REVIEW: 2011 Ordo from Angelus Press

The nice people at Angelus Press sent me a 2011 Ordo… the Ordo Divini Officii Persolvendi Missaeque Sacrificii Peragendi Pro Anno Domini 2011.

Ordo

This Ordo is in accordance with the rubrics established by John XXIII in Rubricarum instructum of 25Jul 1960.

This is the usual paper-bound affair which will be sturdy enough to last the whole year even with a bit of flattening to get it to lie open.

It starts with the calendar year at January 2011 instead of the liturgical year at Advent in December.  Odd.  It makes the book less useful.   I think they should reconsider that.

US feasts are included in this Ordo.

There is an amusing bit in the front of the book, by way of a preface.   It has something of that combative spirit we expect from the SSPX!

Contrary to the assertions of some persons, there is nothing substantially different between earlier versions of the Missal/Breviary and the 1962 editions.  Nothing contrary to the traditional Roman Catholic Faith is either contained or insinuated in the 1962 Missal and Breviary.  No reputable theologian or liturgical expert of any standing has made any such assertion in this regard.  With supplements and the [Ordo for Holy Week], the older editions of those liturgical books can easily continue to suffice for saying Mass and the Divine Office.

A conversation starter to be sure.   Then, at the end of the preface…

Many older priests, having fewer duties and obligations, continued to say the additional orations and used the oler Breviary as before.  In those days, nobody was upset or critical that they did.  Who would complain if they did so today?

Who indeed?

I appreciate having this Ordo.  I haven’t had one of their ordos in the past, so it will be interesting to see how it differs from others I have seen.

Some helpful information is included.  For example, the texts for the blessing of throats on St. Blaise Day.

I chuckled a bit at the note on p. ix under the excerpts from 1960 rubrics, where I read:

82. According to conditions and customs varying from one church to another and from one place to another – of this matter the local ordinary is the judge….

I wonder how often the SSPX priests are calling the local chancery for a ruling on processions are to be conducted on 24 April.  I’d like to hear that conversation.

Also, during January there is the Octave of Christian Unity.  They include some intentions for each day, such as “The submission of Anglicans to the Authority of the Vicar of Christ.”.   Timely, but a little ironic.

In the back there are Appendices with the feasts for Dioceses of Canada and for Great Britain.

“But Father! But Father!” I can hear some of you saying even as you are reading to the end of this rather specialized entry. “Why aren’t you using an FSSP Ordo?  Should you be supporting Angelus Press?”

Angelus Press prints good things and they send them to me.  The FSSP hasn’t sent me an Ordo.  If they had, I would be reviewing it.  I have used the FSSP Ordo in the past.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "But Father! But Father!", REVIEWS and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to REVIEW: 2011 Ordo from Angelus Press

  1. Henry Edwards says:

    I haven’t seen this Angelis Press ordo, but the theme of their 2011 liturgical calendar is the Traditional Rite of Priestly Ordination, with expositions of its successive parts (seemingly so much more richly ceremonial than the newer rite of ordination) running through the year, illustrated with some of the most beautiful TLM photos you’ll ever see.

    The FSSP 2011 ordo features a new section this year:

    The Rite To Be Observed in the Celebration of Mass
    and
    On Defects That May Occur in the Celebration of Mass

    The first English translations that I have seen of Ritus servandus and De defectibus in the 1962 Missale Romanum. Not being a priest myself, I wonder whether these won’t be particularly useful for new TLM celebrants.

  2. Henry Edwards:
    The first English translations that I have seen of Ritus servandus and De defectibus in the 1962 Missale Romanum. Not being a priest myself, I wonder whether these won’t be particularly useful for new TLM celebrants.

    Very useful! And not just for TLM celebrants.

  3. Not a full Ordo, but for those using or attending the Traditional Dominican Rite, a calendar for 2011 is now available here:

    http://dominican-liturgy.blogspot.com/2010/12/2011-calendar-for-dominican-rite.html

    Particular feasts are included for the United States and the dioceses served by the Western Dominican Province, where the Dominican Rite Mass is celebrated regularly or occasionally in Anchorage, Portland, Seattle, the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, and the chaplaincy at St. Thomas Aquinas College.

  4. Henry Edwards says:

    Father Z: Very useful! And not just for TLM celebrants.

    Indeed, now that you mention it, I think of a certain type of astute critics of ceremonial and rubrical precision who may find these new sources valuable in sharpening their ever helpful criticisms of what they see at Mass.

  5. wolfeken says:

    I prefer the FSSP Ordo, but it’s good to have more than one source in the event of errors. The FSSP one, for instance, had the wrong commemoration (Saint Sabbas) and the wrong preface a couple Sundays ago. Cross-checking something like that is often useful.

    My only wish is for one of these books to start indicating when a black vestment Requiem Mass (for a funeral) may or may not be said. It is still very confusing to most people, and I imagine a lot of Requiem Masses are actually not supposed to be said on the days they are offered.

  6. Gregory DiPippo says:

    “Contrary to the assertions of some persons, there is nothing substantially different between earlier versions of the Missal/Breviary and the 1962 editions.”

    How silly of me! I had often thought that the removal of more than half of the patristic readings, and exactly two-thirds of the proper readings of the Saints, from the Breviary between 1955 and 1960 was a “substantial difference”, but I was mistaken.

  7. TheAcolyte says:

    The Ordo is not actually produced by Angelus Press. It is the joint effort of the SSPX’s USA District Office (including me and a priest) and Mr. Patrick Clark, who has been editing the Ordo specifically for the SSPX since 1979.

    The Ordo also starts at the beginning of the calendar year because that was the common method in older ordos (as it is in the Calendarium section in the Missale Romanum).

  8. Acolyte: So, you are saying that the Angelus Press does not print this Ordo?

    Also, perhaps older version of the Ordo start with the calendar year. I respond saying: change.

  9. The Cobbler says:

    ‘“But Father! But Father!” I can hear some of you saying even as you are reading to the end of this rather specialized entry. “Why aren’t you using an FSSP Ordo? Should you be supporting Angelus Press?”

    ‘Angelus Press prints good things and they send them to me. The FSSP hasn’t sent me an Ordo. If they had, I would be reviewing it. I have used the FSSP Ordo in the past.’

    The FSSP should learn some marketing tricks like “reviewer copies”, is that what you’re saying, Father? 8^)

  10. gambletrainman says:

    I didn’t know this, but I stumbled across it accidentally, so, it may be old news to you, but the SSPX has a “new” 1962 Roman Breviary in 2 volumes, $150 each, or $250 for both, also put out by Angelus Press

  11. gambletrainman says:

    It came out in 2009

  12. Fr. Basil says:

    \\How silly of me! I had often thought that the removal of more than half of the patristic readings, and exactly two-thirds of the proper readings of the Saints, from the Breviary between 1955 and 1960 was a “substantial difference”, but I was mistaken.\\

    How about the radical redistribution of the Psalter by Pius XI in the Breviarium Romanum of 1911 (or s0)? Especially in light of the warnings by Pius V of condemnation of those who did so; Quod a nobis has language about this identical to Quo primum.

  13. The Papacy is not bound by the legal policy of the Persians and Medes. (I am not referring to the discussion of issues first while sober and then while drunk, but rather to the Book of Daniel’s explanation that the edicts of a Persian king could never be changed.)

    By the time Pius XI became pope, Pius V was dead and gone. Since this was not a matter of dogma, Pius XI had every right to change things, just as Pius V had every right to warn against changing things — though he himself did a lot of new and different stuff. (And considering what Pope Urban VIII did, they were both pikers when it came to changing stuff around.)

    Bosses get to change stuff, and they do. Welcome to the world of having bosses.

  14. mibethda says:

    Pius XI? or Pius X.

  15. paulbailes says:

    The Pope is not actually “the boss” – Christ is head of the Church. The Pope is (merely) His vicar, and before changing anything should ask himself “what does the Boss want”.

  16. Animadversor says:

    I wonder how often the SSPX priests are calling the local chancery for a ruling on processions are to be conducted on 24 April. I’d like to hear that conversation.

    It makes me smile just to think about it. Still, what would be the best way to answer such an enquiry, i.e., in what tone? I should suppose a gravely, but not coldly, serious one, with perhaps an invitation to the chancery for drinks. One has to start somewhere.

  17. Childermass says:

    Even earthly bosses do not have the authority to change whatever they like.

    I recall the present occupant of the See of Peter writing a glowing forward to a book in which the author (Scott “Dom Alcuin” Reid) takes the above-mentioned Pontiffs to task for abusing their authority in messing with the liturgy in ways not consonant with the organic Tradition. The liturgy is a given that is passed on with the care of a gardener, not a ball of Play-Dough which someone (even the Vicar of Christ) can re-form and re-structure however he likes.

    I doubt the SSPX is very fond of the tinkeritis of Pius XII and the other Pontiffs mentioned; but I suspect that the liturgical revolution imposed by Paul VI (not just tinkeritis but a deconstruction and committee-guided manufacture) was the last straw for them, re: obedience to papal liturgical dictates.

  18. Geoffrey says:

    “Many older priests, having fewer duties and obligations, continued to say the additional orations and used the oler Breviary as before. In those days, nobody was upset or critical that they did. Who would complain if they did so today?”

    “Who indeed?”

    This seems to fall into the same category as that ever-resurgent “second Confiteor”. What happened to “say the black, do the red”? Hmmm…

  19. Geoffrey: Hmmm… off on your own tangent, are you?

  20. Mike Morrow says:

    I like pre-Vatican II Ordos, which typically were the size of a small hand missal with all content in Latin. I still have a 1962 Ordo published by B. Herder that was given to me by the assistant pastor when I was an altar server. It starts on January 1, 1962. It has a 132-page Rubricae Breviarii Et Missalis Romani, a 173-page liturgical calendar, and a 127-page “priest/bishop/parish directory” for the region of the US served by that edition. (There’s still a few listed in that directory who serve today.)

    It seems that one of the victims of the Vatican II revolution was the prompt extinction of publishing such Ordos, just as what happened to the Liber Usualis. None of the modern Ordos are very similar, though the 2011 FSSP Ordo has, as Henry points out, added English versions of material that was commonly found in the traditional Ordos.

    I’ve always been happy that I kept this Ordo from the last era of traditional Catholic practice.

  21. Fr. A.M. says:

    I normally refer to the on-line Ordo of the Latin Mass Society, which I find quite handy. I don’t think the 2011 Ordo is on-line yet. However the Ordo produced at Angelus Press looks really useful (maybe I’ll get it for 2012). I must say – and I’m not SSPX – I do agree with their comments about the 1961 Breviarium Romanum. We must distinguish between substantial continuity (‘hermeneutic of continuity’ ?) on the one hand, and of a complete and radical change on the other, even if there were losses in the organic development of the liturgy. Thank you Father for your review.

  22. Gregory DiPippo says:

    @Banshee et al., the relevant question here is not “Has the Pope has changed things?”, nor is it “How much can the Pope change things?” I was simply pointing out that the compilers of this Ordo are dead wrong to say that there are no substantial differences between the 1962 liturgical books and the preceding editions. There are many differences, and they are quite substantial. Not just for the sake of pointing out that they are wrong – many things which may legitimately be regarded as problematic about the post-concilar liturgical reform are already in the 1962 books, and they were put there by the same people who made the 1969 books. Versus populum worship was introduced into the Roman Rite in the 1955 Holy Week, for example.

  23. dspecht says:

    G.DiPippo:

    You are right re the Holy-Week-Revolution and esp. re the versus-populum-worship. This is also IMHO “substantial” – i.t.s. that it is really against Tradition (and lex credendi). And the fsspx would have done better if they rejected also this revolutionary innovations, at least the versus-populum-prayers at Palm Sunday and Maundy Thursday. At least this versus-populum-experiment of Bugnini is a clear attack of whole Tradition/lex credendi (via lex orandi) and thus to be rejected.

    But re the other innovations: Well, they may be regrettable or substanial in quantity. But not “substantial” in the sense that they are as clear against Tradition & lex credendi as the Bugnini&Co innovations (esp., as I said, the versusus populum-worship and then, of course, the reforms of the NOM).

    There is really a substantial/essential difference between the Bugnini-revolution and the reforms before. It´s not only the quantity that counts, but esp. the whole spirit of the reforms, the continuity or compatibility with the lex credendi or not. (Insofare the sspx is right.)

    But, again, yes, the Bugnini-revolution began under Pius XII in the 50ies (Holy Week). And the sspx would do better to reject this — although some legal-positivist, as many “conservative” Catholics unfortunately are, would have an other point then where they could lash out at the sspx.

    Btw, also many priests of the sspx know that the reforms of the Holy Week were the beginning of the real revolution, done by Bugnini&Co. Read (f.e.) the book of Fr. Bonneterre (RIP) about the liturgical movement.

  24. robtbrown says:

    G.DiPippo:
    Btw, also many priests of the sspx know that the reforms of the Holy Week were the beginning of the real revolution, done by Bugnini&Co. Read (f.e.) the book of Fr. Bonneterre (RIP) about the liturgical movement.

    Disagree. The major liturgical changes that came after Vat II, pushed along by Bugnini (Paul VI’s man), were done for the purpose of Ecumenism with Protestants. There is no way that can be said about either the Holy Week reforms or the introduction of St Joseph into the canon by JXXIII.

  25. Allan S. says:

    The main difference between the FSSP and Angelus Press Ordo is this: The former is “Mass heavy” while the latter is “Breviary heavy”. Assuming you can train yourself to read the Ordo (see Learning the New Breviary), the Angelus Press version will provide you additional, useful direction for sorting out your daily Office. The FSSP Ordo has far fewer breviary-specific directions.

    All of this is strictly my own own (lay) opinion as someone trying to find his way through the older Office.

    Thank you Father for the review.

  26. dspecht says:

    robtbrown:
    I agree: there is this differnce between the Holy Week reform and the later NOM-reform that you stated:

    The NOM-reform is clearly, obviously and proofable designed in an anticatholic, ecomenic (“ecomenistical”) (and man- and world-centered) way. We have histric proof for that.
    The Holy Week reform not, at least it is not obvious/clear or proofable.
    Therefor the sspx did not reject it.

    But even if not clearly ecomenistical-anticatholic it was the same person(s) that made the reform of the 50ies, esp. Bugnini. And it was a kind of trial balloon for the later (ecomenistical-worldly-anticatholic) reforms. At least, as I said, the versus-populum-worship of the reformed Holy Week (two-times) is worth to be critisized sharply.

    But again, You are right – I agree and therefor correct or modify myselfe – there is this difference that the reform of the 50ies is not (or not clearly) anti-catholic, it is not clearly against the lex credendi [except perhaps the two versus-populum-prayers, that´s debatable]. I also see this difference compared to the NOM-reform.

  27. robtbrown says:

    dspecht says:

    But again, You are right – I agree and therefor correct or modify myselfe – there is this difference that the reform of the 50ies is not (or not clearly) anti-catholic, it is not clearly against the lex credendi [except perhaps the two versus-populum-prayers, that´s debatable]. I also see this difference compared to the NOM-reform.

    I never used the word “anti-Catholic”, but I probably agree with “un-Catholic”.

  28. dspecht says:

    robtbrown:

    I can live with the word “uncatholic” because it sounds less harsh than “anti-catholic” – and it´s always better not to be harsher than necessary.

    But in fact if something is designed to promote protestantism and – as I add – modernism/modernistical opinions, then it is – on the objective level – not only un- but also anti-catholic, because it is against the Catholic doctrine, against the lex credendi, offensive to/against the truth.

  29. Torkay says:

    The FSSP sent me a 2011 Liturgical Calendar for $13…with a tear in the first picture…