Missals Contaminated with Progressivism


I wrote this letter to Tradition in Action, and although they did not respond to it, they did put it on their website:


I hope this letter helps people scrutinize which missal is good, and preferably NOT to buy reprints, since many, although claiming to be a faithful reprint, are not, and indeed have ‘revisions.’

Any comments? I think I may burn it after all.

God bless you, and be careful of what is being presented to you, even in SSPX chapels. I choose to stick with the resistance priests/Marian Corps SSPX.

God love you all.


Dear TIA,

I read the former Q & A regarding the best missal (here and here), and your reply stating you do not recommend any missal in particular, but it is acceptable if it is from before 1955. Agreed.

However, I purchased a 1940 St. Andrew Daily Missal by Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. of the Abbey of St. Andre, by The E.M. Lohmann Co., St. Paul, Minnesota; Nilhil Obstat by Arthurus J. Scanlon, S.T.D. and Imprimatur by Franciscus J. Spellman, D.D.

I thought this was a good missal, but there is a section which talks about the 1922 rubrics of active participation restored to the faithful, including responding to prayers, priests’ liturgical prayers, congregational responses and singing Gregorian Chant and hymns, and dialogue participation at the Mass.

There are also rubrics for the Mass itself, it talks about the people reading aloud one of certain prayers in English at Low Masses, to continue reciting The Lamb of God with the priest, the whole congregation reciting The 2nd Confiteor together with deacon at High Mass or server at Low Mass, as well as other answers to the Communion prayers and, well, it goes on.

Firstly, we ought to warn people to read any missal over very carefully before they buy it, and secondly, should I give this one away, burn it, or keep it? It is a tremendous distraction to me, and I am fraud to give it to anyone, since it might lead them astray.

Thank you and God bless your work at TIA.

A.S., a humble ‘resistor’