Author Topic: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi  (Read 16266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18173
  • Reputation: +8255/-635
  • Gender: Male
1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
« on: July 15, 2012, 08:02:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Quote from: Anthony Benedict
    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

    Quote from: Raoul76
    Quote from: Jehanne
    "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.  :popcorn:
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #1 on: July 15, 2012, 08:08:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Thursday, I like your response, so I copied it here!





    Quote from: Thursday
    Quote from: Anthony Benedict
    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.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #2 on: July 19, 2012, 11:52:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #3 on: July 19, 2012, 11:55:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=82&catname=6

    The Pius XII Reforms: More on the "Legal" Issue
    Rev. Anthony Cekada
    Despite the Bugnini connection,

    shouldn’t we just obey “the last true pope”?

    IN APRIL 2006 I posted a short article on the Internet that explained briefly why rejecting the Pius XII Holy Week reforms and adhering to the previous liturgical practices was not really “illegal,” arbitrary, or a case of “picking and choosing” à la SSPX.

          I pointed out that, by applying the general principles for the interpretation of ecclesiastical laws, the laws imposing the reforms could no longer be considered binding because: (1) They lacked one of the essential qualities of a law, stability (or perpetuity); and (2) They became harmful (nociva) because of a change of circumstances, and hence automatically ceased to bind.

          To support the factual claims for each argument, I quoted extensively from a 1955 work by Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who was not only involved in formulating the Pius XII reforms, but also the person most directly responsible for the creation of the Novus Ordo in 1969.

          Bugnini repeatedly described the reforms as provisional or as steps leading measures that would be even more far-reaching (read: the Novus Ordo).

          One reader sent me some additional questions that I have answered below.

     

    1. “Stability” and the Legislator’s Intention. “Thank you for your article on the Pius XII Holy Week changes. This is a question I have had some difficulty with lately, with respect to how we can reject the liturgical laws of a true pope.”

          “In your first point, on the transitory nature of the reforms, all of the quotes you gave were from Bugnini. But since a law is an act by a legislator, isn't it the legislator's intent that is relevant, and not the man who merely drafted the law or advised the legislator?”

          The various stages of the reforms were outlined beforehand (at least in a general sense) in a 340-page typeset document called the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica, which was presented to Pius XII in 1948.

          The Memoria bears one signature, that of Fr. Ferdinando Antonelli OFM, who in the last sentence of the document graciously thanks “the Rev. Fr. Bugnini CM, a member of the Commission, for the help he gave me in the revision of the drafts.” Some twenty-one years later, Fr. Antonelli would also sign the April 3, 1969 decree promulgating Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae.

          The Memoria states specifically that the “complete and general revision” it envisions “cannot be put into practice in a few days” and must be carried out in “successive phases” (¶334). The reform will begin with the Breviary, followed by the Missal, the Martyrology, and the rest of the liturgical books. (¶339). These will be approved at each stage by the pope (¶340). The process will culminate with the promulgation of a “Code of Liturgical Law” that will be gradually prepared during the work of the Reform and “should guarantee its stability.”(¶341: garantire la stabilità).

          The Memoria deferred to “the Commission’s second stage of work” (¶316) such possibilities as introducing a Novus Ordo-style multi-year cycle of scripture readings (¶258), using the vernacular (¶314), fostering “participation” (¶314), introducing concelebration (¶314), or changing the “internal structure of the Mass itself” (¶314).

          In practice, however, only a few points from the first stage (the Breviary) were introduced. Changes in the Missal were limited for the time being to the new Holy Week.

          The “Code of Liturgical Law” that the Memoria said was to “guarantee the stability” of the proposed reform, obviously, was never issued.

          The provisions of the 1955 Decree promulgating the new rubrics for the Breviary underscord the transitory nature of the reforms as well: Although the Decree introduced numerous rubrical changes, it specified that the liturgical books then in force must continue to be used “until further provision is made” and that “no change whatever is [to be] made in arranging whatever editions may be made of the Roman Breviary and Missal.”

          From all this, it is absolutely clear that the Pius XII himself regarded the 1950s liturgical legislation as transitory — temporary steps leading to something else.

          And in the practical order, moreover, the changes were transitory. The last batch (1958) stayed in full force only until 1960, when John XXIII issued a new set, intended to tide everyone over till Vatican II overhauled everything.

    All the foregoing is more than sufficient to establish that the laws introducing the Pius XII reforms lacked the essential quality of stability (or perpetuity), and for that reason must be considered no longer binding.

     

    2. “Cessation” and Changed Circumstances? “As to the second point, I don't understand what the changed circumstances are. If the circumstances are the modernists' intentions that this be the first step to a massive destruction of the Church, then the circumstances didn't in fact change. It already existed at the time the law was passed. And to say that these evil intentions can be attributed to the law itself would seem to say the devil slipped one past the Holy Ghost and used the Church's authority for evil.”

          The changed circumstances that render the 1950s legislation harmful are not simply the modernists’ intentions, but principally the fact of the promulgation of the New Mass — a rite which all traditionalists regard as evil, harmful to the Catholic faith, sacrilegious and grossly irreverent, if not outright invalid.

          Now, among the principles and precedents introduced in the Pius XII liturgical changes, we discover the following elements that were subsequently incorporated across the board into the New Mass:

          (1) Liturgy must follow the “pastoral” principle to educate the faithful.

          (2) Vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy.

          (3) Reduction of the priest’s role.

          (4) Lay participation must ideally be vocal.

          (5) New liturgical roles may be introduced.

          (6) Prayers and ceremonies may be changed to accommodate modern “needs.”

          (7) “Needless duplications” must be eliminated.

          (8) The Ordo Missae itself may be changed, or parts eliminated.

          (9) The Creed need not be recited on more solemn occasions.

          (10) The priest “presides” passively at the bench when Scripture is read.

          (11) Certain liturgical functions must be conducted “facing the people.”

          (12) Emphasis on the saints must be reduced.

          (13) Liturgical texts or practices that could offend heretics, schismatics or Jews should be modified.

          (14) Liturgical expressions of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament may be “simplified” or reduced.

          The 1950s liturgical legislation introduced these things here and there, and on a limited basis. Taken individually, none was evil in itself.

          But fifty years later, we recognize that these principles and precedents were the foot in the door to the eventual destruction of the Mass. In the very document promulgating the Novus Ordo, in fact, Paul VI himself points to the Pius XII legislation as the beginning of the process.

          Continuing to follow these practices promotes the modernist lie that the New Mass was merely an organic development of the true Catholic liturgy. You can hardly criticize the New Mass’s vernacular, passive presider and ceremonies facing the people if you engage in the very same practices every year when Holy Week rolls around.

     

    3. Indefectibility of Church? “What becomes of the indefectibility of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost if we assert that a heretic has used the authority of a true pope to promulgate a liturgy that is harmful to the Church?”

          The application of laws promulgating the liturgical changes became harmful after the passage of time because of the changed circumstances, as explained in 2.

          Canonists and moral theologians (e.g., Cocchi, Michels, Noldin, Wernz-Vidal, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Zalba) commonly teach that a human law can become harmful (nociva, noxia) due to changed circumstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.

          One cannot therefore maintain that the application of this principle contradicts the teaching of dogmatic theology that the Church is infallible when she promulgates universal disciplinary laws.

     

    4. Are You “Pope-Sifting”? “How is this distinguishable from the SSPX's "pope sifting"? If we don't draw the line between true popes and false popes, then where do we draw it? It seems we could hardly criticize the SSPX for picking and choosing what they accept from their "pope". Even more frighteningly, must we make the same judgments about earlier popes? What about the liturgical laws of St. Pius X? St. Pius V?”

          The phrase “pope-sifting” originated with Fr. Franz Schmidberger’s statement that one must sift (cribler) the teachings of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar popes in order to separate what is Catholic from what is not Catholic.

    The essence of pope-sifting consists in the ongoing act of private judgment exercised over each teaching and law that emanates from a living Roman Pontiff, coupled with refusal of submission to him. SSPX has made this the fundamental operating principle for its apostolate.

          For those who do not observe the Pius XII liturgical legislation, however, there is no living pope to “sift” or refuse submission to. We merely apply to these laws the same general principle we apply to all other ecclesiastical laws: If because of the post-Vatican II crisis, applying a particular law (e.g., restrictions on delegations for administering sacraments, dimissorial letters for ordinations, permissions for erecting churches, faculties for preaching, requirements for Imprimaturs, etc.) would now have sort of harmful effect, we consider the law to be no longer binding.

          Or put another way: If like SSPX you recognize someone as a living pope, he is your living lawgiver; you are bound to approach him to ask which laws apply to you and how to interpret them. If you are a sedevacantist, however, you have no living lawgiver to approach; when you have a question about whether a law applies or how to interpret it, your only recourse is to follow general principles the canonists have laid down.

     

    5. Obedience to Lawful Authority? “How do we reconcile this with obedience to lawful authority? It seems we are questioning the wisdom of the legislation instead of accepting the judgment of the Church on it.”

          The principles enunciated in points 1 (stability) and 2 (cessation of laws that become harmful) are found in approved commentaries on the Code of Canon Law.

    If the application of these principles were indeed inconsistent with the virtue of obedience owed to lawful authority, these commentaries would never have received ecclesiastical approval.

    * * * * *

          That said, all the foregoing questions assume that the sole principle that must determine how traditional priests perform the liturgy is the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope.”

    But this is not as simple as it sounds, because before a priest can maintain that the Pius XII legislation alone is legally binding, he must first demonstrate conclusively that John XXIII and Paul VI (at least before the end of 1964) were not true popes.

    Until he does so, he must consider himself bound by all the John XXIII changes — “legally binding” is your principle, remember — as well as all the early Paul VI changes.

    (Among the early Paul VI changes are the following: At Mass the priest never recites texts that the choir sings, bits of the Ordinary are sung or recited in English, the Secret is said aloud, the “Per Ipsum” at the end of the Canon is recited aloud, the “Libera Nos” is recited aloud, “Corpus Christi/Amen” is used for the people’s communion, the Last Gospel is suppressed, Scripture readings are proclaimed in the vernacular alone and facing the people, lay lectors/commentators assist the priest, the “Pater Noster” is recited in English, etc.)

          In the case of both Roncalli and early Montini, a putative legislator was “in possession.” If observing the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope” is supposedly the golden norm for traditional Catholic worship, shouldn’t Father then follow the “safer course” by chopping up the Mass and training the lectors, just in case?

          Since the “last true pope” principle leads to other problems, what then?

          The answer is simple: Follow the liturgical rites that existed before the modernists started their tinkering.

          We traditionalists endlessly reaffirm our determination to preserve the traditional Latin Mass and the Church’s liturgical tradition. To my way of thinking, it makes no sense whatsoever to preserve the liturgical “tradition” of Holy Week ceremonies invented in 1955, transitional Breviary rubrics, and “reforms” that lasted for all of five years.

          The Catholic liturgy we seek to restore should be the one redolent of the fragrance of antiquity — not the one reeking with the scent of Bugnini.

    "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 Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #4 on: July 19, 2012, 11:57:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=78&catname=6

    Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms "Illegal"?
    Rev. Anthony Cekada
    Q. I I was just wondering how you justify rejection of the Holy Week "reforms" under Pius XII. If the principle of "epikeia" is invoked, it would seem this does not apply given the validity of the reigning Pontiff, and his rightful authority to make such "changes". I was under the impression that epikeia only applied when a law began to work against the common good and needed to be ignored. I would appreciate your insight. Thank you for your fantastic work and time

    Q. Thank you for sending me these links to your wonderful web-site and for the beautiful ceremonies presented in the pictures. Regarding the 1955 Holy Week Changes: in reading the arguments from 1955 for the reasons in the changes, the "innovators" talked of "returning to earlier traditions" and of "simplification of the ceremonies", etc.: the same arguments made later for the entire Novus Ordo. Admittedly, the whole thing stinks of Bugnini. Annibale admitted in his memoirs that this was an important step towards the liturgical anarchy he later created with Paul VI and all their protestant friends and bishops. I have no doubt in my mind that the 1955 changes should have been thrown out (like the rest of Bugnini's "innovations").

    However, I have two main questions: what does this say to us of Pope Pius XII in those latter years for permitting and utilizing this new ceremony, and also, since we have been Interregnum since 1958, what justifications do we utilize to individually celebrate the older ceremonies which were replaced before 1958 without making it appear that we are "picking and choosing" which ceremonies we want to utilize. Is it because of the belief that Pope Pius XII would never have agreed with the changes if he knew what occurred afterwards like we do know? Is it because he never really promulgated the changes (as some believe)? Or is it simply because Bugnini was behind it all? I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this as this topic has puzzled me for quite some time.

    A. Over the years we have been repeatedly asked this question. The answer is quite simple, and is based on the common-sense principles that underlie all the Church’s legislation.

    The laws promulgating the Pius XII liturgical reforms were human ecclesiastical laws, subject to the general principles of interpretation for all church laws. As such, they no long bind on two grounds:

     

    I. Lack of Stability (or Perpetuity). Stability is an essential quality of a true law. The 1955 reforms were merely transitional norms; this is self-evident from subsequent legislation and contemporaneous comments by those responsible for creating them.

    In his 1955 book on the changes, The Simplification of the Rubrics, Bugnini himself makes this abundantly clear in the following passages:

    • “The present decree has a contingent character. It is essentially a bridge between the old and the new, and if you will, an arrow indicating the direction taken by the current restoration.…”

    • “The simplification does not embrace all areas which would deserve a reform, but for the moment only the things that are easiest and most obvious and with an immediate and tangible effect… In the simplification, being a ‘bridge’ between the present state and the general reform, compromise was inevitable…”

    • “This reform is only the first step toward measures of a wider scope, and it is not possible to judge accurately of a part except when it is placed in its whole.”

    In a 1956 commentary on the new Holy Week rite (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Lit. 25, p.1.), Bugnini says:

    • “The decree ‘Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria,” promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 16 November 1955 [and introducing the new Holy Week] is the third step towards a general liturgical reform.”

    Such norms (as we now realize), thus lacked one of the essential qualities of a law — stability or perpetuity — and are therefore no longer binding.

     

    2. Cessation. A human ecclesiastical law that was obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circumstances after the passage of time. When this happens, such a law ceases to bind. (I have written several articles that touch upon this topic.)

    Traditionalists apply this principle (at least implicitly) to a great number of ecclesiastical laws, and it applies equally to the 1955 reforms.

    The many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter harmful, because such a use promotes (at least implicitly) the dangerous error that Paul VI's "reform" was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy.

    Indeed, this is the very lie that Paul VI proclaimed in the first two paragraphs of Missale Romanum, his 1969 Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Novus Ordo.

    It makes no sense to support this deception by insisting that the 1955 legislation still binds — especially when we now know that it was all part of a long-range plot by Annibale Bugnini's modernist cabal to destroy the Mass.

    Here, from his 1955 book, The Simplification of the Rubrics, is Bugnini announcing the long-term goal of these changes:

    • “We are concerned with ‘restoring’ [the liturgy]… [making it] a new city in which the man of our age can live and feel at ease…”

    • “No doubt it is still too early to assess the full portent of this document, which marks an important turning point in the history of the rites of the Roman liturgy…”

    • “Those who are eager for a more wholesome, realistic liturgical renewal are once more — I should say — almost invited, tacitly, to keep their eyes open and make an accurate investigation of the principles here put forward, to see their possible applications…”

    • “More than in any other field, a reform in the liturgy must be the fruit of an intelligent, enlightened collaboration of all the active forces.”

    And here is Bugnini describing how his “reform” commission got the liturgical changes approved by Pius XII:

    “The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini [Paul VI, the modernist who would promulgate the Novus Ordo] and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea [half-Jew, modernist, and premier ecumenist at Vatican II], confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him.” (The Liturgical Reform, p.9)

    Thus, the Mason’s liturgical creations were presented to the sick pope for his approval by the two scheming modernists who will be major players in destroying the Church at Vatican II.

    Bugnini in his memoirs, indeed, entitles the chapter on his involvement with the pre-Vatican II changes as "The Key to the Liturgical Reform." It prepared the ground for what would follow.

    I devote two weeks of my seminary liturgy course on the "Modern Era" to an examination of the pre-Vatican II antecedents to the later "reforms." The problems outlined in the articles by Bp. Dolan and Fr. Ricossa on our web site thus far are only the tip of the iceberg.

    Traditionalists rightly set aside as inapplicable many other ecclesiastical laws. A fortiori, they should ignore liturgical laws that were the dirty work of the man who destroyed the Mass.

    "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 Doctor of the Church


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #5 on: July 19, 2012, 11:57:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "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 Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #6 on: July 19, 2012, 12:01:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=36&catname=6

    Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass
    Most Rev. Daniel L. Dolan

    Was it Pius XII and John XXIII? Or was it really Bugnini?
    The recent attempt by Archbishop Lefebvre to impose the reformed liturgy of John XXIII upon Catholic clergy and laity faithful to tradition is nothing short of a tragedy, as recent events have demonstrated. But for all this, it contains the certain ironies — but ironies which sting rather than amuse.

          The Society dedicated to St. Pius X, the great foe of Modernism, has attempted to compel its members to abandon the liturgical books bearing its holy Patron's name, a guarantee of orthodoxy, in favor of the provisional reforms of John XXIII, a man long suspected of Modernism, as he himself personally told Archbishop Lefebvre. The reforms of John XXlll were intended merely to "tide the Church over" until Vatican II could revise everything, and now they are being used to divide those who have been attempting to salvage what souls remained after the mass destruction of that Council.

          The Society has rightly resisted the abuses of authority by the Conciliar Church. But it now attempts to legislate in matters liturgical — a right which it does not have, for such power belongs to the Holy See alone (Canon 1257). Instead of following its own prudent practice of keeping the custom of each country (sanctioned by the General Chapter of 1976 and never revoked), it now demands an unquestioning obedience in the name of "liturgical unity." Priests who are unwilling to give an unquestioning obedience to the demands that they "reform" the way they say Mass are first subjected to threats and finally, if that fails, they are made the objects of bitter denunciations. It is as though history is repeating itself before our eyes.

          Another irony is that the Liturgy of John XXIII is not really his at all, any more than the new Holy Week can be attributed to Pope Pius XII. These interim changes which prepared the way for the Novus Ordo Missae were prepared under the direction of two men: Rev. (later Cardinal) Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., and Rev. (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini, C.M.
     
         In 1969 Antonelli would sign the decree promulgating the Novus Ordo.

          And Bugnini, who supervised the liturgical reform from its inception in 1948 to its culmination in 1969 with the New Order of Mass, is the one Vatican prelate against whom the oft-raised charges of complicity with Masonry seem to stick. In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre himself, based on his personal experience, thinks it highly probable that Fr. Bugnini was a Mason.

          But now we are asked to accept all the liturgical mischief done during the fifties and sixties by Fr. Bugnini, all the while rejecting what he produced a mere eight years later! Perhaps Catholics are right to feel they are being "set-up" for a compromise! Not irony, but tragedy!

          How many times have you heard someone ask, "How could it have happened?" The answer is that it did not happen overnight. Those responsible for replacing our Holy Mass with a Community Celebration were content for years to work slowly — very slowly. A detective who examines what seems to be the corpse of Catholicism (as the world judges: truly She lives yet!) would find irrefutable evidence of the murderers' modus operandi: their method is one of gradualism, the very same one employed by Satan in slaying souls. This was as much as admitted by Cardinal Heenan of Westminster who said the changes had to be made gradually, or the people would never have accepted them.

          Let us look at the history of "the first stages in the destruction of the Roman Liturgy" — the phrase is taken from a book on the pre-Conciliar reforms to which Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote the preface. We shall see how by design the liturgical changes — the ones we are now asked to accept — followed each other every few years until the clergy were accustomed to living in an atmosphere of constant change, so that most of them inevitably gave in to the confusion. They no longer considered themselves bound to know and apply properly the body of rubrics, or even felt "at home" anymore in the sanctuary. In the name of "simplification," the rules and principles which governed the liturgy for centuries were slowly exchanged for the constant state of flux which presently obtains in the Conciliar Church.

          After studying this cleverly conceived chronology of change you will find it no wonder that most priests were left bewildered and confused, with no more sure or unchanging principle to cling to than blind obedience, expressed by a ready acceptance of whatever new rubrics were to be found in the morning mail.
     
    I.  The “Experimental” Easter Vigil (1950)      This work of gradual change began on May 28, 1948 by the appointment of a Commission for Liturgical Reform with Father Antonelli as General Director, and Father Bugnini as Secretary, the men who respectively imposed and composed the Novus Ordo Missae.

          Two years later on November 22, 1950, Cardinal Liénart, in his capacity as head of the French assembly of bishops, formally petitioned the Holy See for permission to celebrate the Easter Vigil at night rather than in the morning for "pastoral reasons." He got more than he bargained for. Under the guise of a simple change of times, a substantially rewritten rite was slipped in, even as later the "English Mass" was imposed in the name of the vernacular, with little reference to that fact that only thirty percent of the text of the traditional Mass remains.

          The first jarring, discordant strains of the "New Order Symphony" were already heard in this new Easter Vigil:

          1. The principle of optional rites used experimentally was introduced.

          2. For the first time, the vernacular was introduced into the liturgy proper. (This was Cranmer's first step as well in 1548)

          3. The rubric directing the celebrant to "sit and listen" (sedentes auscultant) to the lessons rather than reading them at the altar is introduced for the first time and is immediately interpreted as justifying the exclusive use of the vernacular in this part of the liturgy.

          In 1953 the immemorial midnight eucharistic fast was mitigated to three hours under certain conditions as a concession to modern weakness. The modernist liturgists, however, saw in this the beginning of the gradual destruction of the Church's sacramental discipline, which would end with Paul VI's "15 minutes."

          Already in 1954 the first rumblings of liturgical anarchy were heard, and Pope Pius XII warned priests in an allocution not to change anything in the liturgy on their own authority. But still changes continued.
     
    II. The New Holy Week (1955)      

    The whole of the Church's venerable Holy Week got the axe in 1955 with the publication of Maxima Redemptionis. The lie is repeated and extended: this is merely a change of times. The drastic overhauling of most of the ceremonies of the Church's most sacred week receives no justification. How could it?
     
    A.  Key Features: The new Holy Week was a kind of trial balloon for the Novus Ordo. What were some of the key features?

          1. Everything must be short and simple.

          2. Key rites are to be performed by the priest with his back to the altar, facing the people: the Blessing of Palms, the final prayer of the Palm Sunday Procession, the Holy Saturday Blessing of the Baptismal Water, etc.

          3. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel are suppressed for the first time.

          4. Everyone, priest and laity, must recite together the Our Father On Good Friday.
     
    B.  Palm Sunday: In particular, the Palm Sunday service lost its ancient rite of blessing which incorporates many prayers of the Mass, thus associating the sacramental palm with the Blessed Sacrament. The seven collects were reduced to one, the Fore-Mass of the Blessing entirely disappeared, as did the ceremony of the Gloria Laus at the door of the Church. The Passion account was shortened, omitting the Anointing at Bethany and the Last Supper.
     
    C.  The Triduum: The whole of the balance of the Triduum Sacrum, the last three days of Holy Week, was upset. The beautiful Office of Tenebrae practically disappeared, as did the popular devotion of the Tre Ore.

          1. The ancient Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday was abolished and replaced with a simple Communion Service for the people. Contrary to immemorial custom, a genuflection was prescribed at the prayer for the Jews.

          2. The Holy Saturday Vigil was entirely changed, with its lessons reduced from twelve to four, and a there was drastic modification of the traditional rite of the Blessing of the New Fire and Paschal Candle. (In 1955 as well, the equally ancient Vigil Service for Pentecost Eve was entirely suppressed.)

          Even this necessarily superficial overview of the new Holy Week rite will enable us to understand how it was that a noted liturgical modernist, Fr. Duployé, could say, "If we succeed in restoring the Paschal Vigil in its original value, the Liturgical Movement will have triumphed; I give myself ten years to do that." The modernist theologian Fr. Chenu comments: "Ten years later it was done."
     
    III. “Reform” of the Rubrics (1955).      The year 1955 was a bad one for the Roman Liturgy; it saw as well a modernist-oriented reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary, with the decree Cum Nostra Hac Aetate.

          So called "undesirable accretions" were removed from the Sacred Liturgy "in the light of modern scholarship," to wit:

          1. The ancient ranks of semi-double and simple feasts were abolished.

          2.   Most vigils of feast days were suppressed, leaving the celebration of vigils "a shadow of its former self." (Vigils such as All Saints, the Apostles, Our Lady, etc.)
          3. The number of octaves was reduced from fifteen to three. Some of the suppressed octaves went back to the seventh century!

          4. For the first time a distinction between "public" and "private" recitation of the Divine Office was introduced, even though tradition teaches us that the Office is by its very nature a public prayer. This foreshadows the Novus Ordo distinction between Masses with and without people.

          5. The Our Fathers recited in the Office were reduced from sixteen to five, and the ten Hail Marys and three Creeds were entirely omitted, as were certain other prayers before and after the office.

          6. The penitential ferial prayers were abolished with two minor exceptions.

          7. The Suffrage of the Saints and the Commemoration of the Cross were abolished, and the beautiful Athanasian Creed (dating from the eighth century) was said but once a year.

          8. The additional Collects said at Mass during the different seasons of the year (such as those of Our Lady and Against the Persecutors of the Church) were abolished.

          9. The Proper Last Gospel was abolished. Here again we have been obliged to content ourselves with a brief overview of these changes which were described as "provisional" — but which so altered the sacred liturgy as to discourage all but the most dedicated priest from learning them. Why should he bother, anyway? In five years the rubrics would change again.

          Finally, in 1955 the Solemnity of St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, was suppressed. It was replaced with a kind of Feast Day of Labor, St. Joseph the Worker, on the international socialist holiday of May Day.

          In 1957, further changes in the Holy Week were introduced, including provision for a Solemn High Mass without a subdeacon.
     
    IV. Consultation on Further Changes (1957)

          In 1957 as well, the bishops of the world were consulted about further liturgical changes. The majority asked that the traditional structure of the Divine Office be preserved. Fr. Thomas Richstatter, in his book Liturgical Law. New Style, New Spirit, gives the following account:

    "One bishop quotes Saint Thomas (Summa, I-II, q. 97, art. 2) where he states that the modification of any positive law will naturally bring with it a certain lessening of discipline. Consequently, if there is to be a change, it must be not just for something 'a little better' but for something 'much better' in order to compensate for this falling off of discipline which necessarily accompanies any change in legislation. Therefore, the bishop states, we must be very cautious in this matter. It is not easy to say 'no' to requests for change, but that is the proper action here. The bishop concludes by stating that he is among that large number who are not only satisfied with the liturgy as it is, but who consider any change not only undesirable but dangerous to the Church."
     
    V. Dialogue Masses and Commentators (1958)

          On September 3, 1958, one month before the death of the beleaguered Pius XII, the Instruction on Sacred Music was issued. The use of the "Dialogue Mass," first conceded in 1922, was extended and encouraged, so that the congregation would recite much of the Mass along with the priest: the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, etc., as well as all the responses. It should be noted here that the traditional form of congregational participation is Gregorian Chant. Popular recitation of Mass prayers was never done until the "Dialogue Mass" was introduced.

          Under the cover of participation, lay commentators made their appearance for the first time. Their role was to read in the vernacular while the priest read in Latin.

          On October 28 of that same year John XXIII was elected. He wasted no time in calling a general Council which would "consecrate Ecumenism." The following year, in June of 1960, John XXIII appointed Fr. Bugnini to serve as secretary of the Preparatory Liturgical Commission for the Council.

          In the meantime, Fr. Bugnini continued his work with the commission for the reform of the liturgy, producing yet another series of provisional changes, to last until the conciliar reforms. The Missal and Breviary were again changed, as was the Calendar, and for the first time, the Pontifical and the Ritual.
     
    VI. The John XXIII Changes (1960–62)      At last we come to "the liturgy of John XXIII," more properly called that of "middle Bugnini." The following changes were instituted in the Mass, the Divine Office and the Calendar:

          1. The lives of the saints at Matins were reduced to brief summaries.
          2. The lessons from the Fathers of the Church were reduced to the briefest possible passages, with the somewhat naive wish that the clergy would continue to nourish their souls with patristic writings on their own.
          3. The solitary recitation of the Divine Office was no longer held to be public prayer, and thus the sacred greeting Dominus vobiscum was suppressed.
          4. The Last Gospel was suppressed on more occasions.
          5. The proper conclusion of the Office Hymns was suppressed.
          6. Many feast days are abolished, as being redundant or not "historical, for example: (a) The Finding of the Holy Cross. (b) St. John Before the Latin Gate. (c) The Apparition of St. Michael. (d) St. Peter's Chair at Antioch. (e) St. Peter's Chains, etc.
          7. During the Council, the principle of the unchanging Canon of the Mass was destroyed with the addition of the name of St. Joseph.
          8. The Confiteor before Communion was suppressed.
          It is to be noted that the "Liturgy of John XXIII” was in vigor for all of three years, until it came to its logical conclusion with the promulgation of the Conciliar Decree on the Liturgy — also the work of Bugnini.
     
    VII. Liturgy in the Society of St. Pius X      A question: "Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?"

          The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular — without reading them first in Latin.)

          It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.

          The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of (a) what the Archbishop liked, and (b) what one did in France. These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. Jt is simply the "Rite of Ecône," a law unto itself.

          To this day it would be impossible to study a rubrical textbook and then function, say, in a Pontifical Mass at Ecône. There is no uniformity, because there is no principle of uniformity — certainly not the "Liturgy of John XXIII." Perhaps one day someone will codify this Rite of Ecône for posterity.

          As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today.

          The traditional Mass is a work of discipline and of art — every little gesture is carefully prescribed and provided for. It is a pity that today so many priests trained at Ecône are content with saying Mass "more or less" properly. But with no training and the bad example of older priests who had been subjected to twenty years of constant confusing changes, could anything else be expected?

          Another happier result emerged from the liturgical chaos at Ecône. Some seminarians simply went back to the unreformed rubrics of the Church. After all, had they not been told by Archbishop Lefebvre himself that this Bugnini was a Freemason? And didn't he have his finger in the liturgical pie since 1948 ?
     
    Say “No” to the Reformers      

    At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely, since, again according to the Archbishop, so many of its actions "began in heresy and ended in heresy." Why then follow the provisional liturgy which paved its way? Why, indeed? Archbishop Lefebvre saw no need in 1976 to attempt to force a liturgical "reform" on England, Germany and America which were following the unreformed liturgy.

          I do not claim that the "Liturgy of John XXIII" is heretical or offensive to God in any way like the Novus Ordo is. I do know it to be a step towards the Novus Ordo, authored by the same men who produced the Novus Ordo. I do believe, finally, that to accept these "reforms" today with the benefit of twenty years hindsight would be wrong. I know as well — I have seen with my own eyes — that the cumulative effect of these gradual changes on priests is disastrous.

          The Church today must be rebuilt practically from the ground up. Will we look to the man glowing with health or the one slowly dying as our model? Will we take as our principle the same adage of St. Vincent of Lerins: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus" (What always, what everywhere, what by everyone was done) or the "laws" (if indeed they could be considered such) which in the proven intent of their creators served only to pave the way for the destruction of the "most beautiful thing this side of Heaven," the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
    "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 Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #7 on: July 19, 2012, 12:07:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=37&catname=6

    Liturgical Revolution
    Rev. Francesco Ricossa
    The New Mass just was the final stage of a long process.
     
    "The Liturgy, considered as a whole, is the collection of symbols, chants and acts by means of which the Church expresses and manifests its religion towards God."

    In the Old Testament, God Himself, so to speak, is the liturgist: He specifies the most minute details of the worship which the faithful had to render to Him. The importance attached to a form of worship which was but the shadow of that sublime worship in the New Testament which Christ the High Priest wanted His Church to continue until the end of the world. In the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, everything is important, everything is sublime, down to the tiniest details, a truth which moved St. Teresa of Avila to say: "I would give my life for the smallest ceremony of Holy Church."

          The reader, therefore, should not be surprised at the importance we will attach to the rubrics of the Liturgy, and the close attention we will pay to the "reforms" which preceded the Second Vatican Council.

          In any case, the Church's enemies were all too well aware of the importance of the Liturgy — heretics corrupted the Liturgy in order to attack the Faith itself. Such was the case with the ancient Christological heresies, then with Lutheranism and Anglicanism in the 16th century, then with the Illuminist and Jansenist reforms in the 18th century, and finally with Vatican II, beginning with its Constitution on the Liturgy and culminating in the Novus Ordo Missae.

          The liturgical "reform" desired by Vatican II and realized in the post-Conciliar period is nothing short of a revolution. No revolution has ever come about spontaneously. It always results from prolonged attacks, slow concessions, and a gradual giving way. The purpose of this article is to show the reader how the liturgical revolution came about, with special reference to the pre-Conciliar changes in 1955 and 1960.

          Msgr. Klaus Gamber, a German liturgist, pointed out that the liturgical debacle pre-dates Vatican II. If, he said, "a radical break with tradition has been completed in our days with the introduction of the Novus Ordo and the new liturgical books, it is our duty to ask ourselves where its roots are. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that these roots are not to be looked for exclusively in the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution on the Liturgy of December 4, 1963 represents the temporal conclusion of an evolution whose multiple and not all homogenous causes go back into the distant past."
     
    Illuminism      According to Mgr Gamber. "The flowering of church life in the Baroque era (the Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent) was stricken towards the end of the eighteenth century, with the blight of Illuminism. People were dissatisfied with the traditional liturgy, because they felt it did not correspond with the concrete problems of the times." Rationalist Illuminism found the ground already prepared by the Jansenist heresy, which, like Protestantism, opposed the traditional Roman Liturgy.

          Emperor Joseph II, the Gallican bishops of France, and of Tuscany in Italy, meeting together for the Synod of Pistoia, carried out reforms and liturgical experiments "which resemble to an amazing extent the present reforms; they are just as strongly orientated towards Man and social problems."..."We can say, therefore, that the deepest roots of the present liturgical desolation are grounded in Illuminism."

          The aversion for tradition, the frenzy for novelty and reforms, the gradual replacement of Latin by the vernacular, and of ecclesiastical and patristic texts by Scripture alone, the diminution of the cult of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, the suppression of liturgical symbolism and mystery, and finally the shortening of the Liturgy, it judged to be excessively and uselessly long and repetitive — we find all these elements of the Jansenist liturgical reforms in the present reforms, and see them reflected especially in the reforms of John XXIII. In the most serious cases the Church condemned the innovators: thus, Clement IX condemned the Ritual of the Diocese of Alet in 1668, Clement XI condemned the Oratorian Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719) in 1713, Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia and Bishop Scipio de' Ricci in his bull Auctorem Fidei in 1794.
     
    The Liturgical Movement      "A reaction to the llluminist plague," says Mgr. Gamber. "is represented by the restoration of the nineteenth century. There arose at this time the great French Benedictine abbey of Solesmes, and the German Congregation of Beuron." Dom Prosper Gueranger (1805-1875), Abbot of Solesmes, restored the old Latin liturgy in France.

          His work led to a movement, later called the "Liturgical Movement," which sought to defend the traditional liturgy of the Church, and to make it loved. This movement greatly benefited the Church up to and throughout the reign of St. Pius X, who restored Gregorian Chant to its position of honor and created an admirable balance between the Temporal Cycle (feasts of Our Lord, Sundays, and ferias) and the Sanctoral Cycle (feasts of the saints).
     
    The Movement's Deviations      After St. Pius X, little by little, the so called "Liturgical Movement" strayed from its original path, and came full circle to embrace the theories which it had been founded to combat. All the ideas of the anti-liturgical heresy — as Dom Guéranger called the liturgical theories of the 18th century — were now taken up again in the 1920s and 30s by liturgists like Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960) in Belgium and France, and by Dom Pius Parsch and Romano Guardini in Austria and Germany.

          The "reformers" of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the "Dialogue Mass," because of their "excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions." In some cases — in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations — the innovators succeeded in introducing Mass in the vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people, and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini.

          In Belgium, Dom Beauduin gave the Liturgical Movement an ecumenical purpose, theorizing that the Anglican Church could be "united [to the Catholic Church] but not absorbed." He also founded a "Monastery for Union" with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which resulted in many of his monks "converting" to the eastern schism. Rome intervened: the Encyclical against the Ecumenical Movement, Mortalium Animos (1928) resulted in Dom Beauduin being discreetly recalled, a temporary diversion. The great protector of Beauduin was Cardinal Mercier, founder of "Catholic" ecumenism, and described by the anti-modernists of the time as the "friend of all the betrayers of the Church."

          In the 1940s liturgical saboteurs had already obtained the support of a large part of the hierarchy, especially in France (through the CPL — Center for Pastoral Liturgy) and in Germany.
     
    A Warning from Germany      On January 18, 1943, the most serious attack against the Liturgical Movement was launched by an eloquent and outspoken member of the German hierarchy, the Archbishop of Freiburg, Conrad Grober. In a long letter addressed to his fellow bishops, Grober gathered together seventeen points expressing his criticisms of the Liturgical Movement. He criticized the theology of the charismatics, the Schoenstatt movement, but above all the Liturgical Movement, involving implicitly also Theodor Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna.

          Few people know that Fr. Karl Rahner, SJ, who then lived in Vienna, wrote a response to Grober. We shall meet Karl Rahner again as the German hierarchy's conciliar “expert” at the Second Vatican Council, together with Hans Küng and Schillebeeckx.
     
    Mediator Dei      The dispute ended up in Rome. In 1947 Pius Xll's Encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, ratified the condemnation of the deviating Liturgical Movement.

          Pius XII "strongly espoused Catholic doctrine, but the sense of this encyclical was distorted in the commentaries made on it by the innovators and Pius XII, even though he remembered the principles, did not have the courage to take effective measures against those responsible; he should have suppressed the French CPL and prohibited a good number of publications. But these measures would have resulted in an open conflict with the French hierarchy".

          Having seen the weakness of Rome, the reformers saw that they could move forward: from experiments they now passed to official Roman reforms.
     
    Underestimating the Enemy      Pius XII underestimated the seriousness of the liturgical problem: "It produces in us a strange impression," he wrote to Bishop Grober, "if, almost from outside the world and time, the liturgical question has been presented as the problem of the moment."

          The reformers thus hoped to bring their Trojan Horse into the Church, through the almost unguarded gate of the Liturgy, profiting from the scant attention of Pope Pius XII paid to the matter, and helped by persons very close to the Pontiff, such as his own confessor Agostino Bea, future cardinal and "super-ecumenist."

          The following testimony of Annibale Bugnini is enlightening:
    "The Commission (for the reform of the Liturgy instituted in 1948) enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept informed by Mgr. Montini, and even more so, weekly, by Fr. Bea, the confessor of Pius Xll. Thanks to this intermediary, we could arrive at remarkable results, even during the periods when the Pope's illness prevented anyone else getting near him."

     
    The Revolution Begins      Fr. Bea was involved with Pius XII's first liturgical reform, the new liturgical translation of the Psalms, which replaced that of St. Jerome's Vulgate, so disliked by the protestants, since it was the official translation of the Holy Scripture in the Church, and declared to be authentic by the Council of Trent. (Motu proprio, In cotidianis precibus, of March 24, 1945.) The use of the New Psalter was optional, and enjoyed little success.

          After this reform, came others which would last longer and be more serious:

          • May 18, 1948: establishment of a Pontifical Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy, with Annibale Bugnini as its secretary January 6, 1953: the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus on the reform of the Eucharistic fast.

          • March 23, 1955: the decree Cum hac nostra aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary.

          • November 19, 1955: the decree Maxima Redemptionis, new rite of Holy Week, already introduced experimentally for Holy Saturday in 1951.

          The following section will discuss the reform of Holy Week. Meanwhile, what of the rubrical reforms made in 1956 by Pius XII ? They they were an important stage in the liturgical reforms, as we will see when we examine the reforms of John XXIII. For now it is enough to say that the reforms tended to shorten the Divine Office and diminish the cult of the saints. All the feasts of semidouble and simple ranks became simple commemorations; in Lent and Passiontide one could choose between the office of a saint and that of the feria; the number of vigils was diminished and octaves were reduced to three. The Pater, Ave and Credo recited at the beginning of each liturgical hour were suppressed; even the final antiphon to Our Lady was taken away, except at Compline. The Creed of St. Athanasius was suppressed except for once a year.

          In his book, Father Bonneterre admits that the reforms at the end of the pontificate of Pius XII are "the first stages of the self-destruction of the Roman Liturgy." Nevertheless, he defends them because of the "holiness" of the pope who promulgated them.

    "Pius XII," he writes, "undertook these reforms with complete purity of intention, reforms which were rendered necessary by the need of souls. He did not realize — he could not realize — that he was shaking discipline and the liturgy in one of the most crucial periods of the Church's history; above all, he did not realize that he was putting into practice the program of the straying liturgical movement."

    Jean Crete comments on this:

    "Fr. Bonneterre recognizes that this decree signaled the beginning of the subversion of the liturgy, and yet seeks to excuse Pius XIl on the grounds that at the time no one, except those who were party to the subversion, was able to realize what was going on. I can, on the contrary, give a categorical testimony on this point. I realized very well that this decree was just the beginning of a total subversion of the liturgy, and I was not the only one. All the true liturgists, all the priests who were attached to tradition, were dismayed.
    "The Sacred Congregation of Rites was not favorable toward this decree, the work of a special commission. When, five weeks later, Pius XII announced the feast of St. Joseph the Worker (which caused the ancient feast of Ss. Philip and James to be transferred, and which replaced the Solemnity of St Joseph, Patron of the Church), there was open opposition to it.

    “For more than a year the Sacred Congregation of Rites refused to compose the office and Mass for the new feast. Many interventions of the pope were necessary before the Congregation of Rites agreed, against their will, to publish the office in 1956 — an office so badly composed that one might suspect it had been deliberately sabotaged. And it was only in 1960 that the melodies of the Mass and office were composed — melodies based on models of the worst taste.
    "We relate this little-known episode to give an idea of the violence of the reaction to the first liturgical reforms of Pius XII".
     
    The 1955 Holy Week: Anticipating the New Mass       "The liturgical renewal has clearly demonstrated that the formulae of the Roman Missal have to be revised and enriched. The renewal was begun by the same Pius XII with the restoration of the Easter Vigil and the Order of Holy Week, which constituted tile first stage of the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the needs of our times."

          These are the very words of Paul VI when he promulgated the New Mass on April 3, 1969. This clearly demonstrates how the pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar changes are related. Likewise, Msgr. Gamber wrote that
    "The first Pontiff to bring a real and proper change to the traditional missal was Pius XII, with the introduction of the new liturgy of Holy Week. To move the ceremony of Holy Saturday to the night before Easter would have been possible without any great modification. But then along came John XXIII with the new ordering of the rubrics. "Even on these occasions, however, the Canon of the Mass remained intact. [Also John XXIII introduced the name of St. Joseph into the Canon during the council, violating the tradition that only the names of martyrs be mentioned in the Canon.] It was not even slightly altered. But after these precedents, it is true, the doors were opened to a radically new ordering of the Roman Liturgy."

          The decree, Maxima Redemptionis, which introduced the new rite in 1955, speaks exclusively of changing the times of the ceremonies of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, to make it easier for the faithful to assist at the sacred rites, now transferred after centuries to the evenings those days.

          But no passage in the decree makes the slightest mention of the drastic changes in the texts and ceremonies themselves. In fact, the new rite of Holy Week was a nothing but a trial balloon for post-Conciliar reform which would follow. The modernist Dominican Fr. Chenu testifies to this:

    "Fr. Duploye followed all this with passionate lucidity. I remember that he said to me one day, much later on. 'If we succeed in restoring the Easter Vigil to its original value, the liturgical movement will have won; I give myself ten years to achieve this.' Ten years later it was a fait accompli."

          In fact, the new rite of Holy Week, is an alien body introduced into the heart of the Traditional Missal. It is based on principles which occur in Paul VI's 1965 reforms.

          Here are some examples:

          • Paul VI suppressed the Last Gospel in 1965; in 1955 it was suppressed for the Masses of Holy Week.

          • Paul VI suppressed the psalm Judica me for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar; the same had been anticipated by the 1955 Holy Week.

          • Paul VI (following the example of Luther) wanted Mass celebrated facing the people; the 1955 Holy Week. initiated this practice by introducing it wherever possible (especially on Palm Sunday).

          • Paul VI wanted the role of the priest to be diminished, replaced at every turn by ministers; in 1955 already, the celebrant no longer read the Lessons, Epistles, or Gospels (Passion) which were sung by the ministers --even though they form part of the Mass. The priest sat down, forgotten, in a corner.

          • In his New Mass, Paul VI suppresses from the Mass all the elements of the "Gallican liturgy (dating from before Charlemagne), following the wicked doctrine of "archaeologism" condemned by Pius Xll. Thus, the offertory disappeared (to the great joy of protestants), to be replaced by a Jewish grace before meals. Following the same principle, the New Rite of Holy Week had suppressed all the prayers in the ceremony of blessing the palms (except one), the Epistle, Offertory and Preface which came first, and the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday.

          • Paul VI, challenging the anathemas of the Council of Trent, suppressed the sacred order of the subdiaconate; the new rite of Holy Week, suppressed many of the subdeacon's functions. The deacon replaced the subdeacon for some of the prayers (the Levate on Good Friday) the choir and celebrant replaced him for others (at the Adoration of the Cross).
     
    The 1955 Holy Week: Other Innovations Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:

          • The Prayer for the Conversion of Heretics became the "Prayer for Church Unity"

          • The genuflection at the Prayer for the Jews, a practice the Church spurned for centuries in horror at the crime they committed on the first Good Friday.

          • The new rite suppressed much medieval symbolism (the opening of the door of the church at the Gloria Laus for example).

          • The new rite introduced the vernacular in some places (renewal of baptismal promises).

          • The Pater Noster was recited by all present (Good Friday).

          • The prayers for the emperor were replaced by a prayer for those governing the republic, all with a very modern flavor.

          • In the Breviary, the very moving psalm Miserere, repeated at all of the Office, was suppressed.

          • For Holy Saturday the Exultet was changed and much of the symbolism of its words suppressed.

          • Also on Holy Saturday, eight of the twelve prophecies were suppressed.

          • Sections of the Passion were suppressed, even the Last Supper disappeared, in which our Lord, already betrayed, celebrated for the first time in history the Sacrifice of the Mass.

          • On Good Friday, communion was now distributed, contrary to the tradition of the Church, and condemned by St. Pius X when people had wanted to initiate this practice

          • All the rubrics of the 1955 Holy Week rite, then, insisted continually on the "participation" of the faithful, and they scorned as abuses many of the popular devotions (so dear to the faithful) connected with Holy Week.

          This brief examination of the reform of Holy Week should allow the reader to realize how the "experts" who would come up with the New Mass fourteen years later had used and taken advantage of the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy.
     
    Roncalli: Modernist Connections.      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.
     
    The Revolution Advances      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 holydays 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.
     
    5.   Excising miracles from the lives of the Saints. Speaking of the principle of the Illuminist liturgists, Dom Gueranger notes: "the lives of the saints were stripped of their miracles on the one hand, and of their pious stories on the other."

          We have seen that the reform of 1960 suppresses two out of three lessons of the Second Nocturn of Matins, in which the lives of the saints are read. But this was not enough. As we mentioned, eleven feasts were totally suppressed by the preconciliar rationalists. For example, St. Vitus, the Invention of the Holy Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, the Apparition of St. Michael on Mt. Gargano, St. Anacletus, St. Peter in Chains, the Finding of St. Stephen, Our Lady of Loreto ("A flying house! How can we believe that in the twentieth century!"); among the votive feasts, St. Philomena (the Cure of Ars was so "stupid" to have believed in her).

          Other saints were were eliminated more discreetly: Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Our Lady of Ransom, St. George, St. Alexis, St. Eustace, the Stigmata of St. Francis — these all remain, but only as a commemoration on a ferial day.

          Two popes are also removed, seemingly without reason: St. Sylvester (was he too triumphalistic?) and St. Leo II (the latter, perhaps, because he condemned Pope Honorius.)

          We note finally a "masterwork" which touches us closely. From the prayer to Our Lady of Good Counsel, the 1960 reform removed the words which speak of the miraculous apparition of her image, if the House of Nazareth cannot fly to Loreto, how can we imagine that a picture which was in Albania can fly to Genzzano?
     
    6.   Anti-Roman Spirit. The Jansenists suppressed one of the two feasts of the Chair of St. Peter (January 18), and also the Octave of St. Peter. Identical measures were taken by John XXIII.
     
    7.   Suppression of the Confiteor before Communion. The suspect Missal of Trojes suppressed the Confiteor. John XXIII did the same thing in 1960.
     
    8.   Reform of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday. and Holy Saturday. This happened in 1736, with the suspect Breviary of Vintimille ("a very grave action, and what is more, most grievous for the piety of the faithful," said Dom Gueranger.) John XXIII had his precedent here, as we have seen!
     
    9.   Suppression of Octaves. The same thing goes for the suppression of nearly all the octaves (a usage we find already in the Old Testament, to solemnize the great feasts over eight days), anticipated by the Jansenists in 1736 and repeated in 1955-1960.
     
    10. Make the Breviary as short as possible and without any repetition. This was the dream of the renaissance liturgists (the Breviary of the Holy Cross, for example, abolished by St. Pius V), and then of the illuminists. Dom Gueranger said that the innovators wanted a Breviary "without those complicated rubrics which oblige the priest to make a serious study of the Divine Office; moreover, the rubrics themselves are traditions, and it is only right they should disappear. Without repetitions...and as short as possible... They want a short Breviary. They will, have it; and it will be up to the Jansenists to write it."

          These three principles will be the public boast of the reform of 1955 and 1960: the long petitions in the Office called Preces disappear; so too, the commemorations, the suffrages, the Pater, Ave, and Credo, the antiphons to Our Lady, the Athanasian Creed, two-thirds of Matins, and so on.
     
    11. Ecumenism in the Reform of John XXIII. The Jansenists hadn't thought of this one. The reform of 1960 suppresses from the prayers of Good Friday the Latin adjective perfidis (faithless) with reference to the Jews, and the noun perfidiam (impiety) with reference to Judaism. It left the door open for John Paul II's visit to the synagogue.      Number 181 of the 1960 Rubrics states: "The Mass against the Pagans shall be called the Mass for the Defense of the Church. The Mass to Take Away Schism shall be called the Mass for the Unity of the Church."      These changes reveal the liberalism, pacifism, and false ecumenism of those who conceived and promulgated them.
     
    12. The Office becomes “private devotional reading.”         One last point, but one of the most serious: The Ottaviani Intervention rightly declared that "when the priest celebrates without a server the suppression of all the salutations (i.e., Dominus Vobiscum, etc.) and of the final blessing is a clear attack on the dogma of the communion of the saints." The priest, even if he is alone, when celebrating Mass or saying his Breviary, is praying in the name of the whole Church, and with the whole Church. This truth was denied by Luther.

          Now this attack on dogma was already included in the Breviary of John XXIII it obliged the priest when reciting it alone to say Domine exaudi orationem meam (O Lord, hear my prayer) instead of Dominus vobiscum (The Lord be with you). The idea, "a profession of purely rational faith." was that the Breviary was not the public prayer of the Church any more, but merely private devotional reading.
     
    A Practical Conclusion      Theory is of no use to anyone, unless it is applied in practice. This article cannot conclude without a warm invitation, above all to priests. to return to the liturgy "canonized" by the Council of Trent, and to the rubrics promulgated by St. Pius X.

          Msgr Gamber writes: "Many of the innovations promulgated in the last twenty-five years — beginning with the decree on the renewal of the liturgy Holy Week of February 9, 1951 [still under Pius XII] and with the new Code of rubrics of July 25, 1960, by continuous small modifications, right up to the reform of the Ordo Missae of April 3. 1969 — have been shown to be useless and dangerous to their spiritual life."

          Unfortunately, in the "traditionalist" camp, confusion reigns: one stops at 1955; another at 1965 or 1967. Archbishop Lefebvre's followers, having first adopted the reform of 1965, returned to the 1960 rubrics of John XXIII even while permitting the introduction of earlier or later uses! There, in Germany, England, and the United States, where the Breviary of St. Pius X had been, recited, the Archbishop attempted to impose the changes of John XXIII. This was not only for legal motives, but as a matter of principle; meanwhile, the Archbishop's followers barely tolerated the private recitation of the Breviary of St. Pius X.

          We hope that this and other studies will help people understand that these changes are part of the same reform and that all of it must be rejected if all is not accepted. Only with the help of God — and clear thinking — will a true restoration of Catholic worship be possible.
    (The Roman Catholic, February–April 1987).
    "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 Doctor of the Church


    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #8 on: July 19, 2012, 12:52:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Rev. Francesco Ricossa in the article "Liturgical Revolution"

          • March 23, 1955: the decree Cum hac nostra aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary. [emphasis mine]


    Badly written, badly researched.

    The General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis, otherwise known as Cum nostra, is indeed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (23 March 1955; A. A. S., vol. xlvii., pp. 218 sqq.). It just takes some minutes to look in the right places, and all the commentaries upon the Decree cite where in the Acta the text is to be found, as well as the text of the subsequent dubia authoritatively answered by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and further legislation regarding the Simplification of the Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal.

    This sort of sloppy scholarship diminishes all the more the credibility of those clerics, who have no competence to categorically judge these matters and yet would continue to incite the faithful to disobey the General Decrees duly promulgated by the Congregation of Sacred Rites by authority of a legitimate Roman Pontiff.

    In order for Sacred Liturgy to be Catholic the authority of Holy Mother Church is indispensable, otherwise it is all just rubricated theatre, akin to what the Anglo-Catholics have in their Sarum Missals.
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #9 on: July 19, 2012, 02:04:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hobbledehoy
    Quote from: Rev. Francesco Ricossa in the article "Liturgical Revolution"

          • March 23, 1955: the decree Cum hac nostra aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary. [emphasis mine]


    Badly written, badly researched.

    The General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis, otherwise known as Cum nostra, is indeed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (23 March 1955; A. A. S., vol. xlvii., pp. 218 sqq.). It just takes some minutes to look in the right places, and all the commentaries upon the Decree cite where in the Acta the text is to be found, as well as the text of the subsequent dubia authoritatively answered by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and further legislation regarding the Simplification of the Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal.

    This sort of sloppy scholarship diminishes all the more the credibility of those clerics, who have no competence to categorically judge these matters and yet would continue to incite the faithful to disobey the General Decrees duly promulgated by the Congregation of Sacred Rites by authority of a legitimate Roman Pontiff.

    In order for Sacred Liturgy to be Catholic the authority of Holy Mother Church is indispensable, otherwise it is all just rubricated theatre, akin to what the Anglo-Catholics have in their Sarum Missals.


    Are they inciting people to disobey or giving one side of a contraversial topic?

    Does an overlooked fact really undermine all the other facts presented.

    We are kind of on our own when there is no pope there is room for disagreement here IMO.  

    We do not know what Pius XII, or Piux X, or Piux V or would have done if he had our hindsight.  

    Bugnini does not sit well with much of the clergy SV or not and for good reason.

    "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 Doctor of the Church

    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #10 on: July 19, 2012, 02:44:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Are they inciting people to disobey or giving one side of a contraversial topic?


    This should not be a controversial topic. Holy Mother Church has promulgated legislation regarding Sacred Liturgy, and a Catholic has no choice but to obey. It would be one thing for a cleric to follow his conscience in purity and simplicity of heart and adhere to those rubrics which he knows he can competently fulfill, but it is quite another for a cleric to adopt a historicist revisionism that does not pay due respect to the Office of the Roman Pontiff or to the Apostolic See.

    Quote
    We are kind of on our own when there is no pope there is room for disagreement here IMO.  

    We do not know what Pius XII, or Piux X, or Piux V or would have done if he had our hindsight.  

    Bugnini does not sit well with much of the clergy SV or not and for good reason.


    We are not free to do as we please simply because there is no reigning Pontiff (according to the sedevacantists).

    Arguments based upon past contingencies absolutely incognoscible to created intellects (such as the question, "What would Pope Pius XII have done if he had lived longer?") are not only inadequate and unsatisfactory, but they expose in a striking fashion the troubling contradiction of those sedevacantists who profess themselves apologists for the Apostolic See and yet do whatsoever it pleases them, crying forth, "Oh, Pope Pius XII would have done so!"

    Holy Mother Church has spoken, the matter is settled. It does not matter what Msgr. Bugnini had published in private or public missives: the Apostolic See has declared the Restored Order of Holy Week must be followed by all those who are bound to the Roman Missal and Breviary by the Bulls Quo primum and Quod a nobis.

    Fr. Cekada's arguments in his article "Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms “Illegal”?" are based on the publications of Msgr. Bugnini, and the conclusions he derives therefrom. He cannot apply the principles of perpetuity and cessation of law based only on these non-authoritative sources and private speculations, much less on past contingencies as he himself imagines and interprets them.

    The liturgical reforms of Pope St. Pius X were never completed: does that mean that we are free to disregard Divino afflatu and go back to the Breviary of Pope Leo XIII?

    The only worthwhile argument that he presents in his article "The Pius XII Reforms: More on the “Legal” Issue" is the following:

    Quote
    But this is not as simple as it sounds, because before a priest can maintain that the Pius XII legislation alone is legally binding, he must first demonstrate conclusively that John XXIII and Paul VI (at least before the end of 1964) were not true popes.
    .

    But this not only concerns the questions regarding the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII, but the raison d'être of the sedevacantist stance itself. This just opens Pandora's Box and uncovers the ultimate fragility and instability of the stance of those sedevacantists who do as they please, and invoke epikeia or declare Ecclesia supplet, only to demand that the other sedevacantists (together with the traditionalist movement entirely) adhere to whatever arbitrary principles they themselves follow.

    Fr. Cekada, Fr. Ricossa, etc., have yet to prove that the rites and rubrics of the Restored Order of Holy Week present an occasion of scandal or are noxious to faith and morals. Even presuming to do so is perilous, for the Church cannot err against faith and morals in her general ecclesiastical discipline. Whatever Msgr. Bugnini and other modernist clerics wrote or did is tangential and peripheral, because the Apostolic See cannot promulgate ecclesiastical discipline that leads to errors against faith or moral, or could ultimately result in the conquest of the Church, as Bugnini himself had boasted and as these sedevacantist historicists seem to imply in their polemical missives against the reforms of Pope Pius XII.

    The sedevacantist clergy and laity who accept that Pope Pius XII had reigned as Roman Pontiff cannot refuse to obey the liturgical reforms of the Apostolic See by invoking epikeia, appealing to private speculation based on non-authoritative sources as presented and interpreted by acephalous clerici vagi, who have neither Canonical office or mission, nor habitual or delegated jurisdiction.

    Since when did conspiracy theories and private speculation suffice to disobey the decrees of Holy Mother Church? And to do so with such air of authority?

    The Sacred Canons menace certain serious penalties against such arrogance. One may conclude that Canon 1399, no. 6, and Canon 2334, as well as the Decree issued on 29 June 1950 by the Sacred Congregation of the Council (A.A.S., vol. xlii., pp. 601 seq.) condemn Fr. Cekada, Fr. Ricossa, etc,. for undermining the ecclesiastical discipline of the Church in their rants against the reforms of Pope Pius XII, attacking the person of the Supreme Pontiff in writing, and inciting the laity to defy and vilify the authority of the Church. Probably, their writings and missives would be censured by the Holy Office and placed in the Index of Forbidden Books for these reasons alone.

    The general ecclesiastical discipline of the Church is to be chosen in preference to the private opinions of any cleric, his learning or personal sanctity notwithstanding. Even if every sedevacantist or traditionalist cleric chooses to disobey the decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, it would still be wrong[/u].
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #11 on: July 21, 2012, 07:06:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I remember when I first heard of the pre-1955 liturgy and heard the reasons why my non-SV Priest goes by that liturgy rather than the concoctions that Bugnini got through during the end of Pius XII reign that lasted about 5 years during the 2000 year reign of the Church, and I agreed with the reasons my Priest gave for doing so.  And as I always do, to learn as much as I can and to get to the bottom of controversial issues, I started asking as to why it would be wrong to go with the far more established, and pre-breaking down of the liturgy of Bugnini and found the response plausible.  The response being that simply we must go with what was in place during the last reigning Pope.  

    While the response is plausible it certainly, IMO, does not completely undermine all the arguments against it.  Hobbleday pointed out one mistake in the arguments present, but does that negate the plethora of evidence presented against?

    Are those who go to independent, SSPV and all the Masses under Dolan, Sandborn, Neville, to stay at home now because they are disobeying the Pope for going to a liturgy, despite all of Hobbleday's protestations, is more Catholic than the beginning of the undermining of the Catholic liturgy that began with Bugnini during the end of Pius XII reign?  

    Do we overlook all the evidence presented and the fact that Pius XII himself, if he had our hindsight would not have allowed Bugnini to get away with what he did at the end of his reign had he seen what these changes led to?

    This is why, unlike other laymen, on such controversial things that do not have Divine Law clearly backing it up, I do not condemn others for holding a view contrary to my own.

    I believe it is laudable to go with what was in place at the death of Pius XII because he was a valid Pope and the changes were authorized under him and in his name and a valid Pope cannot bind incentives to impiety.  But at the same time these valid points, IMO, do not negate the arguments to the contrary.  Though Hobbleday is clearly one of the most learned on the site, I do not see how the contrary opinion is condemned de fide; and in fact not the more Catholic position to take.  I will be taken to task for that last statement but stand by it.

    Same with the 3 hour fast.  During these times when Mass may not be possible until 5 P.M. on Sunday the 3 hour fast is quite reasonable.  Did Pius XII see the possibility of our situation today happening in the future?  But on on days when we can wake up and go to a 7:00 am Mass I do not see why the fast from midnight would not be more reverential towards the Eucharist.  

    Again, it is easy to take sides on the issue, but I for one will not condemn the side that is against my personal inclination.  

    During these confusing times, in this issue, as in the una cum issue, I will do not condemn those who hold the contrary position even if those who hold the contrary position condemn me.  I believe we must just do what we think is best based upon our informed conscience until we get a Pope to set us strait once again.

    To insist on one side against the other on this issue, I believe is more divisive, especially when considering the divided opinion of the clergy, who generally speaking, are far more informed than we are on the issue, is more divisive than unifying.  I cannot take a stand on this issue like Hobbleday and say anyone who disagrees with me on the issue is wrong.  Nor do I think it prudent to do so.  He will say it is not me but Pius XII you disagree with.  But that does not undermine the abundant evidence to the contrary.  It is one of those things, that can be left to our consciences, until we get a Pope to set us strait.

    If the traditional SV clergy are divided on the issue, I'm not going to pretend to set everyone strait on the issue as Hobbleday, who is far more knowledgeable than I, tries to do.  
    "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 Doctor of the Church

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #12 on: July 21, 2012, 12:58:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Speaking of "pretend to set everyone strait on the issue," that should be:
    "straight," not "strait."

    A strait is a nautical or oceanographical term, meaning a narrow passage
    of water from one larger body of water to another. E.g., Strait of Magellan, Strait of
    Hormuz, the Bering Strait.
     :reading:


    These posts are interesting and informative. It would be helpful for me if we could
    focus on the things that were changed in the 1962 missal, from the 1954 missal, so
    that we can get a better idea of the principles that were at work. The wreckovationists
    do not generally publish the rule book they go by, so we have to deduce that from
    the effects of the hidden rules.

    Once we are pretty sure of the rules they were using, we can then apply those rules
    in theory to the present situation and see what would result if they were applied today.
    In that way, we might be better able to anticipate what sort of things are coming
    down the pike, and thereby we can be better able to recognize them when they do
    come -- even if we were not quite accurate in our predictions!

    For if we have prepared, and are ready for what is LIKELY to come, then when
    something ELSE comes instead, we can more easily see how it is still within our
    reasonable expectations, even if it is not precisely what we had anticipated, for it
    conforms to the RULES that we have deduced, the rules that are still hidden -- like
    the "Doctrinal Preamble," for example!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #13 on: July 23, 2012, 05:55:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you read my previous posts you will see the changes.
    "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 Doctor of the Church

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
    « Reply #14 on: July 23, 2012, 06:50:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I reckon the sedevacantists who submit to what Pope Pius XII promulgated are remarkably consistent. They clearly have no love for Annibale Bugnini, and rightly so, but their faith in the Papacy trumps that. "Whatsoever you bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven".
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16