Review: The CTS New Daily Missal

The CTS New Daily Missal: People’s Edition with the New Translation of the Mass. London: Catholic Truth Society, 2012. 3440pp. £45.00 / $69.30

After many months’ wait, a Royal Mail parcel finally arrived at my doorstep a few days ago. I had pre-ordered The CTS New Daily Missal based on the description alone: the Roman Missal in Latin and English, plus the full lectionary in one volume. At 7″ x 5″ x 2 1/2″ (17.5 cm x 13 cm x 6.5 cm) and more than a few pounds, this is certainly a hefty volume! Let’s take a look inside.

It’s expected that a CTS publication would contain the calendar for England and Wales (in this case Scotland and Ireland as well). The lectionary readings are Jerusalem Bible (1966) and RSV; the psalms Grail. This added layer of a different lectionary and calendar might not appeal to some North Americans, given that their Mass readings will not correspond with this missal. Even so, some might prefer the British and Irish lectionary. This, perhaps, is a matter of individual preference.

While the missal carries both a concordat cum originali and an imprimatur, a brief catechism on the Eucharist from Sacrosanctum Concilium §§ 5 — 8, 47 — 48 replaces the GIRM. Furthermore, the rubrics of the ordinary are not exactly those of the actual Roman Missal. For these reasons, this missal is probably not intended for a Mass celebrant. Despite this, every typical text contained in the Missale Romanum and every translation in the Roman Missal is presented in side-by-side columns save the ordinary which is facing pages. The chants of the ordinary save the prefaces and the celebrant’s chants for the eucharistic prayers are presented in neumes within the Latin text and treble clefs within the English translation. The selection of chants from the Roman Missal reflect the congregational parts of the ordinary. Even so, the selection of ordinary chants is not entirely logical. For example, there is no musical notation for the asperges me or vidi aquam. The ommission of the asperges chant is perhaps consistent with the Ordinary Form rubric which permits another hymn instead of the traditional chant for the sprinkling rite. This is but a very minor criticism.

I have but one other critique of The CTS New Daily Missal. This point is based entirely on personal preference and is scarcely important for most Masses. The Liturgy of the Word does not contain the Latin texts of the reformed Graduale Romanum with English translation. Then again, the Gradual is a choir-book and not part of either the missal or lectionary. For this reason it does not belong in this hand missal. Nevertheless, I would not mind meditating both the gradual and the responsorial psalm at Mass without having to bring more than one book. Again, this criticism does not detract from the general excellence of this hand missal.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the The CTS New Daily Missal is its beautiful printed illuminations for major feasts of the church year. The eye and mind cannot thrive on word alone; both seek beautiful images for meditation. This missal’s merger of the word and image has created a thorough guide and resource for Mass. The CTS New Daily Missal is certainly a high quality reference for clergy and layperson alike.

Jordan Zarembo

I am a PhD student at the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, Montreal. My research interests include Latin philology and the early Roman liturgy.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

12 responses to “Review: The CTS New Daily Missal”

  1. Paul Inwood

    On a point of accuracy:

    The lectionary readings are Jerusalem Bible (1966) and RSV; the psalms Grail. This added layer of a different lectionary and calendar might not appeal to some North Americans, given that their Mass readings will not correspond with this missal. Even so, some might prefer the British and Irish lectionary. This, perhaps, is a matter of individual preference.

    RSV is not used for the readings. There was indeed an RSV Lectionary published in the UK in 1970, but only a minority made use of it, and the three-volume revised and enlarged 1981 edition is exclusively JB for the readings. I cannot imagine that the CTS have actually used any RSV, since this translation will almost never be heard in churches in the countries it is destined for.

    With North American readers in mind, it is also worth pointing out that the captions to the readings and the responses to the psalms are derived from the scriptures themselves. North Americans are used to the ICEL version for these, which is not connected to any version of scripture at all. (The history of that will one day be told. It makes rather sorry reading.)

    Reply
    1. Simon Ho

      There is an article online that talks about the differences in translations for the responses in the UK vs ICEL lectionaries: http://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%20Issues/CCHA1977/Somerville.html

      Would you happen to know if the account is accurate? Are there other bits that were left out?

      Reply
      1. Paul Inwood

        This is an interesting paper, one that I had not come across before. It contains a lot of good factual information, but also a quantity of conjectures and inaccuracies. I think it is fair to say that the account is biased. Reading it has prompted me to think that putting down in black and white what actually took place concerning the Lectionary would be a service to liturgical historians, but here is not the place to do it. I may start a new thread for the purpose. Certainly the information concerning the Lectionary captions and responses is an incomplete and inaccurate account of what took place.

        It is also necessary to know that Fr Stephen Somerville was by then a deeply unhappy man. I was amused to see him describing himself as a graying fiftyfivish cleric. In fact he was almost completely bald by this time, but still sporting a full beard and moustache, gradually turning from a rich brown to a more pepper-and-salt appearance. (A more recent photograph appears on a blog dated 2011: http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/fr-stephen-somerville.html .)

        After this paper was written, Stephen’s anger transformed itself into a fullscale nervous breakdown. Emerging from this, he repudiated any vernacular translation of the liturgy, and especially the work of ICEL of which he had been such an integral part (see, e.g., http://www.fisheaters.com/frsomerville.html and the website already referenced above), and became a proponent of the EF, and henceforward only celebrated in that form. He became personal chaplain to Mel Gibson. An unconfirmed rumour sometime back indicated that he had died. On the other hand, this website http://ca.renewedpriesthood.org/page.cfm?Web_ID=454 seems to indicate that he is still alive, but wth priestly faculties now removed. When watching the flagellation scene in The Passion of Christ, I couldn’t help thinking of Stephen’s own self-flagellation as he became increasingly passionate and, it has to be said, unbalanced in his writings. A sad story.

  2. Jordan Zarembo

    Thank you Paul for your comments. The acknowledgements and copyrights at the beginning of the missal contain the following citation: “The English translation of the Gospel Readings for the Palm Sunday Procession [are] from the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible […]” (my addition, ellipsis) I checked the gospel readings for the Palm Sunday procession against the RSV text and found that the readings were indeed from that translation. Perhaps this brief deviation from the Jerusalem Bible lectionary is a variation peculiar to this missal.

    Reply
  3. John Ainslie

    No, the use of the RSV for the Palm Sunday Gospel is peculiar because this is the only Gospel text that appears in the official Roman (altar) Missal for use in the UK and elsewhere. Why RSV was chosen for that, I do not know: there is a rubric saying that the Jerusalem Bible translation may be used instead.

    It’s odd, because rumour has it that the revised Lectionary for use in the UK will use ESV, not RSV, along with Grail 4 for the psalms.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      Thank you, John, for the clarification. I was aware that the translation of the Gospels of the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem was not JB, but had not identified the translation, having simply ascertained that it was not ESV although close to it.

      One imagines that they included these texts so that priests, deacons and servers would not have to juggle with two books, and adopted a text that almost no one uses in order not to favour one translation over another, given that the USA uses NAB, Canada NRSV, and most of the rest of the English-speaking world JB. The Missal is thus at odds with nearly every other published lectionary currently in use. Of course there is nothing to prevent a priest or deacon continuing to read from the Lectionary in the translation that is used in the country in question.

      However, in the Year of Matthew it may be preferable to use the Missal. The JB has these memorable lines:

      So the disciples went out and did as Jesus had told them. They brought the donkey and the colt, then they laid their cloaks on their backs and he sat on them.

      The amusing ambiguity about precisely who the Lord sat on is not present in the RSV, nor in the Years of Mark and Luke, where there is only a single colt.

      Reply
      1. Pádraig McCarthy

        Raymond E Brown commented in a lecture on the Matthew Palm Sunday passage (21:5) that even this writer was unfamiliar with the literary form of parallelism in this case where there is a repetition in similar words, and so misunderstood Zechariah 9:9 (and Genesis 49:11), leading to the account of an impossible feat!

  4. Pádraig McCarthy

    The new CTS Missal includes the new Propers of Saints for Ireland, published in 2009. However, CTS left out the new three-year cycle of readings for St Patrick (17 March) for use in Ireland; only Jeremiah for Year B is given in the CTS book. Also, the readings given for St Brigid (1 February) are not the official ones.
    However, in 3440+viii CTS pages, it’s hard to be perfect!

    Reply
  5. Pádraig McCarthy

    Another error to report, which is serious for the many millions of the faithful whose vernacular language is Latin! So that Pope Benedict does not have to take you to court for damages, note:
    On the reverse of the title page of the new CTS Missal we are informed:
    “Sine eiusdem licentia scripto data liceat hunc Missale denuo imprimere aut in aliam linguam vertere. ” This tells us that it is permitted to reprint or translate the Latin text without a licence.
    I suspect that they omitted the one word “nemini” (to nobody), so it should read:
    “Sine eiusdem licentia scripto data nemini liceat hunc Missale denuo imprimere aut in aliam linguam vertere.”
    It is permitted to nobody ! You have been warned!

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      re: Pádraig McCarthy on March 22, 2012 – 9:33 am

      Father, I’ll be bold and rebellious and pencil-in some changes. After all, I’m not the one saying Mass. I will start by crossing out all the “O”‘s before the vocatives. Given the 3000+ pages, I’ll be making changes for years to come. 🙁

      Reply
      1. Pádraig McCarthy

        Is there anything else, O my child, since your last confession?
        For your penance, first reveal to me the wicked art of how to insert Smileys into this blog.
        Then spend 40 days fasting on Zarembo Island, Alaska, and finally go bathe yourself seven times in the Jordan.

      2. Paul Inwood

        I will start by crossing out all the “O”‘s before the vocatives.

        I’m with you 100% on that. Especially when they are pronounced almost like the Latin io with a parsonic twang….

Posted

in

by

Jordan Zarembo

Tags:

, ,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading