Neil Obstat
Reputation: 3516
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 4,260
|
As I have seen several misinformed posts regarding the 1962 missal controversy,
I went and did a quick search to find that this topic has not had its own thread in the
Crisis sub-Forum, as far as I can tell; pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Therefore, here it is.
I would like to begin by quoting two other threads, which I link here so you can
find them:
What cane be done ... Fellay as Superior?
| Anthony Benedict said: | Neil, I enjoy your zeal and eloquence. So, please do not consider the following to be a rebuke but rather a request for further exploration and consideration....
On the incorporation of St. Joseph
Inasmuch as both God Incarnate and the Mother of God Herself were obedient to St. Joseph as a foster father and husband, would you not agree that there is at least some point to his incorporation in the Canon, albeit belatedly?
Put another way, why would anyone really want to object to such a decision, per se?
And, put yet another way, again, if the Mediatrix of All Graces rightfully enjoys glorious prominence in the greatest liturgical source of grace itself, and therein, within its most sacred constituent, the Canon, is supplication to the same Saint who kept Her and Jesus alive under dangerous circumstances and provided for them every day he lived with them, even instructing Our Lord Himself in practical wisdom as the Savior grew into manhood, well....
( I trust you understand where I'm going with this. Personally, I think St. Joseph may have had a word with his own foster Son on behalf of the good churchmen who piously sought, at long, long last! to even remember the dear Saint after so many centuries of unintentional obscurity! )
|
Dear Anthony Benedict, you have some eloquent things to say, yourself! I do not
disagree with you, but rather than leave it at that, it seems to me there is a lot
more to it. And it needs its own thread, thus this post in this new thread.......
1956 vs. 1962 in Liturgy Chant Prayers sub-Forum
| Raoul76 said: | | Jehanne said: | | "I have read where the Canon had not been changed in something like 1,300+ years, and no one really seemed concerned when Pope John XXIII made the change." |
No one except a handful seemed much concerned when the priest began facing the people either, or they got rid of the tabernacle. Many even liked it. The de-Catholicizing process had been in effect long before the Freemason Roncalli took the Throne. The majority were also pleased that no longer were the Jews treated as an alien, threatening race but were now our elder brothers in the faith.
The insertion of St. Joseph's name in the Canon hardly seems an incentive to impiety. What it does seem like is bad faith. Like they are telling you "There is NOTHING we can't touch, NOTHING is sacred." It also strikes me as an act of bad faith on the part of SSPX to use John XXIII's Missal considering the questions surrounding him, and Abp. Lefebvre was INSISTENT on it -- why? The imposition of the 1962 Missal was the breaking point, most likely, for the "Nine" who split from SSPX.
From Wikipedia entry on SSPV:
| Quote: | | The SSPV developed out of the much larger Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), the traditionalist organization founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In 1983, Lefebvre expelled four priests (Fr. Kelly, Fr. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, and Fr. Berry) of the SSPX's Northeast USA District from the society, partly because they were opposed to his instructions that Mass be celebrated according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal issued by John XXIII |
.
Notice that the man often hailed as the champion of tradition, Abp. Lefebvre, would send you packing if you didn't accept the 1962 Missal. Didn't they change something about the Jews in that Missal also? |
For starters, it seems to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with having
St. Joseph's name in the Canon of the Mass; however, that is not really the point,
as history has shown. The point is, that over the many centuries has developed
the principle of protecting the Canon from changes, either additions, deletions, or
both: by way of morphing one or more words into something different from what
it was before.
In the early centuries of the Church, the part of the Mass we call the Hanc
igitur was added by a Pope, and the Catholic people almost had a riot. What
is wrong with the Hanc igitur? Nothing. But the riot was all about the fact that the
Pope dared to change the Canon. It seems the uprising of the faithful at that time
was due to the greater sensus catholicus of the faithful in that age, compared
to these days! IMHO.
Along came Trent and Quo Primum, where the Canon was "set in stone," so
to speak, with language arguably infallible, but with a tiny weakness, inasmuch
as the Canon of the Mass as it was then, and continued to be until Bugnini the
Horrible came along, had already "developed" over the centuries, case in point
being the aforementioned Hanc igitur addition. Max Krah would say, "including but
not limited to the Hanc igitur." If Quo Primum were to be truly bullet-proof
infallible, then we would have to have a Canon that was never different
previously. So the weakness is, that since the Canon had developed, "organically"
over the centuries, why could it not likewise "develop" now, by adding the name
of St. Joseph to it?
As I said in a previous post, this addition was (as we now see in retrospect) a
"trial balloon" to find out if the faithful would roll over and take it. Well, unlike the
faithful in the old days, the new faithful complained not a whimper. It seems to me
that this was due to three other factors (and perhaps others I have missed) and
those are these:
1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1962 altar Missals came out with no Quo
Primum printed inside the front cover. This appears to have had the effect of
removing the guard, as it were, or leaving the treasury without surveillance. For
now, with no prohibition to conserve the Missal, no protection against changing
the Canon is in place and a very subtle change could be tried, a trial balloon.
2) Someone came up with the brilliant idea of calling the new edition of hand
missal the "SAINT JOSEPH DAILY MISSAL." Anyone who lived through those
years of 1960 - 1969 (the years most pertinent to the Third Secret of Fatima),
the "Abominable Sixties," knows that it was the "hot new fad" for any up-and-
coming young Catholic to have the St. Joseph's Missal. It was literally a new
Status Symbol. Children all over the country (America, anyway) even went so
far as to save up their allowance or yard work money to buy a new Missal. How
could parents disdain a signal grace like that? Sheer genius, IMHO.
3) I'll explain below, because we're not ready for #3 yet!
And that's how St. Joseph was used, unbeknownst to Catholics at large, as a
kind of battering ram to "Break Down the Bastion" of the erstwhile untouchable
Canon of the Mass.
I had been a catechism student in the early grades at the time, and I literally
remember parish priests standing there in front of the class (we would always
rise together (stand up) next to our desks when the priest walked into the
classroom), telling us in no uncertain terms that the reason it's called the "Canon"
of the Mass is, that it cannot be changed. Mind you, this was right at the time
that the name of St. Joseph was being added every time the priest prays the
Canon! These priests, therefore, were telling the students that the Canon cannot
be changed, inferring that the Canon was not being changed, at the same time
that the Canon was in fact being changed. Interesting, no?
Furthermore, in later years, at the end of the Abominable Sixties, the priests I
heard, continued to say this, that "the Canon cannot be changed," even after
they had been adding St. Joseph to the Canon for about 8 or 9 years already,
and even while the Novus Ordo liturgy was in the works, about to be
released (I dare not say "promulgated," for some claim it was not literally so)
with not only a changed canon, but 4 optional, different "canons" otherwise known
as "Eucharistic Prayers I - IV." You see, they sneaked this on ostensibly under
the radar by having re-named the Canon the Eucharistic Prayer, in, guess what
year? Anyone who thinks these things are done by "shooting from the hip" or
"from the seat of their pants" would need to know: not 1968, not 1966, but in
1964! A FULL FIVE YEARS IN ADVANCE!! This proves (to anyone with a lone,
active brain cell, that is) that the revolution was planned long ahead, and by the
time we got the news, they were merely "going through the motions."
And now, we're ready for #3:
3) These priests, knowingly or otherwise (I suspect many of them were just
duped into thinking this under "obedience," which was objectively false obedience)
were effectively telling school children and likewise adults, that "the Canon"
cannot be changed, but these are Eucharistic Prayers, and not "the Canon."
***
But that's not all!
Let's look back at this scenario through hindsight, as one glib commenter recently
said, let's look back at "the Rose through World colored glasses."
We have heard the now famous accusation against B16 that he "denies the
principle of non-contradiction." Please recall that the erstwhile Ratzinger was a
peritus, an "expert" at Vatican II. He's therefore one of the abominable authors
of the unclean spirit of Vatican II. Please keep in mind that we have it on pretty
good evidence that this leopard has not changed his spots. That's another topic.
Please recall here that it was during these same Vatican II years that these priests
in my own, personal experience, were saying "the Canon cannot be changed,"
while they changed the Canon. Do we see the ni**er in the woodpile? Pardon
the expression?
It seems to me that not only was St. Joseph the "trial balloon" for the liturgical
revolution, it was the "Trial Balloon" (caps intentional!) for Father Ratzinger to see
if he could get away with denying the principle of non-contradiction, by de facto
application thereof.
It was, therefore (IMHO) this very thing that gave the liturgical revolutionaries
the confidence to truck out the "New Mass" with a vengeance.
***
I invite your comments. 
|
|
| Posted Jul 16, 2012, 2:02 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Neil Obstat
Reputation: 3516
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 4,260
|
Thursday, I like your response, so I copied it here!
| Thursday said: | | Anthony Benedict said: | Neil, I enjoy your zeal and eloquence. So, please do not consider the following to be a rebuke but rather a request for further exploration and consideration....
On the incorporation of St. Joseph
Inasmuch as both God Incarnate and the Mother of God Herself were obedient to St. Joseph as a foster father and husband, would you not agree that there is at least some point to his incorporation in the Canon, albeit belatedly?
Put another way, why would anyone really want to object to such a decision, per se?
And, put yet another way, again, if the Mediatrix of All Graces rightfully enjoys glorious prominence in the greatest liturgical source of grace itself, and therein, within its most sacred constituent, the Canon, is supplication to the same Saint who kept Her and Jesus alive under dangerous circumstances and provided for them every day he lived with them, even instructing Our Lord Himself in practical wisdom as the Savior grew into manhood, well....
( I trust you understand where I'm going with this. Personally, I think St. Joseph may have had a word with his own foster Son on behalf of the good churchmen who piously sought, at long, long last! to even remember the dear Saint after so many centuries of unintentional obscurity! )
|
There is always a pretext for their changes. Do you think St. Joseph is happy they used his name to break open the Canon of the mass? They tried the same trick 100 years earlier and thousands of letters were sent to Rome but the request was denied as it should have been.
ANd you dear friend are playing the part the usurpers want you to play. If someone complains about adding St. Joseph accuse them of having something against the holy guardian of Jesus. Don't tell me you don't see the strategy. |
|
|
| Posted Jul 16, 2012, 2:08 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Lover of Truth
Reputation: 163
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,545
|
http://christorchaos.com/RebelsinRerunSeasonpartone.htm
Rerun Two: "Beatifying" More Apostates
Guess what is possibly "on tap" for later this year or next as the formal "celebrations" of the "Second" Vatican Council get underway on the fiftieth anniversary of its opening, October 11, 2002, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Yes, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II "beatified" the first of the "conciliar" "popes" Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, on September 3, 2000, mocking Pope Saint Pius X, who had condemned in Notre Charge Apostolique (August 15, 1910) the very false principles of the The Sillon that the then Father Angelo Roncalli embraced and served as the foundation of conciliarism's world view, on his feast day in the Catholic Church.
Father Angelo Roncalli was under suspicion of heresy early in his priestly life, proceeding as "Pope" John XXIII to advance theological and liturgical concepts that had been rejected by Holy Mother Church. Father Francisco Ricossa described what he called the "anti-liturgical heresies" extant in Roncalli/John XXIII's liturgical changes:
Pius XII succeeded by John XXIII. Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:
As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.
While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity."
Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr.Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.
John XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."'
On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956 into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. "We have reached the decision," he writes, "that the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman Missal must not be delayed any longer."
In this framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a climate which was already "Conciliar," the Breviary and Missal of John XXIII were born. They formed a "Liturgy of transition" destined to last — as it in fact did last — for three or four years. It is a transition between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II.
The "Antiliturgical Heresy" in the John XXIII Reform
We have already seen how the great Dom Guéranger defined as "liturgical heresy" the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John XXIII.
Since John XXIII's innovations touched the Breviary as well as the Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the "flavor" and scope of the innovations.
1. Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the Breviary in 1736, "reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to make it shorter." In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture. Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.
2. Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. "The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect," said Dom Guéranger, "is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from Holy Scripture." While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII's Breviary suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.
3. Removal of saints' feasts from Sunday.Dom Gueranger gives the Jansenists' position: "It is their [the Jansenists'] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not permit this day to be 'degraded' by consecrating it to the veneration of a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays, reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection — shouldn't they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts would pass by silently and unnoticed?"
John XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X, fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Janenist heretics: only nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.
4. Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: "The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church's calendar with the inclusion' of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!"
John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints' days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to "Calvinist principles."
Dom Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated. (Liturgical Revolution)
|
.........................
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church
|
| Posted Jul 19, 2012, 5:52 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
