Author Topic: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi (Read 18012 times)

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #30 on:** July 27, 2012, 07:38:02 AM »

Quote

Any honest and knowledgeable individual will admit that the liturgical changes were not an improvement

Have you made a comparative study of the rubrics as simplified by Pope Pius XII and those promulgated by St. Pius X? How do you know these changes were not improvements (other than what the clerics you copy and paste speculate as historiographers)?

Well, actually that is a question one should ask those polemicist clerics who in a spirit of neo-Gallicanism have incited the faithful to disobey and vilify the ecclesiastical discipline of Holy Mother Church, whilst maintaining a dogmatic stance regarding disputed questions (such as the so-called "una cuм" controversy).

Quote

I'm not sure how a layman can definitively condemn either side of the issue. I certainly don't.

If you are referring to me in the third person, then I share your confusion.

However, the notes and arguments I have presented are merely what the Sacred Congregation of Rites have promulgated and what the Sacred Canons have ordained.

There is no layman condemning any clergyman. The Church herself has spoken on this matter.

Quote

As to disobeying the Pope; I was not aware we had one.

Some sedevacantists think that just because the Holy See is vacant (according to their understanding) that they may do and say as they please. The Apostolic See is in itself indestructible, together with the Office of the Roman Pontiff. Were it otherwise, then the Church of Christ would have failed, and this is heretical to state.

So yes, you have to obey the legislation promulgated by the Roman Pontiffs and the Roman Congregations if you are going to profess yourself a Catholic.

Again, for the sedevacantist faithful who reject John XXIII as an anti-Pope or a doubtful Pope, the Roman Liturgy is pure and unadulterated as Pope Pius XII has left it, whereas resorting to conspiracy theories and private opinions leads to an egocentric antiquarianism. If it were otherwise, then an individual may be led to believe that the Church can err in matters of general ecclesiastical discipline, making a sense of loyalty and love for the Apostolic See absurd and even noxious.

This is one of the reasons that led me to post this thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Lamentation

Quote

There are clergymen, on both sides of the issue, that do condemn the other side.

They forget that we all are on the same side.

Yet you keep copying and pasting the arguments and speculations of "one side," without endeavoring to address the questions I have raised. Well, none of the polemicist clerics who disobey the Apostolic See regarding matters liturgical have addressed these questions, so I cannot blame you for not doing so too.

Why not ask the CMRI Fathers why they obey the liturgical legislation promulgated by the Apostolic See?

Nishant · « **Reply #31 on:** July 27, 2012, 11:43:34 AM »

Well, Hobbledehoy has answered better than I ever could, and in some ways this is a discussion between different sedevacantist groups, so I don't want to say too much more about it. But Lover of Truth, I'll just say one thing. I think you respect Msgr. Fenton, you should know he would never have agreed with your general position on Pope Pius XII. He had a high regard for the theological precision and the doctrinal exactitude that Pope Pius XII routinely and throughout the course of his life even to the very end demonstrated. "Those of us who have been privileged to teach the tractatus de ecclesia Christi throughout the entire pontificate of Pope Pius XII know from experience how brilliantly and effectively he contributed to the advance of clerical studies in this line. In his clear statement of Catholic doctrine, and in his forceful repudiation of extravagant teachings on this subject, he advanced the cause of God's revealed truth as few men have done before him". And this sentiment was shared by several other unimpeachably orthodox theologians of the time period, which makes the conspiracy theories regarding his person look a little silly to me.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #32 on:** July 28, 2012, 07:15:32 PM »

We don't use the 1962 because it was a phase to ease into the next phase which was vatican II Mass. Also, original 1962 Mass leaves out the Leotine prayers after Mass which are very important to protect us from evil.

That is why we use the 1945 St Andrew or Marian, Missals..to give obedience love, honor and glory to God...not; man

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #33 on:** July 28, 2012, 07:16:33 PM »

And no we are not sedevacantists either.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #34 on:** July 30, 2012, 08:27:40 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

And no we are not sedevacantists either.

It shows that this is just not an "SV issue". I learned about the issue from my non-SV priest who does not go with the Bugnini changes under Pius XII.

This priest is a sound theologian, reputed to be anyway, he admits SV to be a legitimate possibility but does not proclaim this publically.

It is an issue of sticking with the untarnished liturgy, the one that existed since Gregory the Great until the late Pius XII years. Hindsight shows that got his grubby little hands on the deal under Pius XII who indeed was not a great Pope but made appointments and promoted people who were suspect of modernism and proved to be heretics. If I remember correctly that is.

Can anyone clarify?

What did he do with Montini? Who made him a cardinal? And why!?!

But I do not condemn those who hold to the changes that lead to the new Mass under Pius XII under obedience. And I admit they could be right. Though I am not sure how those who hold that position can deny the possibility that those, and the wealth of support the present to the contrary are definitively wrong for adhering to the stable version of the Catholic Liturgy until things get straitened out.

Perhaps they should look to laymen on blogs to set them strait, but I understand why they do not.

I would live and let live on this issue and fight a more important battle until we get a fisherman who can right the ship.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** August 01, 2012, 07:02:37 AM »

Someone did not like my response because makes a point they do not want to acknowledge which is why they do not reponds as to why they do not like the post. It is not because what I say is incorrect, it is just because they do not want to accept reality. Sorry guy. Go back to bed and wait for Santa to bring you his presents.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #36 on:** August 01, 2012, 07:06:10 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Someone did not like my response because makes a point they do not want to acknowledge which is why they do not reponds as to why they do not like the post. It is not because what I say is incorrect, it is just because they do not want to accept reality. Sorry guy. Go back to bed and wait for Santa to bring you his presents.

I forgot to mention that they are underhanded cowards as well.

Scriptorium · « **Reply #37 on:** August 01, 2012, 07:10:52 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

We don't use the 1962 because it was a phase to ease into the next phase which was vatican II Mass. Also, original 1962 Mass leaves out the Leotine prayers after Mass which are very important to protect us from evil.

That is why we use the 1945 St Andrew or Marian, Missals..to give obedience love, honor and glory to God...not; man

The Leonine Prayer after Low Mass were abolished in 1965, and they were never in the Missal.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #38 on:** August 01, 2012, 08:41:05 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Someone did not like my response because makes a point they do not want to acknowledge which is why they do not reponds as to why they do not like the post. It is not because what I say is incorrect, it is just because they do not want to accept reality. Sorry guy. Go back to bed and wait for Santa to bring you his presents.

Wow, look at you! How egocentric and arrogant this and other similar self-pitying, self-aggrandizing posts make you seem!

Perhaps it was your rank arrogance, together with intellectual dishonesty and ineptitude, that led another forum member to "dislike" your post.

Oh wait, that simply can't be! Why, you even know what the dead think. You even know better than the Roman Pontiffs and the Roman Congregations that promulgated decrees, availing themselves of the Pope's supreme authority!

No, no, you could never be the one at fault...

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #39 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:00:52 PM »

Anyways, enough melodrama, let's focus on the discussion in question:

Quote

Though I am not sure how those who hold that position can deny the possibility that those, and the wealth of support the present to the contrary are definitively wrong for adhering to the stable version of the Catholic Liturgy until things get straitened out.

What "wealth of support"? You have not addressed the questions I have asked you. You keep regurgitating and repeating the same arguments, which are not even yours but derived from the same sites from whence you copy and paste. Not only that, but you come up with more of the same conspiracy theory and revisionist historiography, red-herrings and tangents, avoiding the questions I have brought up.

Quote

Perhaps they should look to laymen on blogs to set them strait, but I understand why they do not.

Of course they don't, they have you, right!?

Quote

I would live and let live on this issue and fight a more important battle until we get a fisherman who can right the ship.

The problem is that it is the sedevacantist clerical and lay polemicists who take it upon themselves to revile the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII and instigate the faithful to disobey and frustrate the authority of the Apostolic See, who for years have kept whining and detracting the late Pope, and have taken it upon themselves to be "representatives" of "traditional Catholic liturgy."

They are the ones who can't seem to "live and let live on this issue." They have made controversies out of nothing to distract the faithful from their problematic circuмstances, and assure themselves some form of "relevance" in present-day traditional Catholic discourse, and stipends for their Masses.

The "una cuм" controversy is a more pathetic example of such a thing.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #40 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:05:33 PM »

Quote

It shows that this is just not an "SV issue".

Actually, this issue of the Restored Order of Holy Week is "an 'SV' issue" because the authors you have cited for your position are all sedevacantists.

Regarding liturgical praxis, it is actually the "recognize and resist" traditional Catholics who are consistent in rejecting what they see as objectionable and yet still recognizing this or that particular man as having been (or being) the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the liturgical question, the SSPX is superior to the sedevacantist coteries disassociated with the CMRI and scholars like Mr. John Lane.

It's funny, though "funny" is a funny word for it, how it is the acephalous clerics who are so adamant about the "una cuм" question, and who seem to believe that sedevacantism is somehow "binding" on individual consciences, who are ready to revile the memory of the late Pope Pius XII, and scorn and disobey whatever Decrees of the Roman Congregations they don't like, or esteem to be "anti-traditional" according to some arbitrary standard of their own making.

This is the hypocrisy of such sedevacantist clerics (and their lay disciples): they accuse the SSPX of Pope-sifting, but they themselves do it in an even worse way because of their unnerving emphasis on how "opinionism" or "soft sedevacantism" is wrong. This they do, even though they have failed in bring about a systematic, scholastic synthesis of their theological opinions. The way their lay disciples parrot them, they don't even seem like theological opinions strice dicitur.

As John Lane himself has recently written on his forum:

Quote

There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form? [emphasis mine]

Raoul76 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:09:27 PM »

Hobbles... Just because these changes were approved, does that mean they were necessarily for the best?

According to Trent, we must not say that the Church can promulgate any rite that is harmful to the faith. But that doesn't mean that the Bugnini changes were an improvement.

If the Angelic Pastor undoes Pius XII's changes, are you going to say he is questioning Roman Pontiffs and Roman Congregations?

And now that we are on that topic, do you really think Pius XII's changes will survive one week under the Angelic Pastor? I am willing to bet money that they will be quickly and quietly swept under the rug. I actually agree with LoT here -- I am not sure why so many people overlook the incredibly bizarre aspects of the papacy of Pius XII, or how many dubious people he was surrounded by.

I am absolutely positive that the future will look entirely differently upon Pius XII than some trads of today do, who really have rose-colored glasses on when it comes to him. This Pope was pretty near to a disaster. But I can see why God chose him. He kind of toed the line of compromise without ever quite entirely falling over.

He was an incredibly savvy politician, in my view, and this Machiavellian nature of his, in some kind of perverse way, actually kept the Vatican Catholic while he was there. But this does not mean he was a hero. It meant he had some kind of diplomatic genius that satisfied both Modernists and non-Modernists, for as long as he was there. A more intransigent Pope would have incurred more of the wrath of the Modernists, while Pius XII could keep Rome Catholic, while also pleasing the Modernists, in that he didn't seem like much of a long-term threat to them. He may have also rolled out the red carpet for them, in a sense, by tinkering with absolutely everything, which -- it could certainly be argued -- psychologically prepped Catholics for VII, made the radical changes of VII less shocking.

He was the right man for the time and place, yes, that is why I believe God chose him; but that is not to say he was a great Pope. Because someone like Pius X, Leo XIII or Pius IX COULD NOT HAVE BEEN Pope in that time. Popes like that, more intransigent figures, would have triggered a schism; or more likely would have just never been voted in.

Of course, I think it is the most prudent course to follow the changes, as CMRI does, until a true Pope either decides to keep them, or throws them out. These changes were protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faith. But that doesn't mean they are a step up from how things were done before.

I also don't see how the una cuм controversy is pathetic. That is an extremely serious issue. You don't feel a moral repulsion at going to an una cuм Mass?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #42 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:10:59 PM »

Hobbledehoy said:

Quote

This is the hypocrisy of such sedevacantist clerics (and their lay disciples): they accuse the SSPX of Pope-sifting, but they themselves do it in an even worse way

I see what you're saying, but it is not even close to being worse than SSPX, Hobbles.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #43 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:33:48 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Hobbles... Just because these changes were approved, does that mean they were necessarily for the best?

I'm not going to question the decisions of the Apostolic See, regarding matters of ecclesiastical discipline.

Quote

But that doesn't mean that the Bugnini changes were an improvement.

Have you made a comparative study of the rubrics as simplified by Pope Pius XII and those promulgated by St. Pius X? How do you know these changes were not improvements? How do you know whether or not Pope Pius XII merely continued the programme of reform that St. Pius X initiated but never finalized because of the Great War and his unfortunate death?

Again, Msgr. Bugnini has nothing to do with this, as I have written before:

Whosoever were the clerics in the Liturgical Commission whose recommendations contributed to the latest liturgical reforms is of no consequence whatsoever. What is of consequence is that the Sacred Congregation of Rites has the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in liturgical matters.

Just as no one seems to care about the fact the reformed Roman Psalter of Pope St. Pius X was not actually his, but the schema of the forgotten and unsung Rev. Father Paschal Brugnani, so Catholics should not pay mind to the fact that the above-mentioned Roman Congregation availed itself of the services of certain clerics who later were found to be modernists and who worked to establish a pseudo-liturgy antithetically opposed to the divine Offices of Holy Mother Church.

To believe that a band of covert heretics can be so successful in implementing their novelties in the Sacred Liturgy of the Roman Rite to the detriment of faith, morals and the spiritual welfare of the faithful, is essentially to deny the moral inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of ecclesiastical discipline.

This is why the supposed evolutionary continuity between the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII and the anti-liturgy consequent upon the Johannine-Pauline Council is merely accidental and peripheral at best: a revisionist historiography that seeks to explain the activity of the modernists as if the Church herself were "conquered" by them is not right, as the Church can never be overcome by modernists.

The Roman Liturgy is pure and unadulterated as Pope Pius XII has left it, whereas resorting to conspiracy theories and private opinions leads to an egocentric antiquarianism. This what the sedevacantists should recognize if they deem their opinion regarding the Papacy in the present age so important.

Quote

If the Angelic Pastor undoes Pius XII's changes, are you going to say he is questioning Roman Pontiffs and Roman Congregations?

Without addressing question of "private revelations" regarding the "Angelic Pastor" and future contingencies of which you or anyone else cannot possible know, a future Roman Pontiff can in fact reverse the reforms of Pope Pius XII, and even those of Pope St. Pius X, because the Pope has supreme authority over such matters as ecclesiastical discipline.

Quote

I am not sure why so many people overlook the incredibly bizarre aspects of the papacy of Pius XII, or how many dubious people he was surrounded by.

Because these "bizarre aspects" of the reign of Pope Pius XII are brought forth in such a crass manner by amateurs and dilettantes who "pick and choose" as they themselves deem fit.

If a professional historian with well docuмented sources has anything to say about the political aspects of any Pope's reign, and if these are relevant and important, then I will take him seriously.

Quote

Because someone like Pius X, Leo XIII or Pius IX COULD NOT HAVE BEEN Pope in that time. Popes like that, more intransigent figures, would have triggered a schism; or more likely would have just never been voted in.

Maybe that's because Zionists and Communists took over the zeitgeist and constructs of international socioeconomic and political structures after the disaster of WWII, deluding and seducing the complacent bourgeois Catholics of the time with a false sense of confidence now that the great "terror" of "Fascism" had been eliminated.

Quote

Of course, I think it is the most prudent course to follow the changes, as CMRI does, until a true Pope either decides to keep them, or throws them out. These changes were protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faith. But that doesn't mean they are a step up from how things were done before.

But it means that you are bound to obey the legislation duly promulgated by the Holy See, if you are going to call yourself a Catholic, your personal tastes and opinions notwithstanding.

Quote

I also don't see how the una cuм controversy is pathetic. That is an extremely serious issue.

That "issue" is not nearly as serious as the fact that certain sedevacantist clerics may have incurred severe Canonical penalties for not following the rubrics duly promulgated by the Apostolic See, and thereby scandalizing the faithful with a form of neo-Gallicanism, injuring and attacking the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Roman Congregations.

Pius IX · « **Reply #44 on:** August 01, 2012, 10:47:46 PM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote
It shows that this is just not an "SV issue".

Actually, this issue of the Restored Order of Holy Week is "an 'SV' issue" because the authors you have cited for your position are all sedevacantists.

Regarding liturgical praxis, it is actually the "recognize and resist" traditional Catholics who are consistent in rejecting what they see as objectionable and yet still recognizing this or that particular man as having been (or being) the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the liturgical question, the SSPX is superior to the sedevacantist coteries disassociated with the CMRI and scholars like Mr. John Lane.

It's funny, though "funny" is a funny word for it, how it is the acephalous clerics who are so adamant about the "una cuм" question, and who seem to believe that sedevacantism is somehow "binding" on individual consciences, who are ready to revile the memory of the late Pope Pius XII, and scorn and disobey whatever Decrees of the Roman Congregations they don't like, or esteem to be "anti-traditional" according to some arbitrary standard of their own making.

This is the hypocrisy of such sedevacantist clerics (and their lay disciples): they accuse the SSPX of Pope-sifting, but they themselves do it in an even worse way because of their unnerving emphasis on how "opinionism" or "soft sedevacantism" is wrong. This they do, even though they have failed in bring about a systematic, scholastic synthesis of their theological opinions. The way their lay disciples parrot them, they don't even seem like theological opinions strice dicitur.

As John Lane himself has recently written on his forum:

Quote
There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism". This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form? [emphasis mine]

As a sedevacantist, I believe this is an excellent approach.