Using the new translation “ad experimentum”

From the great P.P. of St. Mary Magdalene in Brighton, Fr. Ray Blake:

Our bishop recently said that some parishes in the diocese were already using the new ICEL translations of the Missal, he said that he had no problem with them being used ad experimentum, as they were now an official text which had received the recognitio of the Holy See.

ICEL wants these texts to be used after appropriate catechesis next year. However, this morning I used new translation of the Roman Canon, as there are the four Eucharistic Prayers in the Missal, plus the two prayers for Reconciliation, the three (is it?) for children, and then those ghastly Swiss ones we can use, I thought that no-one would object, and from the reactions I heard people thought it was a vast improvement.
We had already intended to start introducing the Communion Rite in its sung form, just to get people used to the idea that their responses are going to change too.
Other people have suggested the translations are a bit lumpy, I found them immensely beautiful, so much so that I am going to use them tomorrow at the sung Mass.
The problem I have with then is that it seems so natural to use the rubrics, the signs of the cross, for example at phrases like, "… bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, …"
I think it is going to be difficult to get people to change their responses, that is going to be the big problem, not what the priest says.PeoplesMassCard-NewTranslation

Interesting observation about the signs of the Cross during the Canon.  His remark reminds me of the argument that the more the newer form of Holy Mass is celebrated in the style of the old form of Mass the better it is.  Which of course begs a question.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, WDTPRS and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Sandra_in_Severn says:

    Maybe I’ve been attending Latin Masses too often (NO in Latin), this seems to be a “no brainer” for this laywoman.
    “Et cum spiritu tuo,” “And with your spirit,” IS the better translation and meaning, not “Also with you”

    Thank-you Fr. Z for sharing this.

  2. Jack Hughes says:

    Fr Blake is Soooooooooooo Reactionary :)

  3. catholicmidwest says:

    It’d be interesting to have more detail:

    Brighton. This is in England. Is this going on in the US?

    What about the peoples’ responses is hard for them? Just breaking old habits or…? Do they have cards in the pews?

    What is that bit about the “ghastly Swiss Eucharistic prayer?” What does that mean?

  4. Oneros says:

    Rather, it “raises” a question.

    “Begging” a question is the logical fallacy whereby the proposition to be proved (the question) is implicitly assumed (“begged”) in the initial premise or axioms:

    “That begs the question” is an inaccurate colloquialism with real logical consequences. What people mean is “that RAISES the question…”

    Though the misunderstanding is very understandable as “that ‘begs FOR’ the question” or “that ‘seems to be begging for’ the question to be asked” are equivalent to “raises”.

  5. Oneros says:

    Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying.

    I think you’re saying that the question raised is, “If the New Mass is better the closer it is to the Old…why not just go back to the Old?” Which is a question raised, not begged.

    But perhaps I misunderstood you’re saying the argument of those who say that the New Mass is better when more like the Old…is fallacious because the premise already assumes the Old is better a priori?? I doubt you’d be accusing that of fallacy however, because it seems like the position you support…

  6. Mashenka says:

    Dear in Christ catholicmidwest,

    The “Swiss Prayers” were not in my ken either, so I googled this up:

    It did not make the earth move for me.

  7. Sleepyhead says:



  8. catholicmidwest says:

    Begging the question has a technical philosophical meaning, yes. It means arguing for a conclusion that’s already assumed (explicitly or implicitly!) in a premise chosen for the purpose (and often without proof).

    In this case, Fr Z is making the point that any argument about whether the newer translation is best using the style of the “old form” has a pre-defined inner sense to it, such that it’s a useless argument. Thus Fr Z is implying that, of course, it’s best using the style of the “old form” because the “new form” is more like it. He really is saying that arguers of the question are begging the question. Begging the question is a fallacy, so he’s accusing someone (softly) of a fallacy.

    My problems with this are different than yours. “Old form” isn’t defined very well. We have an “old form” NO, & an “old form” TLM; we even have “old form” Sarum, Carmelite, Dominican, Ambrosian…… rites. So which is it? He appears to be speaking of the Latin NO, and likening it to the Latin TLM implicitly. But I don’t know that from his text.

    Indeed, Fr Z appears to have a hidden premise: That the Latin NO is somewhat like the Latin TLM. I don’t know how true that is. I’ve never been impressed that way. However, perhaps it is so, if you consider that it is sandwiched between the English NO (very unlike the Latin TLM) and the Latin TLM. But do the details sandwich in that manner. I don’t know.

  9. priest up north says:

    I am glad to see that somewhere there is the openness to such an “ad experimentum” usage. I hope the U.S. Bishops follow a similar pattern, as a means to helping make the catechesis more effective, if nothing else. As one who will work hard to implement the new improved and necessary translation as a means to increasing authentic “actual participation,” I can only see such a gradual approach as a good thing, rather than a potentially and literally “overnight” change from one text to the other that my cynical side is predicting that they wiil mandate…

  10. mpm says:

    Is this going on in the USA?

    I hope so. I have experienced it in one place.

    It is “lumpy”, thanks be to God! Like meat mixed into the stew, not mere gruel. Makes you pay attention. Each word leads you on. The mystery is right before you. You can chew on whichever lump strikes you; right into your thanksgiving after Mass.

    Catechesis also consists in experiencing the Sacraments, not just learning the “theology” of them! Ask Ambrose of Milan, de Mysteriis. It’s the very first point he makes.

  11. catholicmidwest says:

    So, perhaps Fr Z is telling us that people should just “cut to the chase” and use the rubrics of either the Latin NO or the Latin TLM for the new translation and forget the rubrics of the contemporary NO. He doesn’t specify whether he means the Latin NO or the Latin TLM, however, since there is his hidden premise.

  12. sawdustmick says:

    It looks like the post has been removed from Fr. Rays Blog ??? Hope things are OK in Brighton.

  13. pelerin says:

    I have just gone over to my parish blog to see whether Fr Ray has received any comments yet but find the post has disappeared! Perhaps he is rewriting it for some reason.

  14. Athelstan says:

    Fr Blake is Soooooooooooo Reactionary :)

    And the Holy See should punish him for it by giving him a miter.

  15. TJerome says:

    Father Blake, a reactionary? No, I believe he’s in the place where the Church is heading – a recovery of its true and liturgical heritage. If you want a reactionary, look at Bishop Trautman, hopelessly stuck in the 1960s.

  16. PAT says:

    Being not a philosopher and trained in such definitions as “beg” versus “raise” a question, my simple interpretation of Fr. Z’s remark,

    . . . the argument that the more the newer form of Holy Mass is celebrated in the style of the old form of Mass the better it is. . . .,

    is that, if the newer form of Holy Mass is better, the more like the older form it happens to be, then why not just use the older form in the first place?

  17. catholicmidwest says:


    Awesome. May I ask whether it was in a big city or a country environment?

    I expect we will start to see this is some places, but perhaps it will not be very greatly publicized so as not to get anyone in trouble.

    (Being a priest might be a little bit like being a teacher. Believe it or not, even in a school full of teachers and classrooms side by side, many teachers only intermittently and superficially know what’s going on in the very next room. Principals usually don’t. Parents almost never do. Being a teacher is a very isolated profession, albeit in a building full of people, believe it or not.)

  18. catholicmidwest says:

    Agreed, Pat. I have a graduate degree in philosophy and you are correct. The only hitches are:
    a) what does he mean by “old form?”
    b) details, details, details…which details of “is celebrated in the style” is he speaking of?

  19. edwardo3 says:

    Being in the pews, I think the symbolism of restoring the crosses over the oblations during the Cannon would be a great thing, especially if Mass is celebrated ad versus, anything that can add to the understanding of what is actually happening at the Altar and which is in conformity with the tradition of the Church should be looked at. It seems that in the past 45 years or so the Church (as an institution) has forgotten that man doesn’t learn by words alone, the symbols and actions of both the priest and faithful are inherently educational and reinforce our identity at a more basic level. Perhaps someone should approach Rome for permission to experiment with using rubrics from the EF in various places in the world with a mind at revision of the GRIM.

  20. coletmary says:

    My Latin is almost non-existent, and I am a newcomer to this site. So please forgive me when I ask: is ‘oneros’ a Latin word, and if so, does it mean ‘nit-picker’? I keep seeing the main point Fr. Z is trying to make abandoned in favor of criticism/analysis of the seemingly tiniest issue of expression. Are we trying to get to the truth of reality, or make investigations into our individual navels?

  21. catholicmidwest says:

    So, mpm,

    For teachers planning on doing something against some rule, the best strategy is plausible deniability, which can be used for good or naught. And you’d be surprised at how simple conditions for that are to set up, even with hundreds of people watching.

    I suspect the same is true in parishes. In order to get at mass abuses juridically, for instance, it’s necessary to establish that they occurred, that they’re against the rules, identify and document/justify the rules, establish who was involved and what was involved, and what was meant, whether it was meant, how many different meanings there could have been, etc etc etc. It can be done in the presence of thousands, especially if they are laypeople not versed in the vagaries of canon law. Finding out what’s really going on can be almost impossible.

    On the other hand, accusations can also take on a life of their own and grow all out of proportion to what really happened, if the conditions are right for that to occur. However, it almost always takes a certain amount of cultural support, superstition and sensationalism for that to happen. That kind of force is necessary, really. Thus, it rarely happens over things like mass rubrics, etc, that relatively few people really get worked up over and stay worked up over. I think Fr Z had a series of posts along these lines recently.

  22. catholicmidwest says:


    Fr Z used the term “begging the question.” Analysis of what he might have meant by that is fair game in the comment box following that comment. Painting every picture with a crayon leaves one with a pretty picture but not much detail, thus not much understanding, no?

  23. Tradster says:

    What is it with some of the Z-ites that these threads are getting derailed lately by silly, non-relevant exchanges such as “beg” versus “raise”, or Oporto versus Porto? Please stay on topic, friends! Many of us get nearly as much good information from the good comments as we do from the original posts. Thanks.

  24. mpm says:

    catholicmidwest — 15 May 2010 @ 10:30 am

    FWIW, suburban parish of a large metropolitan area, separate diocese.

    I have learned that the principle being used (along with “piano, piano”) is “where the pastor may infer that the bishop would not object, consent may be inferred”. This is marvelously applicable where the Bishop is of the Peter Drucker, management by exception, school of sacramental theology.

  25. mpm says:

    coletmary — 15 May 2010 @ 10:52 am

    “oneros”, though not Latin, at times can be rendered “onerous”.

  26. YadaYada says:

    I know another blogger who should be punished with a miter, which would beg many questions.

  27. Fr Martin Fox says:

    Father Z links a two-sided card with all the people’s responses on it. I think that would be very helpful to have.

    I would recommend pastors take time over many months to review parts of the Mass, explaining the improvements made–it would provide useful catechesis not only on the immediate concern of a new translation, but on the Mass in general, how it developed, and how things are translated and why it all matters.

    And I wonder how it would be if pastors were authorized to introduce parts of the new translation, rather than introduce it all at once? What if folks were told, starting in 2 weeks, we’ll do these parts…then these…then these? Or is it better to do it all at once? I think if the latter, it will be more unpleasant and give folks who are sour more grist for their mills. On the other hand, if things are introduced piece by piece, much as new music can be introduced, most folks will find it’s not as big a deal as the complainers say it is.

  28. medievalist says:

    Fr Blake is lucky to have such a forward thinking bishop. Instead of digging in like Bishop Trautman, Arundel & Brighton says, ‘Let’s just do it.’

  29. mpm says:

    Fr. Fox,

    I think that’s the proper way to catechize the translation corrections: part by part. The priest’s parts can be introduced without need for any change in the congregation’s responses. Then, pick off a part of the pew-card at a time, explaining it as you introduce that part to them to do.

    Piano, piano.

    P.S. I survived (just barely) the wholesale introduction of the “new mass”. That was both painful and disruptive. Here, with the corrected translations, we are actually recovering much that was lost, and that’s a good thing, and deserves to be pointed out to people!

  30. cothrige says:

    I take it from this that the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children will be retained in this new translation? Am I right in assuming this? I was quite hopeful, personally, that maybe there would be fewer Eucharistic Prayers than there are now, and I was particularly hopeful that those directed to children would be removed. I am sad to find that is likely not the case.

  31. Patrick J. says:

    coletmary and others:

    This site is dedicated, at least in part, to the defense of the exactitude of language, Latin especially. Why? Because it is important, sometimes vitally so, for maintaining clarity in imparting theological, liturgical, dogmatic and philosophical ideas and arguments. One cannot buy into this idea for one language and not for another. This is not “picking nits.” One hears this misapplication of the term “begging the question” ALL the time, especially from talking heads who wish to sound smart, e.g., Dennis Miller on his radio show. I sometimes have slipped on this myself, though I hardly advocate that this excuses anyone.

    So, while this is far from unforgivable, Father Z., as a defender of language and an expert in his field, (or would at least appear to be such) should be more careful in this department as others, less educated but trying to learn, are being influenced. One would hope Father would not substitute garlic for bay leaves in one of his famous recipes, and if he did slip up, someone would not be amiss to point that out, lest some other poor soul, here to bone up on epicureanism, serve a less than perfect Beef Bourguignon to guests at the Ponderosa.

    Name calling is never in fashion, (especially here) though, again, I have been known to slip here as well.

  32. Henry Edwards says:

    I take it from this that the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children will be retained in this new translation?

    This is not what I have heard. I understood Father to be saying that — since the current (old) missal contains such a multiplicity of Eucharistic Prayers, the four standard one, several children’s ones, some ghastly Swiss ones — so apparently anything goes, however bad it is, why not try still another? Namely, one that’s actually accurate and good and has received the recognitio.

  33. mpm says:

    I had one last thought about this matter of introducing the corrected translations. A couple of days ago, I learned that the Pope will be celebrating Mass using the correct English when he is in Great Britain in September, and that the Bishops there had commissioned Mr. McMillan to write a musical suite for those occasions. I thought, well that’s a good thing.

    Then the other shoe dropped. Not only does that imply that the concelebrating Bishops and priests will need to “learn” the correct translations, but even the choir, and the congregations, who will be present! And since we know that Papal Liturgical Ceremonies are planned and agreed with the Pope, through Msgr. Marini, long ahead of time, that means that the Pope sees no “problem” with their being put into use.

    All with order, of course, but delaying use of proper English? Is that order? IMHO, another example of the Pope leading by example.

  34. pelerin says:

    Fr Ray has had to rewrite his post due to a misunderstanding. It is now on his blog and it looks as though we will not be having the new translations until next year which will be after the Pope’s visit.

  35. Daniel says:

    Is it permissible to make use of a translation that has not been implemented even though it has been approved? Is there currently anything allowed as “ad experimentum”? Since there seems to be a fair number of priest protesting the new translation, are they able to come up with their own translations and make use of them on an “ad experimentum” basis to demonstrate that they have a better idea?

  36. Trevor says:

    Is using the new translations “ad experimentum” permitted (even with the approval of the bishop)? According to SC 39, the bishop’s conference has the authority over liturgical language. Thus, it seems to me that they’re the ones who set the date when translations are allowed to be used.

    And SC 40 speaks of liturgical experimentation (albeit when radical alteration is requested), and it says that all experiments must be done with the approval of the Holy See (thus, there should be a decree from the Apostolic See specifying where the experiment is taking place, for how long, and the norms of it).

    Now, obviously the current translation is not a radical change in the liturgical form, and it has already been approved. However, it seems the conference is the one who determines when the new rites should be used. At least in the US, it seems the bishops want priests to practice the texts privately and catechize the faithful, and then use them all at once come Advent 2011.

  37. Luke says:


    Surely you realize that however valid your points may be, when you quote Wikipedia, you instantly loose all credibility.

  38. Patrick J. says:


    Nice try at??… Being facetious? Why all the digs? It is sort of sarcasm but then sort of a dig. I don’t get it. The facts are what they are, Wikipedia or no. This is not exactly a debatable quote. You may raise question marks by quoting W., but loose all credibility? If Wikipedia says Mr. Obama is the first black POTUS, does one lose all credibility by quoting such. I get not that point, unless it is an attempt at humor.

  39. Luke says:


    One dig. Singular.

    As far as being “facetious,” I would take issue with that as well. First, this is not a serious issue [a qualifier for the use of that particular word…isn’t correct language important after all?]

    Second, I was not being inappropriate. Wikipedia, useful or not, correct or not, has been rightfully banned from much of higher education.

    Nitpickers should expect further nitpicking…ad infinitum. Myself included.

  40. Jack Hughes says:


    Of courese I know that Father Blake is headed in the right direction, I was being funny

  41. chonak says:

    Luke’s statement could have been more precise. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of general information, and its use as such is probably not banned in many schools. What is generally forbidden is to cite it in footnotes. However, when an article in WP is well-documented, it will contain footnotes that can help students in their own research.

    There. A digression on a digression!

    Anyway, I expect at least a few priests in the English speaking world had permission to use the new ICEL draft texts ad experimentum: maybe in religious houses?

  42. TJerome says:

    Jack Hughes, apparently I didn’t pick up on the subtlety of your humor

  43. TomB says:

    Please…carry on with the nit-picking. Nits left in the hair have unpleasant consequences.

  44. catholicmidwest says:

    Interesting how legalistic the progressives get when it comes to a new translation not of their making, isn’t it?

    Where’s all that pharisee talk now?

  45. Luke says:


    Kudos! :)

  46. Is the experimental use of the new texts permitted? The simple answer is …


    The new translation is more than simply a revision of the text. There will be a greater emphasis in the new translation of the Missale Romanum, on the role of plainchant, both in the Latin/Greek, and in the vernacular. A review of the chant texts themselves can be found on the ICEL website:

    Here is just a taste of what the text from the USCCB website does not have:

    Please note also the following: “It is important to note that the texts and music available on this site are for study rather than immediate liturgical use as definitive versions will not be available until the Bishops’ Conferences have determined a date for the implementation of the Missal.”

    This is accompanied elsewhere on the site by a twenty-page introduction to the English-language Missal, which I highly recommend:

    One will see that the role of music, the role of chant, as being integrated into the rite itself, has been subject to more effort during the course of this re-translation.

  47. robtbrown says:

    Interesting how legalistic the progressives get when it comes to a new translation not of their making, isn’t it?

    Where’s all that pharisee talk now?
    Comment by catholicmidwest

    You nailed it.

  48. robtbrown says:

    Is the experimental use of the new texts permitted? The simple answer is …

    Comment by manwithblackhat

    And neither is the substitution of “friends” for “disciples” in the consecration. Also not the excision of “sacrifice” in the Orate Fratres, as in “pray that our gifts might be acceptable”.

  49. jflare29 says:

    Patrick J, et al

    With all due respect, some of you have been rather unfair to those of us who’re interested in reading something relevant to our faith.
    I honestly don’t give a rip about the exact (legalistic?) difference between “begs” and “raises”, unless it’s relevant to the subject at hand. It’s not.

    I’ll bet everyone who’s read this blog–including each of you–understood exactly what Fr Z meant.

    Could you please focus on the ruddy point and quit arguing over nothing?

    PS. I often reference Wikipedia myself. It’s likely not infallible, but it’s quick, convenient, and often provides a great deal of very useful information.
    Don’t knock it.

  50. kittenchan says:

    I do not understand why huge chunks of translation were not just lifted from the already-existing English translations used for the EF Mass. It would have been so easy. I know some of the prayers are different… but it seems to me that most of them (that remain, anyway) are exactly the same. Was there talk of considering this, or was yet another translation created with no regard for all the English already printed? If the bishops did consider this, why was it abandoned?

  51. “And neither is … the excision of “sacrifice” in the Orate Fratres, as in “pray that our gifts might be acceptable”.
    Comment by robtbrown — 16 May 2010 @ 8:53 pm”

    The phrasing “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice …” is currently the acceptable translation. While it is not a false statement, it lacks the necessary theological precision, such as is provided in the original Latin text. Hence the corrected rendering as “my sacrifice and yours.”

    “Comment by kittenchan — 16 May 2010 @ 11:39 pm”

    There is no official English translation of the Traditional Mass. The only authoritative language in normative use is Latin (except in the Kyrie, which is Greek).

  52. mpm says:


    That is not entirely true. The 1965 Missal had both Latin and English, and that English was definitely authorized and used in celebrating Mass.

  53. The 1965 Missale Romanum (which was already an alteration of the 1962 Missale Romanum, which is generally considered the last edition of the “Traditional Mass”) used a translation approved by a competent territorial body of bishops (as opposed to one text for all the English-speaking world), one that did not necessarily undergo the recent scrutiny of the ICEL texts. Remember, eloquence is not the only criterion, but fidelity to the Latin. In addition, much of the text of the Mass (including the propers) was still in Latin. The biggest change was in the readings.

  54. catholicmidwest says:


    This whole fiasco has been going on for decades and it’s as complicated as anything you can imagine.

    Besides, the translations you remember facing latin in the old missals were meant for reading use; they’re not “liturgical,” ie. not meant for use as the main text of the mass. They also varied according to the publisher (ie. Catholic Book Publisher, etc.)

    I know that sounds crazy but it’s true. It was never just that simple.

  55. catholicmidwest says:

    1965 was after the liturgical lightning struck, mpm. I understand that in 1965, you could already sing “Hello Mrs. Robinson” or some such nonsense as a gathering tune and it would have been okay. The disaster had already begun in some places.

    I think the man with the black hat was speaking of the situation before 1965. I know I was.

  56. edwardo3 says:

    Regarding English translations used in the Mass:

    I have two Altar Missals from 1966, one Benzinger Bros. and the other is Catholic Book Publishing Co.

    The Catholic Book Publishing Co. Missal has everything from the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar to the Te Igitur in both Latin and English with the English translations being the larger print. The Te Igitur through the invitation to the Pater Noster is in Latin only, then for teh Pater Noster it switches back to the Latin/English format. This Missal also has the 1967 insert printed by Benzinger Bros. which was glued into the Missal with the English Cannon, which is a pretty awful ICEL translation, very near what we’ve been using all these many years. Though the “mystery of faith” is still a part of the consecration.

    The Benzinger Bros. Missal is set up in the same way, though the rubrical instruction is quite extensive compared to the Catholic Book Publishing Co. Missal.

  57. edwardo3 says:

    I forgot to mention that both of these Missals say “English Translations Approved by the National Conference of Bishops of the United States of Ameica and Confirmed by the Apostolic See”.

  58. Henry Edwards says:

    catholicmidwest:I know that sounds crazy but it’s true.

    Actually, one of the advantages of even (or perhaps, especially) the Novus Ordo in Latin is that the people in the pews can be provided can be provided with any English translation that is desired. The originally approved but inaccurate and doctrinally inadequate English translation has never been required (for the people’s use) when the OF Mass is celebrated in Latin.

    For instance, the most common peoples’ Mass booklet for the Latin Novus Ordo, the 16-page

    Mass of Vatican II

    includes Latin left-hand pages, but right-hand pages with an accurate and beautiful translation that dates back about 20 years and was done by the CREDO organization of priests that is dedicated to authentic and reverent liturgy.

    Incidentally, according to an account of one of these priests, stacks of this fine English translation were placed around the ballroom prior to a USCCB meeting in the 1990’s, but they allegedly were collected and trashed by staff before the bishops got there.

  59. “# Comment by edwardo3 — 17 May 2010 @ 10:45 pm”

    “Comment by edwardo3 — 17 May 2010 @ 10:54 pm”

    This reinforces my point, that the translations were not approved for the entire English-speaking world, and were not subject to the process of scrutiny that we are to see with the new ICEL translations. And, AGAIN, eloquence is not the same thing as fidelity to the Latin.

    In addition, it is worth pointing out the obvious; that whatever anyone and everyone may think of the results (that is to say, regardless of that), the Second Vatican Council did call for a reform of the liturgy. To simply translate the “Traditional Mass” into English may or may not have filled those requirements. A reform of the liturgy, and translating it, are two completely different things.

  60. edwardo3 says:


    I agree that this is the first time we have a universal English translation of the Missale, however you gave the impression that the translations used before 1969 were only approved by the local bishop’s conferences, I appologize for the misinterpretation. Also regarding V2’s call for a reform of the liturgy, it also states that nothing was to be changed without good reason, adn the only permission that was given for vernacularization was for the lessons, not the entire liturgy. I think we can all agree that the result of the Consilium’s work went far beyond the mandate of reform set forth in V2 as the council never called for a Novus Ordo Missae.


    In practice the liturgical lightening may have struck by 1965, however the directive in the 1966 Missale is that if the Introit, Graudual, etc. has already been sung or recited by the choir and/or people, the priest was not required to say it privately, thus the requirement for the use of the Intorit, Gradual, etc. is still explicit at least in 1966.

  61. “Also regarding V2’s call for a reform of the liturgy, it also states that …”

    Yes, I know what it states. I’ve read nearly everything that has ever been published on the subject of “the reform of the reform.” I’ve read position papers, I’ve read the books written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, I’ve read memoirs of people actually at the Council. This is why I added a caveat: “whatever anyone and everyone may think of the results (that is to say, regardless of that).”

    This is not a discussion of the academic, but of how things currently stand officially, and what is to happen with that being a given. And the man who coined the phrase “reform of the reform” still uses the Missal codified by Pope Paul VI, at least publicly.

Comments are closed.