engines mine does. Happy hunting! If you run into a snag or don't understand something you read, let us know and I am sure someone will be happy to assist.

Sede Catholic,

Is your stance on SSPV consistent with what the CMRI says about them or is it based upon your own ideas/experience? .. Thank you in advance for your reply...

Dear Gladius,

My total distrust of the SSPV is the result of my knowledge of their origins and of the many problems that they cause now. Such as their present unCatholic attitude towards the CMRI.

They are to be condemned for several different reasons.

The SSPV is simply an affliction which is preventing many Catholics from getting to the truth.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2012, 08:39:34 AM »

Thank you for the explanation S_C. I tend to agree with you, but it would probably be better to leave that discussion to another time and place.

Thank you for the kind comments, ora and Sigi. As for the SSPV's asking people about their past or present associations in a way that goes way beyond the call of duty or normal Catholic praxis, there are some who would say it is a regular occurrence.

Some of their chapels are so small (in MT, for instance) that any newcomer is noticed immediately. When this happens, the un-Catholic communion policy is made crystal clear to the newcomer. Other chapels are larger, but they still do what they can to let newcomers know the situation.

It is all a farce, however, because they bend the rules according to whim.

It is sadly and monumentally ironic that their policy of exclusion for what they are basically saying is public sin is, in itself, publicly sinful... That said, it is better to discuss such thing in the Crisis folder.

Cheryl · « **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2012, 09:18:23 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Cheryl,

Unless I am completely mistaken, the OP is asking about the Missal used by the priest at the altar, not those used by laymen assisting at Mass. If it turns out that I am mistaken, I beg your pardon :)

Well, slap me silly and call me Fanny, mea culpa!

Nice to see you back Eamon! :smile:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** May 08, 2012, 01:07:51 PM »

3 missals currently being printed that have pre-1955 (or 58) versions:

Fr. Lasance New Roman Missal (daily 1945, reprints with added feast days)

St. Andrew's Daily Missal (1945, 1949, 1953)

New Marian Missal (daily -- 1958)

The SSPX 1962 missal is made of high-quality paper and binding, and it has generally everything these other 3 have, but like explained above, it is different in several places, such as St. Joseph added to the Canon, the confiteor is missing before Communion, and Holy Week is slightly different, including the "perfidious Jєωs" prayer on Good Friday, which Pope John XXIII deleted.

I heard Fr. Gregory Hesse explain that the SSPX only went to the 1962 missal because of a controversy that erupted among several of the SSPX priests, who complained to the Pope over some kind of practice, and the Vatican used the opportunity to get the SSPX to agree to use the updated missal. Fr. Hesse believed that it was an unwarranted demand from Rome, because it had nothing to do with the controversy itself, but that Rome merely made a demand in a moment of weakness from the SSPX. I have noticed that Bp. Williamson and de Mallerais have used rubrics from the 1955 missal, even while their priests follow the 1962 missal. I don't know about Bp. de Galaretta or Fellay.

Fr. Hesse believed that Rome was simply using the 1962 missal demand as another means to cause division within the SSPX, because "divide and conquer" is a technique of aggression that works.

The changes that were going on in those days were leading up to the wholesale Novus Ordo of 1969, but rank-and-file Catholics would not have known what was in store down the road. Now that the principle of revision, change, and innovation has become established by practice and approval from Rome, there is literally no end in sight, as demonstrated by the recent approval of the bizarre and heretical NeoCatechumnal Way liturgical practices.

Rosemary · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2012, 05:37:24 PM »

Quote from: Sede Catholic

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: ascent
What Missal does SSPV and CMRI use? How do they differ from each other?

...
Quote
how do they differ from the 1962 Missal?

One of the main changes to which some object is that in 1962 St. Joseph's name was placed in the Canon... There are other objections, too, such as the elimination of one of the Confiteors, etc. Contrary to what might call liturgical urban legends, no one who objects to the 1962 Missal has a problem with St. Joseph himself ... the issue centers around the disastrous effect produced by altering a part of the Mass that had not been touched since the time of St. Gregory the Great. There is more to it, but I have this strange, dare I say novel idea that it might help more than harm you if you do a little bit of the leg work yourself. There is plenty of information available online and I'd guess that your computer accesses the same search engines mine does. Happy hunting! If you run into a snag or don't understand something you read, let us know and I am sure someone will be happy to assist.

Sede Catholic,

Is your stance on SSPV consistent with what the CMRI says about them or is it based upon your own ideas/experience? .. Thank you in advance for your reply...

Dear Gladius,

My total distrust of the SSPV is the result of my knowledge of their origins and of the many problems that they cause now. Such as their present unCatholic attitude towards the CMRI.

They are to be condemned for several different reasons.

The SSPV is simply an affliction which is preventing many Catholics from getting to the truth.

Here is my thread on the dubious ordinations and consecrations of the SSPV. That is the number one reason (among many others) that the SSPV and their Mass sites should be avoided.

The doubtful consecrations and ordinations of the SSPV