Vatican Press to reprint the 1962 Missale Romanum?

Do I believe my eyes?

It looks as if the Libreria Editrice Vaticana is going to put out an edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum.

This would be a serious way for the Holy See to give concrete support to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum.  In sense, it would be a gesture that goes beyond benign tolerance of the older form of Mass into even positive support for its growth.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Vatican Press to reprint the 1962 Missale Romanum?

  1. Syriacus says:

    “Autori: M.Sodi…” …Mmmh, does it tell you something, Father? :-/

  2. Syriacus says:

    “Three different printings of Pius V’s Roman Missal, with minor variations, appeared in 1570, a folio and a quarto edition in Rome and a folio edition in Venice. A reproduction of what is considered to be the earliest, referred to therefore as the editio princeps, was produced in 1998.[^ ISBN 88-209-2547-8; publisher: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; introduction and appendix by Manlio Sodi and Achille Maria Triacca ]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass

  3. Syriacus says:

    “MONUMENTA LITURGICA PIANA”
    Sulla linea dei “Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini” la presente collana (= MLP) propone l’edizione anastatica dei sei libri liturgici secondo l’ultima editio typica realizzata all’interno del progetto della “Riforma Piana” (ad eccezione del Caeremoniale). L’edizione – cartonata e a due colori – dei sei libri liturgici segue lo stesso ordine dei MLCT e sarà completata dalla indicizzazione delle formule dei 6 volumi dei MLCT e MLP.

    1. Pontificale Romanum. Editio typica (1961-1962). Edizione anastatica e Introduzione, a cura di M. Sodi e A. Toniolo (in stampa).
    2. Missale Romanum. Editio typica (1962). Edizione anastatica e Introduzione, a cura di M. SODI e A. TONIOLO, pp. XXVI + 1096, € 59,00.
    3. Breviarium Romanum. Editio typica (1962). Totum (in preparazione).
    4. Rituale Romanum. Editio typica (1952) (in preparazione).
    5. Indicizzazione delle formule dei 6 volumi della collana MLCT e MLP.

    Chi prenota l’intera collana ha diritto allo sconto del 27% sul prezzo di copertina (diffusione@lev.va); i volumi saranno pubblicati uno all’anno, nel mese di settembre.

    ? Those who order the entire series will will be entitled for a 27% discount on the selling price (diffusione@lev.va); the volumes will be published each year in the month of September.

    http://www.liturgia.it/lit_lev.html

  4. Syriacus: M. SODI

    YIKES!

    A couple weeks ago in Rome I picked up he vile little book, Il Messale di Pio V. It was a condescending screed intended to put people off any interest in the older Mass.

    If this is the same Manlio Sodi, I must ask what role he had in this edition and what sort of introduction it would be. His vile little book was merely a sort of blind panegyric of the newer form of Mass while deprecating the limitations of the pre-Conciliar form.

    And if this is an “edizione anastatica” I wonder if it will have the rubrics in red.

    Some investigation is in order.

  5. If it’s only going to cost €59 then I doubt that it’ll be a proper altar missal with ribbons, red rubrics, etc… I suspect it’ll be some kind of paperback facsimile edition for scholarly rather than liturgical use.

  6. Dan O says:

    L’edizione – cartonata e a due colori

    It looks like it will be with 2 colors, I hope red and black.

  7. Syriacus says:

    http://www.edizionimessaggero.it/ita/catalogo/scheda.asp?ISBN=978-88-250-1946-9

    YIKES truly..!

    “…Comunque, ogni tipo di riflessione non potrà essere attuata con oggettività se non ci si confronta prima di tutto con il documento conciliare sulla Liturgia, la Sacrosanctum Concilium, e con la Costituzione apostolica di Paolo VI dal titolo Missale Romanum: un testo che si trova all’inizio di ogni Messale.

    È il confronto con questo ampio documento, di importanza fondamentale, *superiore ad un “Motu proprio”*, che si può percepire meglio sia l’esigenza di conoscere meglio la storia, sia ciò che è stato operato con il nuovo Messale, sia il completo superamento del precedente Missale. Le parole con cui si conclude la Costituzione apostolica risuonano oggi più che mai eloquenti: «Quanto abbiamo qui stabilito e ordinato (statuta et praescripta) vogliamo che rimanga valido ed efficace (firma et efficacia), ora e in futuro, nonostante quanto vi possa essere di contrario nelle Costituzioni e negli Ordinamenti Apostolici dei nostri Predecessori e in altre disposizioni, anche degne di particolare menzione e deroga».”

    (Fr. Manlio Sodi)

    ex: http://www.zenit.org/article-11446?l=italian

  8. Syriacus says:

    SOUR GRAPES OSCAR/NOBEL AWARD!! to Don Manlio: “La riedizione di questi libri – personalmente ne curo una nella collana “Monumenta Liturgica Piana”, edita dalla Libreria Editrice Vaticana (diffusione@lev.va) – sarà un momento importante per verificarne i limiti rispetto agli attuali libri liturgici, e per apprezzare meglio la liturgia riformata secondo le indicazioni del Vaticano II.”

  9. This is interesting, since the last time I checked the Libreria Editrice Vaticana online store, they weren’t even printing the 2002 Missale Romanum in Latin.

    It is good to see the Vatican doing something to help promote the older form.

  10. Andrew says:

    This is interesting, since the last time I checked the Libreria Editrice Vaticana online store, they weren’t even printing the 2002 Missale Romanum in Latin.

    I think that might due to the Holy See resigning itself to the fact that celebrations of the so-called “ordinary form” in Latin will now be rare, now that we have the papal motu proprio on the traditional mass and sacraments. People who want a Latin celebration might as well go the whole hog and opt for the older form. The newer form is geared to the vernacular, whatever the conciliar document on the sacred liturgy says.

  11. ** Matt ** says:

    I’m glad the Vatican is publishing the Tridentine Missal. As stated above by all, it’s a great sign the Church is serious about the Liturgical elevation of the Mass of St Pius V. At the same time, I won’t be buying a Missal from the Editrice. As Father Z said, their stuff tends to be of lousy quality. In fairness, so is most publications out of Europe. Been there, done that.

    PS. “Derestriction” is not a word. :-)

  12. ** Matt ** says:

    Not sure where to put this, so I’ll ask it here. Hopefully, Father or one of you is able to reply.

    Since we are discussing the Pius V Missal, where does the permanent-deacon of today fit into the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass? The deacons referred to in the Missal refers to the transitional deacon, the seminarian on his way to full ordination. There was no such thing as a “permanent deacon” when the Tridentine Rite was in force. How does the present-day deacon participate in the Tridentine Mass according to its Rubrics?

    Seriously curious. Thanks.

  13. LeonG says:

    Matt

    With current neomodernist tendencies prevailing, when interpreting words like “permanent” and “in perpetuum” you should know by now that they can mean anything at all.

  14. dcs says:

    A deacon is a deacon.

  15. James G. says:

    where does the permanent-deacon of today fit into the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass?

    The permanent deacon should fit in quite well. In fact, now that we have permanent deacons, it should be much easier to offer the solemn form of the old use. I know some Tridentine chapels that technically have enough priests to offer the solemn high Mass, yet they prefer to keep one of the priests in the confessional to hear confessions during it instead.

  16. ** Matt ** says:

    Thanks, Leon and James. Just wondering how the “non-existent” deacon of the Tridentine Mass would fit in with the deacon of today.

    As far as dcs’ smarmy comment, it was quite unhelpful and didn’t even address the question.

    Thanks again, gents.

  17. dcs says:

    ** Matt ** writes:
    As far as dcs’ smarmy comment, it was quite unhelpful and didn’t even address the question.

    I apologize if my comment sounded “smarmy”; it wasn’t meant to be. My point was that there is no difference, as far as Mass is concerned, between a permanent deacon and a transitional one. A deacon is a deacon. It is even hard to see how a “permanent” deacon is really permanent since there are conditions under which he can be ordained to the priesthood (for example, if a married permanent deacon’s wife dies, or if he was never married at all).

    The FSSP parish in Georgia has two “permanent” deacons and has Solemn Mass every Sunday.

    Hope this helps.

  18. What do you do for a sub-deacon if you have a solemn 1962 Mass?

  19. David says:

    Roman Sacristan “What do you do for a sub-deacon if you have a solemn 1962 Mass?”.

    Usually a Priest stands in as sub-deacon (and indeed as deacon). For example, I assisted at a solemn Mass a few weeks ago: three priests celebrated; one as priest, another as deacon and the third as sub-deacon.

  20. maynardus says:

    Smarmy or not, a deacon *is* a deacon. Period.

    Unfortunately only a few of the permanent deacons have had the slightest interest in the TLM. I’ve always felt that one of the great ironies of the post-conciliar liturgical and ecclesial revolution was that at the same time as a new Missal was being introduced whose rubrics greatly diminished the delineations between lay and clerical liturgical roles, the idea of a permanent diaconate was being revived!

    After 35-40 years of this, no wonder people are confused!

    Post-Summorum Pontificum, maybe we need a “permanent subdiaconate” too ;-)

  21. ** Matt ** says:

    Thank you, DCS. I do appreciate your clarification, and no hard feelings. :-)

    I understand there were deacons prior to Trent but the Fathers decided to suppress that form of Orders. If so, why? Something irregular about their position…? For the history of the Tridentine Mass, there was no such thing as the deacon of today, so I am more than curious how he would fit in in today’s Extraordinary Mass.

    As for a permanent deacon later becoming a priest, here is Los Angeles, a permanent deacon remains one!

    Roman Sacristan wrote, “What do you do for a sub-deacon if you have a solemn 1962 Mass?”

    What an irony. LOL No deacon ( the deacon was really a priest or Transitional Deacon–seminarian on his way to full Holy Orders ) before, yet there was a sub-deacon. Today, there is no sub-deacon, but we do have deacons. Hey, I guess that is where we can use the PD of today. ;-)

    Thanks, guys.

  22. maynardus says:

    Oops – my comment was intended to read “only a few of the permanent deacons *I’ve known* have had the slightest interest in the TLM…”

    Too much champagne after the Red Sox’ win I guess…

  23. pat says:

    I believe an instituted acolyte can stand in for a sub-deacon as well.

  24. ** Matt ** says:

    maynardus wrote, “Post-Summorum Pontificum, maybe we need a “permanent subdiaconate” too ;-)

    Hey, that sounds cool. Why not?

  25. John Rayner says:

    Pat has said it above. I am an Instituted Acolyte and I have been given to understand that I can fulfil the position of sub-deacon

  26. Berolinensis says:

    Jst to make it clear once more, since there still seem to be some misunderstandings: There is only one diaconate, Trent didn’t suppress anything. Men are ordained deacon. If they go on to be then ordained priest is a different question and a matter of policy, if you will. As long as they are deacons, there is no difference between a transitional and a permanent one as far as the sacrament of Holy Orders is concerned (there are some juridical differences, which do not enter here). The transitional or permanent refers to an intention for the future, it is by no means an ontological differentiation. So permanent deacons of today can not only act as deacons (and subdeacons) in the TLM, it is especially proper that they do so.

  27. Jordan Potter says:

    In truth, everyone in Holy Orders is a deacon, even bishops. When a deacon is ordained as a priest, he does not lose anything that he had received from God when he was ordained a deacon, and when a priest is ordained a bishop, he does not lose anything that he had received from God when he was ordained a deacon or ordained a priest. Everything a bishop or a priest was when he was a deacon is still there, still belongs to him, and always will be proper to him even if, God forbid, he falls into grave sin and is defrocked.

  28. Henry Edwards says:

    From Rorate Caeli, after mentioning that 18 days ago the new director of the Vatican Publishing House, Don Giuseppi Costa SDB, had indicated they had no plans to reprint the Missale Romanum 1962:

    “The series ‘Monumenta Liturgica Piana’, at the care of Manlio Sodi, SDB, and Alessandro Toniolo, started with this year’s volume, the Missale Romanum (1962) – surprised, Don Giuseppe? The Pontificale Romanum (Editio typica 1961-1962) is in the process of being printed. The Breviarium Romanum (1962), in one volume (Totum), will probably be published in 2008, and the Rituale Romanum (1952), probably in 2009.”

  29. Scott Smith says:

    Formerly, one who had been tonsured at least could act as subdeacon, but without the maniple and he would not hold the paten. So it would seem a small matter for an instituted acolyte to step in.

    Why not revive all the minor orders too?

    As to the new book, we’ll see what comes of it. Fortunately we don’t have to wait 10 years for the USCCB to translate it in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam.

  30. Joshua says:

    For what it is worth, there were so-called permanent deacons concurrent with the Old Missal. Besides the fact that there were permanent deacons as the Roman missal developed even into the Middle Ages (think of St. Francis of Assisi), there were some after even up to Vatican II as well. Granted they were uncommon. For instance, monasteries would sometimes just ordain for a need. Hence a monk might only ever reach acolyte, let alone deacon. Giacomo Cardinal Antonelli (the last “lay cardinal”, this is the 1800’s) only ever became a deacon, never did he become a priest.

  31. RBrown says:

    For what it is worth, there were so-called permanent deacons concurrent with the Old Missal. Besides the fact that there were permanent deacons as the Roman missal developed even into the Middle Ages (think of St. Francis of Assisi), there were some after even up to Vatican II as well. Granted they were uncommon. For instance, monasteries would sometimes just ordain for a need. Hence a monk might only ever reach acolyte, let alone deacon. Giacomo Cardinal Antonelli (the last “lay cardinal”, this is the 1800’s) only ever became a deacon, never did he become a priest.
    Comment by Joshua

    I think a distinction must be made between a man with an ecclesiastical profession (e.g., prof of Church history, Catholic philosophy, or a DRE) and one with a secular profession (e.g., lawyer or govt administrator). If they want the the permanent diaconate for married men, I think only men in the first situation are appropriate.

    The restoration of the permanent diaconate was aimed at areas that wouldn’t see a priest for a year. The perm deacons would witness marriages and Baptize.

    I do NOT agree with the present use of the permanent diaconate in the West, reducing it to being present at one mass on Sunday, a lawyer/perm deacon coming in with the celebrant and preaching.

    Further, because they are clerics (with priests and bishops), I think all permanent deacons:

    1. Should be obligated to the Divine Office just as transitional deacons are obligated to it.

    2. Should have the same theological study as a deacon.

    3. Wear clerical clothes.

  32. RBrown says:

    I apologize if my comment sounded “smarmy”; it wasn’t meant to be. My point was that there is no difference, as far as Mass is concerned, between a permanent deacon and a transitional one. A deacon is a deacon. It is even hard to see how a “permanent” deacon is really permanent since there are conditions under which he can be ordained to the priesthood (for example, if a married permanent deacon’s wife dies, or if he was never married at all).
    Comment by dcs

    You’re right–the distinction is merely logical. If a permanent deacon later is ordained to the priesthood, then he obviously wasn’t a permanent deacon.

  33. RBrown says:

    Continuing:

    I think the use of the terms distinguish whether or not the deacon has a right to priestly orders.

  34. dcs says:

    Formerly, one who had been tonsured at least could act as subdeacon, but without the maniple and he would not hold the paten. So it would seem a small matter for an instituted acolyte to step in.

    The PCED granted permission for an instituted acolyte to act as a “straw subdeacon” back in the early 1990s IIRC.

  35. ** Matt ** says:

    Folks, let’s clarify something. The “Permanent Deacon” was a role restored by the Paul The Dubious, so there is a difference in the concept of Deacon. Men who were ordained Deacon as part of the ordination process at which time they were fully ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood a short time later. They did not linger in that state nor was there any provision for a clerical state of what we today call the Permanent Deacon. If a seminarian was not moving on to full ordination, he ended up with nothing, remaining a common layman thereafter.

    In the previous ordering of the universe, there was no “deacon” who ran around administering five of the seven Sacraments in lieu of a priest.

  36. Brian2 says:

    **Matt** : so what about St. Francis? I am not trying to sound swarmy, but did the word have a different meaning in his day than in ours.

    My suspicion is that ‘permanent’ and ‘transitional’ have to be taken as adjectives modifying the noun ‘Deacon’ — in other words, accidents adhering to a substance. All Paul VI did, on this reading, is allow a different set of accidents to adhere. To be sure, this is just an analogy, but it is helpful for me — but this is just a suspicion.

  37. Different says:

    Matt,

    Regardless of your personal opinion of Pope Paul VI, calling him “Paul the Dubious” is disrespectful and destructive to the Church and the Office of the Vicar of Christ. No good can come of saying such things.

  38. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    Matt, you are incorrect. There is only one order of Deacon and only has ever been one order of Deacon. In the Traditional Latin Rite the Deacon had the power to baptize, witness marriages, preach, and distribute Communion. Whether he did it or not was a juridical question of faculties. Just because it was not a common experience does not establish veracity. Also, deacons do not “r[u[n around administering five of the seven Sacraments in lieu of a priest.” The only sacrament a deacon can celebrate is Baptism (as can any human being). He can be given the faculty to witness marriages on behalf of the Church. The ministers of the sacrament of Matrimony are the bride and groom. As far as “lingering in that state” as you put it, again you are incorrect. In monastic communities there were deacons who were never ordained as there were subdeacons, acolytes, lectors, etc. The minor orders and major orders of deacon and subdeacon were never intended to be stepping stones to the priesthood. They only became that over time. You wrote, “If a seminarian was not moving on to full ordination, he ended up with nothing, remaining a common layman thereafter.” That too is incorrect. If he had been ordained to any of the minor or major orders he remained a deacon, subdeacon, acolyte, etc. To deny that is to deny the indellible character of the sacrament of orders which is heresy. If a seminarian left the seminary at any time before ordination to priesthood— and yes it did happen— he retained his order but did not have the faculty to exercise it. To marry he had to receive a dispensation which could be denied. I suggest before you post you do your research. And if you wish others to treat you with respect then treat them with respect. Your comment about Paul VI is uncalled for and sinful.

    RBrown you wrote:
    Further, because they are clerics (with priests and bishops), I think all permanent deacons:
    1. Should be obligated to the Divine Office just as transitional deacons are obligated to it.
    2. Should have the same theological study as a deacon.
    3. Wear clerical clothes.

    In response:
    1. Permanent deacons do have the obligation of the full Divine Office.
    2. Yes, they should have the same theological study and in some places do. Unfortunately there is no uniform courses of study and many have woefully inadequate educations for their place in the Church.
    3. Whether or not permanent deacons wear clerical clothes is up to their ordinary. (Although how can one expect this of deacons when most priests do not wear clerical clothes all the time?)

  39. RBrown says:

    Folks, let’s clarify something. The “Permanent Deacon” was a role restored by the Paul The Dubious, so there is a difference in the concept of Deacon. Men who were ordained Deacon as part of the ordination process at which time they were fully ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood a short time later. They did not linger in that state nor was there any provision for a clerical state of what we today call the Permanent Deacon. If a seminarian was not moving on to full ordination, he ended up with nothing, remaining a common layman thereafter.

    Not really correct. The push for the Permanent Diaconate is found in Lumen Gentium 29.

    Before Vat II ordination to the diaconate and priesthood were done within a few days, and so it almost never happened that anyone left between diaconate and priestly ordination.

    In the previous ordering of the universe, there was no “deacon” who ran around administering five of the seven Sacraments in lieu of a priest.
    Comment by ** Matt **

    Nor can they now. They can Baptize, witness marriages, and distribute Communion. But how many people want a Deacon at the Wedding?

    Whatever the merits of the permanent diaconate, there is little doubt that its implementation was, like many other so called Vat II reforms, bungled big time.

    The problem is that permanent deacons have not been obligated to the clerical life. If they are clerics, then they have clerical obligations.

  40. Greg Smisek says:

    Re: Acting subdeacons

    The cleric who was acting-subdeacon did did bring the chalice and patent to the altar and hold the paten during the consecration.

    The details are in my earlier comment about the 1906 authentic decree allowing a tonsured cleric to act as subdeacon and a June 7, 1993 reply by PCED allowing non-tonsured, instituted acolytes (post Ministeria Quaedam) to do the same.

  41. caeremoniarius says:

    According to SRC 4181, a tonsured clerk who substitutes for a duly ordained Subdeacon at Solemn Mass does not:

    1) Wear the maniple;
    2) Wipe the chalice at the Offertory, nor add the water (the Deacon will do these things);
    3) Touch, uncover, or cover the chalice until after the ablutions. The Celebrant will wipe out the chalice after the ablutions; then the Subdeacon will arrange it and put it away.

    In all other respects, he carries out the office of Subdeacon.

  42. caeremoniarius says:

    According to SRC 4181, a tonsured clerk who substitutes for a duly ordained Subdeacon at Solemn Mass does not:

    1) Wear the maniple;
    2) Wipe the chalice at the Offertory, nor add the water (the Deacon will do these things);
    3) Touch, uncover, or cover the chalice (after he has brought it to the altar) until after the ablutions. The Celebrant will wipe out the chalice after the ablutions; then the Subdeacon will arrange it and put it away.

    In all other respects, he carries out the office of Subdeacon.

  43. Thomasso says:

    Why has this post on the publication of a facsmile copy of the 1962 Missale Romanum been overtaken by debates about the diaconate et al?

    Given the size and price of this ‘new’ publication, I’m wondering if it’s simply a study version similar to the 1570 edition princeps. As such, while it will be fine for study purposes, it’s not so good for practical use – and it isn’t an altar version.

  44. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    RBrown wrote: \”The problem is that permanent deacons have not been obligated to the clerical life. If they are clerics, then they have clerical obligations.\”

    Would you please elaborate? What canonical obligations do they have that they are not keeping? What does the clerical life entail? On what are you basing your statements? Where are you getting your information?

    Your statements are depricating to a rather large group of men generally. In fairness if you are going to make such statements you should be able to provide credible citations.

  45. RBrown says:

    From the “National Directory for . . . the life of permanant deacons in the US”

    http://www.nccbuscc.org/deacon/DeaconDirectory.pdf

    1. In the US the obligation is only to Morning and Evening Prayer. cf. 90.

    2. You agreed with me on the deficiency in clerical studies for deacons. I have to add that generally the quality (and quantity) of theological education of priests in the US is below average. The Angelicum has a program for those wanting to teach high school catechism–the theology requirements for it exceed the requirements in most American seminaries.

    3. The US bishops say that perm deacons should dress like laymen. no. 89

    BTW, my comments were not deprecating to those who are permanent deacons, but rather to those responsible for the program.

    BTW2, when I was at the Angelicum I knew the Redemptorist Father Richard Welch a bit. I think he was there to study canon law.

  46. RBrown says:

    Also: A few years ago I attended Christmas mass at the famous Redemptorist House in Hennef–I think it is now closed.

  47. o.h. says:

    Forgive a question which is (I think) about deacons, from someone who has only recently begun attending the TLM–This Sunday we attended the TLM, where our pastor, who was not the priest celebrating the Mass, was distributing Communion. He wore a cassock, surplice, and a stole. Was he acting as a deacon? Or something else? Thanks.

    I have lots more TLM questions, questions too foolish for me to bring myself to ask the TLM regulars at the parish, but I’m waiting for Father Z. to open up an “Ask Father Stupid Questions About the TLM” thread (or question box…).

  48. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    I misunderstood your comments. I apologize. It seemed that they were directed at permanent deacons. Thank you for clarifying and posting the link.

    Regarding the Divine Office I think that is scandalous. It is not in the least a horrible burden on anyone’s time. That was the whole point of it’s renewal post VII. To not require a permanent deacon to recite the full office and be present at Mass each day is beyond my ken. If any cleric is unable to do at least that, then they need to rethink their priorities. As to their dress, personally I don’t want them wearing the same dress that priests wear. Not only would this confuse people, but given the level of education required of them it could cause terrible problems. Although this is easily settled by designing a different sort of collar like that worn my many religious brothers.

    I can testify personally as to the deplorable education I received in the seminary. Any liberal protestant would have found a home at the Washington Theological Union. Catholic it wasn’t. How it is now, 12 years later, I can’t say.

    Fr. Welch has returned to the USA and I believe is in Washington, DC. Hennef is closed. There are hardly any vocations in the European provinces of the C.Ss.R. The situation here is little better.
    ++++++++++++
    o.h. your pastor was not acting as deacon but assisting in the distribution of communion. In the TLM this is usually reserved to priests alone.

  49. RBrown says:

    Here are the relevant paragraphs from the document:

    Clerical Attire
    89. The Code of Canon Law does not oblige permanent deacons to wear
    an ecclesiastical garb. Further, because they are prominent and active in secular
    professions and society, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops specifies
    that permanent deacons should resemble the lay faithful in dress and matters of
    lifestyle. Each diocesan bishop should, however, determine and promulgate any
    exceptions to this law, as well as specify the appropriate clerical attire if it is
    to be worn.97

    Liturgy of the Hours
    90. Permanent deacons are required to include as part of their
    daily prayer those parts of the Liturgy of the Hours known as Morning
    and Evening Prayer. Permanent deacons are obliged to pray for the
    universal Church. Whenever possible, they should lead these prayers
    with the community to whom they have been assigned to minister.

  50. RBrown says:

    Regarding the Divine Office I think that is scandalous. It is not in the least a horrible burden on anyone’s time. That was the whole point of it’s renewal post VII. To not require a permanent deacon to recite the full office and be present at Mass each day is beyond my ken. If any cleric is unable to do at least that, then they need to rethink their priorities.

    More to the point, those in charge of the program need to rethink it.

    As to their dress, personally I don’t want them wearing the same dress that priests wear . . . Although this is easily settled by designing a different sort of collar like that worn my many religious brothers.
    Comment by Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.

    Exactly.

  51. Louis E, says:

    The last cardinal never to be ordained a priest was not Giacomo Antonelli (died 1876) but Teodolfo Mertel (died 1899).(Both held high office at the Vatican…Antonelli was Secretary of State and Mertel headed the Apostolic Chancery).

  52. o.h. says:

    Thank you, Father Bailey. I became a Catholic as an adult, and honestly I feel like I’m having to learn to be a Catholic all over again.

  53. BK says:

    Vatican publishes copy of 1962 Roman Missal as part of study series

    By Cindy Wooden
    Catholic News Service
    October 24, 2007
    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706061.htm

    VATICAN CITY (CNS) — As part of a collection of studies on ancient liturgical texts, the Vatican publishing house has published a copy of the 1962 Roman Missal, the book of Mass prayers used for the Tridentine Mass.

    Published Oct. 19, the book is basically a scholarly commentary on the old Mass, but it includes in the back a copy of the missal the Vatican had issued 45 years ago, said Carmelite Father Edmondo Caruana, secretary of the publishing house, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

    “We have inserted an exact copy of the 1962 text in the book together with the study. It is in the form of a small altar missal so it could be used for the liturgy,” Father Caruana told Catholic News Service.

    However, he said, it would be inaccurate to say the Vatican has republished the missal for liturgical use. Missals and other books of prayers and rituals designed exclusively for liturgical use have a special cover and binding and do not include commentary.

    Father Caruana said the Vatican publishing house has received many inquiries about buying liturgical copies of the 1962 Missal, and those calls are directed to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” which is responsible for matters concerning the implementation of Pope Benedict XVI’s July decree authorizing wider use of the old Mass.

    In his decree, the pope said the Tridentine Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it. He also said the Mass from the Roman Missal in use since 1970 remains the ordinary form of the Mass, while celebration of the Tridentine Mass is the extraordinary form.

  54. Christophorus says:

    The restoration of the minor orders was decreed by Trent “The Twenty-Third Session
    DECREE ON REFORMATION – CHAPTER XVII.” Unfortunately, there was so much to clean-up and the Protestants running around shouting — that this decree was not implemented.