has never, ever used the expression “the Mass of St. John XXIII” in his
postings, and would never do such a thing. I’m so glad to hear that!
That’s great, Father Z! I’m glad to be corrected. A reader of his
blog reports that some of Fr. Z’s readers DO use the expression, without
correction, so that must be where I read the expression. Since I am
not a scholar of Father Z’s blog, I am more than happy to correct my
earlier post: My plea is not addressed to Father Z, then, but to those
readers who DO use that expression. And, I would point out that my
comments were not solely addressed to that particular blog itself.
Read more here: http://billditewig.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/correction-a-plea-to-some-readers-of-father-zs-blog/
Here's Fr. Zuhlsdorf's Answer:
Wherein Fr. corrects some diaconal misinformation about the Missal of St. John XXIIIThe usually sensible Rev. Mr. Kandra and the, well, I suppose less than always sensible (he seems to support women’s ordination and he has some odd colleagues) Rev. Mr. Ditewig are confused today.
They disseminated something about me that isn’t true.
This isn’t a huge deal, but it bears some explanation because I really like the topic.
From Deacon Kandra’s blog:
Deacon Bill Ditewig address a common misconception:Deacon Ditewig… who will get more traffic today than ever… even has a
It is the tendency of some commentators, such as Father John Zuhlsdorf (“Father Z”), to refer to the 1962 editio typica of the Missale Romanum as “The Mass of St. John XXIII”. [NO. This is false. I don't do that. I never have and I never will.]
I’m not sure why such an error is being made, and I don’t want to
ascribe any motivation to something which may be nothing more than a
simple error of fact.
“PLEA” to me to STOP referring to the “Mass of St. John XXIII”.
No. I can’t do that. I can’t stop doing that BECAUSE I NEVER STARTED.
In fact, I do NOT refer to the “Mass of St. John XXIII” when writing or speaking about the Extraordinary Form. I never have and I never will.
HERE is one post, as an example, wherein I refer to the BOOK as the Missale Romanum of St. John XXIII.
I sometimes, and with great relish, now refer to the 1962 Missale Romanum as the “Missale Romanum of St. John XXIII”.
That is to say, this is the edition of the Missale Romanum issued by St. John XXIII in 1962.
Just as I would never refer to the Extraordinary Form, or Usus
Antiquior (aka all-sorts-of-things), as simply “the Latin Mass”, because
the Novus Ordo ought to be celebrated in Latin and is, therefore, also
“the Latin Mass”, I would never be so sloppy and inaccurate as to refer
to the “Mass of St. John XXIII”, unless it were applied to a Mass
celebrated by St. John XXIII.
The deacons might want to clean their reading glasses.
I am sure that Deacon Kandra, who may not be terribly familiar with
or interested all this old Mass business, may have just taken what
Deacon Ditewig wrote at face value and without doubling checking. I
don’t think he would purposely misinform people.
Deacon Ditewig, whom we have seen before, could have other motives for misinforming people
about what I write and then tisking and clucking and attempting to
correct me (who has already forgotten as much about these matters has
most clerics will ever know).
In any event, you can watch for their own corrections of the
corrections they tried to make in (wrongly) correcting me. I don’t need
So, everyone, feel free to use as much as possible the nickname:
Missale Romanum of St. John XXIII!Could it be that liberals doesn’t like the idea of St. John XXIII
being associated with the Extraordinary Form? Could it be that liberals
think they own St. John XXIII?
And, as frosting, here is a shot of the title page of my typical edition of the Missale Romanum of
St. John XXIII. You can tell it is the Missale Romanum of St. John
XXIII because St. John XXIII’s coat-of-arms is right there on the page…
beneath where is says Missale Romanum.
Finally, did I mention that St. John XXIII’s edition of the Missale Romanum is what we use for the Extraordinary Form thanks to The Pope of Christian Unity, Benedict XVI?