For everyone out there who has been searching for an old missal, Angelus Press (www.angeluspress.org or ((800)) 966-7337) has original Marian missals which have been in storage for the last 40 years for $39.95. Unfortunately, the Collect, Epistle, Gospel, Secret and Postcommunion are English-only

Hope this helps, I've gotten one, and it's in great shape!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 27, 2002

Answers

Top

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 27, 2002.

"...has original Marian missals which have been in storage for the last 40 years for $39.95."

That's a pretty low rate for storage. How could they have survived in the storage business all these years?

lol. More seriously, Frank, can you tell me about this missal? I know nothing about it; 1962 was well before my conception. Can you describe what it is?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 27, 2002.

This would be the missal for the traditional Latin Mass. That sounds like a halfway decent buy; however be aware that Angelus Press is the Society of St Pius X. It would probably be easier to get one through the Wanderer newspaper or even on eBay.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), August 27, 2002.

Emerald,

A missal is really just a collection of things useful in mass & prayer. For masses, it covers what is common to all masses (a very short section) and then what readings and prayers are in each mass of the year. There are also a whole host of private devotions, stations of the cross, assorted prayers, general information, special masses, etc. that are useful for browsing. Overall, over 1400 pages in this smaller-sized edition.

Watch out though, a pre-Vatican II missal is really only good for Latin Rite masses as the readings were changed from being the same year to year to being on a 3-year cycle after Vat2. My "Catholic Study Bible" has a calendar by year for the new schedule, and probably most post Vat2 Bibles do. But if you want to read up before mass, make sure you're in the right book! :-)

Christina,

Yeah, I didn't know about the SSPX part until I rec'd the missal and saw their catalogue with a bunch of books by Lefebvre, but remember the missal was made *before* sspx existed, and so is 100% Catholic and o.k. by any standard.

Also, I *tried* a bunch of places, and every missal I came across (from the 40's to the 1880's) was in need of re-binding, whereas these are brand new. There's one organization/company that is on the web and specializes in preserving old Catholic books, but the addy is at work, and I'm off on vacation this week (yea!). I'll try and post it when I get back.

In any event, stick with the missal and skip the heresy, you'll be o.k. ;-)

Frank

P.S. I know I'm starting to sound like a salesman, but it's really neat to find a missal in not just good, but great shape!

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 27, 2002.

Are you sure they're really that old? There are *new* ones which sell for the same price ($39.95) at my local Catholic bookstore.

Maybe they're just using the ol' "shipwrecked gold coins" story! ;-)

-- Christine L. (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), August 28, 2002.

The Angelus Press now (3/17/03) is out of the daily 1962 Missals, however, they have an english only 1962 Marian Sunday Missal for sale at 19.95 & shipping. I have a copy and the binding is excellent (new, out of box after 40 years). Looks like they are of a quality that will last many years. A great buy.

-- Caine Pieffer (Caishepie@aol.com), March 17, 2003.

JAW-DROP & LOCK-JAW Pope Gives Holy Communion to Anglican Pro-Abort Tony Blair! The Mother of All Scandals! Do we need anymore proof that Pope John Paul II is not a Catholic? Let the Neo-Catholics explain that one away.....

Pope gives Blair communion by Rachel Boulding

Why sweat the small stuff.

Sean

-- Sean (Tamoshanter@stparicks.com), March 17, 2003.

Jmj

This alleged event seems to have been reported in just one publication -- a British magazine or newspaper.
I recommend waiting for the facts to come out from an official source.

It is true, though, that there is not a 100% ban on intercommunion. Here is what the Code of Canon Law has said on this subject for the last 20 years (unbeknownst to most people):

"Canon 844 -
"§1 -- Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to Catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from Catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in canon 861 §2.

"§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid. [This refers mainly to the Eastern Orthodox churches. JFG]

"§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid Eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned. [This refers to some small, schismatic Western churches, I believe. JFG]

"§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

"§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-Catholic Church or community concerned."

It appears that, if PM Blair (who is an Anglican, married to a Catholic) really received Communion at the Vatican, it probably happened under the provisions of "§4", emphasized above. It is not our place as Catholics to second-guess the pope on such an action. Let us instead pray for the conversion of Mr. Blair to Catholicism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.

[Topping this for Emerald, who asked about the (alleged) Blair/Communion story on the 18th or 19th. Not much point speculating about the alleged "pro-abort" factor, because we are not privy to conversations (if any) that may have been held on that subject at the Vatican.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.

"Let us instead pray for the conversion of Mr. Blair to Catholicism."

Why bother?

Isn't the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ the ultimate consummation of the marriage contract between the Bride of Christ and the Groom? Doesn't that comsummation begin with a prior consent of the Bride to the Groom? Are they not of one body, one flesh, one mind?

This Eucharist, this is our unity.

But Blair seems to be granted conjugal rights without possessing a binding marriage contract. If this is licit, why pray for his conversion? What does he need to convert for? He's got all the goodies and none of the responsibilities. Sounds like fornication, or adultery.

What is becoming of the Divine Analogy, when it certainly appears as if Christ has a mistress. How blasphemous and absurd.

And to make sense of it all, we quote canon law. Canon law?

Hey, let's hope you're right. Let's hope it really didn't happen, or that if it did, that Tony Blair has professed his belief in the all the doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and received worthily, and that there has been a cover-up to prevent this word from getting out.

Don't expect me to deny the Chair of Peter and its legitimate occupant; all you will hear me allude to is how far from home we are. The hardest man to wake up is the one who is pretending to be asleep.

An interesting insight from Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, from The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ:

"I think, but am not quite certain, that Judas also partook of the chalice; he did not return to his place, but immediately left the supper-room, and the other Apostles thought that Jesus had given him some commission to do. He left without praying or making any thanksgiving, and hence you may perceive how sinful it is to neglect returning thanks either after receiving our daily food, or after partaking of the Life-Giving Bread of Angels. During the entire meal, I had seen a frightful little figure, with one foot like a dried bone, remaining close to Judas, but when he had reached the door, I beheld three devils pressing round him; one entered into his mouth, the second urged him on, and the third preceded him. It was night, and they seemed to be lighting him, whilst he hurried onward like a madman."

No, I don't mean that to refer to the Pope. I just think it is interesting in other ways.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 19, 2003.

There's a small problem with Tony Blair becoming Catholic...Catholics aren't allowed to become Prime Minister of the UK. The Monarch cannot be a Catholic either, but this is probably understandable since the Monarch is the Head of the Church of England.

Sad, but true.

-- sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.

Jmj

Emerald, you deeply disappoint me here. You did make a good statement -- namely:
"Let's hope it really didn't happen, or that if it did, that Tony Blair has professed his belief in the all the doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and received worthily, and that there has been a cover-up to prevent this word from getting out."

Now why couldn't you have left it at that? Instead you had to bury those good words in a lot of unkind bluster and inaccuracy. Two examples? ...

1. "'Let us instead pray for the conversion of Mr. Blair to Catholicism.' Why bother?"

Why bother to pray that he becomes Catholic? Because, otherwise this may have been the first (and only) time that he receives the Eucharist in his life. Because ... oh heck, the list could go on and on. I have always told people that there is no such thing as a "dumb question." But your words, "Why bother?", are the dumbest question anyone has ever asked.

2. "Blair seems to be granted conjugal rights without possessing a binding marriage contract. If this is licit, why pray for his conversion? What does he need to convert for? He's got all the goodies and none of the responsibilities. Sounds like fornication, or adultery."

What's the matter with you? Didn't you read the canon I quoted? The convergence of circumstances for reception of the Eucharist by a Protestant is something extremely rare. One cannot say that Mr. Blair has "got all the goodies." As I said earlier, he may never have a chance to receive Jesus again.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.

"Why bother to pray that he becomes Catholic?"

Of course, I'm being sarcastic here. You know that I believe that praying for people to become Catholic is the summit of charity. After all, it's one of the things I complain about the most, right? The absolute need to board The Ark, right?

Of course we ought to pray that he becomes Catholic.

If the Canon Law says what you say it says, and I'm sure it does, and I'm sure that if this event happened, which I'm pretty sure it did, and Blair didn't become a Catholic, which I'm pretty sure he didn't, then...

...then someone needs to get in there and correct that section of Canon Law.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 19, 2003.

Hear, hear!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.

Yes!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.

"...then someone needs to get in there and correct that section of Canon Law." [Emerald]
"Hear, hear!" [Isabel]
"Yes!" [Ed R.]

No, I don't agree.
Most of the provisions of Canon Law are reformable, and the canon in question may be revised or revoked some day. However, it has been in effect for 20 years and was approved by the current pope in the fifth year of his pontificate. I'm sure that he gave it great thought at that time -- and has given it more thought since then. My opinion is that the pope is a better judge of its propriety than any of the four of us. If the communicant is in a state of grace, I am not uneasy about this.

We have to be careful not to exagerrate the situation. As I mentioned, this canon is used extremely rarely, for two reasons: (1) the "logistical" conditions hardly ever exist [especially lack of access to minister of one's own faith], and (2) the fact that the Protestant "spontaneously" (i.e., of his own free will) must approach the priest before Mass, must profess Catholic faith in the Eucharist, must make himself "properly disposed" [which may require confession of mortal sins], and must ask permission to receive Our Lord. Clearly, such things almost never happen -- which is why I said that Mr. Blair may never receive Jesus again (unless he converts).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 20, 2003.

Clearly, such things almost never happen -- which is why I said that Mr. Blair may never receive Jesus again (unless he converts).

Like a one night stand. Let's see if Tony Blair can commit to a long term relationship. I certainly hope so.

I think that's about the sum of it, John... that section in canon law, yep: it's revocable, and I think it will be in the future because it is in compromise with the doctrines traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

In fact, the day is coming when many things we have become familiar with, and comfortable with, will be anathemetized.

Then we can all once again become one in Christ.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

A little bit of an update... I just heard from a friend that Tony Blair is in "classes to become a Catholic, but has to wait for his political term to end to enter the Church".

Hmmm. Well, ok, that's progress, I guess. It isn't exactly like the apostles instantly dropping their nets and following Christ, but who knows.

Let's see what happens; let's hope something really good happens. Who knows what God can do.

This doesn't change the fact that his reception of the Holy Eucharist was premarital by analogy. It should never have happened.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

Jmj

Emerald, the ways in which you disappoint me keep multiplying.
You lack the ability and faculties to say, "It should never have happened."
It was a legal action, and the decision was made by the pope, who knows far better than you whether "it should ... have happened" or not. I consider it a sin of pride for you to have said that. It may be venial, though, since this kind of bad behavior on your part may have gotten to be habitual/addictive, so God may not consider it a serious sin in your case. Please confess it anyway.

You wrote: "I think [the canon] will be [revoked] in the future because it is in compromise with the doctrines traditions of the Roman Catholic Church."

I don't know which words you meant to say in place of "doctrines traditions," but it doesn't really matter, because the canon is not "in compromise" with anything. The canon is a "discipline," and the pope would not have approved of it if there were anything doctrinally improper in it.

You also wrote: "In fact, the day is coming when many things we have become familiar with, and comfortable with, will be anathemetized."

Anybody with a "lick o' sense" knows how utterly ridiculous your words are. Of course, lately you have been writing a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff, so I'll just assume you are kidding me, because you are too intelligent actually to believe those words. [If you believe them, you have literally lost your mind and need to commit yourself to a sanitarium.]

Thanks for the good news about Mr. Blair, if it is accurate.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 20, 2003.

"If you believe them, you have literally lost your mind and need to commit yourself to a sanitarium."

But John... I already have committed myself to a sanitarium. I've been baptised into the Roman Catholic Church. lol!

"Thanks for the good news about Mr. Blair, if it is accurate."

I don't know if it is accurate; someone I know called my wife on the phone to tell her that.

"The canon is a "discipline," and the pope would not have approved of it if there were anything doctrinally improper in it."

See, that's an assumption that is not at all part of any doctrine regarding the authority of the Pope... that conclusion above flows from this contemporary inaccurate characterization of papal authority.

You know what I mean... it's like when you say that the it's o.k. for us to attack Iraq when the Pope says otherwise. Even you don't think that everything that issues from his mouth requires assent. That was never the teaching of the Church regarding papal authority. It is assumed to be that way now, imho, as a way to coerce the faithful into acceptance of concepts foreign to Catholicism... not necessarily by the Pope himself mind you. Notice it is generally self-appointed laity pushing this on us Hobbits, and that it isn't coming from the top down. The explanations of this nuvo-view of what it means to be loyal to the Pope and the living magisterium and the inevitable excusemaking for our present condition in the Church are going from the bottom up. From the laity, up. Or across.

Would someone get this straightjacket off me? =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Emerald.

You quoted me, thus: "The canon is a 'discipline,' and the pope would not have approved of it if there were anything doctrinally improper in it." Then you commented: "See, that's an assumption that is not at all part of any doctrine regarding the authority of the Pope... that conclusion above flows from this contemporary inaccurate characterization of papal authority."

No, you are mistaken or you have misunderstood me. Please notice that I said that the pope judged the canon to be free of doctrinal error. I did not say whether his prudential judgment was at its keenest when he approved each and every canon. Catholics are free to debate whether or not it would be more prudent never to allow any Protestant to receive the Holy Eucharist (or even to allow more to receive than the very few currently permitted). But we are not free to say that the canon teaches error.

You continued: "... it's like when you say that the it's o.k. for us to attack Iraq when the Pope says otherwise."

No. This is different. First, you have not characterized the pope's statements accurately. Second, even if the pope had expressed disapproval, his would have been a conditional and private opinion -- not a "teaching" and not a binding "discipline." By contrast, Canon Law is a binding discipline.

You continued: "Even you don't think that everything that issues from his mouth requires assent."

Come on, friend. Surely you have seen me say that every teaching from the pope "requires assent," and that every binding discipline requires obedience. The pope's spoken words and deeds of other kinds (e.g., prudential judgments) require our attention and respect, but are open to disagreement.

You continued: "That was never the teaching of the Church regarding papal authority. It is assumed to be that way now, imho, as a way to coerce the faithful into acceptance of concepts foreign to Catholicism... not necessarily by the Pope himself mind you. Notice it is generally self-appointed laity pushing this on us Hobbits, and that it isn't coming from the top down."

This is not true. Only pagans, heretics, and schismatics attempt to "coerce the faithful into acceptance of concepts foreign to Catholicism". The faithful Catholic laity [myself included] do not "appoint themselves" to "push" anything on anyone else. They merely live out their vocations by passing along the Church's magisterial truths (which have come "from the top down"). Unfortunately, their works of evangelization and catechesis are resisted by pagans, heretics, schismatics, and dissenters.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.