The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has a Roman missal website. Check it out.
CCCB missal website
by
Comments
48 responses to “CCCB missal website”
-
Service for decommissioning the old sacramentary? I think I will pass on that…
-
I wonder what sort of decommissioning service the 196X liturgical books received.
I’m also a bit surprised, in reading the suggested prayer, that it is actually a prayer of blessing for the book and not simply for the people who have made use or will make use of it. Such blessing prayers are rare nowadays. Tom P. can address the finer (or uglier) points of this.
-
Well, if you don’t decommission them, someone might come along later and try to claim they were never abrogated. 😉
-
USCCB suggested burying the old Sacramentary with full rites! Blindly ignoring the fact that you’d need to keep it for the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children in the back of it!
-
-
Three weeks before we start to introduce the “New Translation” here in the UK and in my own parish still no announcement. Consultation? I don’t think so.
-
Fr. Jim, I applaud the CCCB for at least attempting to be pastoral, as there is a marked lack of pastoral sensitivity apparent from our ordinaries in this transition. There will be a period of mourning among our communities. At least a gesture such as this acknowledges it.
-
I rather like the “Blessing the New Missal and the Advent Wreath service” they offer, although the placement of the first blessing seems to be misplaced.
-
In the United States’ “Book of Blessings”, the Advent Wreath blessing is inserted after the Liturgy of the Word, isn’t it? And in the Sacramentary Supplement, the Reception of the Oils on Holy Thursday is (mis)placed at the presentation of the gifts (on the one night the Missal tells you what to bring up in the procession). Could it be that the same hand was at work in these publications, and in the Lectionary Sequences whose meters and rhymes are off, and in the Vox Clara “corrections”? There’s something vaguely familiar . . .
-
-
If you’re carrying the missal in procession, how does everyone know what to say and do? Does the MC have a second missal? 🙂
More seriously, the idea of carrying the missal in procession seems to give undue emphasis to a book — and the words it contains — that I’m not sure is called for. We do carry all sorts of things in procession from time to time, but I’m not sure this particular procession and accompanying blessing/blessing-decommissioning are what we want to do in this situation. But I came here because I knew people would have thoughts on it!
-
You bring up a good point about undue emphasis on the book. What are other books are carried in procession during liturgies of the Roman Rite?
The Book of the Gospels is the only one I’m sure of; even the Lectionary is not to be carried thus in place of the Book of the Gospels. Are any of the books associated with the RCIA (e.g. Book of the Elect) carried in procession, or are they already where they’re supposed to be?
-
In both the novus ordo and 1962 pontifical Mass, the book bearer follows the Bishop in the procession (with the miter-bearer and crosier-bearer [and in 1962 the bugia-bearer and sometimes the gremial-bearer]). In 1962, the book-bearer definitely carries the Missal. I don’t recall if there is an explicit rubric for the book-bearer to carry it in the novus ordo pontifical Mass, but it certainly makes sense for him to do so.
In the 1962, the missal is optionally carried in the procession by the server at Low Mass:
Sacerdos, omnibus paramentis indutus, accipit manu sinistra calicem, ut supra præparatum, quem portat elevatum ante pectus, bursam manu dextera super calicem tenens, et facta reverentia Cruci, vel imagini illi, quæ in sacristia erit, accedit ad altare, ministro cum missali et aliis ad celebrandum necessariis (nisi ante fuerint præparata) præcedente, superpelliceum induto.
I don’t have books handy, but my recollection is that before 1962, the rubrics directed the carrying of the Missal, but the approved authors said that custom had made this optional and then the 1962 books incorporated the custom.
(The Missal is also carried in the 1962 Gospel procession as a substitute for the book of Gospels, which is rarely available.)
But neither of these is a ceremonial carrying of the Missal in procession as the Canadian bishops are suggesting.
-
Those were the days when people followed rubrics under pain of sin. Thankfully those days are dead and gone. We now know that rubrics are devised by those with an agenda, that there’s nothing sacred about them.
With the imminent introduction of the interlinear missal those responsible for the travesty of a translation have unwittingly debased the status of rubrics by producing such a discredited and debased ‘translation.’
If they didn’t take their responsibilities in the area of translation seriously, they can hardly expect people to be serious about rubrics.
I foresee a lot of contravening and otherwise ignoring of the rubrics of this new ‘translation’ and of rubrics in general. That may not be a bad thing. It will make room for the exercise of discretion on a large scale.
-
But God help you if you disobey the rubrics which call for unity of posture for Communion!
-
Before Paul VI, the missal included the readings. Is that presence of Scripture why it was carried in procession?
Why does it nake sense for a book- bearer to carry the missal after Scripture has been taken out? -
In the days before the Council, it was possible to find an epistolarium and evangeliarium combined into one volume. In my parish, the subdeacon receives the celebrant’s blessing, sings the epistle, and then returns the lectionary to a server. After the celebrant sings the gradual, the server returns the lectionary to the deacon who receives the celebrant’s blessing and then sings the Gospel.
A publishing house (TAN?) might do well to republish such a lectionary.
Also, there were pulpit lectionaries in the vernacular for the re-reading of the lections. I do hope another publishing house would consider re-printing these vernacular lectionaries. More and more priests are now reading the lections in the vernacular from the altar at EF Low Mass. It’d be a lot easier if they had a prepared vernacular lectionary rather than put sticky notes in a Bible.
-
“”More and more priests are now reading the lections in the vernacular from the altar at EF Low Mass. J.Z.
Are you talking about single figures or does it venture into the double-figure realm?
You make it sound as if the Tridentine form of the Roman Rite, tolerated to avoid schism is about to take over the world. This is the form which is about as far removed from its Semitic and Jewish origins as it is possible to be. I doubt very much if Jesus of Nazareth would recognise what was going on with the passing of books to and fro from subdeacon to someone else. Courtly etiquette, yes. An exercise in genuine religion, no.
It may be giving some emotional satisfaction to the medievalist interests of a few dilettantes, including priests and others who wish to dress up in lace and carry Roman version of handkerchiefs draped over their forearm and give them some religious or spiritual significance, but what has it to do with the Gospel?
I suppose if your culture and civilisation is as recent as those of North America, anything Tridentine is positively ancient and attractive. That must be the attraction of the abrogated rite.
-
“Are you talking about single figures or does it venture into the double-figure realm?”
I’m sure more than nine priests on Earth who celebrate the Latin Mass read the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular at low Mass.
Jordan didn’t make it sound at all like the Tridentine rite is taking over the world. However, there is more than enough interest in it to justify the publishing of materials for it. A small minority within a Church made up of a billion people is still a lot of people.
-
#16 by Gerard Flynn on August 20, 2011 – 10:11 am
Last month I had the chance to hear Mass in St. Peter’s every day for a week. I always found a priest saying the EF, and usually within ten to fifteen minutes after opening. Some days, two or three priests were saying Tridentine private Mass at the same time!
Almost all the EF priests were in their 30’s or 40’s. That bright new diocesan priest doing his doctorate at the Gregorian? Bet he’s up early reciting the judica me. I can tell by their fluent pronunciation that these priests understand Latin. Sure, you can try to intimidate these priests when they return. Deny them a pastorate if they say the EF, etc. These men have the Canon burning in their hearts. Why? When the ordained say these words, they are not only celebrating the Sacrifice, but also centuries of heritage. All of romanitas flows through them, providing centuries of context.
Gerald, I admire what your generation tried to accomplish. It’s true that the the venerable Roman rite had been suffering. Sentimental ballads overtook chanted propers; Vespers disappeared; even bishops avoided Solemn Mass. Your generation tried to solve degeneration through social sciences and academic research. The OF is conjectured patristic-era worship that in actually reflects the philosophical and political questions of the mid 20th century. Like formaldehyde Lenin in his mausoleum, the OF appeared in an age when some thought that Hegel and Marx conquered God. The exuberant throngs at Patriarch Kirill’s enthronement remind us that God supersedes any “classless society”!
The EF must also change again in penitence. Passiontide and Holy Week are riddled with anti-Judaism. Still, the Roman Church did not need a confected rite to satisfy those unable to reconcile the modern age with the passionate and troubled history of venerable rites.
-
A publishing house (TAN?) might do well to republish such a lectionary.
TAN doesn’t even exist as an independent entity anymore.
However, such a lectionary has already been republished by a German house, Nova et Vetera. It’s beautiful, but very expensive, 350 Euros, plus shipping.
-
-
“I heard what went on at the last supper.” seems to be to be a wholly inadequate verb to express participation in the eucharist.
It’s more likely to be the case that those young 30 and 40 year olds are politically astute enough to know what’ll go down well with their curial overlords and hope that they’ll be remembered for their Tridentine sympathies when preferment is on offer and they have gone home to their motherlands to inflict their tastes on the People of God there.
-
-
Before Paul VI, the missal included the readings. Is that presence of Scripture why it was carried in procession?
Why does it nake sense for a book- bearer to carry the missal after Scripture has been taken out?
I’d theorize that at low Mass it may have been carried in procession because it was expensive and because you’d have a limited number of them and lots of Masses going on, so the server would carry the expensive Missal and the priest the expensive Chalice. When security/policing was improved and printing improved cutting the cost of Missals, these issues became less important.
As for carrying it in procession at a Pontifical Mass (both forms), it’s not carried solemnly (like the Book of the Gospels is in both forms), it’s carried because carrying it avoids extra trips to the credence to get it. Looking at some books, I don’t see an explicit mention of it being carried, but also nothing suggesting that it’s not carried.
-
Hear Mass? Say Mass? Private Mass? Doesn’t this clearly reduce the Mass to a set of rituals and prayers that somehow “work” automatically. Why would a priest read a scripture lesson to God in muted tones? To whom does he address the words Dominus vobiscum? Does God reply et cum spiritu tuo? The highest authority in the church directed a reform of it’s sacramental rites. Other than as a matter of personal piety, taste, and style why do people cling to the unreformed rite? Advocate a wider use of the Novus Ordo in Latin facing ad orientam since it incorporates the reforms even if it would need to employ some English for the benefit of those assembled.
-
Advocate a wider use of the Novus Ordo in Latin facing ad orientam since it incorporates the reforms even if it would need to employ some English for the benefit of those assembled.
“Even if” — the Council Fathers seemed to envision vernacular with the Latin not as an “even if” but as a regularity. I’m pretty sure that’s what my wife experienced at St Etheldreda’s the past few Sundays.
-
In 1963 the council fathers did foresee a reformed rite with both Latin and the vernacular. But they had not been home in their own dioceses very long when it became clear that the vernacular was received so well that their flocks wanted more of it. I believe that some Latin (plus a little Greek and Hebrew) should be used from time to time to add savor to the vernacular liturgy. Sort of like a spice in that a little bit goes a long way. We do that in our parish and the people seem fine with it. No one has ever asked if we could have more Latin or have it more frequently.
What do you make of people who speak of “saying”, “hearing” and “reading” Mass? Pope Benedict greeted the youth in Spain by declaring how happy he was to be there to celebrate the Mass with them.
-
I don’t use those verbs; Jordan and Samuel do. On one level, they’re accurate: prayers, in being prayed, are read and said and heard. But they are also, to me, one-dimensional words, and to say a layperson “hears” Mass makes it sound like they don’t do anything but hear; that is, they don’t also pray it, sing it, respond, etc. They don’t have the impact, are not as evocative, as “celebrate” and “pray”.
Foreseeing aside, the Latin-vernacular Mass was decreed by the Council Fathers. It’s something that I think should be a regular part of parish liturgical life.
-
I don’t get why people make such a big deal over terms like “hearing Mass.” Such terms are still used and encountered enough that almost anyone can still pick them up and use them without it having some kind of deep meaning. I’ve encountered the term at OF Masses among older people – along with calling the homily a “sermon.”
I think the desire to find fault with every little word other people use stiffles meaningful discussion. It’s better to take people’s posts at face value than to try and read something into it just because they don’t use your own preferred term.
-
-
RE: #22 by Jack Feehily on August 20, 2011 – 3:37 pm
At the private Mass, the server makes the responses. If I am at Mass and the server does not know the responses, I and/or someone else nearby usually say the responses for the server.
Yes, the Holy Mass “works” without the presence of the laity. Does the universe “work” without our input? So then, why would the perpetual and eternal presence of God the Son in the Eucharist, the LORD, the creator of the kosmos ex nihilo, cease His salvific presence without lay presence? Or, perhaps, we have stopped believing that the Eucharist is really Dominus Deus Sabaoth?
My favorite confessor often has to celebrate alone. I once asked him, “who answers your ‘Dominus vobiscum’ “? Without reflection, he said, “the angels”. Of course! At every Mass angelis et archangelis cum thronis et dominationibus, the Blessed Mother, and the communion of saints, attend the Mass. No preface has ever said, “and the laity that must be assembled for Mass.” The Mass exists for propitiation, for grace, for the living, and for the dead. Mass does not exist because we assent to be present at it or not.
I do not mind reform. I do mind the mentality that the laity determine the Mass.
-
You must certainly be aware that the earliest liturgies of the church did not feature a priest who was its only actor. What prevents you from seeing that the elaborate rites developed in the post-constantine era reflected a distortion of role of the ordained because of an impoverished understanding of the royal priesthood of the baptized? This led to the mass centered around the confection of the Eucharist. That’s like the last supper without good friday and easter sunday.
-
What about the elaborate rites described in the Didache, or by Justin Martyr, or by Hippolytus? Are these all wrongly dated do the pre-Constantinian era?
I don’t get the impression that the EF (or the OF, or any of the ancient liturgies I’ve read, for that matter) is more like Holy Thursday without Good Friday and Easter Saturday/Sunday. I would note, though, that the GIRM uses the language you did: “the Mass—that is, the Lord’s Supper.” (17) That was pretty much the first thing that Cardinal Ottoviani complained about in his infamous letter to Paul VI.
-
-
-
I have a question for Jordan at #15 where he states that in his parish “the subdeacon receives the celebrant’s blessing, sings the epistle, and then returns the lectionary to a server….” I thought that the minor order of subdeacon (along with porter) had been removed from the Roman Rite by Paul VI in 1972. (I may have the date wrong.) Is the person who chants the epistle a genuine subdeacon (and is this minor order somehow restored for those who celebrate according to the extraordinary form) OR is this an “honorary” subdeacon (i.e., a deacon or presbyter who dresses in the vesture of a subdeacon and fulfills the order’s functions)?
-
Our subdeacon is really an instituted acolyte. Ministeria Quaedam allows instituted acolytes to be called subdeacons with the permission of bishops. Some in the EF community interpret MQ to mean that any instituted acolyte is a subdeacon. I presume that our ordinary approves of us calling our instituted acolyte a “subdeacon”, given that the now-minor cleric always ministers as a EF subdeacon and never as an instituted acolyte in the OF.
Previously a priest acted as subdeacon at our Solemn Masses. Now we have a priest-celebrant, a permanent deacon, and a “permanent subdeacon”.
-
The Pontifical Commision Ecclesia Dei wrote that acolytes can serve as subdeacons. Cf. PCED letter of 7 June 1993, Prot. 24/92.
-
-
Other than as a matter of personal piety, taste, and style why do people cling to the unreformed rite?
Well, I read somewhere that a professor of liturgy at Sant’ Anselmo described the reformed liturgy as a “cut and paste” liturgy.
The OF is the official liturgy of the Church and as such it is holy and a legitimate expression of the Church’s lex orandi. But it is plain to see that it was put together at a desk by a committee. It is common knowledge that one of the Eucharistic Prayers (I think III) was composed on a table at a Roman restaurant. Not exactly edifying.
Some of us prefer the EF because it is the fruit of constant development over the centuries that wasn’t pared down at somebody’s desk (or restaurant table) in Rome.
-
Common knowledge? I have been in the liturgical field for nearly forty years, and had the privilege of knowing well several of the bishop members of the Consilium ad exsequendam and several of its consultors. “Common knowledge” that one of the Eucharistic Prayers (but you don’t know which) was composed in a restaurant. Cite your sources. How about just one.
And the Roman Canon was composed by an archangel, but I forget which one.
-
Such an excellent text as the current EP III was composed in a restaurant? Well the first EP ever was composed in a hired dining room in Jerusalem. Maybe the composition of place helped. The Vox Clara brigade seem to have forgotten about eucharist as meal event.
-
Thanks to Jordan and Matthew for their quick and helpful responses. My interest arises from the principle enunciated at least for the OF that each one should do “all of, but only” what pertains to the particular ministry. The example that had been given to me was of presbyters functioning as deacons and subdeacons in the EF being repudiated in the OFin the light of that principle. As I understand the rationale for allowing presbyters to do so in the EF was since they had once been ordained to those ministries they could continue to vest as members of those orders and carry out their functions. That would lead me to ask further of Jordan why the priest-celebrant would be singing the gradual after the acolyte/subdeacon reads the epistle, but perhaps you mean that he is continuing the practice of the EF by which the priest-celebrant recites in a low voice what is sung by the schola. Again I’d appreciate a clarification.
-
It’s not clear to me whether you’re asking about the EF or the OF. The parish celebration in question (Jordan’s) is, I believe of the EF.
Given that, I’d take “sings the Gradual” to be a typo, that Jordan means the celebrant says the gradual in a low voice while it is sung by the schola.
-
Right, Sam. Typo. The schola sings, the celebrant recites.
I have seen a priest sing an entire missa cantata by himself, though. That was awesome, to say the least. Just out of seminary as well.
-
-
-
All of the approved EP’s express the faith of the Church regardless of the venue in which they were composed. The cut and paste remark is truly a calumny which tears at the apostolic authority of Paul VI. Pope Benedict has expressed the belief that the unreformed rite is still legitimate all indications to the contrary notwithstanding. Those attracted to it should refrain from opposing and contrasting it to the liturgy of the Roman Rite as reformed by SC and subsequent decisions of the Holy See.
-
Sauce for a goose is sauce for a gander. If we’re worried that criticism of the reformed rites will run down the apostolic authority of Paul VI, so too criticism of the 1962 rite or the allowance for its continued use will run down the apostolic authority of John XXIII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. Which is why it doesn’t make sense to argue that people must refrain from criticism. Note that this doesn’t mean any particular criticism or its expression is true or wise.
-
Jack, I never questioned whether the EPs express the faith of the Church. As a matter of fact, you must have missed the line in my post that affirmed that the OF is a legitimate expression of the Church’s lex orandi.
How is the cut and paste remark calumny?
Who questioned the apostolic authority of Paul VI?
I think your doing a lot of emoting and very little responding to what I said.
-
-
Much of the material in EP3 was composed by Dom Cipriano Vagaggini and published by him in 1966. It is a very finely wrought text. But the 1973 translation is something of a travesty. I don’t think anybody would wish to argue that ‘. . . through Christ our Lord, from whom all things come’ expresses the faith of the Church. Rather, it enshrines an error of which the Greeks accuse us, and which we claim not to hold, namely that there are two sources of being, the Father and the Son. The new version, ‘. . . through Christ our Lord, through whom you bestow on the world all that is good’ is a more accurate translation, and an improvement doctrinally.
-
The 1998 revision of the conclusion of Eucharistic Prayer III reads:
Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters
and all who have left this world in your friendship.
We hope to enjoy with them your everlasting glory,
through Christ our Lord,
through whom you give the world everything that is good.The 2008 text reads:
To our departed brothers and sisters
and to all who were pleasing to you
at their passing from this life,
give kind admittance to your kingdom.
There we hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory
through Christ our Lord,
through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.-
Hmmmm. . . beginning a sentence with not one but two indirect objects, before we have any idea what the subject, verb or direct object of the sentence is? Is this what they mean by “elevated”? It certainly heightens the suspense.
-
I’m disappointed that the 2008+ translation does not appear to translate the “simul” of “ubi fore sperámus, ut simul”. The 1973 and 1998 translations do by saying “We hope to enjoy with them” (which implies the “there” of “ubi”), but the 2008+ translation renders the “ubi” without the “simul”, a sad absence. If one of “ubi” and “simul” had to be passed over in the translating, I’d rather the drop the “ubi” than the “simul”.
-
JRF quotes the 2010 translation, not the 2008. Perhaps adding ‘With them’ or ‘Together’ before ‘in that kingdom’ would yield a more faithful version, not leaving ‘simul’ untranslated.
-
Oh no … don’t tell us that even in one of the Eucharistic Prayers, Vox Clara’s Pell-Moroney-Ward-Johnson Missal failed to translate a line “in the most exact manner” (LA, 51)!
Maybe 2010 is being “faithful but not slavish” (Bishop Serrattelli).
One more thing to pencil into our big new expensive Missals, as the errors, omissions, and additions (I’ve counted 20 “we pray”s added to Collects where there is no “quaesumus” in the Latin.
Oh well, as all the cheerleaders (some of them making money from it) on here would say, “At least it’s better than …..”
I often picture the Bishops who read this blog but don’t have the courage to speak up …. must be tough to know something’s flawed and have to pretend at least in public that it’s superb!
-
It looks to me like all three versions 2008/2010/2011 are identical at this part:
2008:
To our departed brothers and sisters
and to all who were pleasing to you
at their passing from this life,
give kind admittance to your kingdom.
There we hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory
through Christ our Lord,
through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.2010:
To our departed brothers and sisters
and to all who were pleasing to you
at their passing from this life,
give kind admittance to your kingdom.
There we hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory
through Christ our Lord,
through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.2011:
To our departed brothers and sisters
and to all who were pleasing to you
at their passing from this life,
give kind admittance to your kingdom.
There we hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory
through Christ our Lord,
through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.Regardless, I agree Mgr Harbert, that “together” or “with them” would be a welcome restoration.
This, among other issues with the new English translations of the EPs, means that my catechesis on the EPs will require a lot more explanation of what the Latin actually says despite what the translation renders it is. EP II’s “be in your presence” needs to be untaught.
-
Leave a Reply