This is in from Vatican Radio:
(10 Jan 07 – RV) A statement released today by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments says that the completion of the English-language edition of the Roman Missal is in sight.
The press release notes that the Vox Clara Committee held a meeting at the Vatican recently during which committee members reviewed draft translations for Masses for the Dead, Votive Masses, Proper of Saints II, and the Antiphons of the Roman Missal.
Other items concerning the confirmation of the Order of Mass, including the fine-tuning of several points of translation in the Eucharistic Prayers, were also considered.
This review was conducted in preparation for the submission of White Book translations following the approval of these texts by the English-language bishops’ conferences throughout the world in the coming months and the subsequent and concluding review by the Congregation in preparation for the granting of the recognitioThe Vox Clara Committee was established by the Congregation in 2001, and is composed of senior Bishops from the English-speaking world as an advice body to the Congregation regarding the translation of Latin liturgical texts into the English-language. It is chaired by Cardinal George Pell, Sydney (Australia).
Here is a link to the Dec 2007 Vox Clara press release.
In my discussions with H.E. Archbp. Ranjith and H.E. Card. Arinze I had the impression that the actual authorized use of the new translation would not come until, perhaps, 2010.
The problem is not with the Holy See. It is rather with the conferences of bishops who have to review the translation and then get their reports back to the Holy See.
Please continue to pray for those involved. We need the new translation desperately.
Loading ...
I am so happy to see this news! I wonder, though, if there are any initiatives to reduce the number of options available in the current Missal. It has always been curious to me that in the process of simplifying and streamlining the Mass, they have managed to complicate it!
I’m greatly looking forward to it (both the new texts and the interesting times that will no doubt follow in the period of implementation)!
There is certainly a richness in the texts of the TLM that is still missing from the ordinary form (i.e. Suscipe, sacte Pater, hanc immaculatum hostiam, etc. vs. Blessed are you, Lord…) but at least now the language conveys more deeply the rich meaning of the Latin so poorly projected in the current translation.
Father,
It was my understanding, per a statement by Msgr. Harbert about a year ago, that the first use of the new Ordinary translation would be by the Holy Father at WYD in Sydney later this summer.
Any word on that?
The new translation is called the old translation: The Missal of 1962.
We gots it.
And its the new boss.
Deo Gratias
I hate to rain on anyone’s parade (and perhaps this is now a non-issue), but… I recall seeing a “leaked draft” of this selfsame Missal which, in the credo, notably *deleted* the word in brackets:
“…for us [men] and for our salvation…”
Does anyone have any more current and/or accurate information on that (and similar points)? I’m as eager as anyone to have a revision of our abominable current Missal; but the last thing I’d like to see is a host of “liberalized” changes slipped in during the “rush” to complete the blessed thing. IMHO, it’s better delayed for 20 more years, and done right, than rushed through and allowing “gender-inclusivity” to have a recognitio (and made far more difficult and awkward to remove later).
In Christ,
Brian C.
So in theory we might be looking at 2009ish??
Not only do we need the new translation desperately, but when the new translation is finally promulgated, we need priests to actually FOLLOW the translations to the letter with no deviations. Unless it is clearly and unequivocally stated that priests are not to change a word of the translated text of the Mass, and unless somebody is out there enforcing this directive, we will continue to have the same old ad libbed talk show hosts doing their opening Mass Johnny Carson monologues from their “presidential chairs,” with Ed McMahon as Deacon, and Doc Severinson as cantor/minister of music/songleader/accompanist.
TNCath,
That is why the Missal of ’62 is the best antidote to the Novus Ordo.
The Missal of 1962 does not lend itself to stand-up routines and running monologues.
I walked out of an Ash Wednesday Mass where the priest swaggered up the aisle at the beginning of Mass. Sat down on a folding chair right next to a gentleman in the front row, and proceeded to say,”Do we really have to begin Lent today, lets just wait till tomorrow,huh?”When the shouts of agreement and laughter died down, Father said,”but seriously, lets get this thing rolling.”.
I looked frantically through the troll art missalette that I was holding, for this particular set of words and rubrics. Upon not finding them I concluded that I had inadvertantly wandered into an open mike night at a bingo hall, and I left.
God bless you.
Dan,
There’s no argument here. Of course the “best antidote” to the Novus Ordo is the ’62 Missal. I’m not worried about the issue for myself or my family, as we’re blessed with a weekly TLM nearby (well, 35 miles). What I’m concerned with are the rest of the souls that people the pews.
Until the NO goes away, which it ain’t, a superior translation is needed, and the sooner the better.
I think the priest’s facing the people at the Novus Ordo is primarily to blame for the monologues. The priest thinks he has to “perform” for the people. Were the Novus Ordo said universally ad orientem, I think the “stand up monologue” mentality would disappear. Also, if clearly stated rubrics stating the priests’ parts (and not “the celebrant addresses the people in these or similar words”) at the Penitential Rite and other times during the Mass, we would never have had these issues in the first place. I do not care for the third option of the Penitential Rite which lends itself to insidious invocations many celebrants make up as they go along, or even worse, depend on using those awful liturgical crutches such as “Pastoral Patterns.”
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ?
The idea of one English translation which will be acceptable throughout the English speaking world is beginning to seem an impossible goal.
Even in the era of the internet and instant global communication, there are certain words and phrases in common use in England which are incomprehensible to Americans, and vice versa.
When one considers the nuance and different shades of meaning on either side of the Atlantic, the problem seems insurmountable.
I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t see how bishops’ conferences from across the cultural divide can ever agree on a common translation.
I know it’s been said many times times before, but if we want a lingua franca, we’ve got Latin.
Dr. Peter H. Wright:
I guess what you are saying amounts pretty much to:
(Si enim catholicae Ecclesiae veritates traderentur vel nonnullis vel multis ex mutabilibus linguis recentioribus, quarum nulla ceteris auctoritate praestaret, sane ex eo consequeretur, ut hinc earum vis neque satis significanter neque satis dilucide, qua varietate eae sunt, omnibus pateret; ut illinc nulla communis stabilisque norma haberetur, ad quam ceterarum sensus esset expendendus.)
“If the Church were to hand down catholic teaching in some or many changeable and recent languages, none of which have any weight over the others, clearly it follows, considering their variety, that their authority couldn’t be evident with any significant clarity nor would there be a common and stable norm to which all other meanings would have to be subjected.”
Veterum Sapientia No. 6.
danphunter1 – You obviously prefer the usus antiquior exclusively and I respect that, although you’re very vocal about your disdain for anything pertaining to the ordinary form – and that’s fine and dandy… but there are some of us who enjoy this blog who find good in both, given that both are well celebrated, without abuses. Liturgical abuses have and do occur in the old rite as well. Some of us accept the reality that Vatican II took place, and the reality that it legitimately called for some moderate liturgical reform -and you’re right, Benedict XVI has restored the usus antiquior to its rightful place – and has also made it clear that both forms, old and new, are to be accepted as part of the Church’s expressions of worship… whether you’re clear on that I’m not so sure – but some of us are really looking forward to those translations, and working hard to reform the reform – please have the courtesy to not belittle that.
This is good news for those who will continue to attend the modern Latin rite Mass.
Now being in my 30’s, most likely I will be a grandmother before seeing it show up here, in Canada. We still don’t even have the 2000 GIRM due to the refusal of the conference of bishops to assent to the Holy See – 8 years later. How long, Oh, Lord, how long?
I am so grateful to God that we have a weekly TLM now in our city. It is comforting to know that my children will experience the sacred liturgy of our Catholic heritage right now rather than waiting for decades more.
EJ,
If you had a choice between chateau-briand or chuck steak which would you choose?
God bless you.
danphunter1 – If you could point out a single sentence or phrase in Summorum Pontificum which supports this which you wrote above: “That is why the Missal of ‘62 is the best antidote to the Novus Ordo” … then I would attempt to respond to your “interesting” qualitative analogy comparing the Sacred Liturgy to two types of meat. Otherwise I’d say you responded to my comment, which is based on historical reality, with an unfortunate nonsequitur, perhaps at a loss for a better argument. I serve the TLM once a month by the way. God bless you too.
EJ,
“Gravitational pull”, and other phrases, are poetic and correct ways of citing the letter of the Holy Father to the bishops about SP, in which he writes: “For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching.”
Cheers!
Fr di Lorenzo – I wholeheartedly agree with you and with our Holy Father – I was not challenging that with my comment. What I was challenging is the mindset which thinks that Summorum Pontificum is effectively a death sentence for the Novus Ordo, or to those for whom efforts to reform the reform are useless or even silly. It’s a shame I think that there cannot be more respect among those who simply prefer one form over the other, or in those rare cases such as myself of those who are comfortable and accepting of both, because as you remind us Father, they can mutually enrich EACH OTHER. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it’s ridiculous to use Summorum Pontificum to support an argument that insists that the only solution is death to the Novus Ordo and an exclusive return to the usus antiquior. Nothing is further, regardless of personal preferences, from the letter or the spirit of Summorum Pontificum or the accompanying letter, as written by our Holy Father himself.
EJ
I am basing my statement not on Summorum Pontificum, which is just one document that upholds the right to offer the Tridentine Mass, but rather much much more evidence.
My family and I for starters.
I and my family where lukewarm Catholic’s, at best until I began to assist at the Tridentine Mass, and then as the great Father Parkerson has so elogently put it when talking about experiencing the fullness of the Tridentine Mass, “It is similar to discovering in your 20’s and 30’s who you really are, you discover your a descendant of a royal family, and there’s a whole lot more to your identity than what you have been taught to believe about yourself”.
EJ, for years I assisted at the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, English well done and miserably done.
I never have been able to acquire the spirituality, and neither have many people that I know, needed to nourish and sustain the Truth.
Every single canonized saint was fed by the Tridentine Mass, or some form of the Classical Rite, unfabricated and organic.
I would venture to say that until the Tridentine Mass becomes the norm again that we shall ses a major drop of in canonizations.
EJ, you really do not need to stoop to the level of personal insults in your slight at my intellect.
I may not be an Blessed Newman, but I attempt every day to love God and my neighbor for His sake.
I will pray that you eventually assist, if possible, at the Tridentine Mass every week and I will offer up my rosary, tonight, for you.
Yours in Christ,
Dan
Thanks, EJ!
The limited reforms called for by Vatican II were enacted in the 1965 Missal The reason we have so many problems with the Novus Ordo is, I think due to the fact that it is essentially a Communion Service, a Memorial of the Lords Supper. True, our Holy Father has ruled that there are two forms of the Roman Rite and we must accept this. However, the reasons for this ruling may be juridicial rather than theological (every priest can offer both forms, whether he was ordained in the ‘Old’ Rite or the ‘New’).
Dan,
I would take the chuck steak, braised, thank you. Chateaubriand is nice but tenderloin is notoriously lacking in beefy flavor. Besides, it’s kind of a girly steak anyway. Real men prefer rib steaks which happen to be the closest thing to the chuck.
Great analogy, though. It is commonly known that Pope Benedict prefers both chateaubriand and chuck steak when properly prepared. Both have their benefits and both are delicious in their own way. The tenderloin is very tender with a lighter flavor and takes well to classic sauces, while the chuck is very richly flavored and meltingly tender when braised.
I’m hungry!
Different,
Chuck and rib are way to fatty and marbled in an artery clogging way.
I find that living longer and supporting my wife through many years is far more manly that clogging up my aorta with chunk cholesterol.
Also the fast twitch muscle fiber respond immeasurably better to leaner cuts of red meat than they do to fattier ones.
It also helps improve my preacher curl and Gironda press.
Pretty manly if you ask most doctors.
Deo Gratias!
Dan,
Surely you are joking about chuck. Have you not had a fine beef en daube, beef bourguignon or carbonade? You haven’t lived, man. You don’t know the meaning of “beef” flavor if you have not tasted dishes such as these. Make no mistake beef tenderloin (of which chateaubriand is a part) is wonderful and has it’s uses, but it’s not the same beefy flavor that you get from the above preparations or a rib roast. Your example of meats is a good one because it’s ludicrous to presume to anoint one cut of beef as far superior to another, when what really matters is how that meat is prepared.
You can believe that Pope Benedict has some super secret agenda if you want, but a more reasonable position might be that he means exactly what he says – two forms, one rite…get on board.
Different,
That flavor that you enjoy so much in chuck, alone, is saturated fat and loads of it.
I will take a leaner better quality meat such as CB or TD any day for health reasons.
The analogy is effective, but you have missed the point.
You cannot “dress up” or “prepare” the Novus Ordo and expect that it is healthier than the Tridentine Mass.
Just look at the saints.
Healthy, and healthy, spiritually speaking.
Yes some men and women who supped at the teat of the NO have, through GREAT personal effort and sanctity, been able to transcend the banality of the No.
Its much rarer with the Pauline Missal than with the earlier Mass.
Deo Gratias
There may be a better analogy available than chuck vs. steak. If we realize that the Mass is not about us. Not about what we like, nor even about our spiritual welfare as individuals. It’s about our worship of God.
However, for the record, I attend the newer form of Mass daily, and like it fine when it’s celebrated properly as in my local parish. Indeed, it’s the high point of each day, and this daily spiritual enrichment with a bit of heaven on earth fills me with constant gratitude. I also attend the older form of Mass each Sunday, and spend each week looking forward to and preparing for this fuller and richer hour of heaven on earth. Obviously, if it were only about me, either form of Mass would suffice for my spiritual necessities (though perhaps with different measures of personal satisfaction).
But I know, as any honest observer does, that all available indicators were rising when the older Mass was the only Roman rite Mass, while they have all been falling precipitously ever since the newer Mass was imposed.
Perhaps there are general cultural and societal factors also at play, but Cardinal Ratzinger said in his memoirs, “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” I am not qualified to disagree credibly with his assessment, and doubt that anyone else here is.
But as pope he knows he cannot simply say “That’s it, folks. It’s now clear that the noble experiment of the new liturgy has turned out to be an unfathomable failure. We’re simply going to go back to the fork in the road where we took the wrong turn and start over.” No, he knows you must start where you are, and that you never can actually go all the way home again in to start over.
Hence, his valiant effort to rescue the Mass of 1970, partly by providing the Mass of 1962 as a reference point and as an anchor for the reform of the reform that we must all hope for. Realizing, however, that in almost four decades, the 1970 liturgy has shown little progress toward the stability of practice — from time to time and from place to place — that from a historical viewpoint would seem necessary for its long-term viability as a self-sustaining form of the Roman rite. So we now have two different liturgical usages — one stable and one unstable — that in accordance with Summorum Pontificum are to be regarded as two forms of the same Roman rite.
If predicting the long-range outcome were a scientific problem, one would know better what to expect to happen in the long term. In a wide range of natural phenomena, an unstable situation either devolves into chaos or evolves toward a stable situation. Perhaps we can hope that this principal applies to our liturgical problem, and implies that the unstable newer form will converge over time toward the stable older form.
Dan, is the Pope lying to us when he says both forms can be “mutually enriching?”
Let’s support him on that rather than saying, “I know what you ‘really’ mean Holy Father, wink wink.”
I see no deficiency in a properly celebrated NO liturgy. In fact, I find it far more spiritually nourishing than the TLM. So, instead of making comments that I am satisfied with less, etc., maybe just accept that the NO has value (as the Pope says) and the Pope desires that it be preserved. Attitudes like your’s are exactly what make people believe that all traditionalists are also conspiracy-imagining-schismatics.
And if you are one of those “lean-meat” only people, well then, I feel sorry for you. Remember if God didn’t want us to eat cattle, he wouldn’t have made it out of meat. Keep a balanced healthy diet and enjoy the rich foods even the ones with saturated fat…I’m pretty sure Chesterton and Belloc did!
I find myself in deeper prayer by listening to words that I understand and don’t have to translate. The prayers resonate more…It’s difficult to explain, I just feel I have experienced something more spiritually profound afterwards. I am not denigrating the TLM, it is wonderful and profound also…besides the language difference which perhaps helps my understanding and thus is the reason, I just don’t see/feel any real superiority of one over the other. The more I consider it, the more I think it just has to do with the language difference.
“Attitudes like yours are exactly what make people believe that all neo-cons are also uninformed and limp wristed hippies.”
Wow. How witty of you! But I am neither a neo-con or a hippie and I am definitely not limp wristed. Uninformed? I’ll leave that to others to judge.
Maybe the best answer to what we get out of either form of the liturgy is how we are, in all we do after we step out of the church…
Dear Different,
Dan is strident but I share his puzzlement at your finding
the NO “far more spiritually nourishing than the TLM.” Would
you please explain how that is so? I don’t ask this in a
hostile manner, I just really don’t understand how the NO can be
more spiritually nourishing than the TLM. The TLM has more,
richer prayers. Its ethos is far more transparently directed
toward the transcendent God. Its ritual is fuller and more
symbolic. Its language, Latin, and its organically developed
musical expression, Gregorian chant, are historically proven
to evoke and foster that serenity of heart and concomitant
concentration on the divine which are the hallmark of true
holiness. About the only category in which the NO can claim
superiority–and that merely a quantitative superiority–is in
the quantity of Sacred Scripture that is proclaimed.
See, here’s what I find really puzzling. On a superficial level,
of course, we can all have our own preferences about both
meaningful and not-so-meaningful things: different cuisines,
different types of entertainment, different types of government,
different forms of worship. On a deeper level, however, the reality
of human nature must dictate, at least to some extent, what our
preferences *ought to be*. In virtue of its toxic effects on
bodily health, it ought not be my preference to have a piece
of chocolate laced with cyanide. In virtue of its corrosive effects
on mental health, it ought not be my preference to avoid all contact
with other human beings and to eschew friendship in any form.
Here’s the kicker. The TLM actually corresponds better to the
objective religious needs of man than the NO. The TLM evolved
organically over centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The NO was manufactured by a committee in the 60s that thought it
knew better. Man needs ritual. Man needs mystery. Man needs
color and pomp and majesty and awe and reverence. All these
things the TLM provides in spades, while the NO provides it in
drips and drabs.
Can you say more about your finding the NO “far more spiritually
nourishing” than that it “resonate[s] more”? Can you offer some
objective criteria?
Dan used the word ‘neo-con’. I’ve seen it used before in a theological /liturgical context, but I have never been clear on what is meant by it. Certainly not the same as in it’s political usage (?). I’ve seen orders like the Legion of Christ, groups like Opus Dei referred to as neo-cons and even some (formly) indult parishes.
[Personally, I find the adoption of political terminology like left/right, conservative/liberal and so forth entirely unhelpful in theology; many of these terms trace their modern usage to the events leading up to the French revolution, and then reactions to it. Are these really the best words for theology? Particularly for those theologians and liturgists (I am useing the terms broadly here) who are upset with modernity and modernization.}
Of course, words change meanings so (Heidegger to the contrary) etymology is not definition. So to get back to my question: what on earth does ‘neoconservative’ mean in a liturgical theological context?
Dear Brian2,
I share your hesitation over using political labels in theological
and ecclesiastical discourse. An excellent discussion of these terms
and what they may usually be taken to mean nowadays can be found here:
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html
Different: The more I consider it, the more I think it just has to do with the language difference.
My experience is different. I\’ve experienced the new Mass is both English and Latin, and see little difference depending on language alone. As compared, for instance, with the difference between ad orientem and versus populum celebration (in either the form).
And likewise with the old Mass, which I\’ve also experienced both in Latin and English (in the 1965 version), and both ad orientem and versus populum.
It\’s true that all the prayers in the NO are also in the TLM, plus more (e.g., the offertory prayers). But the sacrifice of the Mass is not about words alone, nor merely about understanding them. I believe the more significant differences — those that contribute the awe and majesty, and the feeling that it\’s about worship of God rather than merely nourishment of man — are in ceremonial and ritual.
Henry,
Yes, ceremony and ritual are a very big part of it. All in all, I find it difficult to describe. There is much majesty and awe in a properly celebrated NO with a good choir. I guess I just don’t feel the same “lack” that others claim in regard to the NO. I do feel a bit of a “lack” in the TLM, but rather than conclude that the TLM is in some way deficient (as some here do with the NO), I just conclude that the difference has more to do with me than the actual liturgy. I wish I had some logical treatise on why I prefer one, but I don’t.
I guess I fail to see what is accomplished in ranting about how one form is “deficient” or “crap” (to use Dan’s term) especially in light of Summorum Pontificum and the Holy Father’s accompanying letter.
I would love to see the Missal of 1965 used.
Different: I would love to see the Missal of 1965 used.
So would I. Although most TLM devotes (including me) would still opt for the 1962 missal, I believe the 1965 order of Mass would meet the needs of new Mass folks for a more reverent and sacral Mass in the vernacular. I suspect they could flock to it in a way they will not — if only because of the language issue you emphasize — soon be attracted in huge numbers to the TLM.
Incidentally, at the time the 1965 version was generally thought to be the definitive liturgical fruit of Vatican II. For instance, an article in the Fontgombault volume “Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger” mentions that, in a preface to the 1965 German people’s missal, “the Cardinal Secretary of State officially declared that this Missal was the definitive realisation of the Council’s commands”. And I’ve seen references elsewhere to the surprise of bishops (and even cardinals) when they learned a few years later that an appointed group had been at further work constructing a new Mass.
In his preface to Mgr. Gamber’s “Reform of the Roman Liturgy”, then-Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the NOM as a “fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” I can see numerous reasons why this might not have come up in the motu proprio. For example, he might have changed his mind in the meantime, or he might have been refering to a particular, localized version of the NOM that did not concern the Church as a whole, or (I hope) he might be trying to steer gently the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice back into a better direction, and he didn’t think it prudent to disclose this to the world and bring about a further loss of faith.
Regarding the reform of the reform, if this means producing some sort of amalgam of the two rites, I would like to voice my opposition. I do not think the Old Rite is immutable; I would prefer, however, if it was not mixed with a banal on-the-spot product.
Pax
danphunter1 wrote:
I looked frantically through the troll art missalette that I was holding, for this particular set of words and rubrics. Upon not finding them I concluded that I had inadvertantly wandered into an open mike night at a bingo hall, and I left.
(*laugh*) Sorry, but that was too funny… :)
I empathize…and if I thought for a moment that the usus antiquor was poised to become universal in practice, I wouldn’t worry much about feminist “tidbits” slipping into the new translation (abstracting completely from my little desire for intellectual honesty in “faithful translations” from ICEL). But I don’t see that happening imminently… and I’d much rather not have yet another generation or two of otherwise-clueless N.O.-attenders indoctrinated into the liturgical “spirit of the age” while waiting for it to happen. These are immortal souls we’re considering, here… and, regardless of the form used, “lex orandi, lex credendi” holds true…
In Christ,
Brian C.
In talk about making comparisons, it is impossible to compare the NO protestant-type Bugnini service on Sunday with The Latin Mass of All Times since, by definition, one can only compare like with like. One may certainly contrast them, however, since they are so dissimilar in form. For example reading the translations of both and making subsequent contrasts is an exercise in linguistic gymnastics. There are so many variations with the NO service between various languages and spontaneous improvisations that no comparison between the two is possible on this basis. The problem with the NO is not just with the translation – this is a reductionist perspective on a highly flawed instrument.
In any case, linguistically, what is required in reality is an accurate translation not a new one. Further still, it would be better to jettison the vernacular only NO and reinstate complete liturgical unity, harmony and catholicity with the universal use of The Latin Mass for which no translation is necessary.
Liturgical linguistic anathemas ring loud in the ear at moments such as these.
One sincerely hopes that such manoevres with yet more translations are not tantamount to an eventual novel liturgical synthesis.
The Mass of 1965: http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
The 1965 Missal “essentially the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular” is the God-given answer to our liturgical nightmare. The Novus Ordo can be re-vamped, injected with Botox, deep frozen for 20years then brought to the boil on a gentle heat, you name it. It will remain what it ever was,”a banal on the spot product”.
Question: If the 1962 Missal was never abrogated what about the 1965 Missal?
Can the Mass of 1965 be said?
KnowName: No, the 1965 cannot be used.
Fr,was the 1965 Missal abrogated?
Pleased as punch: thanks for the link
Just a conjecture, but I’m thinking that there is no rite, once approved, that can be entirely abrogated, though any rite can be “restricted” to whatever degree as a matter of discipline, whether one likes this or not. In the case of 1965, this restricting has been done, at the very least (ignoring the promulgation of the 1970MR), by the Motu Proprio itself, insisting, as it does, on the 1962MR and the 1970MR. I am just so open to correction on this! Anyone?
Fr.Renzo, thanks. I guess as the 1965 Missal has not been in use (unlike the 1962) since 1970…all the same, this Missal which was the direct result of Vatican II seems to have been left in a sort of limbo.
Habemus Papam, I’m sure many of the members of the International Commission (those who wouldn’t like the 1965MR) will be happy for your comment about the 1965MR being in limbo, since they tried to do away with limbo!
Well Fr.Renzo, we’ve been in purgatory with the Novus Ordo!
Perhaps the events, as they unfolded, were God’s inimitable way of telling us the 1965 Missal had gone too far with the changes.
Habemus Papam,
LOL!