Monday, January 02, 2017

EF Ordinary Booklet: LMS vs. CTS

Ever mindful of feedback, we will be using this slightly
revised, less cluttered cover when the booklet is reprinted.
The contents will also have some tiny,
and I mean tiny, corrections.
One of the reasons we at the Latin Mass Society created a booklet of the Ordinary of the Mass was because the widely-used red 'Booklet Missal' produced by the Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei is American and contains some American feasures, such as the American version of the Prayer to St Michael. We also thought we could do better in certain ways.

You can buy it here.

While we were still thinking about this, the Catholic Truth Society brought one out. That is a good thing; it is good that the the CTS is using its considerable market penetration to spread knowledge about the Traditional Mass, in a handy pocket format with a smart leatherette cover. The only problem is that this booklet contains a series of mistakes.

A second edition was published, and I thought they might address some of these, but in fact the only difference, as far as I can see, is the title: it is now called 'The Extraordinary Form of the Mass' instead of 'The Traditional Latin Mass'.

So what are these mistakes?

First, there are a series of misdirections as to who is saying what.
At the Pater Noster (the Our Father, before Communion) it directs 'S', the server, to say the it up to and including 'et ne nos inducas in tentationem', when it says 'S/C' (Server or Choir) to say 'Sed libera nos a malo', adding 'This is sung at High Mass'.

This makes no sense at all. The Pater Noster is never said by the Server, but the Server (or the choir) responds 'Sed libera nos a malo'.

Some bright spark at the CTS objected
to their title 'The Traditional Latin Mass'.
Fine, but what about the mistakes?
It is true that there is an obscure option for the congregation to say or sing the Pater Noster, among the many complicated options for dialogue Masses given in 1958. But the point of this, of course, is that it is said by the congregation, not the Server. Directing the Server to say it is simply wrong. And anyway, the CTS booklet hasn't gone into all the other complicated options, which are never used in England. I suspect the confusion here has come from practice at the Novus Ordo.

A different kind of confusion is at work in the Agnus Dei, where the book tells us that it is
'Said by the Priest, or at solemn Masses sung during the Priest's preparation for communion:'

But of course the Priest says it regardless of what the choir is doing. At Missa Cantata or High Mass (there seems to be a persistent confusion about this terminology in the booklet) the choir sings the Agnus Dei after the priest has said it.

Then the booklet tells us that 'Omnes', 'All', say 'Domine non sum dignus' before the Communion of the Faithful. Now this does sometimes happen, and I don't object to it happening, but it is not a response: it is said by the Priest. If they people say it, that is a pious custom, but they don't replace the Priest at this point. 

In addition, there are a series of errors about when things are said at all.

The Asperges / Vidi Aquam are marked by a red line, the meaning of which, we are informed, is that they are 'found only in solemn (High) Masses'. Presumably 'solemn (High) Mass' is Missa Solemnis, Mass with deacon and subdeacon, normally called in the UK 'High Mass'. But the Asperges is also said at Missa Cantata, Sung Mass without deacon and sub. (There is also a note saying, correctly, that they are said at the 'principal Mass on Sunday'.)
One of the illustrations in the LMS book.

On the Psalm Iudica, the booklet tells us '(Omit during Passiontide)'. This is approximately true (it is not omitted during Passiontide at the celebration of festal or votive Masses), but it would be a lot more useful to know that it is omitted at Masses for the Dead, including, for example, Remembrance Sunday.

Despite various references to what happens at High or Sung Masses, the booklet makes no mention of the Pax at High Mass, which ought to be there with a red line next to it like the prayer said over the Deacon before the sings the Gospel at High Mass, which we find on p20. There is also no reference to the Pontifical blessing at Masses (High or Low) said by Bishops.

One of the strangest things in the booklet is that it tells us that 'Prayer for the Dead is sometimes added' to the Prayers after Low Mass, giving the text of the De Profundis. I have never encountered this, and it is not in the Ritus Servandus. If it is done, it would be a private initiative of the priest. It is extremely strange to print it in a tiny book to help people follow Mass. 

If we are going to include things unofficially added at the end of Mass, then the obvious thing to include is the Marian Anthem, nearly always sung at the end of Sung and High Masses in this country: but the CTS booklet does not do so.

It also says about the Prayers after Low Mass that they are 'now optional'. This is simply not true. If anyone is inclined to disagree, I would like to see the decree which made them so. In the rules in force in 1962, there are a number of specific cases in which they are optional, but the rule remains that they be said at public Low Masses other things being equal. The red booklet unhelpfully points out that they are not in the 1962 Missal, neglecting to mention that they are not in any other Missal either. There were suppressed in 1964 by Inter Oecumenici, which implies of course they they still existed officially up to then.

The rest of this editorial paragraph is also wrong. It says they were first instituted by Leo XIII: no, they were changed and universalised by him, but they were instituted by Pius IX. It says that Pius XI 'directed that they be said for the conversion of Russia': well, this is widely believed but it is not accurate; what he said was this:

Therefore we must press upon Christ the Redeemer of the human race that he allow tranquillity and the freedom to profess the faith to be restored to the afflicted children of Russia. 

Anyone interested in this topic can read the Position Paper on the Prayers after Low Mass; start with the post in this blog here.

Another illustration.
Similarly, the booklet tells us, of the 'Prayer for the Queen', that it is 'Customarily said after the principal Mass on Sunday'. This seems to be a sneaky way of suggesting that it is optional. Again, it is not. It had been mandated by the Bishops of England and Wales, as we see in the Ritus Servandus; that mandate was in force in 1962; that mandate should be followed, in England and Wales, at the Extraordinary Form, today. If it doesn't always happen, that isn't such a big deal, but it's not the place of a little booklet like this to change liturgical law.

The attitude of the CTS in producing this booklet seems to have been that they didn't need to consult anyone who actually understands the Traditional Mass, and that they could stick in whatever their personal tastes, views, or eccentric devotions dictated. This is a disservice to the Church.

Another deficiency of the booklet worth mentioning is the complete absence of music. But then there are a lot of things missing from the booklet which could easily and usefully be included, such as Benediction and the Angelus, as well as as a lot of music, which we included in the LMS booklet. And our specially commissioned illustrations, helpful marginal notes about what is going on, and what seems to be the only accurate traditional Prayer for Wales in Welsh currently in print.

The Latin Mass Society's booklet has a huge amount of additional material, including beautifully printed chant notation and prayers for Holy Communion, and it can be purchased from the LMS website (or your friendly local church) for the extremely reasonable £3.75, with a stiff colour cover. There are discounts for bulk orders.

The leatherette CTS booklet will set you back £5.95; they also do a version in the format of one of their information booklets, for £2.50, but if you want something small and cheap, you can get one of the little blue booklets from the LMS for £1.50.

Extra Note on the De Profundis: I read with great interest that this was said after the Leonine Prayers in Ireland and place in England. I see with some surprise, however, that it is not included at all in the 1942 Manual of Prayers which I have with me, which is where you'd expect to find anything officially approved for use in church: though the Manual points out that other things may be authorised in individual dioceses, it aims to include everything commonly used. It does suggest a couple of things which can be added to the Leonine Prayers, 'to be recited according to the direction of the Bishop': For the Harvest, and in Thanksgiving for the Harvest, and a Prayer to Obtain Peace.

Another extra note: I've now consulted the 1953 edition and the De Profundis is there as an option at the end of the Prayer After Low Mass, together with an expanded selection of things, which now include For the Sovereign Pontiff, For the Sick, In Times of Calamity, and the usual For the Queen. There is no longer any reference to 'the direction of the bishop'.

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.


  1. The red booklet seems to be much the same as far as the lack of consultation goes, but the errors are more minimal, though on the other hand the postures are so incorrect that it makes the whole booklet something of a waste. It also is not particularly attractive and beautiful. The booklets are always confusing, since they try to accomodate both Low and High Mass.

    I believe the Leonine prayers are something of an option; even the ICRSS omits them on occasion. The Domine, non sum dignus is technically only said by the priest, but O agree, if the people say it, it's an organic development.

    The Angelus Press booklet mostly gets the postures correct, and it is well designed.

    I think that someone should make just the Ordinary, without the stock prayers of Trinity Sunday. It should also be flexible, since some places do more pre–1962 practices than others, e.g. the Confiteor shouldn’t be entirely dropped before Communion.

    1. Here we go: 'something of an option'. Why? On what basis do you make that claim? I'm not saying the issue itself is a big deal, and I don't really mind if the Institute can't be bothered, but if you are going to make these claims of fact, have something to back it up with.

  2. Can it be suggested that, in the spirit of protecting the EF Mass, the LMS grant the CTS permission to copy our version?

    1. What purpose would that serve? People can buy the LMS one.

    2. It would (a) save the LMS the future cost of production & would (b) make the prayers of the Mass more available to non members of the LMS. Let's not be dog in the manger!!

  3. For some reason my first attempt at posting jumbled up my paragraphs, so here is take two!

    Firstly, I would say a tip of the hat in the direction of the CTS is due for producing something. But they should endeavour to get it right all the same.

    On the Prayers after Mass - It was ordered twice by Leo XIII that they be said. Once in 1884 and again 2 years later after a Private Mass and for the needs of the Church.

    This was renewed in 1903 by Pius X and Benedict XV in 1915. Pius XI in 1930 allowed the addition of the ejaculatory prayer 'Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us' thrice. A 7 year indulgence was attached to the practice. Pius XI later increased the indulgence (1934) to 10 years to get people to remain and stay for the prayers!
    There are conditions under which they can be omitted but they were never made 'optional'.

    A specific example to justify omission is if another act of piety or a devotion follows the Mass. Another is if a priest is going to celebrate another Mass following the conclusion of the Mass in question and he doesn't leave the altar - e.g. All Souls Day. There is a concession if the priest delivers a homily. There are other examples.
    I don't believe they are actually form part of the rubrics but they were never 'optional' and should be brought into the Ordinary Form!
    The postures for the laity are not codified in the Old Rite whereas the 'General Instructions of the Roman Missal' does give direction to the people (if only they followed it!) in the Novus Ordo. So there will be variance created by local practice and not always in line with the booklet indication. I have blogged about it previously

    Most hand missals don't go so far as texts for Pontifical Masses, so with the LMS booklet you do get value for your shilling!

  4. Interesting about the 'De profundis'- I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 1950s and 1960s and'Out of the Depths'was always included in the prayers after Mass. Which is perhaps why it remains the one psalm I can recite by heart!

    1. It could be that your priest said the 'De profundis clamavi ad te Domine' as an act of piety in his church and importantly after Mass. It may have been a widespread practice - but I can't find any reference to it being mandated.

    2. I'm sure you & Dr Shaw are right. It must have been a parish tradition as we had 3 parish priests (and a host of curates!) that I can recall over that time.

  5. The problem seems to be that the rubrics of the Roman Missal went through a series of modifications from 1948 to 1967 and there were also regional variations, complicating matters further. For instance the 1962 Missal dropped the Leonine Prayers except for weekday Masses, but England retained the practice until 1965. I have seen Missals specify the recitation of the De Profundis after Mass in Irish Dioceses (I suspect the practice may have occured in English parishes with an Irish majority).

    1. Simon I think you are talking about hand missals. These have no authority and are really neither here nor there. I was talking about altar Missals. There is no reference to the Leonine Prayers in the 1962 Missal either way, and the last edition of the authoritative manuals for England and Wales, the Ritus Servandus and the Manual of Prayers, are from a good few years earlier.

      It is interesting about the De Profundis. Perhaps the Irish bishops allowed or encouraged or mandated this.

  6. Many thanks for this corrective article! I have used said CTS book, and there are a number of other irritating errors throughout (apologies if these have been picked up elsewhere).

    p12 - should read 'perducat VOS' for the plural

    p32 - should read 'orate frates UT'

    p52 - should read 'Domine NON sum dignus' ('nom' is given here, but it is correct on the previous page)

    p60 - in the Salve Regina, 'tui' for 'tuae';
    'exsules'/'exsilium' for the less common version without the S after the X;
    the antiphon might benefit from some punctuation in the Latin (somewhat shown up by the excellent English translation that puts those of the other Marian antiphons to shame!)

    There may well be other errors, as I have only proofread the Latin and not the English...

    1. Gosh well spotted. I wouldn't normally spot those kinds of mistakes.

  7. I neglected to point out the nonsensical 'Graduale' rubric on p18:

    "Before the Gospel, the Gradual is said or sung. On some fest-days it is replaced by a longer Sequence; or, during Lent and at Masses for the dead, by a Tract"

    To my knowledge, the Gradual is never replaced, except during Eastertide when supplanted by the first Alleluia. Nor do Sequences replace anything: even if the word 'Gradual' here is a typo for 'Alleluia', only the last part after the semicolon is correct!

    Sadly, even the splendid full Missal by Baronius Press is not free from error. An instance of the '23th Sunday' occurs, perhaps in the understandable confusion that surrounds the extra Epiphany Sundays used at the end of the Church's year. At the Leonine Prayers, 'Bl. Pius XI' is named, a person sadly unknown at this address. Pius IX has been beatified, so a simple mistransposition of the numerals is at play here. I pray regularly that the cause for Pius XI will be opened soon - a forgotten giant of a man.

  8. Joseph I am saddened and surprised that you have chosen to attack CTS in this Blog. CTS is an organisation that works tirelessly to produce good quality booklets Missals etc for Catholic worship and information and it should be praised for bringing out a Translation of the Traditional Mass rather than having this form of nit picking criticism. If there are mistakes in the booklet then surely the right thing is to write to CTS helpfully pointing out unintentional errors and offering LMS help to get the second edition correct. Attacking CTS publicly way will not encourage them to produce other works about the traditional Mass and that leaves all Catholic poorer.

    Also I am afraid I do have to disagree with your comparison of the LMS Booklet and the CTS Booklet. In my view the CTS translation is much better especially for people who are used to the Ordinary Form and who may be new or occasional attenders at the Traditional Mass. The main reason why the CTS Booklet is preferable is that the translation is virtually the same as the new Translation of the Ordinary Form, the main differences arise because the CTS booklet was brought out before the new OF translation was finalised. For newcomers who are used to the OF having a translation with which they are already familiar helps them to understand and appreciate both the similarities and the differences between the OF and EF.

    In my view LMS missed a real opportunity to help newcomers to the Traditional Latin Mass when they brought out a their Booklet, Why, for example “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” rather than “of the Holy Spirit”. The word “Ghost” in English now has a limited meaning and so “Holy Spirit” is a much better translation of “Spiritus Sancti” than “Holy Ghost”. Why “And with thy spirit” rather than “and with your spirit” I am sorry but it looks pretentious. The Mass is going to be in Latin not English so why not use the words of the existing translation. Similarly in the “Credo” there are a number of pointless differences to the Creed as said in the OF even though the Latin in both forms is identical.

    The LMS really needs to think far more about helping newcomers to the Latin Mass, that is what CTS has done and it deserves praise and support not criticism

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.