Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Neil Obstat on July 15, 2012, 08:02:43 PM

Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 15, 2012, 08:02:43 PM: 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? (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19670&f=19&min=20&num=10)

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 circuмstances 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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=8534&min=20&num=10)

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:
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 15, 2012, 08:08:39 PM: 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 circuмstances 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 19, 2012, 11:52:48 AM: 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 ecuмenism..."'

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)
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 19, 2012, 11:55:47 AM: 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 circuмstances, 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 docuмent 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 docuмent 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 Circuмstances? “As to the second point, I don't understand what the changed circuмstances are. If the circuмstances are the modernists' intentions that this be the first step to a massive destruction of the Church, then the circuмstances 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 circuмstances 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 docuмent 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 circuмstances, 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 circuмstances 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 19, 2012, 11:57:05 AM: 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 circuмstances 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 docuмent, 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 ecuмenist 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 19, 2012, 11:57:59 AM: The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=18&catname=6
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 19, 2012, 12:01:41 PM: 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 cuм 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 Ecuмenism." 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 vobiscuм 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 cuмulative 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?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 19, 2012, 12:07:06 PM: 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 ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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" ecuмenism, 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-ecuмenist."

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 cuм 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 Jєωιѕн 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 ecuмenism..."'

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. Ecuмenism 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 ѕуηαgσgυє. 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 ecuмenism 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 Vobiscuм, 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 vobiscuм (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).
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on July 19, 2012, 12:52:19 PM: Quote from: Rev. Francesco Ricossa in the article "Liturgical Revolution"

• March 23, 1955: the decree cuм 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 cuм 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 19, 2012, 02:04:51 PM: Quote from: Hobbledehoy
Quote from: Rev. Francesco Ricossa in the article "Liturgical Revolution"

• March 23, 1955: the decree cuм 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 cuм 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on July 19, 2012, 02:44:00 PM: 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].
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 21, 2012, 07:06:56 AM: 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 cuм 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 21, 2012, 12:58:26 PM: 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!
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 23, 2012, 05:55:48 AM: If you read my previous posts you will see the changes.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Nishant on July 23, 2012, 06:50:24 AM: 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".
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 23, 2012, 10:54:11 AM: It is a good point and well stated as far as it goes, whatever legitimate points may exist to the contrary.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Pepsuber on July 23, 2012, 02:05:13 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
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.

...

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.

These two statements are contradictory. From the point of view of one who considers John XXIII a true Pope, yes, the Pius XII changes to Holy Week were indeed transitory. But if John XXIII was not a true Pope, then the Holy Week changes are truly stable and perpetual since they have not been changed by lawful authority in 54 years. Whether Msgr. Bugnini intended for them to be transitory is beside the point.

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

Why don't we apply the same principle to the Breviary?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Telesphorus on July 23, 2012, 02:11:07 PM: The provisional changes might not have been harmful in themselves. If we regard them as the tinkerings of a modernist who was practicing for the future transformation, we have reason to reject them.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 23, 2012, 02:34:51 PM: I'm not sure how to respond to one who suggests that any of the abundant changes from 1955 - 1969 were stable and perpetual so I will not even take a stab at it.

For those who want to be as fully informed regarding the contraversy as possible I would suggest they read the following article as well:

http://www.christorchaos.com/PresagingaRevolution.html
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Nishant on July 24, 2012, 12:14:48 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
It is a good point and well stated as far as it goes, whatever legitimate points may exist to the contrary.

It's true there may be legitimate points to the contrary, but it appears to me sedes, especially sedes who want to insist the SSPX position is wrong, really shoot themselves in the foot by making them. Because isn't this precisely what they accuse non-sedes of doing, and what they claim can never be done, of "sifting" a Pope's promulgations, laws and discipline? If so, and for whatever reason, they've already conceded in principle not only that it can be done, but that they are themselves inconsistent in the standards they apply. All the more so because obeying Pope Pius XII completely hardly poses any serious dilemma of conscience.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 24, 2012, 02:24:24 PM: Quote from: Nishant2011
Quote from: Lover of Truth
It is a good point and well stated as far as it goes, whatever legitimate points may exist to the contrary.

It's true there may be legitimate points to the contrary, but it appears to me sedes, especially sedes who want to insist the SSPX position is wrong, really shoot themselves in the foot by making them. Because isn't this precisely what they accuse non-sedes of doing, and what they claim can never be done, of "sifting" a Pope's promulgations, laws and discipline? If so, and for whatever reason, they've already conceded in principle not only that it can be done, but that they are themselves inconsistent in the standards they apply. All the more so because obeying Pope Pius XII completely hardly poses any serious dilemma of conscience.

I'm not sure the comparison between the 1958 liturgy and the 1969 is legitimate. It is one thing to allow something while you are still alive but severely ill that is not anti-Catholic but perhaps inprudent and quite another to do what Paul 6 did to the Mass, Sacraments and everything else. It is kind of like trying to compare him to Honorius or Liberius when there is absolutely no comparison between them and the conciliar heads of the new anti-Catholic Church.

It anyone has read all the articles I posted I would like to see counter-arguments to what is expressed in those articles as opposed to generalized sweeping comments.

All that being said, I do not intend to undermine the point you make which is a good one.

Piux XII did some strange things. He was the last thing holding the levy together before the dam broke.

Stuff was going on during his reign to be sure. The termites had infested the place.

The articles respond to your object however and I would be interested to know if you actually read the articles.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 24, 2012, 02:33:29 PM: 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.

---

Again I do not doubt that the contrary opinion could be correct. I do not think we can lay blame on either side of the issue. If Pius XII did what Montini did we would have rejected him out of hand as well, so calling us pick and choose SVs is not really a legitimate thing to do. We do not call the unfortunate things that happened under Pius XII anti-Catholic, but imprudent. What Montini did was the work of the devil. What Pius XII allowed would have been okay had we continued to have Catholic Popes who may have ended the experment he allowed or at least stopped the changes right there. Then there would be no qualms as it would be under the authority of a living Pope.

I'm not sure all the counter arguments can so readily be dismissed as, well Pius XII allowed so we MUST be stuck during those few years of the liturgy instead of the stability we enjoyed for the 100 previous years.

Do you see my point. The Mass was the same during that entire time, Pius V did not change the Mass but codified it.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on July 24, 2012, 09:43:59 PM: (http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Miscellany/Popes.jpg)

How the Faithful of the Sedevacantist Persuasion Ought to Regard the Restored Order of Holy Week
[/b][/size]

Prefatory Remarks

It is to be known that the simple layman who has written the following notes does not intend to pretend to have the canonical training that is proper to Priests―much less the education prerequisite for the licentiates and doctorates that had enabled clerics to officially teach in oral or written discourse as theologians, canonists and rubricists of happier ages—knowing well that he is bereft of the competence to issue definitive declarations and the authority to bind individual consciences thereto, which prerogatives are proper to the Apostolic See alone. However, if it was the harlot Rahab whom our Lord God chose as the instrumentality by which the children of Israel took possession of the Promised Land (Josue ch. ii-vi; Heb. ch. xi., 31; S. James ch. ii., 25) and so was found worthy to be mentioned in the sacred Genealogy of our Lord (St. Matt. ch. i., 5), so may this vilest amongst sinners, with the help of holy grace and the loving patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sedes sapientiæ,[1] help the servants and handmaidens of Jesus and Mary to attain to some clarity and equilibrium regarding these matters, relying solely on divine assistance and presuming not on any defective faculties proper to himself.

It would be better for the reader to be forthwith cognizant of the conclusion whereto the following notes arrive: the safest and most decorous course of thought and action for an individual Catholic to take in these tumultuous times is that of prayerful humility and obedience to the doctrinal teachings and disciplinary decrees of Holy Mother Church. To place individual and private opinions and sentiments as normative principles in preference to legislation promulgated by lawful authority―especially in matters of great moment―would be antithetical to the sensus Catholicus that schismatics and heretics scruple not to violate in the excess of pride and vainglory. Such a course of thought and action would not only be repugnant to the Lord God―Who in the multitude of His ineffable loving-kindnesses established for our sakes the holy Apostles together with their successors, subject to the supreme primacy and guided by the dogmatic infallibility of St. Peter and his successors, as rulers and Pastors of Holy Mother Church[2]―but it may also bring about a very great peril for souls, as demonstrated by the histories of the schismatic and heretical sects that have plagued Christendom throughout the ages. The reader, therefore, would do well to be mindful of the fact that there need be no apology against polemicists and critics for adhering to the legislation promulgated by authority of the Roman Pontiff: indeed, for a Catholic the very idea of defending filial obedience to the Apostolic See against other Catholics is a bewildering absurdity.

In order to arrive at a correct understanding of this conclusion as it applies to the esteem Catholics of the sedevacantist persuasion are to entertain for the Restored Order of Holy Week, the reader must consider the nature and the binding force of the General Decree that promulgated the Restored Order of Holy Week in the light of the dogma of the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the principles of liturgical law. It has been a great misunderstanding of these matters that has primarily contributed to the multiplicity and gravity of the errors that traditionalist polemicists have committed and propagated in the controversies that have arisen regarding the reforms of the late Pope Pius XII, particularly the Restored Order of Holy Week.

The exigencies of circuмstance and the paucity of time prevent the author from treating these important matters in their appropriate depth and detail. For the present time, these few notes will have to suffice, leaving to better minds and hearts the task of composing and publishing treatises more worthy of this sublime and grave matter.

The Nature and Binding Force of the General Decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria of the Sacred Congregation of Rites

The Restored Order of Holy Week was promulgated by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites Liturgicus Hebdomadae Sanctae ordo instauratur (Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria) together with the Instruction De ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae instaurato rite peragendo (cuм propositum) on 16 November 1955.[3] This very fact alone should have obviated any controversy or confusion regarding the question raised by certain traditionalist polemicists of whether or not to observe the Restored Order of Holy Week. For the principles of liturgical law―that is, “that part of Divine and Canon Law that concerns the Sacred Liturgy, i.e., the worship of God by the Church”[4]―forbid any individual to pronounce opinions involving any interpretation or application of principles of Canon Law contrary to this and all other General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

The Authority of the Roman Pontiff in Matters Liturgical

The Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917),[5] declares that “it belongs to the Holy See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy as well as to approve liturgical books.”[6] It is to preserve the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy that the Apostolic See has been given supreme authority over it, as Pope Pius XI teaches in the Apostolic Constitution Divini cultus (20 December 1928):[7] “Since the Church has received from her founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of course after preserving the substance of the sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chants―by which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action.”[8] Citing the above-mentioned Canon in his celebrated Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (20 November 1947),[9] Pope Pius XII makes it clear that “the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”[10] This is because the Roman Pontiff “is the shepherd and teacher of the faithful, and has by divine right and delegation the primacy of jurisdiction, being successor de jure and de facto of S. Peter, so that he is the supreme lawgiver in the Church, jurisdiction being the power of ruling subjects in matters over which the Superior has control.”[11] It is as Pope Eugenius IV had taught in the Bull Laetentur coeli (6 July 1439): “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church.”[12] Moreover, regarding the supreme and absolute primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the sacred Vatican Council in its fourth session (18 July 1870) defined that “the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church.”[13] Those who have the audacity to deny this have been solemnly anathematized by the same holy Council,[14] for it is “the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”[15] The Code of Canon Law has affirmed this absolute and universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff in the selfsame words that the Vatican Council employed to define this dogma.[16]

The Authority of the Congregation of Sacred Rites

Although at times availing himself of this authority directly through such docuмents as an Encyclical Letter or a Motu Proprio, the Roman Pontiff ordinarily legislates in liturgical matters through the Roman Congregations, particularly through the Congregation of Sacred Rites (Sacrorum Rituum Congregatio).[17] Pope Pius XII, in his above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, states that his predecessor Pope Sixtus V in the Apostolic Constitution Immensa aeterni (22 January 1588) established the Congregation of Sacred Rites “when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics [of the 16th Century Protestant revolt] and further spread their errors” and it was therefore “charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.”[18] This Sacred Congregation, according to the Code of Canon Law, “has the right of watching over and determining all that immediately concerns the sacred rites and ceremonies of the Latin Church” and “is its concern, especially, to see that the sacred rites and ceremonies are diligently observed in celebrating Mass, in administering the Sacraments, in the carrying out of the divine offices, in fine, in all that regards the worship of the Latin Church.”[19] The decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, “when drawn up in due form and duly promulgated,” have the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “even if they had not been referred to him.”[20] When a decree is “drawn up in writing and signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and its Secretary, and furnished with the seal of the Congregation” it is considered authentic, and therefore possessed of binding force.[21] Furthermore, when a decree, both in its content and form, concerns the entire Latin Church, it is a formally general decree, which is of obligation for all who follow the Roman Rite.[22]

The Authority of the General Decree Promulgating the Restored Order of Holy Week

The General Decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria, together with its accompanying Instruction cuм propositum, fulfills the requisites of an authentic decree, being signed by His Eminence Gateano Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and by His Eminence Alfonso Cardinal Carinci, titular Archbishop of Seleucia in Isauria, and Secretary of the same Roman Congregation. It is clear that the Decree is formally general as its very text demonstrates: “Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound in the future to follow the Restored Order of Holy Week, set forth in the original Vatican edition.[23] All things to the contrary notwithstanding.”[24] Not only is the General Decree of 16 November 1955 binding on all who follow the Roman Rite by reason of its authentic and formally general nature, but the fact that it is endowed with the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is made abundantly clear by the fact that it was promulgated by express command of the late Holy Father himself: “by special mandate of Our Most Holy Lord the Pope, by Divine Providence, Pius XII, the Congregation of Sacred Rites decrees that which follows.”[25] This is to be expected, since the endeavor to restore the Rites of Holy Week was conceived by the paternal solicitude of this same Holy Father, as the General Decree states: “Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius XII commanded the Commission for the Restoration of the Liturgy, established by the same Most Holy Lord, to examine this question of restoring the Order of Holy Week and propose a solution.”[26]

Considering all these things, together with the principles of liturgical law and in light of the ecclesiastical primacy and sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council and declared by Canon Law, there can be no doubt that the rites of Holy Week as found in the old Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum have been abolished. Furthermore, those who are bound to the Roman Missal and Breviary by virtue of the Bulls Quo primum (14 July 1570) and Quod a nobis (9 July 1568) of Pope St. Pius V and by the Bull Divino afflatu (1 November 1911)[27] of Pope St. Pius X cannot lawfully avail themselves of them as they are bound in conscience to observe the rites of Holy Week as found in the typical edition of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus.

Present Day Abuses of Clerics Exceeding their Competence in this Matter

Since the Apostolic See has exclusive and absolute authority over liturgical matters, no Ordinary in virtue of his own authority and competence can presume “to abrogate, dispense from, or give an authentic interpretation of, such laws.”[28] On the contrary, as the Code of Canon Law states and as Pope Pius XII has reiterated in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, the Ordinaries “have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.”[29] “Private individuals, therefore,” continues the late Roman Pontiff in his celebrated Encyclical Letter, “even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters” and, moreover, “no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity, and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself.”[30] This is especially pertinent to the present-day traditionalist clerics, being bereft of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction together with its concomitant privileges and prerogatives. All that the present-day “independent” clerics can claim is supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora, solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia— lest they risk exacerbating their problematic Canonical predicament wherein they have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office since they lack the requisite Canonical mission.[31] The clerics of the present day, therefore, may not in any way presume to deviate from the disciplinary decrees that have been promulgated by the late Holy Father and the Roman Congregations that availed themselves of his supreme authority, especially considering that lawfully appointed Ordinaries had been forbidden such measures. That the clerics of the present day presume to do that which was forbidden to the Ordinaries who had lawfully governed dioceses and communities by the authority of the late Pope is as perplexing as it is disheartening.

Those clerics of the present day who pertinaciously advocate the observance of the abolished rites of Holy Week as found in the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum can be said to be rebuked by Pope Pius XII in the words of his abovementioned Encyclical Letter: “The temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve reproof.”[32] Moreover, the late Supreme Pontiff declares that “ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.”[33] “The more recent rites,” continues the Holy Father, “likewise deserve reverence and respect. They too owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world [S. Matt. ch. xxviii., 20]. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of men.”[34] Just as no Catholic in his right mind would reject “the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas of the Church […] because it pleases him to hark back to old formulas,” so “as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical, would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of Divine Providence to meet the changes of circuмstance and situation.”[35] Such a course of thought and action, as the Holy Father teaches, ultimately leads clerics, together with the layfolk who follow them, “to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise,” and succuмb to the grave errors that “tend to paralyze and weaken the process of sanctification by which the sacred Liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father for their souls’ salvation.”[36] Sadly, this calamity, of which the late Pope attempted so earnestly to warn clerics and layfolk in his paternal solicitude and loving-kindness, has become the harrowing reality of the present age amongst the majority of traditionalist clerics and faithful.[37]

“Let no one,” the late Pope Pius XII declares, “arrogate himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will.”[38] For the Apostolic See alone is the Iuris Liturgici suprema moderatrix, the supreme moderatress of liturgical law.[39] The authority that promulgated the Restored Order of Holy Week is none other than that of the Apostolic See, that of the Supreme Pontiff himself, which no Christian can refuse to obey if he wishes to profess inviolate the Catholic faith. It would be most apt to remind the reader of the solemn words of Pope Boniface VIII: “Furthermore, We declare, say, define and pronounce as entirely necessary for salvation for all human creatures to be subject unto the Roman Pontiff.”[40] Those who advocate disobedience and rejection of the decrees promulgated by the authority and express command of the late Holy Father ought to carefully consider and meditate upon these words, that they may discern what spirit animates their zeal for the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A

All clerics of the Roman Rite are bound in conscience to adhere to the Restored Order of Holy Week promulgated by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria with its accompanying Instruction cuм propositum. It would be absurd to argue the contrary from the principles of customary law and precedents of usages contra legem. Establishing a real custom contrary to existing liturgical legislation is difficult “because of the resistance of the Holy See, owing to its desire for uniformity in matters liturgical.”[41] Furthermore, the Congregation of Sacred Rites in its decisions “admits the force of custom only in minor matters and for particular cases” and “it seldom approves of a general usage contrary to the rubrics.”[42] Moreover, those decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites “which expressly oppose existing usages, at once abolish these (and this even if they are immemorial) for they prevent the consent of the legislator which alone can change a usage into a custom.”[43] Such abuses did indeed exist before the present crisis of Holy Mother Church: “Not infrequently, in practice, usages contrary to the rubrics are defended on the ground that they are ‘customs.’ Quite often such usages are not only not customs―for they do not possess the qualities which are required to create customary law, i.e. , reasonableness and the requisite age, together with the absence of resistance on the part of the legislator―but are abuses which should be suppressed.”[44] There can be no Catholic possessed of reason and sense who can seriously entertain the notion that the observance of the abolished Holy Week Rites as found in the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum during the present interregnum (that is, according to the understanding of the sedevacantists) can lawfully constitute a custom, nor can anyone pretend that the clerics of our age have the authority to sanction such an abuse in any other way.

Appendix B

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.

Appendix C

It is absurd to base one’s decisions, especially if they are of great moment, on past and future contingencies which can never be the proper object of a created intellect. The argument set forth in certain tracts that the late Holy Father would have rescinded his liturgical reforms had he known their supposed consequences, and that clerics are thereby allowed to return to the abolished rubrics and ceremonies of the reformed liturgical books, betrays an ignorance of catastrophic magnitude — it is ultimately an irresponsible and ignorant historiography, based upon contingencies absolutely incognoscible to created intellects. Ultimately, one must conclude that the machinations of subversive clerics working in the Liturgical Commission of Pope Pius XII were foiled because the Roman Rite never became what they intended to make of it: whatever happened after the death of the late Pope Pius XII should be of no consequence whatsoever to the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion, as all such acts are null and void by reason of the vacancy of the Apostolic See according to the opinion of these same Catholics. The august dignity and divinely-bestowed authority of the Supreme Pontiff is such that these historical details are reduced to mere footnotes and have no importance or relevance to the matter. The intention of certain modernistic clerics notwithstanding, the infallibility of the Apostolic See guarantees that the latest liturgical legislation is free from all moral and theological error.

The burden of writing apologias and of constructing ingenious arguments falls upon those who advocate rejection of the decrees promulgated by the Apostolic See. The above notes did not intend to address any particular missive of this category, or any author thereof. Those clerics who have advocated disobedience and rejection of the most recent liturgical reforms promulgated by the Apostolic See present a very quizzical problem. Although their position is erroneous, and even scandalous and pastorally devastating when considered in itself, particularly when these clerics err grievously in the interpretation and application of principles of Canon Law as well as when they avail themselves of expressions which are impudent and puerile, the reader would do well to assume that they are animated with a zeal, although misguided, for the integrity of the Roman Missal and Breviary and therefore are to be considered as erring in good faith. However, those clerics who are neither canonically fit nor trained and those whose Orders are of dubious origin, as well as lay-folk exceeding the competence proper to their station in writing about matters they are incapable of understanding without the necessary guidance that such clerics are unable to provide, who attack the decrees of the Apostolic See with an ignorance and arrogance that betray a schismatical and heretical mentality, are to be confuted and rebuked with a salutary severity, yet ever moderated by charity and purity of intention.[/size]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annotations
[/b]

[1]Litaniæ Lauretanæ Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, Rituale Romanum, Tit. XI, cap. iii. (Romæ: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1954).
[2] Cf. Missale Romanum, Præfatio de Apostolis: “Vere dignum et justum est, æquum et salutare: Te Domine, suppliciter exorare, ut gregem tuum, Pastor æterne, non deseras: sed per beatos Apostolos tuos continua protectione custodias: Ut iisdem rectoribus gubernetur, quos operis tui vicarios eidem contulisti præesse pastores.”
[3]Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. xlvii [1955], p. 838-847.
[4] Rev. Father J.B. O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956; Imprimatur: + Albert G. Meyer, Archbishop of Milwaukee, 27 April 1956), p. 6
[5] A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II [1917].
[6] Can. 1257: “Unius Apostolicae Sedis est tum sacram ordinare liturgiam, tum liturgicos approbare libros;” cited in Rev. Father Richard Stapper’s Catholic Liturgics (trans. Rev. Father David Baier. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1938; Imprimatur: + Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York, 1 November 1935), p. 34.
[7 ]A.A.S., vol. xxi. [1929], pp. 33-41.
[8] Rev. Father Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (Barcelona: Herder, 1957; Imprimatur: + Gregory Bishop of Barcelona, 29 September 1950), no. 2200.
[9]A.A.S., vol. xxxix [1947], p. 521-595.
[10] “Quamobrem uni Summo Pontifici ius est quemlibet de divino cultu agendo morem recognoscere ac statuere, novos inducere ac probare ritus, eosque etiam immutare, quos quidem immutandus iudicaverit.”
[11] Rev. Father Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology (London, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1958; Imprimatur: + John Henry, Archbishop of Portsmouth, 4 May 1957), vol. 1, p. 149.
[12] Denzinger, no. 694.
[13] Denzinger, no. 1827. Dogmatic Constitution I of the Church of Christ Pastor aeternus (Acta Sanctæ Sedis, vol. vi. [1870-71], pp. 40 sqq.).
[14] Denzinger, no. 1831: “Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.”
[15] Denzinger, no. 1827.
[16] Can. 218, § 1: “Romanus Pontifex, Beati Petri in primatu Successor, habet non solum primatum honoris, sed supremam et plenam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam tum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores, tum in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent.”
[17] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 6.
[18] “Atque ita factum est ut, cuм saeculo XVI id genus usus ac consuetudines nimis magis increvissent, cuмque hac in re privatorum incepta fidei pietatisque integritatem in discrimen inducerent, magno cuм haereticorum profectu magnaque cuм eorum fallaciae errorisque propagatione, tum Decessor Noster imm. mem. Sixtus V, ut legitimos Ecclesiae ritus defenderet, ab iisdemque quidquid impurum inductum fuisset prohiberet, anno MDLXXXVIII Sacrum constituit tuendis ritibus Consilium; ad quod quidem institutum nostra etiam aetate ex credito munere pertinet ea omnia vigilanti cura ordinare ac decernere, quae ad sacram Liturgiam spectent.”
[19] Can. 253, §§ 1, 2: “Congregatio Sacrorum Rituum ius habet videndi et statuendi ea omnia quae sacros ritus et caeremonias Ecclesiae Latinae proxime spectant [...] ejus proinde est praesertim advigilare, ut sacri ritus ac caeremoniae diligenter serventur in Sacro celebrando, in Sacramentis administrandis, in divinis officiis persolvendis, in iis denique omnibus quae Ecclesiae Latinae cultum respiciunt.” cited by Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 26. The scope of the jurisdiction and labors of the S.R.C. also embrace the beatification and canonization of the Servants of God, among other important matters (Can. 253, § 3).
[20] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 26.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid., pp. 27, 28.
[23] “Qui ritum romanum sequuntur, in posterum servare tenentur Ordinem hebdomadae sanctae instauratum, in editione typica Vaticana descriptum” (No. 1).
[24] “Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.”
[25] “Quapropter, de speciali mandato eiusdem Ssmi D. N. Pii divina Providentia Papae XII, Sacra Rituum Congregatio ea quae sequuntur statuit.”
[26] “Ssmus D. N. Pius Papa XII mandavit ut Commissio instaurandae liturgiae, ab eodem Ssmo Domino constituta, quaestionem hanc de Ordine hebdomadae sanctae instaurando examinaret et conclusionem proponeret.” The supposition set forth by certain polemicists who contend that the Restored Order of Holy Week was enacted without the knowledge or consent of the late Holy Father, or that he was somehow fooled into sanctioning it, is therefore utterly absurd.
[27] A.A.S., vol. iii. [1911], pp. 633 sqq.
[28] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 37; cf. Can. 1257.
[29] “Episcopis autem ius et officium est vigilare diligenter ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur;” cf. Can. 1261, § 1: “Locorum Ordinarii advigilent ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur.”
[30]“Haud igitur fas est privatorum arbitrio, etsi iidem ex Cleri ordine sint, sacras atque venerandas res illas permittere, quae ad religiosam christianae societatis vitam pertineant, itemque ad Iesu Christi sacerdotii exercitium divinumque cultum, ad debitum sanctissimae Trinitati, Incarnato Verbo, eius Genitrici augustae ceterisque caelitibus honorem reddendum, et ad hominum salutem procurandam attineant; eademque ratione privato nemini ulla facultas est externas hoc in genere actiones moderari, quae cuм Ecclesiastica disciplina et cuм Mystici Corporis ordine, unitate ac concordia, immo haud raro cuм catholicae etiam fidei integritate coniungantur quam maxime.”
[31] Cf. Can. 147 “§ 1. Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta.”
[32] “Verumtamen temerarius eorum ausus omnino reprobandus est, qui novas deliberato consilio liturgicas consuetudines invehant, vel obsoletos iam ritus reviviscere iubeant, qui cuм vigentibus legibus ac rubricis non concordent.” Although the Pope here speaks of those foolhardy scholars who pretended to justify proposed modernistic liturgical innovations with groundless appeals to archeology and history, nothing forbids the application of these words to those who attempt to revive the rubrics and ceremonies abolished by the decrees of Congregation of Sacred Rites. Polemicists who would argue otherwise―because they erroneously hold that the late Holy Father contradicted himself by allowing the very reforms that these words of Mediator Dei condemn―seem to suggest that these words would actually apply to the reforms promulgated by the same Roman Congregation, which is a heretical and perilous notion to entertain. It ultimately constitutes an implicit denial of the inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, thereby indirectly attacking the dogma of the infallibility Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council.
[33] “Verumtamen vetus usus, non idcirco dumtaxat quod antiquitatem sapit ac redolet, aptior ac melior existimandus est vel in semet ipso, vel ad consequentia tempora novasque rerum condiciones quod attinet.”
[34] “Recentiores etiam liturgici ritus reverentia observantiaque digni sunt, quoniam Spiritus Sancti afflatu, qui quovis tempore Ecclesiae adest ad consummationem usque saeculorum, orti sunt; suntque iidem pariter opes, quibus melita Iesu Christi Sponsa utitur ad hominum sanctitatem excitandam procurandamque.”
[35] “Quemadmodum enim e catholicis cordatus nemo, eo consilio ductus ut ad veteres revertat formulas, a prioribus Conciliis adhibitas, illas respuere potest de christiana doctrina sententias, quas Ecclesia, adspirante moderanteque divino Spiritu, recentiore aetate, ubere cuм fructu, composuit retinendasque decrevit; itemque quemadmodum e catholicis cordatus nemo vigentes leges repudiare potest, ut ad praescripta regrediatur, quae ex antiquissimis hauriantur canonici iuris fontibus; ita pari modo, cuм de sacra Liturgia agitur, qui ad antiquos redire ritus consuetudinesque velit, novas repudiando normas, quae ex providentis Dei consilio ob mutatas rerum condiciones fuere inductae, non is procul dubio, ut facile cernere est, sapienti rectoque movetur studio.”
[36] “Haec enim cogitandi agendique ratio nimiam illam reviviscere iubet atque insanam antiquitatum cupidinem, quam illegitimum excitavit-Pistoriense concilium, itemque multiplices illos restituere enititur errores, qui in causa fuere, cur conciliabülum idem cogeretur, quique inde non sine magno animorum detrimento consecuti sunt, quosque Ecclesia, cuм evigilans semper exsistat «fidei depositi» custos sibi a divino Conditore concrediti, iure meritoque reprobavi! Etenim prava id genus proposita atque incepta eo contendunt, ut actionem illam exténuent ac débilitent, sanctitatis effectricem, qua sacra Liturgia -adoptionis filios ad caelestem Patrem salutariter dirigit.”
[37] Although it is beyond the scope of these notes to treat of this critical topic, it would not be out of place to briefly explain how certain attitudes manifested by certain polemicists who pertinaciously reject the disciplinary decrees promulgated by the Apostolic See can lead to errors against faith and morals. If the faithful are taught that the General Decrees of the Roman Congregations can be disobeyed by appealing to complex argumentations entailing principles of Canon Law and casuistry―that are usually beyond the intellectual competence of the average layman―there is a serious danger that reverence for the august person of the Supreme Pontiff may be lessened, and there may consequently arise a grave misunderstanding of the doctrines defined by the Vatican Council regarding the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. This is especially true in the present day, wherein the vacancy of the Apostolic See alleged by the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion does not afford them an opportunity to exercise their loyalty to the Apostolic See at the practical level, and wherein certain non-sedevacantist polemicists who attempt to reconcile the Johannine-Pauline Council with the Catholic faith commit various and sundry errors regarding the nature and authority of the papacy in their attempt to vindicate ecclesiastical praxes that are contrary to the acts and spirit of the authority they recognize. The consequences of this phenomenon in the interior life of the individual Catholic can be horrendously devastating―leading to a terrible pessimism regarding the history and future of the Church, to a tendency to become one’s own spiritual director, which ultimately leads to the cultivation of lax consciences, and thereby dragging the individual soul to retardation in the interior life, to spiritual pride and vanity, to acedia, to the neglect of the cultivation of the acquired moral virtues, and ultimately to serious spiritual disorders that can pervert the individual soul and lead it astray from the care of trained Pastors to false clerics or openly heretical or schismatic sects. This peril is particularly increased when absurd conspiracy-theories, utter deception and falsification, and shoddy scholarship are used by those polemicists who deny obedience to the legislation promulgated by the Apostolic See.
[38] “Nemo sibi arbitrium sumat normas sibimet ipsi decernendi easdemque ex voluntate sua ceteris imperandi.”
[39] Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Constitution Sedis hujus Apostolicae (14 May 1920; A.A.S., vol. XII [1920], pp. 317 sqq.); cited by Archdale A. King in the Preface of his book The Liturgy of the Roman Church (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957; Imprimatur: + E. Morragh Bernard, Vicar General of Westminister, 5 June 1957).
[40] “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronuntiamus omnino de necessitate salutis,” Bull Unam sanctam (18 November 1302), Denzinger, n. 469.
[41] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 33.
[42] Ibid. The typical edition of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus replaces the Roman Missal and Breviary during Holy Week, so it is the rubrics of the former book that are relevant in this discussion.
[43] Ibid., p. 34.
[44] Rev. O’Connell, op. cit., p. 37. In a footnote on this page, the author aptly cites the rebuke of Our Lord to the Pharisees (S. Mark. ch. vii., 8, 9): “Leaving the commandment of God, you hold the traditions of men. Well do you frustrate the precept of God, that you may observe your own tradition.”
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on July 24, 2012, 09:47:34 PM: Clarification regarding the above-posted notes:

Objectively speaking, the case is as the notes I have posted say, but whether or not the present-day clerics are to be imputed any culpability in this regard at the subjective level is another question: it is a matter of casuistry, and one for each individual cleric to discuss with his Spiritual Director.

However, there is no reason whatsoever to impute culpability on those sedevacantist clerics who do obey the reforms of Pope Pius XII, nor to denigrate them in any way whatsoever. Their course is safer because it is more orthodox and consistent.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on July 24, 2012, 09:53:16 PM: An exchange between SJB and I on this issue (31 March 2012) on another thread:

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Hobbledehoy
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 cleric chooses to disobey the decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, it would still be wrong.

It seems rather significant to note that nobody at the time rejected or even questioned the Holy Week changes.

Another reason why there can be no solid argument invoking the principles of cessation of law: the reforms were universally accepted (and with acclaim) by the whole of Christendom in the Roman Rite. Eventually the other Rites applied for the lawful adoption of the reforms, such as the Benedictines, the Carmelites, etc.

Quote
This was the same for the fasting modifications, which are accepted by all the mentioned sede clergy.

In fact, it was the Restored Order of Holy Week that eventually led to the toleration and sanction of evening Masses and ultimately to the mitigation of the ancient Eucharistic Fast promulgated by the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem (A.A.S., vol. xlix., pp. 177-178).

If one is to discard the Restored Order of Holy Week, because it was supposedly the "precursor" to the Novus Ordo anti-liturgy, why retain the mitigated fast, which could be discarded using the same arguments, according to the reasoning of those who refuse to obey the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites? Was the same Roman Pontiff, who is alleged by some cranks to have been bedeviled or too demented to validly promulgate the liturgical reforms, also fooled by modernists or too crazy to validly promulgate the mitigated Eucharistic Fast?[/size][/font]
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: caniscaeli3 on July 25, 2012, 04:39:09 AM: :fryingpan:
I have read most of the commentary in this thread. I have been blessed as almost TrueMasses which I have attended since 1994 have been devoid of most of the novelties as described by Frs. Dolan and Cekada. For a period of time, I attended an FSSP Chapel. The truncated Holy Saturday Mass was celebrated in the evening; in the beginning at 7 p.m. and later changed to 10 p.m., so that in fact it was a Vigil of Easter Mass. The Saturday evening Mass was offered at 5:30 p.m., using the Propers of Sunday. The reasoning for that was because it was "pastoral" and the liturgical "day" began at sundown.

Recently, the Pope bowdlerized the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. There is one society of apostolic life, whose constitutions specifically state they have the privilege of including that particular prayer. It appears now that it has become an option. Our new pastor included the original prayer last Good Friday and has in fact instituted a Holy Hour at 3 p.m. on Friday for the express purpose of conversion of the Jews.

Here I must object to the characterization of Lambert Beauduin as a co-founder of the Liturgical Movement. He was a co-opter of LM. The founders of LM were Dom Gueranger and Pope St. Pius X. Beauduin was a founder of the Liturgical Revolution.

It is an historical fact that despite the Oath against Modernism, that the Modernists went underground. They surrounded Beauduin and took up the cause of the Liturgical Revolution as a means of promoting their heterodoxy. They were able to succeed by infiltrating and taking over the bishop's conferences of France and Germany.

The great modern docuмent on TrueMass is, of course, Mediator Dei by the Ven. Pope Pius XII, given on 11/20/47. The Pope recognizes and affirms the theory of organic growth in the liturgy as an enrichment of public worship as long as it does not contradict Catholic Dogma. He affirms the liturgical norms of Trent. He affirms Tra le sollecitudini He praises LM as founded by Dom Gueranger. He condemns theological errors on the nature of the priesthood of the faithful; exaggerations of active participation in the Mass; the attempt to restore ancient rites (archaeologism); the discontinuance of black as a liturgical color; the substitution of the primitive table for the altar; the progressive elements of LM; the use of the vernacular; para-liturgies; Humanism in the Mass and; "... certain people... (who are) too fond of novelty and go astray from the paths of sound doctrine and prudence..."

On the other hand he urges active participation in the Mass by means of the hand missal; congregational participation in the Chant and the dialogue Mass (§111). Prior to WW II, the congregation of Westminster Cathedral was able to chant five Masses from the Kyriale. He affirms that the Mass has the form of vertical worship as opposed to horizontal worship, as is contained in NOM. He states that active participation is necessary to draw the faithful to the Crucifixion. There are two elements of Divine Worship, interior and exterior. Interior worship requires an individual to pray the Mass. He states that exterior worship (dialogue) expresses the unity of the congregation with the Mystical Body of Christ.

It is my experience with the dialogue that the responses are given in a low voice, a loud whisper, if you will. There is no distraction. In another place, he states, “… to participate in the Mass is our chief duty... not in an inert fashion (Mrs. Murphy praying her beads [my comment])... giving way to distraction and daydreaming. This participation in the Mass, not only is a reasonable concept but is necessary to fully cooperate in the Mysteries.

As an example of organic growth, Pope Pacelli gives the following: as Catholic dogma regarding Mary, Virgin Mother of God grew; new prayers were introduced to the Mass to reflect those developments, even into the Canon. St. Joseph is the patron of the Church. It is fitting, therefore to commemorate him in the Mass IMHO. What better place than in the Communicantes?

That said, Pope Roncalli inserted the commemoration of St. Joseph into the Canon to demonstrate that he had the power to do so, according to an approved a biographer, Paul Johnson, an English hack, not the great historian-scholar. The Pope is also granted this right by Canon Law. (§253 [1917]).

What happened to this liturgically orthodox Pope between 1947 and 1955? It should be remembered that his gastritis began in 1953 and he was in failing health until his death. He did not realize that the litnik disciples of Beauduin were plotting a liturgical revolution. He did not consider them enemies, but rather, as intellectual theoreticians. Don't forget that he himself was a polymath.

The Liturgical Revolution was being led by Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini, Louis Bouyer, Josef Jungmann, Odo Casel, Yves Congar, et al. The bishops' councils approved the concocted novelties as being pastoral. These councils presented petition and after petition to the Pope requesting some of these novelties become liturgical law. These "liturgical experts" were recommended to the Pope by prelates such as Cardinal Lercaro, Cardinal Montini, Cardinal Bea and other members of the Curia. The Pope is also an executive and relies on advice from various sources. Here, we have a situation wherein a number of bishops' councils and individual bishops are petitioning for the same thing; therefore, there must be some wisdom in these requests. He acted IMO for essentially pastoral reasons to encourage participation in and ardor for the Mass. Big mistake, but then hindsight is 20/20.

As a result, the Eucharistic fast was reformed; evening Masses were introduced; the Holy Week liturgy was revised; and, vernacular was introduced into the sacraments.

The Pope was surrounded by enemies. Bea was his confessor. Lercaro was an “intellectual.” (It was well known that he kept a house in Rome populated by attractive young men. It was also alleged that he was a member of Propaganda Due and a Mason.)

Speaking of Masonry there must be something in the water of Bergamo. That town gave us Cdl. Rampolla, a Mason, who was almost elected at the 1903 conclave. Then came Roncalli who allegedly was inducted into the Grande Orient Lodge of France. Last, but not least, was Bishop Bernareggi, who was the founder of the Center for Liturgical Action in Italy. Its protectors were Montini of Milan (allegedly the center for Italian Masonry) and Lercaro of Bologna (the center of Italian Communism).

There is a conspiracy theory which alleges that Stalin had sent nearly a thousand agents into the West to compromise the Church. Anastas Mikoyan said Communism would be established in France because of its great support by the hierarchy and Catholic publications. Bela Dodd, an American Communist, testifying before HUAC stated Communist agents had penetrated the Catholic Church.

Did you notice that I haven't mentioned Bugnini? He comes on the scene in 1946-1947. Fr. Didier Bonneterre relates that he begged the director of the Centre for Pastoral Liturgy, Fr. Duployé, for an invitation to a litnik conference in Theuilin, France. CPL was the French modernist liturgical cabal. In 1947, he became editor of a liturgical periodical and secured a position teaching liturgical studies first at Pontifical Urban College and then at Lateran Univ. He wasn’t unique.

The liturgical changes implemented by the Commission for Liturgical Reform, whose president was Lercaro and whose secretary was Bugnini, were incorporated in the 1962 Missale Romanum.

In conclusion, it is best to avoid 1962 Missal. The 1948 editio typica is the last untainted Missale Romanum.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 25, 2012, 07:45:04 AM: Thank you for the informative information you provided here caniscaeli3.

I'll throw in my 2 cents which is not based on any theological formation but off the cuff.

Why do we keep hearing about "organic development" of the liturgy 1500 years after the Mass was formed and 400 years after it was codified? Why are we still trying to get it "right"? In vatican 2 speak "organic development" means changing a thing from one thing to another. The only development would be to add valid Saints to the calendar IMO.

Also, I found the dialogue Masses, even when the people kind of whispered the responses, distracting and disturbing. Just a step towards kind of stealing the Mass from the Priest as has been pretty much accomplished in the anti-Catholic V2 Church.

Pius V codified the thing in 1570, let's quit messing with it.

Those are my beer-belleyed belching, peanut eating sentiments.

Hindsight is indeed 20/20 and Pius XII would realize that despite not officially allowing anything anti-Catholic, he certainly did not officially put the liturgy on a path to where it was going to get better, and his changes were not improvements as he realizes now.

I believe that 99% who compare the Post '55 changes with the previous 1500 years are willing to admit that including those, who out of an admirable sense of obedience to the deceased Pontiff, act towards the contrary.

Again, I cannot see how any layman or even clergyman can condemn one on either side of the issue (using the liturgy in place at the death of Pius XII which was in place for 3 years due to obedience to the last living Pontiff or going with the liturgy of the previous 1500 years due to common sense).

I'm not sure how we can judge the consciences of the clergy-men that are just trying to provide with unquestionably Catholic liturgy, tainted and brief or pure and established. If it wasn't for the obedience factor, which Satan used to lure us into the V2 Church, all would agree that the liturgy before the changes under Pius XII was certainly the most Catholic, even if some take humbrage to that statement since they claim nothing imprudent can happen to the liturgy under the watchful eyes of a severely ill Pope.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on July 25, 2012, 09:24:16 PM: To caniscaeli3:

In an issue of The Catholic Voice, Rev. Fr. Kevin Vaillaincourt also wrote of the modernists' attempts at subverting of Catholic liturgical praxis, but he accepts the liturgical reforms promulgated by Pope Pius XII, and advocates such a practice.

The CMRI also obey what they consider to be the latest legislation lawfully promulgated by the Apostolic See, despite knowing the subversive activities of the modernist operatives within the hierarchy.

Why do they do this?

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. 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, as Lover_of_Truth himself seems to inadvertently admit:

Quote
If it wasn't for the obedience factor, which Satan used to lure us into the V2 Church, all would agree that the liturgy before the changes under Pius XII was certainly the most Catholic, even if some take humbrage to that statement since they claim nothing imprudent can happen to the liturgy under the watchful eyes of a severely ill Pope. [emphases mine]

[/size][/font]
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on July 25, 2012, 09:46:04 PM: Quote from: Lover_of_Truth
Hindsight is indeed 20/20 and Pius XII would realize that despite not officially allowing anything anti-Catholic, he certainly did not officially put the liturgy on a path to where it was going to get better, and his changes were not improvements as he realizes now. [emphasis mine]

How in the world would you know this? How do you know what the late Pope is thinking now? Again, arguments based upon past contingencies absolutely incognoscible to created intellects 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!"

Quote from: Lover_of_Truth
I'm not sure how we can judge the consciences of the clergy-men that are just trying to provide with unquestionably Catholic liturgy, tainted and brief or pure and established. If it wasn't for the obedience factor, which Satan used to lure us into the V2 Church, all would agree that the liturgy before the changes under Pius XII was certainly the most Catholic, even if some take umbrage to that statement since they claim nothing imprudent can happen to the liturgy under the watchful eyes of a severely ill Pope.

See the post above.

The problem here is that certain clerics make imperious, categorical declarations regarding their liturgical praxis, and make it seem as if it is imperative for one to adopt their interpretation of the pertinent principles. If they had just observed the abolished rites without making an issue out of it, everything would have been fine. But they have written for decades on how they are not only right, but that they represent "traditional" Catholicism.

For example:

Quote from: Father Cekada
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.

Again, who gets to determine what exactly is this "Catholic liturgy" which is the one "we seek to restore" and "one redolent of the fragrance of antiquity"? In order for Sacred Liturgy to be Catholic the authority of Holy Mother Church is indispensable, otherwise it is all just rubricated theatre, like what the Anglo-Catholics have with their Sarum Missals.

Exactly who has the competence and authority to determine exactly what liturgical rites and rubrics ought to be followed by those who would avoid the modernists' "tinkering"? The Saint Lawrence Press, Ltd., seems to think the answer would be 1939, since their Ordines are based on the typical editions of the liturgical books that were in force that year. At Saint Gertrude's, the Feast of St. Pius X is observed, but not that of St. Joseph the Workman. So at what year, at what typical edition of the Roman Missal and Breviary, do we stop?

The fact is that such sedevacantists pick and choose which docuмents to apply, and give their own private interpretations. Just like the polemicists who refuse to obey the General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites when it comes to the Restored Order of Holy Week, or the Feast Day of St. Joseph the Workman, but adhere to the new Mass formulary of the Assumption or to the Feast of St. Pius X (both formularies used the New Translation of the Roman Psalter, which, by the way, gets equally bad treatment by such polemicists).

The real question is how much can one invoke epikeia and still retain praxis that can be recognized as Catholic?

It's either the general ecclesiastical discipline of Holy Mother Church, or an individual's pet theories.

Adhesion to the liturgical reforms lawfully promulgated by the Apostolic See is the Catholic thing to do, whereas doing as one pleases is Protestant.

The Church has spoken on the matter.

Clerics such as Rev. Fr. Vaillancourt and the CMRI Fathers avoid the quizzical and labyrinthine problems inherent in certain sedevacantist clerics' "rubrical dilettantism" by humbly acknowledging this fact and endeavor to be lead by a spirit of filial love for Holy Mother Church and obedience to her magisterium.[/size][/font]
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 27, 2012, 05:37:52 AM: Hindsight truly is 20/20. Any honest and knowledgeable individual will admit that the liturgical changes were not an improvement. Why change things if not for the better? Pius XII is aware of who he was dealing with and who he allowed to inform him and make suggestions now. It is certainly reasonable and perhaps even obvious, that if he knew then what he knows now he would have not allowed the changes. As to disobeying the Pope; I was not aware we had one:

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 docuмent promulgating the Novus Ordo, in fact, Paul VI himself points to the Pius XII legislation as the beginning of the process.

Again I maintain that there is nothing anti-Catholic about sticking with how things were at the death of Pius XII and even admit that that might be the best thing to do as we was a valid Pope and did allow the changes. But I have not seen a convincing argument that we can ipso facto denounce the learned clergymen who stick with the liturgy that was in place for centuries. I'm not sure how a layman can definitively condemn either side of the issue. I certainly don't.

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. We need a Pope to set us strait.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy 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?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Nishant 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey 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
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on July 28, 2012, 07:16:33 PM: And no we are not sedevacantists either.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Scriptorium 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy 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...
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy 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]
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Raoul76 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?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Raoul76 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Pius IX 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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on August 02, 2012, 12:21:04 AM: On this thread Hobbledehoy provides us with some superb criticisms of the contemporary sedevacantist establishment. One can only hope he can see the apocalyptic context in which his criticisms are occurring.

Earlier in this thread caniscaeli3 said: "The Liturgical Revolution was being led by Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini, Louis Bouyer, Josef Jungmann, Odo Casel, Yves Congar, et al." He had previously also mentioned the name of Lambert Beauduin as another priest to be added to this list of those prominent in the Liturgical Movement (or the LM).

The fatal mistake in this way of listing the leaders of the LM is that it indiscriminately mixes both the good and the bad together with no adequate awareness of what was going on in the LM of those days. While Louis Bouyer, Josef Jungmann, Yves Congar and Lambert Beauduin were indeed modernists deserving of censure, Fathers Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini and Odo Casel were nothing of the sort.

To see the pontificate of Pius XII as a time of universal modernist supremacy as this kind of list does is to impose an essentially Jansenist rationalist antiquarianism on our religion. Instead of Catholicism, we have a team of antiquarian researchers who, in Jansenist or Orthodox Anglican fashion, decide by the light of their reason what their rationalist approximation is of what they think Catholicism then was.

This might be good Jansenism or Anglicanism, but it is not Roman Catholicism. We need to have an accurate historical sense of what was happening in our Roman Catholic liturgy during the pontificates of Pius XII and then that more troublesome John XXXIII.

Into the pontificate of Leo XIII our liturgy was something exclusive to our Catholic aristocracy and their followers. Those sufficiently interested learned their Latin along with the very complex liturgical rubrics that were the professional trade secrets mostly of select monastics and cathedral chapters. Such was European life and such was our holy religion with its rituals that then still quite recognizably went straight back to the Foundation of the City of Rome in 754 B.C. We Catholics were the Romans, our aristocracy and clergy still spoke Latin and, even with our Popes comfortably imprisoned in the Vatican, life was good and all was well with the world.

But as the 19th Century progressed Latin ceased to be the lingua franca of Catholics as a whole, the vernacular languages continued to make progress at the expense of Latin and another step upwards was made in the long history of our incomparable Roman ritualism. This began at the very end of Pope Pius IX's pontificate with the first permission for the laity to use Missals that included the vernacular languages. During the pontificate of Leo XIII these Missals became universal among the Catholic laity and it was time for St. Pope Pius X to undertake "Divino Afflatu." That refinement made our Breviary much more focused on the apocalyptic times then first appearing on our horizons and made the Divine Office easier for those of commoner status to learn to use.

The greatest Pope of recent times, Pope Pius XII, truly "St. Pope Pius the Great," achieved something much more ambitious that this. For him the goal was to achieve a liturgy that could be used by all educated Catholics, a Missal and Breviary for a single world-wide Catholic Folk, the Divine People of God. (This idea was at the furthest antipodes from what was later made of it by Vatican II.) The direct result of these Papal efforts was the Breviary of 1960 and the Missal of 1962, undertaken by the Liturgical Commission authorised and approved by the late great Pope Pius XII. These expressed the brilliant ideas presented in his Encyclical Mediator Dei.

The problem is not with the excellence of the liturgy that Pope Pius XII has left us nor with the wisdom of the theologians who assisted Pope Pius, like Dom Odo Casel, Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini and Dom Anscar Vonier. The problem is that our Jansenist rationalist antiquarian pedants don't like the greatness and excellence of our Catholic liturgy and can not stop themselves with monkeying with everything like the rationalist antiquarian pedants they are.

For the disobedient bishops (almost all of them today) our actual historic Catholic history and liturgical heritage can never be good enough for them. They are both too good to obey and too good to fight. So we obedient Catholics are now back to the catacombs beneath the worst Anti-Christ Marxist tyranny the world has ever known.

May the Good Lord give us the strength to win back our lost Christian freedom and worship using the liturgy that the great Pope Pius XII has given to us as our greatest Catholic inheritance.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 02, 2012, 01:20:57 AM: Does anyone have comments on this:

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 publicly.

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.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on August 02, 2012, 08:39:38 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Hobbledehoy
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...

Dear Hobbles,

I didn't mean to make you cry. I'll pray that hate leaves your soul before you die.

Very Sincerely and respectfully,
John

Wow, John! If anyone's crying it is you, dude. There is no hate in my soul, especially not for someone such as yourself: but, hey, you seem to know what dead Popes think, so I can't blame you for presuming to have preternatural cognition.

The thing is: you have just substantiated what I have written regarding your behavior on this thread by copying & pasting the same post to which I responded.

Your spiteful and arrogant attitude, together with your Pharisaical extravagance of "piety," does not lend much credit to the "truth" you profess to love and for which you copy & paste so many threads.

When you've grown up (if that happens, or, rather, if that can happen), we can debate profound ecclesiological and canonical questions that are obviously beyond both your intellectual and emotional capacity at the present moment.

I'm sorry to have assumed you had the sincerity and the capability to carry on an adult conversation.

I purpose to never make such a mistake again.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 03, 2012, 07:25:11 AM: Quote from: Raoul76
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.

It isn't a fair comparison at all. In one case the New Mass is clearly anti-Catholic, whereas what happened towards the end of Pius XII reign cannot be classified as anti-Catholic, but strange.

On one hand you have,

1. Men suspected of modernism (and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) elected as "Pope"

2. Men who got started, approved and maintain Vatican 2.

3. Those same men took the changes Bugnini got away with under Pius XII and ran with it.

4. Men who invalidated and maintain the invalid Sacraments.

5. Men who foisted a heretical cannon law and maintain that canon law on us.

6. Men who repeatedly teach heresy.

7. Men who repeatedly engange in heretical acts.

8. Men who have not abjured one single heresy they have taught.

Then you have Pius XII

1. He allowed some Bugnini changes that, not anti-Catholic in themselves, on the face of it, opened the door to the new Mass.

To compare the SSPX sifting of Paul 6, JP2 and Benedicts obvious anti-Catholic actions, aprovals and implementations as being just as on par with SVs and none SVs questioning of what happened to the liturgy under Pius XII is not a fair comparison, neither is it fair to call it an SV thing when none-SVs question what happened to the liturgy under Pius XII as well.

In the first case, the simplest of laity can ask, merely from their Sunday experiences from the time of V2 on, why do they now call white black and say nothing has changed.

The SVs and non-SVs who see what happened to the liturgy under Pius XII for what it is, a path to the new Mass, are merely asking, why exchange something firm, established and pure for something new, that would not last more than a few years? Why not go with what was established for 1500 years before Bugnini started to mess with it?

I still do not see why it is not wrong to accept whatever the traditional Priest in your area does, because that is really the only choice you have apart from staying at home. I also do not see why we must have an infallible lay decree that states we must agree with that layperson even though the traditional clergy, SV and not, cannot agree.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on August 03, 2012, 08:12:40 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
I would like all who read this thread to say a prayer for Hobbledehoy. It seems he is having a hard time and feels bad about things right now. Let us pray to God that he can get the animosity out of his heart and continue his good work on this site.

Uh, how would you know I am "having a hard time and feel bad about things right now"? How do you know I have "animosity" in my heart?

Is it the way you know what Pope Pius XII is thinking right now?

Or, may it have possibly something to do with this:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Thanks-for-Motivating-Me-Raoul

Why was it necessary for you to post another thread on this matter?

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Special-Request

I do not appreciate the fact that you are resorting to such tactics.

I have always prayed for you, and please be assured of my continued prayers. I have borne no animosity towards you, and have gone out of my way to correct your errors about certain matters, only to get reactions and replies such as those which you have displayed here and on other threads.

Oh well...
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on August 03, 2012, 08:30:03 AM: Quote
To compare the SSPX sifting of Paul 6, JP2 and Benedicts obvious anti-Catholic actions, aprovals and implementations as being just as on par with SVs and none SVs questioning of what happened to the liturgy under Pius XII is not a fair comparison, neither is it fair to call it an SV thing when none-SVs question what happened to the liturgy under Pius XII as well.

You have to re-read what I wrote carefully.

It is a red-herring that you have trying to conjure forth: this discussion is specifically regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week as the "sedevacantists" have treated the question, this isn't about the "New Mass" or about Benedict XVI.

Quote
The SVs and non-SVs who see what happened to the liturgy under Pius XII for what it is, a path to the new Mass, are merely asking, why exchange something firm, established and pure for something new, that would not last more than a few years? Why not go with what was established for 1500 years before Bugnini started to mess with it?

What do they "see"? With what authority may anyone make this "exchange"?

Have you no notion of the obedience you are obliged to show the Apostolic See? Even though the Office of the Roman Pontiff may be current vacant or "impeded" (according to whatever understanding an individual may have acceped), the Apostolic See is imperishable, and the decrees are still in force.

The "recognize and resist" Catholics have formulated another understanding that makes their liturgical praxis consistent, whereas the "-isms" as explicated by such people as Cekada, Sanborn, etc., only substantiate the impression that the sedevacantists have effectively done away with the hierarchy of the Church only to put any given individual cleric or layman as the arbiter of ecclesiastical discipline.

This issue regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week as treated by the sedevacantists is an embarrassing proof of what the anti-sedevacantists polemicists have said and written for years. Only the CMRI and such like-minded clerics are beyond reproach regarding this matter.

Quote
I also do not see why we must have an infallible lay decree that states we must agree with that layperson even though the traditional clergy, SV and not, cannot agree.

You can close your eyes and believe whatever fantasies you wish, but there is no "lay decree" here, nor any layman exceeding his limited competence.

I have only indicated what the Sacred Canons and the principles of ecclesiology have to say regarding the abuse of the sedevacantist clerics who pertinaciously refuse to obey the Apostolic See and make themselves the Ecclesia docens and miniature Popes.

Your red-herrings and straw men will not make the realities you dislike go away, despite what clerical pundits and polemicists may say or write.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 03, 2012, 08:45:33 AM: I've forgiven you Hobbledehoy.

I hope you continue to be an outstanding example to all.

I'm with you.

Thank you for all your help and insight.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 03, 2012, 08:48:39 AM: I thought this was particularly interesting:

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 docuмent 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 circuмstances, 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 circuмstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Belloc on August 03, 2012, 08:48:51 AM: I have a 1958 Maryknoll Missal......falling apart, plan to either repair or get same one if ican find one.......

Someone-maybe Raoul or someone else, one time a few yrs back, I sent him a link for a 1920's Missal for sale.....
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on August 03, 2012, 08:55:29 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote
Wow, John! If anyone's crying it is you, dude. There is no hate in my soul, especially not for someone such as yourself: but, hey, you seem to know what dead Popes think, so I can't blame you for presuming to have preternatural cognition.

The thing is: you have just substantiated what I have written regarding your behavior on this thread by copying & pasting the same post to which I responded.

Your spiteful and arrogant attitude, together with your Pharisaical extravagance of "piety," does not lend much credit to the "truth" you profess to love and for which you copy & paste so many threads.

When you've grown up (if that happens, or, rather, if that can happen), we can debate profound ecclesiological and canonical questions that are obviously beyond both your intellectual and emotional capacity at the present moment.

I'm sorry to have assumed you had the sincerity and the capability to carry on an adult conversation.

I purpose to never make such a mistake again.

Dear Hobbles,

I am sorry to have "mistaken" the above not to be angry. I did not realize that is the way you talk with people normally.

I'll pray that you speak more charitably when you are not angry.

Doing so right now.

Ave Maria . . .

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/How-to-spot-a-web-forum-AGENT-disinformation-techniques
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Matthew on August 03, 2012, 03:29:55 PM: LoverOfTruth,

Please stop needling Hobbledehoy, especially with your fake piety routine. Your calculated attempts to incite anger would make anyone angry.

And yes, that's a warning.

Don't make me choose between the two of you, because the results won't be good for you.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2012, 12:16:43 AM: Quote from: brotherfrancis75

...The greatest Pope of recent times, Pope Pius XII, truly "St. Pope Pius the Great,"

...the late great Pope Pius XII

...the excellence of the liturgy that Pope Pius XII has left us nor with the wisdom of the theologians who assisted Pope Pius, like Dom Odo Casel, Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini and Dom Anscar Vonier.

... the great Pope Pius XII has given to us as our greatest Catholic inheritance.

If Pope Pius XII was so wonderful, why did he dare to tamper with the most
ancient rites in the Roman liturgy, those of Holy Week?

Why did he dare to allow the addition of a non-martyr, who died long before the
Gospel was preached, into the erstwhile untouchable Canon of the Mass?

Why did he meticulously set up the groundwork for Vatican II, even though he
knew he didn't have the strength to finish it, at a time when the Church was
enjoying the greatest blossoming and growth in its 1900 year history?

Why was he weak and ambiguous regarding the defense of extra ecclesiam
nulla salus, the thrice defined dogma of the Faith, which was unquestionably
under violent attack even from within the curia?

And last but not least, with all these wise and learned assistants, why did he
literally install and give the big green light to the likes of Hannibal Bugnini?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Nishant on August 04, 2012, 07:17:19 PM: Neil Obstat, if I may ask you, why did Archbishop Lefebvre insist on the 1962 Missal? Among both non-sedevacantist and sedevacantist groups, it appears to me that the majority does follow the Pope Pius XII reforms.

While I think there can be a pious and respectful criticism of some aspects of it, here is a Msgr.Fenton's evaluation of Pope Pius XII's pontificate, which is overwhelmingly positive.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/piutreatise.htm
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Sunbeam on August 05, 2012, 04:07:03 PM: Nishant,

Thank you for drawing attention to Mgr Fenton’s article from AER, “Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church”.

Given a choice between Mgr Fenton’s assessment of Pope Pius XII, and that of NeilObstat, as expressed in his erroneous comments immediately preceding your post, I would follow the loyal and learned Mgr Fenton every time. (In fact, I rather suspect that, following Vatican II, he himself suffered something of a dry martyrdom, and is the more to be honoured for that.)
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 08, 2012, 10:32:41 AM: Quote from: Nishant2011
Neil Obstat, if I may ask you, why did Archbishop Lefebvre insist on the 1962 Missal? Among both non-sedevacantist and sedevacantist groups, it appears to me that the majority does follow the Pope Pius XII reforms.

While I think there can be a pious and respectful criticism of some aspects of it, here is a Msgr. Fenton's evaluation of Pope Pius XII's pontificate, which is overwhelmingly positive.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/piutreatise.htm

If I've given you the impression that I am advocating some kind of resistance to the
papacy of Pius XII, I'm sorry, I did not intend that. It's just that we have a situation
today where all the popes since him have turned out to be highly questionable, and
many are wont to hold Puis XII up as somehow untouchable in comparison. We
really shouldn't be comparing popes in the first place.

As for Archbishop Lefebvre, it seems to me a bit presumptuous to start with the
assertion that he "insisted on the 1962 Missal." He may have used it from time to
time, just as he may have used the "transitional rite" before the full-blown Novus
Ordo came along in 1969. But there was some skirmish with a group of
breakaway priests who left the SSPX early on whereby one of the concessions
ABL made to keep the "peace" with Rome was that he would use the 1962 Missal.
That doesn't mean he preferred it. He was expecting this whole crisis to be short-
lived. If he had known that we would be in 2012 or 2017 and still struggling to
provide and assist at a Canonized Traditional Latin Mass, he may have had an
entirely different regard for the 1962 Missal.

Once again, not that there is anything inherently wrong with the 1962 Missal, the
fact remains that there are some changes in it that represent the first step toward
the all-out deconstruction of the Roman Rite. Why take the first step?

When Eve walked through the Garden of Eden and passed by the Tree of
Knowledge, she took the first step toward our subsequent state of misery by
pausing and listening to what the serpent had to say. If she had been the
Blessed Virgin Mary, there would have been no pause, there would have been
no listening. It would have consisted of a command, to "Go back to hell, where
you came from." And that would have been the end of it. There would have been
no original sin, etc., etc.

When I started this thread, my intention was to explore the things that are
different in the 1962 Missal, compared to the 1954 Missal and prior. It is rather
self-explanatory to me that no one has paid any attention to that theme. Has
everyone ignored the title of the thread? Or, which is my suspicion, has everyone
seen the title, and presumed that this means they can use it to explore something
somewhat related which interests them but isn't really the same thing as this
topic?

It seems to me that it is a serious blind spot among traditionalists, to not want to
get into the factual specifics of what the liturgical revolution entailed. Everyone
(or most everyone) likes to find their spot on the transition line, and settle in
there, saying this is where I'll stay. Why have all the shades of gray? Why get
involved in this or that innovation? Why not just go to the point before the
innovations began, and be done with the problems?

If Msgr. J.C. Fenton, who is a very good and holy priest, could have known what
we would be facing 64 years down the road, in 1958 he may have had some
other things to say. Remember, December of 1958 was merely two months after
the death of Pius XII. Msgr. Fenton would have had little reason to anticipate that
in only 10 more years the Mass would be practically abolished. Nor might we
expect that he would have had any reason to know that in only 10 more years
he would find his own natural life abolished.

Now, it is true, he did express a concern a few years later, that the council that
was called by John XXIII should not be presumed to be a success, and that there
was a real possibility that it could FAIL, especially if the Catholic faithful did not
fervently pray for God's protection during that time. This was a very unpopular
approach. The pervading attitude from 1960 to 1962 (when the 1962 Missal was
being printed!) was a sort of presumption that everything would OF COURSE be
just fine, for how could our good bishops go wrong in an oecuмenical council?

This is a key point, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN AT THAT JUNCTURE TODAY.

We are today facing the very same situation, in a real sense, even without an
oecuмenical council. It is a sort of smaller-scale situation, but a real one
nonetheless, for it involves the preservation of the Canonized Traditional Latin
Mass. What is this situation? It is the General Chapter of the SSPX. There has
been a real possibility that this Chapter could fail, just as it was that Vatican II
was in danger of failing. And today, we have the same attitude amongst the
faithful, a sort of overconfident presumption that everything's going to be okay.

The SSPX priests are all very good priests, and they wouldn't ever come up
with something that is harmful to the Church. Oh, but in 1961, our bishops were
very good bishops and they would never come up with something that is
harmful to the Church, would they?

There were 250 bishops who opposed the innovations of Vatican II and of those,
only one founded a seminary, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In 2012 there were
just 9 capitulants who voted against the illicit and despicable prohibition against
the attendance of Bishop Williamson at the General Chapter, and it is not yet
known if any one of those 9 will do anything about it.

This is deja vu, my friend. We've been here before.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 08, 2012, 11:52:34 AM: Quote from: Nishant2011
Neil Obstat, if I may ask you, why did Archbishop Lefebvre insist on the 1962 Missal? Among both non-sedevacantist and sedevacantist groups, it appears to me that the majority does follow the Pope Pius XII reforms.

While I think there can be a pious and respectful criticism of some aspects of it, here is a Msgr.Fenton's evaluation of Pope Pius XII's pontificate, which is overwhelmingly positive.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/piutreatise.htm

To exemplify my previous post, in this section of the linked Fr. Fenton article, he
certainly seems to think the question of ambiguity over what is and what is not
the Church of Christ has been once and for all settled:

Pope Pius XII issued the Mystici Corporis Christi on June 29, 1943. The first and the most fundamental contribution it made to Catholic thought on the Church is contained in the following sentence:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church — we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" — an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.4

After this strong and eminently clear declaration, there could be no shadow of excuse for any tactic tending to depict the Mystical Body of Our Lord as in any way distinct from or superior to the visible Catholic Church, the religious society over which the Vicar of Christ rules as the visible head. The expression "Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" appears in this ringing pronouncement of Pius XII as the description and even as the definition of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church. The Mystici Corporis then gives the coup de grace to the teachings that the true Church of Jesus Christ is something other than a visible or truly organized society in this world by the following pronouncement:

Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.5

In the same way this great encyclical letter reproves the error and confusion inherent in the writings of those Catholics who taught the existence of a twofold Church of God in this world:

For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of men He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect in its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements — namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption — was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete.6

Finally, Pope Pius XII, writing in the Mystici Corporis Christi, set forth the truth that the visible Catholic Church is actually the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the true Church of God spoken of in the Scriptures, when he brought out the fact that the members of the Catholic Church recognizable as such, or, in other words, the members of the visible Catholic Church, are the true and only members of the true Church. He wrote:

Actually only those are to be included (annumerandi) as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body (neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt), or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.7

How many ways can you slice it? He has used a variety of terms, from a variety
of approaches, looking for every nuance and chink in the armor he could
imagine, and concluded that this question must certainly have been thus settled,
did he not?

This is Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, editor of American Ecclesiastical
Review, writing within two months after Pope Pius XII had died (early October
1958) and just over one month after John XXIII was elected (late October 1958).

He is writing this, praising Pius XII for having put an END to the persistent
attempts of the liberals to introduce any confusion or misunderstanding into the
Catholic concept of what the Catholic Church is in relation to the Church of Christ,
outside of which there is no salvation.

Fr. Fenton is praising the Pope for speaking clearly, for giving us something of
enduring value: "After this strong and eminently clear declaration, there could be
no shadow of excuse for any tactic tending to depict the Mystical Body of Our Lord
as in any way distinct from or superior to the visible Catholic Church."

Therefore, one of two things could have happened next.

Either Fr. Fenton was correct, and Rome had spoken, and the cause is finished,

OR,

Rome had spoken and the cause is not finished, in which case Fr. Fenton
would have been wrong.

If the latter, this is not to say that Fr. Fenton was not a good priest, or that he
got his theology wrong, or that he wasn't educated. He could have been the most
qualified and profound theologian and/or journal editor in the history of the world,
and still could have been wrong. He was doing the best he could, and it was a lot
better than any of us could have done, I'm sure.

So, which one actually took place?

Which one happened, in fact? Was Fr. Fenton correct, OR, did he somehow
overlook some detail or make some small mistake or somehow conclude that
something had taken place that had actually somehow not taken place?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 08, 2012, 05:06:42 PM: (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/aer/fentonc.jpg)(http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/aer/fentona.jpg)
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 09, 2012, 05:09:51 AM: Quote
LoverOfTruth,

Please stop needling Hobbledehoy, especially with your fake piety routine. Your calculated attempts to incite anger would make anyone angry.

And yes, that's a warning.

Don't make me choose between the two of you, because the results won't be good for you.

I'm not "making" you do anything Matthew.

Please do not judge my interior motives:

Quote
"fake" piety routine

Quote
Your calculated attempts to incite anger would make anyone angry.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 11, 2012, 04:38:08 PM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Nishant2011
Neil Obstat, if I may ask you, why did Archbishop Lefebvre insist on the 1962 Missal? Among both non-sedevacantist and sedevacantist groups, it appears to me that the majority does follow the Pope Pius XII reforms.

While I think there can be a pious and respectful criticism of some aspects of it, here is a Msgr. Fenton's evaluation of Pope Pius XII's pontificate, which is overwhelmingly positive.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/piutreatise.htm

If I've given you the impression that I am advocating some kind of resistance to the
papacy of Pius XII, I'm sorry, I did not intend that. It's just that we have a situation
today where all the popes since him have turned out to be highly questionable, and
many are wont to hold Puis XII up as somehow untouchable in comparison. We
really shouldn't be comparing popes in the first place.

As for Archbishop Lefebvre, it seems to me a bit presumptuous to start with the
assertion that he "insisted on the 1962 Missal." He may have used it from time to
time, just as he may have used the "transitional rite" before the full-blown Novus
Ordo came along in 1969. But there was some skirmish with a group of
breakaway priests who left the SSPX early on whereby one of the concessions
ABL made to keep the "peace" with Rome was that he would use the 1962 Missal.
That doesn't mean he preferred it. He was expecting this whole crisis to be short-
lived. If he had known that we would be in 2012 or 2017 and still struggling to
provide and assist at a Canonized Traditional Latin Mass, he may have had an
entirely different regard for the 1962 Missal.

Once again, not that there is anything inherently wrong with the 1962 Missal, the
fact remains that there are some changes in it that represent the first step toward
the all-out deconstruction of the Roman Rite. Why take the first step?

When Eve walked through the Garden of Eden and passed by the Tree of
Knowledge, she took the first step toward our subsequent state of misery by
pausing and listening to what the serpent had to say. If she had been the
Blessed Virgin Mary, there would have been no pause, there would have been
no listening. It would have consisted of a command, to "Go back to hell, where
you came from." And that would have been the end of it. There would have been
no original sin, etc., etc.

When I started this thread, my intention was to explore the things that are
different in the 1962 Missal, compared to the 1954 Missal and prior. It is rather
self-explanatory to me that no one has paid any attention to that theme. Has
everyone ignored the title of the thread? Or, which is my suspicion, has everyone
seen the title, and presumed that this means they can use it to explore something
somewhat related which interests them but isn't really the same thing as this
topic?

It seems to me that it is a serious blind spot among traditionalists, to not want to
get into the factual specifics of what the liturgical revolution entailed. Everyone
(or most everyone) likes to find their spot on the transition line, and settle in
there, saying this is where I'll stay. Why have all the shades of gray? Why get
involved in this or that innovation? Why not just go to the point before the
innovations began, and be done with the problems?

If Msgr. J.C. Fenton, who is a very good and holy priest, could have known what
we would be facing 64 years down the road, in 1958 he may have had some
other things to say. Remember, December of 1958 was merely two months after
the death of Pius XII. Msgr. Fenton would have had little reason to anticipate that
in only 10 more years the Mass would be practically abolished. Nor might we
expect that he would have had any reason to know that in only 10 more years
he would find his own natural life abolished.

Now, it is true, he did express a concern a few years later, that the council that
was called by John XXIII should not be presumed to be a success, and that there
was a real possibility that it could FAIL, especially if the Catholic faithful did not
fervently pray for God's protection during that time. This was a very unpopular
approach. The pervading attitude from 1960 to 1962 (when the 1962 Missal was
being printed!) was a sort of presumption that everything would OF COURSE be
just fine, for how could our good bishops go wrong in an oecuмenical council?

This is a key point, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN AT THAT JUNCTURE TODAY.

We are today facing the very same situation, in a real sense, even without an
oecuмenical council. It is a sort of smaller-scale situation, but a real one
nonetheless, for it involves the preservation of the Canonized Traditional Latin
Mass. What is this situation? It is the General Chapter of the SSPX. There has
been a real possibility that this Chapter could fail, just as it was that Vatican II
was in danger of failing. And today, we have the same attitude amongst the
faithful, a sort of overconfident presumption that everything's going to be okay.

The SSPX priests are all very good priests, and they wouldn't ever come up
with something that is harmful to the Church. Oh, but in 1961, our bishops were
very good bishops and they would never come up with something that is
harmful to the Church, would they?

There were 250 bishops who opposed the innovations of Vatican II and of those,
only one founded a seminary, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In 2012 there were
just 9 capitulants who voted against the illicit and despicable prohibition against
the attendance of Bishop Williamson at the General Chapter, and it is not yet
known if any one of those 9 will do anything about it.

This is deja vu, my friend. We've been here before.

Neil. You really impress me sometimes. Nice Post!
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 12, 2012, 05:38:29 AM: BTW - Fenton, as far as I know, was, at the very least, the greatest theologian of his day.

Liturgical experts would notice and point out the negative changes in the liturgy between 1955 and 1958, and rightfully so.

Neil, I believe these posts have been relevant, I have posted links that address the point of this thread. Your post is regarding the difference between the 1954 liturgy and that of 1962. I notice you picked 1954 instead of 1958 because you are aware of the Bugnini changes that were made under Pius XII. Right from the start this shows that you are knowledgeable of the goings on. And that are problems, in the liturgy, have more to to with Bugnini than with Pius XII. Though certainly Pius XII holds some responsibility in the objective realm, apart from any subjective culpability. He is aware now, as the veil, for him, has been lifted. And hopefully, he is not dead, but very much alive, in Purgatory or Heaven. And he does not "think" any thing but KNOWS the truth of it now.

What happened in 1961/2 is just the continuation of the diabolical plot that began under Pius XII.

Obvious to those who dare to admit it. Not so to those who say we must stick to how it was in 1958 even when they do not admit to be SV. Though sticking to how it was in 1958 would be a reasonable and perhaps the right thing to do for the SV it certainly is not definitive, IMO. I admit it might be proven to be definitive at some time.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on August 12, 2012, 07:52:33 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
BTW - Fenton, as far as I know, was, at the very least, the greatest theologian of his day.

Liturgical experts would notice and point out the negative changes in the liturgy between 1955 and 1958, and rightfully so.

Neil, I believe these posts have been relevant, I have posted links that address the point of this thread. Your post is regarding the difference between the 1954 liturgy and that of 1962. I notice you picked 1954 instead of 1958 because you are aware of the Bugnini changes that were made under Pius XII. Right from the start this shows that you are knowledgeable of the goings on. And that are problems, in the liturgy, have more to to with Bugnini than with Pius XII. Though certainly Pius XII holds some responsibility in the objective realm, apart from any subjective culpability. He is aware now, as the veil, for him, has been lifted. And hopefully, he is not dead, but very much alive, in Purgatory or Heaven. And he does not "think" any thing but KNOWS the truth of it now.

What happened in 1961/2 is just the continuation of the diabolical plot that began under Pius XII.

Obvious to those who dare to admit it. Not so to those who say we must stick to how it was in 1958 even when they do not admit to be SV. Though sticking to how it was in 1958 would be a reasonable and perhaps the right thing to do for the SV it certainly is not definitive, IMO. I admit it might be proven to be definitive at some time.

You keep ignoring the issues I have brought up and the questions I have asked, but then again so has Fr. Cekada and the other acephalous clerics. Why should I be surprised?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Nishant on August 12, 2012, 02:11:10 PM: Quote
Once again, not that there is anything inherently wrong with the 1962 Missal, the fact remains that there are some changes in it that represent the first step toward the all-out deconstruction of the Roman Rite. Why take the first step?
...
Why have all the shades of gray? Why get involved in this or that innovation? Why not just go to the point before the innovations began, and be done with the problems?

Hello Neil. I see where you're coming from but what must also be considered is how far back one can invoke epikeia. I think the correct answer would be that, given that you conceded there is nothing inherently wrong with the 1962 Missal, it could be said to be unnecessary to do so beyond that. Else, who becomes the arbiter of how far back each one goes? Another point that was made in this thread was that at the time the whole Church accepted Pope Pius XII's reforms. It was these theories that the "nine" had that Archbishop Lefebvre quite apparently did not accept which made them break away from the society.

If you're asking me about the "subsist" ecclesiology, yeah, I don't understand it either. I've read the person who first used that phrase, I can't recall the name, didn't intend it to mean anything different from "is" and that both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI had cited Pope Pius XII approvingly both before and after. But like I said, don't ask me to explain it, the whole thing is inexplicable to me.

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Liturgical experts would notice and point out the negative changes in the liturgy between 1955 and 1958, and rightfully so.

How many such experts can you show us who did so at that time?

First,I think you're avoiding one of the major points against your idea. Hobbledehoy has copiously docuмented it, so I won't bother with the references again, but the point is this judgment is beyond the competence of any cleric or Ordinary and is proper to the Supreme Pontiff alone. It is his right to modify what he judges to require modification. To say otherwise seems an usurpation of authority.

Second, there is another objection it seems to me against Fr.Cekada's contentions. He alleges that though laws cannot be harmful when promulgated later they can later "become" harmful with the passage of time and then cease to bind! But this seems to me to result in only liturgical anarchy. For how then may anyone know that any law or discipline in the Church has not "become" harmful with the passage of time and ceased to bind? All discipline is overthrown if such praxis is followed, as Pope Pius XII noted.

Third, you also seem to contradict yourself when you say(or at least the articles you copy make it seem that way) that Pope Pius XII laid down doctrinal principles of reform that are morally abhorrent, and in fact, enlist 14 of these that you deem "principles and precedents were the foot in the door to the eventual destruction of the Mass" (a claim I doubt even those who believe the new Mass is valid would make). But all of this is clearly contrary to Trent, Auctorem Fidei and so on which you constantly urge against those who believe in "recognize in resist"

So you are "recognizing and resisting" Pope Pius XII not simply in unlawful private commands but also in the doctrinal principles he laid out, the disciplines and laws he sanctioned for the Church, which appears to me to make your stance inconsistent, since this is what you claim cannot ever be done, and what many probably think the strongest argument for sedevacantism.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: SJB on August 12, 2012, 07:41:59 PM: Quote
It was these theories that the "nine" had that Archbishop Lefebvre quite apparently did not accept which made them break away from the society.

This is more legend than it is factual.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Nishant on August 12, 2012, 09:59:55 PM: Hello SJB. Ok, can you elaborate on that? Do you mean for example that the "nine" had other reasons for leaving or that Archbishop Lefebvre had other reasons for expelling them?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2012, 02:30:08 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
BTW - Fenton, as far as I know, was, at the very least, the greatest theologian of his day.

It is noteworthy that when Bishop Fulton Sheen was doing his TV show, and he was
planning to be away for a few weeks, he said that he would like to have someone
reliable take his place for that time, and the only priest qualified in his opinion was
Father Leonard Feeney. He did not mention Msgr. Fenton.

Quote
Liturgical experts would notice and point out the negative changes in the liturgy between 1955 and 1958, and rightfully so.

Neil, I believe these posts have been relevant, I have posted links that address the point of this thread. Your post is regarding the difference between the 1954 liturgy and that of 1962. I notice you picked 1954 instead of 1958 because you are aware of the Bugnini changes that were made under Pius XII. Right from the start this shows that you are knowledgeable of the goings on. And that are problems, in the liturgy, have more to to with Bugnini than with Pius XII. Though certainly Pius XII holds some responsibility in the objective realm, apart from any subjective culpability. He is aware now, as the veil, for him, has been lifted. And hopefully, he is not dead, but very much alive, in Purgatory or Heaven. And he does not "think" any thing but KNOWS the truth of it now.

What happened in 1961/2 is just the continuation of the diabolical plot that began under Pius XII.

Obvious to those who dare to admit it. Not so to those who say we must stick to how it was in 1958 even when they do not admit to be SV. Though sticking to how it was in 1958 would be a reasonable and perhaps the right thing to do for the SV it certainly is not definitive, IMO. I admit it might be proven to be definitive at some time.

There are a lot of things about the 1962 Missal that "turn the page" toward the
full-blown Novus Ordo that would come later. Keep in mind that the revolutionaries
who were driving this whole affair had very clear ideas in mind what they wanted
to achieve, and the 1962 Missal was their official first step towards achieving it.

We just had the Feast Day of St. Philomena, August 11th. She is a rather unique
saint in the Church for many reasons, not the least of which is that she had been
forgotten entirely, without mention in the history books, and without mention in
any of the saints' writings in the early Church. And yet her story is just as
compelling as any of the other Roman Virgin Martyrs, and arguably the most
compelling of all. Her tomb was only discovered in 1804, some 1500 years after
her martyrdom. But from the next year on, miracles have followed her like a
parade. A whole litany of saints and holy people from that time up until Vatican II
were outspoken devotees of hers, such as St. Peter Julian Eymard, St. Anthony
Mary Claret, St. Madeleine Sophie Barat (foundress of the Ladies of the Sacred
Heart) and St. John Vianney (the Cure of Ars). But along comes 1961 and John
XXIII, and St. Philomena got the unceremonial "boot" out the door. It is as if the
same demon who had delighted over her erstwhile eradication for 1500 years
had won a new victory in 1961 with the wreckovationists! Her Feast Day
is entirely missing in the !962 Missal, as is St. Christopher, St. Barbara (namesake
of Santa Barbara, California), and many others.

The people who removed these wonderful saints from the Missal are no friends
of God. And therefore the 1962 Missal is compromised. There are things missing
in it that should be there, and there are things in it that should not be there.

Now, if you take the missal all by itself, and presume to know nothing about its
history or where it came from, you're not going to see anything inherently wrong
with it. But this is presuming ignorance of the observer. We ought to know better.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2012, 02:52:49 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Neil Obstat
...When I started this thread, my intention was to explore the things that are
different in the 1962 Missal, compared to the 1954 Missal and prior. It is rather
self-explanatory to me that no one has paid any attention to that theme. Has
everyone ignored the title of the thread? Or, which is my suspicion, has everyone
seen the title, and presumed that this means they can use it to explore something
somewhat related which interests them but isn't really the same thing as this
topic?
...

Neil. You really impress me sometimes. Nice Post!

Thanks, but I owe you an apology, LoT. When I wrote that "no one has paid any
attention to that theme," I had not read all of your earlier posts, and now I
must admit that you were trying hard to stay on topic, while others were drifting
off topic. So I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts.

There is a lot to say on this, and it would be good to clear up some of the
misunderstandings and fables.

For one, the Angelus Press edition of the 1962 Missal is an impressive example of
the art of fine book printing. (I was going to say "bookmaking," and had second
thoughts! HAHAHA)

But you know, Protestant publishing houses have produced some very impressive
copies of the KJV and other translations. Does that make them good?

If you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, neither should you judge it by the
quality of its paper, binding, edging, printing style, ribbons, and smell. But hey,
those things are not unimportant! I want to give credit its due, and congratulate
Angelus Press for having done a fine job on printing. But I do wish they had
selected the 1954 Missal instead of the one that came along only 8 years later!
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 13, 2012, 03:28:00 AM: Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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

... your rank arrogance, together with intellectual dishonesty and ineptitude,

Why, you even know what the dead think.
...
No, no, you could never be the one at fault...

I just wanted to say, that when I see puerile contentions like this I don't want
to keep reading, as it does nothing for me.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 13, 2012, 11:36:48 AM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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

... your rank arrogance, together with intellectual dishonesty and ineptitude,

Why, you even know what the dead think.
...
No, no, you could never be the one at fault...

I just wanted to say, that when I see puerile contentions like this I don't want
to keep reading, as it does nothing for me.

I like to think I have thick skin. But posts like that really make me feel bad. More about the poster than his comments about me. The first time he posted something in that vein towards me I just shook it off, as I admired him and believed he had a lot to contribute. I still believe he has alot to contribute. But when these posts in my direction keep happening, and can't help but to see them for what they are. I can't bring myself to read his posts anymore. But I have not put him on ignore, because, right or wrong, I see that as a kind of public slap in the face. I do wish the best for him and hope to see him in Heaven. But I am kind of shocked, the he continues to post that way towards me. Maybe now that he knows I don't read his posts he will stop. Time will tell.

Thank you for your kind comments which mean alot to me, especially in comparison to what I get from others.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 13, 2012, 11:45:47 AM: I see alot of posts here but I cannot tell who posted them (on page seven). Is it just me?

I am privy to something Father Fenton wrote, between 1960 and 1962 on Father Feeney, saying he would love to see him rehibilitated. Not because he believed the errors he taught, he strenuously taught against them. I thought that was interesting.

I'm not qualified on the issue, but I believe Feeney was a better poet than theologian. And I very seriously doubt that he was more qualified than Father Fenton theologically. But I've only read Fenton and heard other people who I trust very much comments on Fenton, and barely read Feeney at all, apart from his errors. So take what I say "granis salis".

Did I get that right? "granis salis"? :popcorn:
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 13, 2012, 12:23:35 PM: This thing won't let me quote right, so I will try to color code:

Quote
Lover of Truth said:
Liturgical experts would notice and point out the negative changes in the liturgy between 1955 and 1958, and rightfully so.

How many such experts can you show us who did so at that time?

First,I think you're avoiding one of the major points against your idea. Hobbledehoy has copiously docuмented it, so I won't bother with the references again, but the point is this judgment is beyond the competence of any cleric or Ordinary and is proper to the Supreme Pontiff alone. It is his right to modify what he judges to require modification. To say otherwise seems an usurpation of authority.

Second, there is another objection it seems to me against Fr.Cekada's contentions. He alleges that though laws cannot be harmful when promulgated later they can later "become" harmful with the passage of time and then cease to bind! But this seems to me to result in only liturgical anarchy. For how then may anyone know that any law or discipline in the Church has not "become" harmful with the passage of time and ceased to bind? All discipline is overthrown if such praxis is followed, as Pope Pius XII noted.

Third, you also seem to contradict yourself when you say(or at least the articles you copy make it seem that way) that Pope Pius XII laid down doctrinal principles of reform that are morally abhorrent, and in fact, enlist 14 of these that you deem "principles and precedents were the foot in the door to the eventual destruction of the Mass" (a claim I doubt even those who believe the new Mass is valid would make). But all of this is clearly contrary to Trent, Auctorem Fidei and so on which you constantly urge against those who believe in "recognize in resist"

So you are "recognizing and resisting" Pope Pius XII not simply in unlawful private commands but also in the doctrinal principles he laid out, the disciplines and laws he sanctioned for the Church, which appears to me to make your stance inconsistent, since this is what you claim cannot ever be done, and what many probably think the strongest argument for sedevacantism.
[/color]

Nishant, I like your posts in that they are well thought out and make sense.

On this particular thread I have pointed out that I am not sure which side of the issue is correct and I have admitted that the 1958 position, based upon obedience to the last certain Pope is nothing to sneeze at.

I lack the theological capicity to speak on way or the other on the issue, and if I get brave enough to start looking at what Hobbleday posts again while seperating them from all the names he constantly calls me, I do not doubt I might learn something.

I would be curious to know what you think from the following none-SV Priest who also goes with the pre-1955 Bugnini changes:

http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/method.txt

So you are "recognizing and resisting" Pope Pius XII not simply in unlawful private commands but also in the doctrinal principles he laid out, the disciplines and laws he sanctioned for the Church, which appears to me to make your stance inconsistent, since this is what you claim cannot ever be done, and what many probably think the strongest argument for sedevacantism. [/quote]
Well put. This is why admit that the 1958 position could be correct and in fact would never condemn the position, as it is the one position that makes a case for (forgive me for saying this) the slightly tarnished version of the liturgy.

I do not want to be on record as saying I insist we all must go with the pre-1955 long established liturgy. Quite the contrary. I grant the point while not being entirely convinced on the conclusion. I believe the clergy, SV, and not, including Father Stepanich, who goes by the pre-1955 liturgy, no more than I know and can not be held to be definitively in error for doing what they do. Does Hobbledehoy know more than they. I cannot say.

Admittedly I would not put all my eggs in the Cekeda basket. But I know that Father McMahon, Father Ahern, Father Collins, and my Father nonSV Ringrose go with the untarnished version and have no pangs of conscience for doing so. Hindsight has given us 20/20 vision and were a Pope to say to the contrary we would all most readily submit.

The fact is, I think, that no Pope binds us on which of the countless forms of the liturgy that were used between 1955 and 1969 and that we are left with our Sensus Catholicus until a valid Pope sets us strait.

This all makes me seem like I am very much pro pre 1955 liturgy, and I am, but I base this on my own unqualified thoughts and on those thoughts are more qualified, and on my unqualified preference, but based on what seems obvious after a comparison.

But I say all this while clearly admitting that I, and all the other good clergymen whom I agree with could be wrong.

I admit that the obedience to the last reigning Pope in the matter of discipline can very well be valid and that there would have to be a very good reason to invoke epekia, if epekia can be invoked.

We need a Pope.

But until we get one I believe their should be leniency on both sides of the issue.

Would you disagree with that last senence, and if so, can you explain in detail why. Or re-explain if I missed it.

Thanks for your patience.

Now the strongest points for sedevacantism is that a public heretic cannot be Pope and that a valid Pope could not have approved V2, the new Sacraments, the new Mass, inserted Saint Joseph's name into the cannon (?), the 1964 version of the Mass, the 1967 version of the Mass, the new Code of Canon Law. The Church is indefectable, she cannot gives us stones when we ask for bread.[/color]
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: SJB on August 13, 2012, 12:47:33 PM: Quote from: Nishant2011
Hello SJB. Ok, can you elaborate on that? Do you mean for example that the "nine" had other reasons for leaving or that Archbishop Lefebvre had other reasons for expelling them?

To begin with, here is some relevant historical background:

Quote
Transcript of an Interview with Father Richard Williamson Concerning Recent Divisions within the Society of St. Pius X, July 1983

Father, as you know, many of the laity who attend Mass at St. Pius X chapels throughout the country are concerned over recent events which have taken place in the North-East District. Could you give us an up-to-date summary of what has happened so far?
Well, what has happened is that one of the young priests ordained by the Archbishop in November of last year refused to celebrate the John XXIII Mass at St. Mary's. And, then, the second thing that happened was that he was backed by the Rector of the Seminary who was Father Sanborn. Then, the third thing that happened was that Father Sanborn and this young priest were together backed by seven other priests of the Northern District and of the Seminary, and this made a group of nine priests who made it clear to the Archbishop that they wished the Society of St. Pius X to be run, within the northern part of the United States, or even all over the United States, differently from the way the Archbishop wished it to be run. And this the Archbishop couldn't permit, and, hence, he has had to put them out of the Society of St. Pius X.

Father Williamson, there are many questions which have been asked, and I would like now to relay these questions to you. These questions were submitted by various members of the laity of the Society of St. Pius X. So, if I may, I will start with the first question. Father, what is the difference between the Mass of St. Pius X and the Mass of John XXIII?
This is one of the issues, or one of the problems. In fact, it is not the basic problem—which is probably the problem of the Pope. This group of nine priests, in the Archbishop's view, have a schismatic mentality. They are moving in their minds and in their actions too far away from the Pope. And the Mass, or these slight differences between, the very slight differences between the Pius X Mass and the John XXIII Mass, are simply an example of this. The differences are so slight that one can easily follow a Pius X or John XXIII Mass with a John XXIII missal or a Pius X missal, one could hardly know the difference. There are a few changes in rubrics, a few changes in the calendar, and a slight shortening of the prayers on certain days to achieve simplification. In fact, easily most of the changes in the John XXIII missal were laid down already by Pius XII, who was a great and saintly pope. John XXIII, himself, merely added the name of St. Joseph in the Canon. Now, one may well think that that is a bad idea, that that was the opening of the door to totally changing the Mass. One may well think that that was the salesman with his foot in the door. But there is a big difference between the salesman with his foot in the door on the way in and the salesman with his foot in the door on the way out. And we in the Society who know what the changing of the Mass has meant, will certainly not, absolutely certainly not, allow ourselves in the Society to slide once more with these little changes into the disaster that followed. But so far as there were changes in the John XXIII missal, they were really only very slight.

But, Father, isn't the John XXIII Mass the same as the New Mass?

Absolutely not! From Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum right through to 1969, it was always the Tridentine Mass, as it is called. For the first several years, even of Pope Paul VI's reign, it was still the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass was only suppressed by Pope Paul VI in 1969. All that Pope John XXIII did was to make minor alterations in the Tridentine Missal, as did several Popes before him. That is the Pope's right, so long as he stays within Tradition. After all, the liturgy is a living worship, not a dead museum piece.

Father, the next question is: Why does the Bishop prefer the Mass of John XXIII?
To speak of the Bishop "preferring" it is the wrong way of speaking, because the Bishop is not going by his personal preference, as are the group of nine priests who go by their preference for St. Pius X. The Bishop is going by great Catholic principles; namely, that the only reason one may not obey one's superior or the authority within the Catholic Church is because, and when, the faith is endangered. Now, the Archbishop argues, the John XXIII and Pius XII Mass absolutely does not endanger the faith. You can't open it anywhere and say, "Here is ecuмenism," "Here is Protestantism," "Here is anything near heresy," "Here is a danger to the faith"; whereas, you can open the missal of Paul VI, and you can point out dangers to the faith all the way through. Now, Pope John XXIII was Pope and so, since he was Pope, he was our legitimate superior. And since his Mass does not endanger the faith, the Archbishop says we must accept it. He says, once we admit the principle of going by our personal preferences, why don't we go back to the Mass of Leo XIII? Why don't we take the Byzantine? or the Armenian? or the Maronite liturgy? With personal preference, the field is wide open; there would be chaos. The Archbishop feels obliged to take the Mass of John XXIII because it comes from legitimate authority. And what he fears above all, and this is the real danger in the priests who prefer the missal of Pius X, the real danger is that they are refusing authority. They are refusing not only illegitimate authority, they are also refusing legitimate authority.

In this same vein, Father, did the Mass of John XXIII cause any disturbances in the Seminary at Ecône?
No, this is not true. Ecône started right from the very beginning with the Mass of John XXIII. It never, never had the Mass of Paul VI, as some people think. It is true that, at the beginning, Ecône had the Mass of John XXIII with some Paul VI rubrics of 1964, but these Paul VI rubrics gradually disappeared and, by 1975, there were none left, which is why, if the liturgy is sliding anywhere at Ecône, it is sliding backwards and not forwards, the Modernist salesman is on his way out, not on his way in. In any case, underneath the rubrics, it was always the Missal of John XXIII. This did not cause the disturbances. I was professor for five years at Ecône, and I lived through some of the struggles that took place within Ecône, as you are bound to have struggles taking place inside any good seminary. The devil can't leave a good seminary alone. But I know, from the inside, that the struggles at Ecône were over things other than the John XXIII liturgy. Not one of the struggles at Ecône was quite like the struggle that just took place at Ridgefield. The French, it is certainly true, have their Liberals but they also have their rigorists, just like here in the United States. For instance, the French had what we might call a right-wing crisis, like this one now in the Northern District, back in 1979, 1980. So it is absolutely false to think that all the French are Liberals, just as it is absolutely false to think that all Americans, or all American priests, are right-wingers.

Again, Father, there was some rumor to the effect that the John XXIII liturgy had caused from disturbances at Ridgefield, Connecticut. Is there any truth in that?
It's a version of affairs, but I don't think it is accurate. Let's say that the John XXIII liturgy was the battlefield, but it wasn't really the cause of the war. The root of the problem, as I say, is rather what the Archbishop calls an extremist way of thinking and a tendency to schism, or a schismatic mentality. It's a refusal of not only illegitimate but also of legitimate authority, and this mentality has produced a kind of peace at Ridgefield only because it was strongly imposed, and because the Bishop is able, only once or twice a year to be in the United States. If the Archbishop were able to visit his flock in the United States as often as he can visit in Europe, this problem might not have arisen. In fact, the Society has always been with the John XXIII Mass, and the United States' priests, these American priests, when they went to Ecône to study, some of them for several years, and to be ordained, they all accepted during their seminary studies the John XXIII liturgy, and they all accepted ordination with John XXIII liturgy. It is only when they crossed the Atlantic again, and came back to the United States as priests, that they took up Pius X by personal preference. The Archbishop patiently tolerated this for many years, as he has done also in the United Kingdom and in Australia. And, he could have gone on tolerating it because, after all, the differences between the two liturgies are only so slight. But the problem really arose when he saw, when he realized from what happened in January, that the difference in liturgy was dividing—was going to split the Society right down the middle. It was going to make two camps, and in one of those camps would be young priests who would be very strongly and rigorously formed to condemn all their colleagues who would be celebrating "the despicable, and revolutionary and treacherous John XXIII liturgy." And this mentality would have broken the Society in two. That is why the Bishop finally couldn't tolerate it any longer.

Father, this next question is similar to that, and it is this: Since both John XXIII and Pius X are Tridentine Masses, why could not Archbishop Lefebvre tolerate diversity within the Tridentine Mass itself?
The Archbishop could perfectly well tolerate diversity of personal preference. Let's say, I prefer John XXIII and you prefer Pius X. All right, just so long as there was mutual tolerance between the two. But what happened here was that part of the priests were going to acquire a very insolent and arrogant attitude, and so the tolerance was only going one way, it wasn't a two-way traffic and, hence, the Archbishop had to call a stop.

There has been some talk that one of the young priests went to St. Mary's, Kansas, and wanted to say the Mass of St. Pius X and felt that he would be forced to say the Mass of John XXIII. Why could there not have been a compromise at that point?
Because with this incident at St. Mary's in January there showed merely the little tip of a whole iceberg under the water, and that iceberg would have ripped the ship open under the water and sunk it. That little tip of the iceberg showed that within a little time the whole Society could be sunk. The iceberg is the scorn on the part of, this scornful attitude on the part of, some of the Society priests for what is done in, easily, most of the rest of the Society, and this would have produced a split in the Society which would have meant the destruction of the unity of the Society, and, ultimately, the destruction of the Society itself, and this the Archbishop would not allow.

Father, if Archbishop Lefebvre could compromise with the Pope, why can he not compromise with his hardworking, well-serving priests?
Firstly, it is an absolute slander that the Archbishop is compromising with the Pope! The proof of this is a recent letter, the text of which the Archbishop left with me, and which I have in my hand, and which is dated the 5th of April, 1983. It is a letter written by the Archbishop to the Holy Father himself, in which the Archbishop answers certain proposals of the Pope. Now, the Pope proposed that he accept the Council, and the Archbishop said, "Yes, so long as we interpret the Council in line with Tradition." Of course, there is no problem there. But when the Holy Father urges the Archbishop to accept the Novus Ordo, or at least stop attacking the Novus Ordo, the Archbishop replies he absolutely cannot. These are two of his paragraphs; let me read them to you. I am translating from French:

"It is at the foot of the Crucifix, I am replying to you, Holy Father, in union with all the bishops, priests, religious, nuns and faithful who have undergone a veritable moral martyrdom by this liturgical reform being imposed upon them. How many tears, how many griefs, how many premature deaths, the responsibility for which lies with those who wrongly imposed these changes wrought in the name of a wild ecuмenism. This is to say to you, Holy Father, that my reply to your paragraph concerning the Novus Ordo Missae is negative, I cannot accept it. The very authors of the Reform have affirmed that its purpose is ecuмenical, that is to say, destined to suppress whatever displeases our separated brethren. Now it is quite clear what displeases our separated brethren is the doctrine of the Catholic Mass ... "

The Archbishop then continues to explain why, as he has already explained so many times to Rome, why he cannot accept this Mass. In other words, as anyone who knew the Archbishop might well have guessed, there is no question with him of compromise. And it is a slander—an absolute slander!—it is completely false to suggest that he is changing to the Mass of John XXIII in order to get closer to Rome and make himself acceptable to the Pope. And so, why, the question went on, why can he not compromise with his hard-working priests? Well, a man can lose his balance either to the left or to the right. If he gets too close to Modernist Rome, then he becomes a Liberal; if he gets too far from it, he becomes a schismatic. Hence, the Archbishop cannot compromise with the Liberal mentality; that is why he says "no" to the Holy Father, very respectfully but very firmly. At the same time he cannot compromise with the schismatic mentality which would break him off completely from Rome, and that is why he says "no" to these nine young priests of his who want to push the Archbishop further away from Rome. He fully recognizes all the hard work that these young priests have done. And people all over the Northern District know what good work they have done. Many, many have learned to love these priests, and to love their good qualities. The Archbishop has, in fact, over several years been extremely patient with these dear young priests. But, now, since they are causing so much damage, he asks himself if, over the last few years, he hasn't even perhaps been a little too patient.

Father, the next question is similar, and it is this: Is not the Archbishop changing the Mass to please the Vatican, to prepare the way for an acceptance of a Novus Ordo Mass?
That is absolutely false. It is a clever way to try to get the good Catholics to distrust the Archbishop. It is a means of splitting the flock from the shepherd. Firstly, the Archbishop is making no change. He started at Ecône, from the principles I have explained from the very beginning, with the Mass of John XXIII. All that he is doing is finally bringing back, uniting his American priests to the liturgy with which they were ordained, out of respect for the Pope's valid legislation, that is to say, Pope Pius XII and John XXIII. He has, as it happens, always asked Rome for the liturgy of John XXIII. And the proof that this liturgy of John XXIII is in no way Modernist, is precisely that Rome has always refused to grant it to the Archbishop. Our Lord's enemies recognize Him better sometimes than His own friends do. Satan knows better than many Catholics that the John XXIII Mass is no compromise. Many Catholics think, or seem to think in this present trouble, that John XXIII is a compromise, but Satan knows very well that it isn't! If Satan thought there was a trace of compromise in it, he would already have started dealing with the Archbishop, but over all these years, Rome hasn't given a single thing to the Archbishop. Between, in fact, the liturgy of Pius XII, John XXIII, and Pius X, there are only, absolutely, minor differences. But between Pius X and John XXIII on the one side and Paul VI on the other, there is a chasm. Right up until 1969, it was always the Tridentine Mass, with only minor alterations. Only in 1969 was the Tridentine Mass done away with.

Father, is Archbishop Lefebvre now finished making concessions?
He never even started! He merely follows, and insists upon following, the legitimate orders of legitimate superiors. Rome knows this all too well and so, as it is thought Rome did with the great Pope St. Pius X, Rome is simply waiting for the Archbishop to die.

In this vein, Father, when Archbishop Lefebvre dies, how do we know his successor at the head of the Society of St. Pius X will not make concessions?
Well, that is the kind of thing we can never know. You know, all human affairs, everything that involves men, is weak and fallible, so we must at a certain point simply put our trust in God, and we must do our best. However, the Archbishop is doing his best right now to prepare his successor. Some of the faithful in the United States have been able in the last few months to meet his successor, Father Schmidberger. Anyone who knows Father Schmidberger like I do, because I have worked for one year alongside him in Switzerland, knows he is a man of the Faith, a man of God, and absolutely not a man of compromise, no more than the Archbishop.

But has Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the marriage annulments of the Conciliar Church?
Oh, yes, that is another problem which comes up frequently, the bad annulments. And again, one of the slanders going around is that the Archbishop accepts all these annulments. It is not true. All the Archbishop is saying is again, as usual, common sense. All he is saying is that even if many of these annulments are bad, we cannot say all of them are automatically bad. Again, what he is resenting is this schismatic mentality that the Conciliar Church is nothing, that nothing it does can be any good, that it practically doesn't exist. And that is the real root of all these problems. The question of annulments is another battlefield, it is not the heart of the battle. The heart of the battle is a lock, stock, and barrel refusal of even the existence of the Conciliar Church. In the case of annulments, what the Archbishop wishes is for the local priests to judge the situation according to Catholic theology. The Archbishop says that, over here in the United States, he doesn't know, but it may be true that in a great majority of dioceses, there are far too many annulments for them to be serious. For instance, in the Diocese of Brooklyn, annulments are now running at 800 a year. In a diocese like that, says the Archbishop, the presumption is against the validity of the annulments. But, says the Archbishop, supposing one is in a diocese where there are only three, four, or ten annulments a year, and where if you research into the question, you find that the docuмents have been conscientiously prepared, you can't say there that all of the annulments are no good at all.

Father, the next question is: Is not the Archbishop making concessions on the new rite of ordination? Why does he not insist on conditional reordinations for such new priests who are coming into the Society?
The Bishop acts according to Catholic theological principles. And here it is necessary to make a few distinctions. It is much simpler to say, it is all completely invalid, the new rite is completely invalid, no priest ordained by it is any good, every priest is doubtful, or whatever. But, according to Catholic theology, it is not quite as simple as that. The Archbishop says, in the matter of repeating a sacrament like baptism, confirmation or holy orders, there are two rules. On the one hand, I must repeat the sacrament if there is a serious doubt; on the other hand, I must not repeat it if there is not a serious doubt. And the reason is, I will commit a sacrilege by exposing the sacrament if there is not a serious doubt, the second time to the risk of invalidity. And that is, in fact, a sacrilege. Hence, there must be a prudent doubt. Another point is that this prudent doubt in the case of baptism and confirmation is, maybe, not so important. In baptism or confirmation I might say I must be sure in any case, and there are no grave consequences of repeating. But if a priest accepts to be reordained, who has been doubtfully ordained, he is logically accepting to put some doubt against everything he has done up to that moment as a priest. Logically, you can't escape the consequence. Hence, he must accept that there is some doubt against all the sacraments that he has confected and conferred as a priest. Now these consequences are serious. Now, these consequences would be no reason not to reordain if the reordination was really necessary, but they are certainly not a reason not to reordain if the doubt is not serious and, hence, once must examine if the doubt is serious.

Now, in a sacrament, for a Catholic sacrament to be valid, there are needed Form, Matter, and Intention. In the case of the sacrament of ordination, the Intention is what the bishop means to do, and there are plenty of bishops even today who mean still to ordain Catholic priests. I don't believe all bishops ordaining today have lost the right Intention. I simply don't believe it, and I don't believe Archbishop Lefebvre believes it. Secondly, I am sure most of these bishops use the right Matter, that is the imposition of hands, if not all of them. The imposition of hands is still there. So, often, two of the three parts necessary are intact. The real question arises over the Form, or the words which the bishop says. Now I have examined for myself the Form of the new rite of ordinations in English, and even in English, it seems to me that there is a strong argument for these Forms being valid. I don't like them, they are bad translations, I much prefer the old Latin. The old Latin is much clearer and much better. Nevertheless, there is not in my own mind a serious doubt as to the validity of the new rite of ordination, even if it is administered in English, so long as the English Forms are properly followed, because the English Forms signify clearly enough the grace that they have to effect. And that is the principle of Catholic theology. Now, His Grace may come to a different conclusion on the question of the English rite for ordination, and if His Grace comes to a different conclusion, I shall be very inclined to follow him because he is a far better theologian than I am. But such as I, at any rate, analyze and study these Forms, they seem to me valid. I don't have a serious doubt that anybody ordained by a bishop with the right Intention and using the right English Forms, using them properly, I don't have any serious doubt whether he is a priest; I am sure he is. Let me add that I have consulted three experienced and competent English-speaking theologians on these new English Forms, and all three are agreed that both are valid, that neither of them admits of serious doubt.

But, Father, with all your complications and distinctions, aren't you going to take us all to Hell in a conciliar hand-basket?
No, I mean to take you all to Heaven with Catholic doctrine. When the devil is attacking the Church with highly sophisticated guided missiles like the Novus Ordo and the new sacramental rites of a poisonous subtlety, a priest can't defend the Church with a pea-shooter or even a musket, with false over-simplifications. These also lead to hell, for instance, in a rigorist hand-basket. That is why the Archbishop insists on making distinctions. For instance, what the new rite of ordination does do, even if properly done it would be valid, is to introduce by the ambiguous rite an element of doubt, for instances as to the Intention of the bishop ordaining. That is exactly why the Archbishop's principle is to examine the circuмstances in each case, and he asks each priest, what was the Intention of the bishop ordaining you? and did the bishop have the Faith? did he carry out the ordination in Latin? or if he did it in English, what words did he use? And then the Archbishop judges according to the circuмstances. In other words, once again, the Archbishop insists on examining the circuмstances. What he refuses is the automatic refusal of absolutely anything of the official Church.

But, Father, isn't the Archbishop getting old? Some even say he is getting senile.
The Archbishop is 77 years old, but anyone who watched him or heard him anywhere on his last visit to the U.S.A. knows that such a vile suggestion could only be made by anyone a long way behind the Archbishop's back! Everyone who sees him is astonished how little he changes over the years.

Thank you, Father. Can we now pass on to the practical consequences of the present split? These priests who have broken away from the Society, are they in or are they out of the Society now?
All nine of them are out of the Society. The Archbishop named in his letter, Father Kelly, Father Cekada, Father Sanborn, and then he said any of the priests who followed them are also out of the Society and also any seminarians who permanently follow them. And there are six more priests who have followed these three, and so all nine of them are out of the Society. They may try to keep the name. We shall have to see how the chips fall. They may try to continue operating under the name. A day afterwards, Father Kelly was still claiming that he belonged to the Society. They know that the name of the Society of St. Pius X has a good reputation with the faithful, so they will probably try to keep the name. But that is simply words, they do not belong to the Society. The Archbishop has put them out.

Is there any hope of reconciliation? Well, the Archbishop can't change course because he never has changed course. His great strength against all of the Modernist bishops is that where they have all changed course, the Archbishop never has changed course. So the question is whether there is any hope of the young priests changing course. Well, I think of the proverb: "To err is human, but to persevere is diabolical." The young priests have made an error, and if they drop their error, then there would be reconciliation immediately. The Archbishop would absolutely welcome them back. But if they persevere and persist in their schismatic mentality, then, no, I am afraid there is no hope of a reconciliation.

Father, why was there no trial or hearing in this matter?
The Superior General, or, the Archbishop in this case, has been patient for many years. He has been hearing, and hearing and hearing, the point of view of these priests. I can remember a dialogue which took place between Father Kelly and the Archbishop back in 1980 in which the Archbishop listened and listened to Father Kelly, and he didn't put Father Kelly out of the Society at that point. He laid down some guidelines which Father Kelly followed to some extent, and that is what enabled Father Kelly to exercise a very good ministry for another three years. But in the last resort, the Archbishop must protect the Society as a whole, and so he has exerted his right as Superior General, in consultation with his General Council, to expel members whose presence within the Society endangers the Society as a whole.

But, Father, isn't the Archbishop planning to put all the Society's missions and properties back under the control of the diocesan bishops?
That is yet another scarecrow, or scare-tale, useful to run away with traditional Catholics' emotions. It is true that in negotiations with Rome over the last several years, the Archbishop has once or twice put forward to authorities in Rome a practical proposition or solution whereby the Society's Houses would be linked again to the dioceses, a proposition which frightened many of the Archbishop's followers, and not only in America. However, what they are forgetting is that here was merely a proposal for negotiation. What is absolutely rock-solid certain is that the Archbishop would never, never, never accept or let himself into a deal whereby any part of the Society, any chapel, mission or parish, would be tricked out of the Tridentine Mass or slipped back into the conciliar religion. That is absolutely certain. Why then does the Archbishop even trouble to negotiate with modern Rome? Because, he says, firstly he is a missionary, and somebody must try to convert these Cardinals back to Tradition, somebody must serve as God's instrument to tell them the truth. And secondly, they wield such authority in the Church, they are by their absolute prohibition of Tradition keeping so many "obedient" Catholics away from the true sources of grace merely by obedience, that the Archbishop says it is worth making heroic efforts to make even a tiny breach in that prohibition, because the least little official green light to Tradition would enable many Catholics dying of thirst to get back to the springs of grace. So he keeps on and on negotiating with Rome, even if, humanly speaking, the prospects are hopeless.

Father, the next question is: May we attend the Masses of the nine priests? And the other question that goes with it is, who owns the church properties?
The first question, "May we attend their Masses?" is difficult. On the one hand, the Mass is the Mass. And since these young priests are faithful, they have the Faith, they are zealous, they are pious, they celebrate Mass well, they can preach orthodox and inspiring sermons which have done an immense amount of good for the people, and then these may be the only Masses for miles around. So all of that is a good reason for the faithful continuing to attend their Masses. Especially if these priests realize the error of their ways, of course, and come back to the Archbishop, then there is no problem at all. On the other hand, if they persevere in their schism, and if they follow the devilish logic and push it to its conclusion, if they feel they must defend what they have done, if they begin to attack the Archbishop, if they begin to attack the Pope openly, then I think the Catholics must stay away from their Masses. If they are too shocked, too scandalized, or too hurt, or if they realize they, themselves, are being drawn into schism, then undoubtedly they must keep away from these Masses. So I am afraid the only answer is, the Catholics must be careful. They may, in the meantime, go on attending these Masses until the schismatic mentality becomes too dangerous or too intolerable.

The second question was: "Who owns the church properties?" That is a difficult question. It depends on each area, each chapel, and each corporation. For instance, there is one corporation which owns the chapel at Redford in Detroit and another corporation which owns the chapel at Armada. Now, at the end of the conversation held at Oyster Bay Cove on April 27 between these priests and the Archbishop, these priests told the Archbishop that they owned many of these properties. They themselves said they controlled, for instance, the Seminary, and Father Kelly said that they have control of the property of the Seminary in a way that the Archbishop does not have control. Father Cekada, a few moments later, said regarding the Missions: "We are the owners."

In that case, Father, it looks like we are in for a difficult time. The next question I have is, who are now the Seminary teachers?
Where the Archbishop, before the split, had eleven priests in the Northern District and in the Seminary, he now has three. There is Father Roger Petit, who is an American and who has stayed with the Archbishop, who comes from upstate New York, from Hudson Falls. There is secondly a young French priest who has just come over from Madrid. When the Archbishop realized that he was going to be abandoned by many of his priests, he immediately telephoned to a young French priest—on Tuesday of that week he telephoned to a young French priest in Madrid, and he said to this young French priest, "I want you over in the United States." And the young French priest answered, "At your orders, Monseigneur." And by Saturday evening he was at the Seminary, and on Monday morning he began teaching. And the third priest in the Northern District is your servant, Father Williamson.

Father, this is the last question. Who is Father Williamson?
Well, I would answer, he is a poor sinner. An Englishman, but with a grandmother from Toledo, Ohio, and a grandfather from Monroe, Michigan. Forty-three-years old, in the Society since the end of 1972, ordained by the Archbishop at Ecône in 1976, taught for one year in the German-speaking Seminary at Weissbad, alongside Father Schmidberger. Taught for five years at the Seminary at Ecône, and now teaching for one year at the Seminary at Ridgefield. And if you haven't any more questions, my last word would be to beg all the faithful who have followed us so far to pray for us priests, because we are all in the thick of a tremendous battle. The fall, as I call it, at least the temporary fall, of the nine priests, shows how much in danger we are, how clever the devil is to fool even such good young priests as these were, and we are very much in need of the prayers of the faithful to protect us. So I would ask anyone listening to please pray for me, to pray for us, pray for the Archbishop, and pray also for the nine priests that they may realize the error of their ways.

Father, I want to thank you very much on behalf of all of us Catholics who are concerned with the Society of St. Pius X and supporting Archbishop Lefebvre.
The foregoing interview of Father Williamson was conducted by Mr. Jerome Cooper, 27605 Wagner, Warren Michigan 48093.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 13, 2012, 01:40:54 PM: I'll refrain from any comments on Bishop Williamsom comments.

Here is something that may be of interest to the topic:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: SJB on August 13, 2012, 05:33:01 PM: From the above article by Fr. Cekada:

Quote
DECADES LATER, the myth still persists that the principal theological disagreement between Abp. Lefebvre and the Nine in 1983 was over “sedevacantism.”
As such, though, this particular issue didn’t come up at the beginning, and it certainly wasn’t the one that pro- voked the dispute. Some of the Nine were sedevacantists at the time of the break and others weren’t.

Instead, there were six serious problems in SSPX that coalesced to set the whole crisis in motion.
And looming vulture-like in the wings was the grim- faced Fr. Richard Williamson. The archbishop had ap- pointed him as Vice Rector of the Ridgefield seminary and as a sort of theological commissar for America, ...
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: SJB on August 13, 2012, 09:06:28 PM: Quote from: NeilO
It is noteworthy that when Bishop Fulton Sheen was doing his TV show, and he was planning to be away for a few weeks, he said that he would like to have someone reliable take his place for that time, and the only priest qualified in his opinion was Father Leonard Feeney. He did not mention Msgr. Fenton.

It's hardly noteworthy, it's meaningless.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on August 13, 2012, 09:36:50 PM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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

... your rank arrogance, together with intellectual dishonesty and ineptitude,

Why, you even know what the dead think.
...
No, no, you could never be the one at fault...

I just wanted to say, that when I see puerile contentions like this I don't want
to keep reading, as it does nothing for me.

O...kay...

Please feel free to put me on ignore.

Join the "Lover_of_Truth" bandwagon!

John's PM campaign (along with posts that flatter certain forum members) seems to be working!
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on August 13, 2012, 09:47:28 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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

... your rank arrogance, together with intellectual dishonesty and ineptitude,

Why, you even know what the dead think.
...
No, no, you could never be the one at fault...

I just wanted to say, that when I see puerile contentions like this I don't want
to keep reading, as it does nothing for me.

I like to think I have thick skin. But posts like that really make me feel bad. More about the poster than his comments about me. The first time he posted something in that vein towards me I just shook it off, as I admired him and believed he had a lot to contribute. I still believe he has alot to contribute. But when these posts in my direction keep happening, and can't help but to see them for what they are. I can't bring myself to read his posts anymore. But I have not put him on ignore, because, right or wrong, I see that as a kind of public slap in the face. I do wish the best for him and hope to see him in Heaven. But I am kind of shocked, the he continues to post that way towards me. Maybe now that he knows I don't read his posts he will stop. Time will tell.

Thank you for your kind comments which mean alot to me, especially in comparison to what I get from others.

I wish YOU would get over yourself and stop making threads and posting replies that allude to me, even in discussions that are not relevant to the ones whereupon we have disputed.

I am kind of shocked that you continue to post about this matter at all. I was willing to move on, but your crass vilification of the moderators of CathInfo was too much for me.

Yes, I know you have had me on ignore for sometime now. Deo gratias and you have mentioned today on two different threads that you will not read my posts.

Iterum Deo gratias!

You and Brian can go ahead and "ignore" me all you wish.

I earnestly desire and wish the best for both of you and your families.

God bless!
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 14, 2012, 01:18:41 PM: One thing we have not elaborated upon, as far as I know, regarding what Pius XII allowed between 1955 – 1958 and what Montini “Paul 6” did in 1969 is the following:

1. Pius XII, without realizing it, we must hope, while not binding anything anti-Catholic in the liturgy upon us, did allow what would open the door to the new Mass during his reign. A valid Pope can do this. We all can agree that, while he was living, as long as he actually binded those changes on the Church, and so long as he was in fact a valid Pope, we were in fact obliged to accept and follow them. Father Cekeda, the rest of the nine and the original 12 and all the SV Priests outside of CMRI and none-SV Priests who follow the pre-Bugnini changes would agree. Here we all, including those who hold to the 1958 liturgy, are unified. We have no idea what Pius XII would have allowed or not allowed, or rescinded had he lived until the year 1969, but there would be no new “mass” as we know it today, I believe we can agree on that as well.

2. The Novus Ordo or “New Order” as we know it today. Too painful to elaborate upon. These were not the cosmetic changes, that, in and of itself, and apart from the grand scheme of Bugnini, were not something a valid Pope could not allow. The nightmare of the new order foisted upon unsuspecting and loyal Catholics is known to all. No valid Pope would promulgate, allow or maintain such a thing. The devil used this false Pope [Montini/Paul 6] as his most primary vessel, in the history of the world, to undermine the Church and he succeeded grandly. And there is not the slighted bit of exaggeration in that statement. In regards to actual damage to the Church Montini was worse than all the heretics combined. If Satan had one hero, he’d be the guy.

What some of us are unsure of, or debate, is whether, hindsight being what it is, if a good Priest can in good conscience forgo the free-masonic Bugnini changes which only lasted a short time rather than just avoid the nonsense entirely, and go back to the sure thing until the next valid Pope rules on the issue. Must we hand down de fide condemnations against one another over the issue? As it stands, we cannot do anything about the Mass we attend anyway, apart from not going or moving right?

We know a valid Pope will not allow and bind anything anti-Catholic in the liturgy, but we should also know that Popes are not guaranteed to be perfect, or to always do the most prudent thing, or always to make the very best choice, or to always have the very best advisors, or never to cower and avoid doing what should be done. Am I correct? We know a valid Pope will protect the deposit of Faith and not contradict it, but will he always affirm it when he should, or resolve controversies when he should, can he speak at times when he should be silent or be quiet when it would be better to raise his voice? I think we would all agree about the answers to those questions. We all must submit to what a living Pope has bound on the Church. Here too we all should be in agreement. Like it or not, subjective culpability aside, our salvation depends on it.

So when I get my family out of here, and locate at a stable CMRI Mass, will I complain about the 1958 liturgy? No bleepin’ way!!! One thing about being 70 miles from a “recognize and resist” parish is that I will no longer take the Mass and sound doctrine from the pulpit, for granted. Even if the sermons are boring or lack substance, I will be floating in the air because they will not be mixed with falsities, thanks be to God.

Now say I’m an ardent 1958 guy and I claim, from the rooftops, there is no flippin’ way that a Priest should offer the pre-1955 liturgy, and the only Mass that was available to me was a pre-1955 liturgy. Do you think I would avoid the infinite amount of sanctifying grace made available to me each and every day over what that particular Priest thinks is the most pure, stable and traditional Catholic Mass that can be offered? No bleepein’, bloomin’, blinkin’, bloody way!!! I’m going man. Heck yes, and dancin’ in the streets about it.

Let’s get a Pope first and then worry about whether the Priests who offer the pre-1955 liturgy are doing the right thing or not. After all, God has put the decision in their hands, not ours. What say you?

As an aside what John 23 allowed, regarding the 1961/2 missal, apart from breaking the unbreakable canon with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into that canon, is something a valid Pope could have done. I’m not sure about the 1964 liturgy either way, but the picture is becoming obvious by then. And the 1967 liturgy, fahgeet about it! And it got even worse in 1969, and thereafter.

I have not always been a big fan of Father Cekeda, but to the extent that he stood up against V2, the Bugnini liturgy, compromising with the modernists, allowing “annulments”, the anti-Thuc line people, the heretical code of canon “law”, and all the doubtful and invalid Sacraments, he is a hero. Without people like him, many of us would have been content to attend the costume party known as the indult/moto which is where grown-ups pretend to be clergy and pretend to attend a “valid” “traditional” Mass. Even archbishop Lefebvre would have been content with this, had he, according to some, been given three Bishops of his chosing, instead of one.

Read the following and correct me if I am wrong. Charitably, if possible:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf

But those who lament this and look longingly at the SSPX empire do not see the dangers: a centralized organic entity like this can be subverted with one stroke of a pen and draw thousands of unsuspecting souls into the ecuмenical One-World Church. Exhibit A: On May 5, 1988, Abp. Lefebvre signed an agreement with Ratzinger that, even apart from the matter of recognizing JP2 as a true pope, accepted the teaching authority of Vatican II, the validity of the new sacraments, and the legitimacy of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.24 The archbishop sold priests and laymen out to the false church of Vatican II on the principles, but reneged on the deal the next day only because he wanted the heretics to give him a better price25 — the full thirty pieces of silver, as it were. His successors could indeed not only cut a deal like this, but also carry it out.
---
http://www.fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm

I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:

1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.

2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.

3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.

4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
(There is more, but we have already thrown-up by now)

24 See “Protocol of Agreement between the Holy See and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X,” May 1988, www.unavoce.org/protocol.htm.

25. Permission from the modernist heretic John Paul II to consecrate three bishops for SSPX instead of just the one agreed upon. His weaseling out of this agreement, by the way, illustrates why we put point (7) in front of him at our meeting with him on April 27, 1983.
---
You will notice that he signed the protocol in 1988, after all the craziness he witnessed the past 40 years, including Assisi (!!!). He may have given another reason than not getting his three bishops he wanted from the Vatican, but the fact is he not only considered such an agreement, but signed it!

It is true, for the none-sedevacantist entity, that they can get sucked in with the stroke of the pen.

Though, I disagree with Father Cekeda’s claim that we should not have a large organized body, because “we could also get sucked in by one stroke of the pen”, as the SVs do not sit down with the beast to negotiate. They know if you sit with the lion you get eaten. They do not put themselves in an impossible position by insisting that the thing with two horns over there is the head of their Church. But they, in particular, Bishop Pivuranus, need our prayers, now, more than ever. They are already going after the sedevacantists in Germany. After the SSPX we are the only thing left on the radar of those who do the bidding of the Beast, and we are on their radar, despite the “fact” that we are all “crazy” and have such small numbers. We have to hold together. Better to not fight over the 1954 or 1958 liturgy, or the “una cuм heretic” or whether we should fast from midnight or for three hours before Mass, if it rouses bitterness and dissension. There are things where can agree to disagree on without being cowards or false to the cause. We have bigger fish to fry.

I speak from experience, our tongues, or keyboards, can get us in more trouble with God than we can imagine, as Saint James says, it is like the tiny rudder on a ship, but it controls the direction the whole massive thing goes. Our souls, in a manner of speaking, are the most valuable thing we have, they are the “massive things” that are going to go to Heaven, or Hell, and our eternity is the ONLY thing that matters. Saving face or looking good in front of our peers is not what matters, but rather, how we look in front of God.

http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/MiscArchives/FrVai_WhatDoYouKnowOfFraternalCorrection_07-22-2012.mp3

http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/index_files/StAlphonsus_EleventhSundayAfterPentecost_OnTheViceOfSpeakingImmodestly.mp3

Before we take it upon ourselves to definitively resolve, with all the laymen authority we can muster up, debates such as the one this thread is about, we must get the following right:

“I give you a new commandment: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” (Spoken by The Second Person of the Holy Trinity)
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Capt McQuigg on August 28, 2012, 04:56:39 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
In regards to actual damage to the Church Montini was worse than all the heretics combined. If Satan had one hero, he’d be the guy.

:applause: :applause: :applause:
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Clelia on August 28, 2012, 06:46:53 PM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Lover of Truth
BTW - Fenton, as far as I know, was, at the very least, the greatest theologian of his day.

It is noteworthy that when Bishop Fulton Sheen was doing his TV show, and he was
planning to be away for a few weeks, he said that he would like to have someone
reliable take his place for that time, and the only priest qualified in his opinion was
Father Leonard Feeney. He did not mention Msgr. Fenton.

Quote
Liturgical experts would notice and point out the negative changes in the liturgy between 1955 and 1958, and rightfully so.

Neil, I believe these posts have been relevant, I have posted links that address the point of this thread. Your post is regarding the difference between the 1954 liturgy and that of 1962. I notice you picked 1954 instead of 1958 because you are aware of the Bugnini changes that were made under Pius XII. Right from the start this shows that you are knowledgeable of the goings on. And that are problems, in the liturgy, have more to to with Bugnini than with Pius XII. Though certainly Pius XII holds some responsibility in the objective realm, apart from any subjective culpability. He is aware now, as the veil, for him, has been lifted. And hopefully, he is not dead, but very much alive, in Purgatory or Heaven. And he does not "think" any thing but KNOWS the truth of it now.

What happened in 1961/2 is just the continuation of the diabolical plot that began under Pius XII.

Obvious to those who dare to admit it. Not so to those who say we must stick to how it was in 1958 even when they do not admit to be SV. Though sticking to how it was in 1958 would be a reasonable and perhaps the right thing to do for the SV it certainly is not definitive, IMO. I admit it might be proven to be definitive at some time.

There are a lot of things about the 1962 Missal that "turn the page" toward the
full-blown Novus Ordo that would come later. Keep in mind that the revolutionaries
who were driving this whole affair had very clear ideas in mind what they wanted
to achieve, and the 1962 Missal was their official first step towards achieving it.

We just had the Feast Day of St. Philomena, August 11th. She is a rather unique
saint in the Church for many reasons, not the least of which is that she had been
forgotten entirely, without mention in the history books, and without mention in
any of the saints' writings in the early Church. And yet her story is just as
compelling as any of the other Roman Virgin Martyrs, and arguably the most
compelling of all. Her tomb was only discovered in 1804, some 1500 years after
her martyrdom. But from the next year on, miracles have followed her like a
parade. A whole litany of saints and holy people from that time up until Vatican II
were outspoken devotees of hers, such as St. Peter Julian Eymard, St. Anthony
Mary Claret, St. Madeleine Sophie Barat (foundress of the Ladies of the Sacred
Heart) and St. John Vianney (the Cure of Ars). But along comes 1961 and John
XXIII, and St. Philomena got the unceremonial "boot" out the door. It is as if the
same demon who had delighted over her erstwhile eradication for 1500 years
had won a new victory in 1961 with the wreckovationists! Her Feast Day
is entirely missing in the !962 Missal, as is St. Christopher, St. Barbara (namesake
of Santa Barbara, California), and many others.

The people who removed these wonderful saints from the Missal are no friends
of God. And therefore the 1962 Missal is compromised. There are things missing
in it that should be there, and there are things in it that should not be there.

Now, if you take the missal all by itself, and presume to know nothing about its
history or where it came from, you're not going to see anything inherently wrong
with it. But this is presuming ignorance of the observer. We ought to know better.

PLease forgive my scrupulous nit-picking, but they are not in my 1958 New Marian Missal by Sylvester P. Juergens, S.M., either. (Veritas Press).

I wonder: when DID they disappear? Perhaps even sooner, which might negate the 62 claim.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 29, 2012, 01:47:28 PM: Quote
PLease forgive my scrupulous nit-picking, but they are not in my 1958 New Marian Missal by Sylvester P. Juergens, S.M., either. (Veritas Press).

I wonder: when DID they disappear? Perhaps even sooner, which might negate the 62 claim.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand the question What isn't in your 1958 version? What is the 62 claim?

Thanks for your patience with me.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Belloc on August 29, 2012, 02:05:37 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
I'll refrain from any comments on Bishop Williamsom comments.

Here is something that may be of interest to the topic:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf

actually, Williamson was fairly right on, some 1570, there have been minor alterations, by Pius V and others down the yrs...none of them a grave departure from the Fide, as is the NO and as the "Intervention" lays out..

one cannot deny certain minor changes from 1570 to 1958 and remain credible.....we would then either have to say the 1570 version ONLY and that casts a real and long apll on the Popes that did make changes.......
one then might go down the road of former poster CM
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 30, 2012, 12:55:36 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote
PLease forgive my scrupulous nit-picking, but they are not in my 1958 New Marian Missal by Sylvester P. Juergens, S.M., either. (Veritas Press).

I wonder: when DID they disappear? Perhaps even sooner, which might negate the 62 claim.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand the question What isn't in your 1958 version? What is the 62 claim?

Thanks for your patience with me.

I think Clelia is referring to St. Philomena, St. Christopher and St. Barbara, "among
others."

As for St. Philomena, her feast day, August 11th, is in my 1945 Lasance missal, but
it's not where you might expect to find it. It's in the section for feast days proper to
the United States. I find that a bit odd, for she is a Roman saint, apparently of
Greek lineage, or somewhere close to Greece. Her international shrine is in Mugnano,
Italy, the same place it's been for two hundred years, since the beginning of her
discovery. Ven. Pauline Jaricot was from France, and the Cure d'Ars, who was her
spiritual director and the most conspicuous recipient of St. Philomena's miracles, is
are both from France. So it's Greece, Italy and France so far...

And yet, it seems her principal following is in the United States. The international
Universal Living Rosary Association of St. Philomena is headquartered in Texas, and
the Shrine of St. Philomena is in Florida. I have yet to find any Traditional Catholic
chapel in California that does not have some shrine or statue or stained glass window
of St. Philomena. There is even a diocese parish named St. Philomena in Carson, CA,
part of the Los Angeles Archdiocese. (The old church there had a special room for
the various images, relics, stories of miracles from St. Philomena, but since they
have remodeled, and built a whole new modern "worship space," I have not been
back there, so I don't know what has happened to all the collectibles from that
room.

In accord with the theme of this thread, it is part of the modernizing principle of
the 1962 movement toward the "future church" to get rid of all the old, dusty
reminders of the past, such as this room that was so special in the memory of
St. Philomena and her graces that were given to people here locally. Therefore, I
fear that the room has been abandoned, and perhaps all its contents are stored
away somewhere, or perhaps even discarded with the trash pick-up.

There was some movement toward updating before 1962, but I'm not sure if that
had any effect in these various saints mentioned. I suspect it rather has to do
with where the missal was printed, for a European missal might not have St.
Philomena in it, since her feast is listed as proper to the USA in my missal. I don't
pretend to be an expert in these things.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on August 30, 2012, 02:37:51 PM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote
PLease forgive my scrupulous nit-picking, but they are not in my 1958 New Marian Missal by Sylvester P. Juergens, S.M., either. (Veritas Press).

I wonder: when DID they disappear? Perhaps even sooner, which might negate the 62 claim.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand the question What isn't in your 1958 version? What is the 62 claim?

Thanks for your patience with me.

I think Clelia is referring to St. Philomena, St. Christopher and St. Barbara, "among
others."

As for St. Philomena, her feast day, August 11th, is in my 1945 Lasance missal, but
it's not where you might expect to find it. It's in the section for feast days proper to
the United States. I find that a bit odd, for she is a Roman saint, apparently of
Greek lineage, or somewhere close to Greece. Her international shrine is in Mugnano,
Italy, the same place it's been for two hundred years, since the beginning of her
discovery. Ven. Pauline Jaricot was from France, and the Cure d'Ars, who was her
spiritual director and the most conspicuous recipient of St. Philomena's miracles, is
are both from France. So it's Greece, Italy and France so far...

And yet, it seems her principal following is in the United States. The international
Universal Living Rosary Association of St. Philomena is headquartered in Texas, and
the Shrine of St. Philomena is in Florida. I have yet to find any Traditional Catholic
chapel in California that does not have some shrine or statue or stained glass window
of St. Philomena. There is even a diocese parish named St. Philomena in Carson, CA,
part of the Los Angeles Archdiocese. (The old church there had a special room for
the various images, relics, stories of miracles from St. Philomena, but since they
have remodeled, and built a whole new modern "worship space," I have not been
back there, so I don't know what has happened to all the collectibles from that
room.

In accord with the theme of this thread, it is part of the modernizing principle of
the 1962 movement toward the "future church" to get rid of all the old, dusty
reminders of the past, such as this room that was so special in the memory of
St. Philomena and her graces that were given to people here locally. Therefore, I
fear that the room has been abandoned, and perhaps all its contents are stored
away somewhere, or perhaps even discarded with the trash pick-up.

There was some movement toward updating before 1962, but I'm not sure if that
had any effect in these various saints mentioned. I suspect it rather has to do
with where the missal was printed, for a European missal might not have St.
Philomena in it, since her feast is listed as proper to the USA in my missal. I don't
pretend to be an expert in these things.

I'm not an expert in these things by any stretch either. I believe it was John 23 who did away with most of the "legendary" saints and down-graded others in 1961/2. I don't think Pius XII got rid of any. Of course after John 23 it continues to get worse in worse, getting rid of true Saints and "cannonizing" gobs and gobs of questionable ones to take their place.

But there it is, in the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, infallible Church for all who wish to join her.

Please pardon the sarcasm.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 10, 2012, 11:49:04 AM: I've still been hearing lingering thoughts about this "new version" of the 1962
missal on the way in early December this year. That's now less than 3 months
away.

Meanwhile, October 11th is going to be here tomorrow, which is the 50th anniversary
of the abominable Opening Speech of Vatican II, and the day chosen by several
curious characters for ominous reasons.

But in regards to the 1962 missal, there is a post by Matthew on another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20910&min=4&num=1)
that is helpful to this thread, so for those interested, here it is:

Quote from: Matthew
Tiffany will have to answer to God for any spiritual or emotional pain she has inflicted on you.

I have no idea why she would call you such horrible, uncharitable, and baseless names.

Her twisted reasons are only known to her and God (and, I should also add, the devil -- who is keeping close track! He can't wait to accuse her before the Judgment Seat)

Some Catholics -- that call themselves Traditional -- should really be ashamed of themselves. They think Charity is optional as long as they abhor the Novus Ordo -- as if God is going to overlook reams of faults just because they drove a half hour to get to a Tridentine Mass. Sorry, I wish it were that easy!

Other Catholics think their mission in life is to fill in for the Pope (who they believe doesn't exist right now), and pontificate about where you should go to Mass -- what Masses are valid, which priests are actual priests, which Missal God wants us to use, the morality of NFP, the eternal destiny of infants who die without Baptism, etc.

As if God has revealed ANY of those things, privately OR publicly!

I try to ban ALL the Dogmatic Home-Aloners as well as those who are opposed on principle to the 1962 Missal, the priestly validity of SSPX priests, the Catholicity of the SSPX, etc. but apparently I missed a few if you're getting hassled by zealous "don't go to that Mass" types. I assume they're not just telling you to stay away from SGG or something like that...

Anyhow, I really get sick of these extremist "Catholic Truth. Population: Me" types. It's not because my position is weak, I'm afraid of the truth, or any of that BS, but rather because THEY ARE CRAZY and their extreme, nonsensical positions can really hurt someone who is genuinely looking for the TRUTH and SALVATION -- like PenitentWoman.

Whoever you are, if you're reading this -- just look at my posts. Do you think I go with the flow? I'm siding with Bishop Williamson for crying out loud. I'm certainly of good will and would follow the truth wherever it led me. But do you honestly think God has ABANDONED his Church so as to leave the Catholic Faithful (numbering in the hundreds of thousands? any better estimates out there?) with only a dozen valid priests? Come on, if that were true, where's the Last Trumpet already?

The Church must be visible until the end of time -- to say otherwise is heresy. And no, a dozen priests tucked away in a dozen little independent chapels is NOT sufficient for a visible Church.

As for the 1962 Missal, I see nothing wrong with it and I studied at a traditional Seminary for 3 1/2 years. How about you? You probably just read some crap by the Dimond brothers and think you're an expert, or you trust the Dimond brothers who put themselves forward as experts. Who trained them? They probably read a few books. Either way, you're sadly mistaken.

First off, I'd like to say that I don't pay any attention to the Dimond brothers, for
I think they are rather nut cases who deserve little attention. They give the
faith a bad name for many reasons and I have nothing to do with them or their
product. I have know several trads who were sucked in by them, and it was
pretty sad to observe it happening.

The portions of this post that are relevant to this present thread are these:

...Other Catholics think their mission in life is to fill in for the Pope (who they believe doesn't exist right now), and pontificate about where you should go to Mass -- what Masses are valid, which priests are actual priests, which Missal God wants us to use, the morality of NFP, the eternal destiny of infants who die without Baptism, etc.

As if God has revealed ANY of those things, privately OR publicly!

I try to ban ALL the Dogmatic Home-Aloners as well as those who are opposed on principle to the 1962 Missal, the priestly validity of SSPX priests, the Catholicity of the SSPX, etc. but apparently I missed a few if you're getting hassled by zealous "don't go to that Mass" types. I assume they're not just telling you to stay away from SGG or something like that...

...As for the 1962 Missal, I see nothing wrong with it and I studied at a traditional Seminary for 3 1/2 years. How about you? You probably just read some crap by the Dimond brothers and think you're an expert, or you trust the Dimond brothers who put themselves forward as experts. Who trained them? They probably read a few books. Either way, you're sadly mistaken.

I'd like to address these points, in Catholic charity, if I'm even capable of that..

I can only speak for myself, for if I try to speak for someone else, I'd probably
misrepresent them. As for me, I hope I'm not "trying to fill in for the Pope." That
is a serious charge, and it's one that Protestants seem prone to commit a lot, so
I hope I'm not doing that. And I can't "speak for God," except in what He has
revealed. That can get pretty complicated these days if you want to accept the
validity of the recent popes, one of whom gave us the 1962 missal.

As I think I explained earlier in this thread that I am not "opposed on principle
to the [use of the] 1962 Missal." It is obviously a tremendously preferred missal
than whatever version of the Novus Ordo you want to pick and choose from.

I find it curious that the post above, on another thread, was made on October 7th,
the Feast of the Holy Rosary, which is a perfect example of the kind of day that
I am talking about in regards to the difference between the 1962 missal and
the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass as it was before that new missal came out.

For on this day, in 2012, the Feast of the Holy Rosary, a Double of the Second
Class, fell on a Sunday. So what? Well, according to the rubrics of the 1962
missal, and this, by the way is what a seminarian would learn in the SSPX
"traditional seminary" these days, such a Feast Day never trumps the Sunday
Liturgy. So this October 7th would be the 19th Sunday After Pentecost, in
Paschal time. In other words, since it falls on Sunday, it becomes either
translated to Monday, or some other day of the week (I'm not sure about this) or
else gets "wiped out this year," as I heard one priest explain recently (I'm not
sure about that either). But the point is, Catholics going to Mass this past
Sunday where the 1962 missal and rubrics are used would not hear much at
all about the Feast of the Holy Rosary in the Mass prayers themselves. The
priest may choose to talk about it in the sermon, but let's be real: sometimes
on Sunday there isn't any sermon in independent chapels or SSPX chapels
because there isn't time for the priest to make all the rounds he has to make
as well as take time to give sermons everywhere, unfortunately.

What did I see at two CTLM sites this past Sunday? White vestments, Introit,
Prayer, Gradual, Epistle, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, Preface, Communion and
Post-Communion propers for the Feast of the Holy Rosary, which means the
Preface for the Apostles. Commemorations in the Prayer, Offertory and Post-
Communion were for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost. And, at one of the two,
which follows the 1945 rubrics entirely for many reasons including but not
limited to this present example, the Last Gospel was not St. John cap i., but the
Gospel from the 19th Sunday after Pentecost.

And this is a perfect case in point for the agenda of hAnnibale Bugnini whose
brainchild the 1962 missal is. There was too much Catholicity in the Canonized
Traditional Latin Mass. What to do, what to do? hAnnibale Bugnini came up with
a brainstorm (or maybe his Freemason bosses put him up to it). In order to
deconstruct the Mass, they would have to introduce a lot of Scripture readings
that were not currently in use, you know, the ones the Protestants like to quote
in their "worship services." But there were too many Catholic Scripture readings
in the way. So, to make room for the new ones, first the OLD ones had to be
phased out. How to accomplish this?

The 1962 missal was the second phase of the project. The first phase had
already been instituted which was the "new" Psalter and the new Breviary, which,
by the way, didn't succeed, and was abandoned. So having had already one
failure, they did not want two strikes in a row. This one had to be better, more
convincing, more acceptable.

To reduce the amount of Scripture in the Mass, the 1962 missal got rid of a lot
of things, like most of the Octaves, like many of the Commemorations, like
Sunday liturgy displaced by major Feast Days, like bumping the Last Gospel of
St. John now and then and replacing it with the Gospel from the displaced
Sunday (in the CTLM, the Faithful had been getting TWO gospel readings for a
change, one of which is not St. John, chapter 1). These may have seemed to be
subtle deletions to some Catholics, but most of them would have been those who
were not really paying much attention. The priests would have noticed the
change, because they were saying the Mass and had to find all the readings in
their Sacramentary, but as explained elsewhere, there had already been 30 years
of changing this and changing that in the seminaries and chancery offices, so
these changes were sort of par for the course.

And evidence today, current trads are frequently avid supporters of the 1962
missal and rubrics, which embraces this minimalist approach to Scripture variety
and sheer volume.

So, it is now evident (it was never explained this way at the time!) that what
hAnnibale had in mind, was to first deplete the Scripture readings at Mass, and
then a few years later, complain that there were not enough Scripture readings
at Mass, so then they could introduce their new 3-year cycle, along with the
Novus Ordo liturgy (which in fact was planned decades in advance of 1969) and
its "3 readings instead of 2" nonsense. Well, it wasn't really 2 readings in the
CTLM in the first place. The Introit was a Scripture reading, however small, the
Gradual was likewise, and the Last Gospel (which hAnnibale abolished) was yet
another. So the CTLM had, in fact, FIVE Scripture readings, not 2, and the
Novus Ordo was in reality a REDUCTION from 5 to 3, not an "increase" from 2 to 3.

You really have to be careful when dealing with smoke and mirrors, for it's hard
to know which is the smoke and which is the mirrors.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 10, 2012, 12:45:35 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not an expert in these things by any stretch either. I believe it was John 23 who did away with most of the "legendary" saints and down-graded others in 1961/2. I don't think Pius XII got rid of any. Of course after John 23 it continues to get worse [and] worse, getting rid of true Saints and "canonizing" gobs and gobs of questionable ones to take their place.

But there it is, in the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, infallible Church for all who wish to join her.

Please pardon the sarcasm.

They did the same thing with the saints that they did with the liturgy.

There were too many "old" saints and they wanted to bring in a new shipment.

Out with the old and in with the new was the order of the day.

Out with the old Scripture readings, in with the new (in the liturgy).

Out with the old saints (in any way possible!) and in with the new.

Out with the old calendar, in with the new.

Out with the old architectural designs and furniture, in with the new.

Out with the old sacraments, in with the new.

Out with the old vestments in with the new.

Out with the personal handmissals, in with the new, disposable ones.

Out with the old, dusty music for Mass, in with Marty Haugen, et. al.

Out with the penchant for "doctrine, doctrine, doctrine," and.. well.. out with doctrine.

Out with the old Faith, and.. well.. out with the old faith.

The only reason they could have had for changing the Calendar was to introduce
confusion. Divide and conquer.

These are all elements of a revolution in progress. They took the opportunity
of the sɛҳuąƖ revolution of the deplorable 1960's to do this, while everyone
was in a daze over what was going on, when the social norms of interpersonal
interaction were being torn asunder.

There was a brief window of opportunity to revolutionize the Church, and the
devil did not miss one chance to fully exploit the vulnerability of Catholics
everywhere in the world.

Getting rid of as many of the "old saints" as possible was done to make room
for the new ones, and JPII especially filled that order tidily. He trotted out more
new "saints" in one pontificate than all his predecessors combined. Hmmmm...

Changing the calendar was another aspect of the agenda, for when a family had
been celebrating the Feast of American Martyrs on September 26th for the past
50 years, suddenly it's on October 19th. The Feast of Christ the King has been
the last Sunday in October (giving a month of time after that before Advent,
and which alludes to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth), but
now it's relegated to the last Sunday in November, to 'compete' with Turkey-
Eating Thursday in America, and worldwide, to BANISH the intolerable Matthew
chapter 24 forever (at long last!!), so as to replace it with Christ the King Sunday.
This helps everyone forget about both, because the next week is Advent,
and preparations for Christmas conveniently override any silly, "intolerant"
notions of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

We just "had Ramadan," for crying out loud.

There is no question that there are numerous new martyrs for the Faith in the
20th century, for Communism, atheism, Zionism, Mohammedism, Hinduism and
others have selectively killed Catholics for their faith. There have even been
thousands of new crucifixions. Most of them do not get news coverage. It has
rather been the questionable ones that are problematic. There really is no
excuse for the Church to honor as "saints" those who are bad examples of
what it means to be a saint.

It must be an agenda to redefine "saint" in the mind of modern Catholics.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 10, 2012, 01:43:26 PM: Hello Neil My Friend,

I'm just starting to read what you have written.

Quote
...As for the 1962 Missal, I see nothing wrong with it and I studied at a traditional Seminary for 3 1/2 years. How about you? You probably just read some crap by the Dimond brothers and think you're an expert, or you trust the Dimond brothers who put themselves forward as experts. Who trained them? They probably read a few books. Either way, you're sadly mistaken.

The above does not seem Charitable.

Quote
I'd like to address these points, in Catholic charity, if I'm even capable of that..

I will cross my fingers that the rest will be charitable. I will respond if I believe you are really searching for answers or trying to help me out. Of course my judgment could be wrong so don't be offended if I do not respond. I think you are of good will so it is nothing personal between us as far as I'm concerned.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 10, 2012, 01:46:39 PM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
I've still been hearing lingering thoughts about this "new version" of the 1962
missal on the way in early December this year. That's now less than 3 months
away.

Meanwhile, October 11th is going to be here tomorrow, which is the 50th anniversary
of the abominable Opening Speech of Vatican II, and the day chosen by several
curious characters for ominous reasons.

But in regards to the 1962 missal, there is a post by Matthew on another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20910&min=4&num=1)
that is helpful to this thread, so for those interested, here it is:

Quote from: Matthew
Tiffany will have to answer to God for any spiritual or emotional pain she has inflicted on you.

I have no idea why she would call you such horrible, uncharitable, and baseless names.

Her twisted reasons are only known to her and God (and, I should also add, the devil -- who is keeping close track! He can't wait to accuse her before the Judgment Seat)

Some Catholics -- that call themselves Traditional -- should really be ashamed of themselves. They think Charity is optional as long as they abhor the Novus Ordo -- as if God is going to overlook reams of faults just because they drove a half hour to get to a Tridentine Mass. Sorry, I wish it were that easy!

Other Catholics think their mission in life is to fill in for the Pope (who they believe doesn't exist right now), and pontificate about where you should go to Mass -- what Masses are valid, which priests are actual priests, which Missal God wants us to use, the morality of NFP, the eternal destiny of infants who die without Baptism, etc.

As if God has revealed ANY of those things, privately OR publicly!

I try to ban ALL the Dogmatic Home-Aloners as well as those who are opposed on principle to the 1962 Missal, the priestly validity of SSPX priests, the Catholicity of the SSPX, etc. but apparently I missed a few if you're getting hassled by zealous "don't go to that Mass" types. I assume they're not just telling you to stay away from SGG or something like that...

Anyhow, I really get sick of these extremist "Catholic Truth. Population: Me" types. It's not because my position is weak, I'm afraid of the truth, or any of that BS, but rather because THEY ARE CRAZY and their extreme, nonsensical positions can really hurt someone who is genuinely looking for the TRUTH and SALVATION -- like PenitentWoman.

Whoever you are, if you're reading this -- just look at my posts. Do you think I go with the flow? I'm siding with Bishop Williamson for crying out loud. I'm certainly of good will and would follow the truth wherever it led me. But do you honestly think God has ABANDONED his Church so as to leave the Catholic Faithful (numbering in the hundreds of thousands? any better estimates out there?) with only a dozen valid priests? Come on, if that were true, where's the Last Trumpet already?

The Church must be visible until the end of time -- to say otherwise is heresy. And no, a dozen priests tucked away in a dozen little independent chapels is NOT sufficient for a visible Church.

As for the 1962 Missal, I see nothing wrong with it and I studied at a traditional Seminary for 3 1/2 years. How about you? You probably just read some crap by the Dimond brothers and think you're an expert, or you trust the Dimond brothers who put themselves forward as experts. Who trained them? They probably read a few books. Either way, you're sadly mistaken.

First off, I'd like to say that I don't pay any attention to the Dimond brothers, for
I think they are rather nut cases who deserve little attention. They give the
faith a bad name for many reasons and I have nothing to do with them or their
product. I have know several trads who were sucked in by them, and it was
pretty sad to observe it happening.

The portions of this post that are relevant to this present thread are these:

...Other Catholics think their mission in life is to fill in for the Pope (who they believe doesn't exist right now), and pontificate about where you should go to Mass -- what Masses are valid, which priests are actual priests, which Missal God wants us to use, the morality of NFP, the eternal destiny of infants who die without Baptism, etc.

As if God has revealed ANY of those things, privately OR publicly!

I try to ban ALL the Dogmatic Home-Aloners as well as those who are opposed on principle to the 1962 Missal, the priestly validity of SSPX priests, the Catholicity of the SSPX, etc. but apparently I missed a few if you're getting hassled by zealous "don't go to that Mass" types. I assume they're not just telling you to stay away from SGG or something like that...

...As for the 1962 Missal, I see nothing wrong with it and I studied at a traditional Seminary for 3 1/2 years. How about you? You probably just read some crap by the Dimond brothers and think you're an expert, or you trust the Dimond brothers who put themselves forward as experts. Who trained them? They probably read a few books. Either way, you're sadly mistaken.

I'd like to address these points, in Catholic charity, if I'm even capable of that..

I can only speak for myself, for if I try to speak for someone else, I'd probably
misrepresent them. As for me, I hope I'm not "trying to fill in for the Pope." That
is a serious charge, and it's one that Protestants seem prone to commit a lot, so
I hope I'm not doing that. And I can't "speak for God," except in what He has
revealed. That can get pretty complicated these days if you want to accept the
validity of the recent popes, one of whom gave us the 1962 missal.

As I think I explained earlier in this thread that I am not "opposed on principle
to the [use of the] 1962 Missal." It is obviously a tremendously preferred missal
than whatever version of the Novus Ordo you want to pick and choose from.

I find it curious that the post above, on another thread, was made on October 7th,
the Feast of the Holy Rosary, which is a perfect example of the kind of day that
I am talking about in regards to the difference between the 1962 missal and
the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass as it was before that new missal came out.

For on this day, in 2012, the Feast of the Holy Rosary, a Double of the Second
Class, fell on a Sunday. So what? Well, according to the rubrics of the 1962
missal, and this, by the way is what a seminarian would learn in the SSPX
"traditional seminary" these days, such a Feast Day never trumps the Sunday
Liturgy. So this October 7th would be the 19th Sunday After Pentecost, in
Paschal time. In other words, since it falls on Sunday, it becomes either
translated to Monday, or some other day of the week (I'm not sure about this) or
else gets "wiped out this year," as I heard one priest explain recently (I'm not
sure about that either). But the point is, Catholics going to Mass this past
Sunday where the 1962 missal and rubrics are used would not hear much at
all about the Feast of the Holy Rosary in the Mass prayers themselves. The
priest may choose to talk about it in the sermon, but let's be real: sometimes
on Sunday there isn't any sermon in independent chapels or SSPX chapels
because there isn't time for the priest to make all the rounds he has to make
as well as take time to give sermons everywhere, unfortunately.

What did I see at two CTLM sites this past Sunday? White vestments, Introit,
Prayer, Gradual, Epistle, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, Preface, Communion and
Post-Communion propers for the Feast of the Holy Rosary, which means the
Preface for the Apostles. Commemorations in the Prayer, Offertory and Post-
Communion were for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost. And, at one of the two,
which follows the 1945 rubrics entirely for many reasons including but not
limited to this present example, the Last Gospel was not St. John cap i., but the
Gospel from the 19th Sunday after Pentecost.

And this is a perfect case in point for the agenda of hAnnibale Bugnini whose
brainchild the 1962 missal is. There was too much Catholicity in the Canonized
Traditional Latin Mass. What to do, what to do? hAnnibale Bugnini came up with
a brainstorm (or maybe his Freemason bosses put him up to it). In order to
deconstruct the Mass, they would have to introduce a lot of Scripture readings
that were not currently in use, you know, the ones the Protestants like to quote
in their "worship services." But there were too many Catholic Scripture readings
in the way. So, to make room for the new ones, first the OLD ones had to be
phased out. How to accomplish this?

The 1962 missal was the second phase of the project. The first phase had
already been instituted which was the "new" Psalter and the new Breviary, which,
by the way, didn't succeed, and was abandoned. So having had already one
failure, they did not want two strikes in a row. This one had to be better, more
convincing, more acceptable.

To reduce the amount of Scripture in the Mass, the 1962 missal got rid of a lot
of things, like most of the Octaves, like many of the Commemorations, like
Sunday liturgy displaced by major Feast Days, like bumping the Last Gospel of
St. John now and then and replacing it with the Gospel from the displaced
Sunday (in the CTLM, the Faithful had been getting TWO gospel readings for a
change, one of which is not St. John, chapter 1). These may have seemed to be
subtle deletions to some Catholics, but most of them would have been those who
were not really paying much attention. The priests would have noticed the
change, because they were saying the Mass and had to find all the readings in
their Sacramentary, but as explained elsewhere, there had already been 30 years
of changing this and changing that in the seminaries and chancery offices, so
these changes were sort of par for the course.

And evidence today, current trads are frequently avid supporters of the 1962
missal and rubrics, which embraces this minimalist approach to Scripture variety
and sheer volume.

So, it is now evident (it was never explained this way at the time!) that what
hAnnibale had in mind, was to first deplete the Scripture readings at Mass, and
then a few years later, complain that there were not enough Scripture readings
at Mass, so then they could introduce their new 3-year cycle, along with the
Novus Ordo liturgy (which in fact was planned decades in advance of 1969) and
its "3 readings instead of 2" nonsense. Well, it wasn't really 2 readings in the
CTLM in the first place. The Introit was a Scripture reading, however small, the
Gradual was likewise, and the Last Gospel (which hAnnibale abolished) was yet
another. So the CTLM had, in fact, FIVE Scripture readings, not 2, and the
Novus Ordo was in reality a REDUCTION from 5 to 3, not an "increase" from 2 to 3.

You really have to be careful when dealing with smoke and mirrors, for it's hard
to know which is the smoke and which is the mirrors.

I just realized the above was not addressed to me and the quotes I wrote in my last response were not from you so please disregard, I will move on to your next post.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 10, 2012, 02:02:23 PM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not an expert in these things by any stretch either. I believe it was John 23 who did away with most of the "legendary" saints and down-graded others in 1961/2. I don't think Pius XII got rid of any. Of course after John 23 it continues to get worse [and] worse, getting rid of true Saints and "canonizing" gobs and gobs of questionable ones to take their place.

But there it is, in the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, infallible Church for all who wish to join her.

Please pardon the sarcasm.

They did the same thing with the saints that they did with the liturgy.

There were too many "old" saints and they wanted to bring in a new shipment.

Out with the old and in with the new was the order of the day.

Out with the old Scripture readings, in with the new (in the liturgy).

Out with the old saints (in any way possible!) and in with the new.

Out with the old calendar, in with the new.

Out with the old architectural designs and furniture, in with the new.

Out with the old sacraments, in with the new.

Out with the old vestments in with the new.

Out with the personal handmissals, in with the new, disposable ones.

Out with the old, dusty music for Mass, in with Marty Haugen, et. al.

Out with the penchant for "doctrine, doctrine, doctrine," and.. well.. out with doctrine.

Out with the old Faith, and.. well.. out with the old faith.

The only reason they could have had for changing the Calendar was to introduce
confusion. Divide and conquer.

These are all elements of a revolution in progress. They took the opportunity
of the sɛҳuąƖ revolution of the deplorable 1960's to do this, while everyone
was in a daze over what was going on, when the social norms of interpersonal
interaction were being torn asunder.

There was a brief window of opportunity to revolutionize the Church, and the
devil did not miss one chance to fully exploit the vulnerability of Catholics
everywhere in the world.

Getting rid of as many of the "old saints" as possible was done to make room
for the new ones, and JPII especially filled that order tidily. He trotted out more
new "saints" in one pontificate than all his predecessors combined. Hmmmm...

Changing the calendar was another aspect of the agenda, for when a family had
been celebrating the Feast of American Martyrs on September 26th for the past
50 years, suddenly it's on October 19th. The Feast of Christ the King has been
the last Sunday in October (giving a month of time after that before Advent,
and which alludes to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth), but
now it's relegated to the last Sunday in November, to 'compete' with Turkey-
Eating Thursday in America, and worldwide, to BANISH the intolerable Matthew
chapter 24 forever (at long last!!), so as to replace it with Christ the King Sunday.
This helps everyone forget about both, because the next week is Advent,
and preparations for Christmas conveniently override any silly, "intolerant"
notions of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

We just "had Ramadan," for crying out loud.

There is no question that there are numerous new martyrs for the Faith in the
20th century, for Communism, atheism, Zionism, Mohammedism, Hinduism and
others have selectively killed Catholics for their faith. There have even been
thousands of new crucifixions. Most of them do not get news coverage. It has
rather been the questionable ones that are problematic. There really is no
excuse for the Church to honor as "saints" those who are bad examples of
what it means to be a saint.

It must be an agenda to redefine "saint" in the mind of modern Catholics.

This is a good post. I would tend to agree with everything apart from them taking advantage of the 60's because of the sɛҳuąƖ revolution.

IMO, the decline in morality went from a slow trickle to complete chaos when the Chair of Peter was subverted. The Catholic Pope was the last beacon of light where people could look to a living creature for infallible truth pertaining to morals.

But I also, and I might be putting words into your mouth, don't believe the anti-Catholic forces just kind of noticed that we were ripe for the picking since we became increasingly pre-occupied with ourselves and our own personal gratification.

I believe the whole thing was planned with the free-masons working in cahoots with Satan. When they got there man "elected" Pope the sky was the limit.

Even if you do not agree 100% with the above assessment there is no denying that the free-masons had been planning to destroy the Church from within for around a century before the 1960's.

For what it is worth.

I thoroughly enjoyed your post which I believe was on spot on everything else.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 10, 2012, 02:27:47 PM: Dear Lover of Truth, my friend,

No, my posts above were not directed at you, specifically. I was just making
conversation for anyone to read. I am concerned with the principles at hand and
on this topic.

This Advent, coming up, there is likely to be another change in the liturgy
worldwide, in which some elements of the TLM will be incorporated in various
ways to the Novus Ordo services at your local parishes.

One of the things that Rome is apparently going to do is to make a new "hybrid"
liturgy combining the 1962 Missal with the Novus Ordo liturgy.

My one point in the context of this thread with this prospect is the following:

Why do you suppose B16 is choosing the 1962 Missal, instead of the 1945 Missal,
to combine with the Modernism Liturgy?

If it were to his advantage to use the CTLM instead, would he do that?

Of course he would! Do not doubt it for a minute!!

Therefore, the simple fact that he is using the 1962 Missal as material for the
combining with the Modernism Liturgy in itself, ipso facto, proves that the
1962 Missal is more expedient for use, as in what to work with toward a more
Modernist end product, that can be imposed on the whole Church.

This is not to say there is anything Modernist per se about the 1962 Missal.
Don't misunderstand me. The 1962 Missal in and of itself is a beautiful thing,
especially the way Angelus Press left not a stone unturned to render a most
appealing work of the art of bookbinding. This cannot be denied.

And what is the "advantage" of B16? He is trying to Modernize the Mass.

And for whatever reasons, he finds the 1962 Missal as a better starting point
than the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass missal of 1954 and earlier.

BTW, the 'new' product he will come out with (and perhaps is already on the
presses in production) will not be, nor could it ever be, a CANONIZED liturgy.

Why? Because it has not been received from antiquity. It is an amalgamation
with a banal, on-the-spot-product of a Freemason and 6 Protestant ministers.

Now, B16 might SAY that it was "organically grown," or that it "evolved over
many years," or that it is "legitimately developed according to Sacred Tradition,"
or whatever clever words he comes up with. But I highly doubt he will dare try
to call it a "Canonized Liturgy."

Why?

Because he wants to stay away from the controversy of the canonicity of the
CTLM as opposed to the Novus Ordo Saeclorum liturgy, the Modernism Liturgy.

He really would like to avoid that, like the plague.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 10, 2012, 02:30:42 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth

This is a good post. I would tend to agree with everything apart from them taking advantage of the 60's because of the sɛҳuąƖ revolution.

IMO, the decline in morality went from a slow trickle to complete chaos when the Chair of Peter was subverted. The Catholic Pope was the last beacon of light where people could look to a living creature for infallible truth pertaining to morals.

But I also, and I might be putting words into your mouth, don't believe the anti-Catholic forces just kind of noticed that we were ripe for the picking since we became increasingly pre-occupied with ourselves and our own personal gratification.

I believe the whole thing was planned with the free-masons working in cahoots with Satan. When they got there man "elected" Pope the sky was the limit.

Even if you do not agree 100% with the above assessment there is no denying that the free-masons had been planning to destroy the Church from within for around a century before the 1960's.

For what it is worth.

I thoroughly enjoyed your post which I believe was on spot on everything else.

I do not disagree. You might be entirely correct, as far as I know. Good job!
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Capt McQuigg on October 10, 2012, 02:49:45 PM: What a truly great saint Pope St. Pius V was!!!

When he codified the Tridentine Mass in 1570 he gave permission for dioceses or parishes using a liturgy that was at the time 200 year old to continue to do so. He allowed this because anything 200 years old or longer would be free of protestant heresies.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 10, 2012, 03:11:27 PM: Quote from: Capt McQuigg
What a truly great saint Pope St. Pius V was!!!

When he codified the Tridentine Mass in 1570 he gave permission for dioceses or parishes using a liturgy that was at the time 200 year old to continue to do so. He allowed this because anything 200 years old or longer would be free of protestant heresies.

How true! If that logic were applied today, bye-bye Modernism Liturgy.

All we would have to do is pick up the same Missal, the 1570 version. I was at
the Church in Garden Grove, CA, when Fr. Nicholas Gruner said Mass using a
Altar Missal that was printed (they had printing presses by then) in 1571, the
year of the victory at Lepanto. He had no problem with any of the Latin, for it
was exactly the same as what we have today in altar missals in use just post-
WWII.

The only legitimate changes needed would be new propers for new Feast Days
for new saints since 1571, and there have been quite a few, including Padre Pio,
St. John Bosco, the Cure d'Ars, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Pope St. Pius X, etc.,
and don't forget Pope St. Pius V -- his feast day wasn't in the 1570 missal!!
Also the Masses for the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Our Lady,
and stuff like that -- pretty soon we'll need Mary Mediatrix and possibly Mary
Co-Redemptrix propers.

We need to get rid of this penchant for change just for the sake of change syndrome.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 11, 2012, 06:10:34 AM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Dear Lover of Truth, my friend,

No, my posts above were not directed at you, specifically. I was just making
conversation for anyone to read. I am concerned with the principles at hand and
on this topic.

This Advent, coming up, there is likely to be another change in the liturgy
worldwide, in which some elements of the TLM will be incorporated in various
ways to the Novus Ordo services at your local parishes.

One of the things that Rome is apparently going to do is to make a new "hybrid"
liturgy combining the 1962 Missal with the Novus Ordo liturgy.

My one point in the context of this thread with this prospect is the following:

Why do you suppose B16 is choosing the 1962 Missal, instead of the 1945 Missal,
to combine with the Modernism Liturgy?

If it were to his advantage to use the CTLM instead, would he do that?

Of course he would! Do not doubt it for a minute!!

Therefore, the simple fact that he is using the 1962 Missal as material for the
combining with the Modernism Liturgy in itself, ipso facto, proves that the
1962 Missal is more expedient for use, as in what to work with toward a more
Modernist end product, that can be imposed on the whole Church.

This is not to say there is anything Modernist per se about the 1962 Missal.
Don't misunderstand me. The 1962 Missal in and of itself is a beautiful thing,
especially the way Angelus Press left not a stone unturned to render a most
appealing work of the art of bookbinding. This cannot be denied.

And what is the "advantage" of B16? He is trying to Modernize the Mass.

And for whatever reasons, he finds the 1962 Missal as a better starting point
than the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass missal of 1954 and earlier.

BTW, the 'new' product he will come out with (and perhaps is already on the
presses in production) will not be, nor could it ever be, a CANONIZED liturgy.

Why? Because it has not been received from antiquity. It is an amalgamation
with a banal, on-the-spot-product of a Freemason and 6 Protestant ministers.

Now, B16 might SAY that it was "organically grown," or that it "evolved over
many years," or that it is "legitimately developed according to Sacred Tradition,"
or whatever clever words he comes up with. But I highly doubt he will dare try
to call it a "Canonized Liturgy."

Why?

Because he wants to stay away from the controversy of the canonicity of the
CTLM as opposed to the Novus Ordo Saeclorum liturgy, the Modernism Liturgy.

He really would like to avoid that, like the plague.

Thankfully, I do not follow Ratzinger (except second hand through other writers) or anticipate what he will or will not do because i do not care. I am as concerned about what he says or does as I am about what Mitt or his oppenent with various names say. They are not relevant to me because they are not sources of truth.

All the changes since '55 in the liturgy are scary and no surprise he picks the latest changes before V2 to call the old Mass.

Here right from the start he has the thing comrpomised already. Why not just go to the 1964 liturgy as that is a nice compromise between the true Mass and the new mass? After all it is all about compromise isn't it? The backwards old Church from Peter to Pius XII surely can't be right. And some of us hard-headed traditionalists just won't get with the times so there has to be a compromise. They have to slowly string us along until we think the mass of 1969 is traditional. And of course we will celebrate the "feast days" of all the "canonized" "saints".

For Ratzinger it is not about objective truth but about our inner feelings and experiences it. It is all subjective and up for grabs. Why be pro-God or pro-Satan when you can have a combination of the two?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 11, 2012, 06:12:02 AM: Quote from: Capt McQuigg
What a truly great saint Pope St. Pius V was!!!

When he codified the Tridentine Mass in 1570 he gave permission for dioceses or parishes using a liturgy that was at the time 200 year old to continue to do so. He allowed this because anything 200 years old or longer would be free of protestant heresies.

The best Pope in history. He didn't take any nonesense either like "gαy" clergy. He'd have them strung up.

What would he do about the sɛҳuąƖ scandals now if he survived learning the reality of it?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on October 11, 2012, 12:00:28 PM: Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: brotherfrancis75

...The greatest Pope of recent times, Pope Pius XII, truly "St. Pope Pius the Great,"

...the late great Pope Pius XII

...the excellence of the liturgy that Pope Pius XII has left us nor with the wisdom of the theologians who assisted Pope Pius, like Dom Odo Casel, Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini and Dom Anscar Vonier.

... the great Pope Pius XII has given to us as our greatest Catholic inheritance.

If Pope Pius XII was so wonderful, why did he dare to tamper with the most
ancient rites in the Roman liturgy, those of Holy Week?

Why did he dare to allow the addition of a non-martyr, who died long before the
Gospel was preached, into the erstwhile untouchable Canon of the Mass?

Why did he meticulously set up the groundwork for Vatican II, even though he
knew he didn't have the strength to finish it, at a time when the Church was
enjoying the greatest blossoming and growth in its 1900 year history?

Why was he weak and ambiguous regarding the defense of extra ecclesiam
nulla salus, the thrice defined dogma of the Faith, which was unquestionably
under violent attack even from within the curia?

And last but not least, with all these wise and learned assistants, why did he
literally install and give the big green light to the likes of Hannibal Bugnini?

What can be said in reply to such an attitude? If this is not the Spirit of Jansenism, then what might be?

How "dare" Pope Pius XII undertake ecclesiatical discipline? Who did he think he was? One might "dare" to state that he was the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, Holder of the Keys...

Our Holy Father most certainly did defend the true doctrine of "Outside the Church No Salvation." He merely "failed" to support the Jansenist heresies of the late Father Feeney. It is not heretical to condemn the Jansenist heresy.

Even the attitude shown above of judging Popes to be "wonderful" and "not wonderful" shows a Jansenist frivolity against the august and most grave dignity of the Holy See of Eternal Rome.

As for the late Archbishop Bugnini, he was simply a Roman bureaucrat who did what he was told to do, first by Pope Pius XII and later by Anti-Pope Paul VI. He was terribly wrong to have done the latter, but not wrong to have done the former. Hence the Missal of 1962 and Breviary of 1960 clearly reflect the authoritative instructions laid down by Pope Pius XII and ought to be most highly respected by all Roman Catholics. Paul VI was entirely responsible for the Novus Ordo liturgy, not Bugnini, and Bugnini went on to do excellent diplomatic work for the Church in Iran. So the true villain here is Paul VI, not the brilliant yet mindless bureaucrat Bugnini.

The central theme of this long thread is the error of Jansenism, not the quibbling over liturgical details. Any sincere Catholic reading this string of comments will have to be struck by the persuasiveness of Mr. Hobbles and all Mr. Hobble's arguments. Those who are blind to this are also evidently blind to what is wrong with the Jansenist heresy.

May the Good Lord continue to guide and protect the sharp intellect of Mr. Hobbles, show Mr. L. of T. the error of his ways and save us all from the Jansenist HERESY.

Amen.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 11, 2012, 01:19:20 PM: If Pope Pius XII was so wonderful, why did he dare to tamper with the most
ancient rites in the Roman liturgy, those of Holy Week?

THIS IS A QUESTION MANY GOOD WILLED AND INTELLECTUALLY HONEST INDIVIDUALS HAVE ASKED. UNFORTUNATELY SOME PEOPLE GET INFALLIBILITY MIXED UP WITH IMPECCABILITY. THEY SEEM TO THINK A POPE ALWAYS DOES THE BEST THING AT THE BEST TIME, NEVER DOES ANYTHING IMPRUDENT, NEVER COWERS UNDER PRESSURE. POPE PIUS XII EVEN IF HE WAS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY SIGNED OFF ON DID NOT INVALIDATE THE MASS OR DESTROY IT AS PAUL 6 DID. POPE PIUS XII DID NOT DO SOMETHING A POPE CANNOT DO. PAUL 6 DID COUNTLESS THINGS A VALID POPE CANNOT DO.

Why did he dare to allow the addition of a non-martyr, who died long before the
Gospel was preached, into the erstwhile untouchable Canon of the Mass?

THIS WAS ALLOWED BY JOHN 23.

Why did he meticulously set up the groundwork for Vatican II, even though he
knew he didn't have the strength to finish it, at a time when the Church was
enjoying the greatest blossoming and growth in its 1900 year history?

I AM NOT SURE THAT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT

Why was he weak and ambiguous regarding the defense of extra ecclesiam
nulla salus, the thrice defined dogma of the Faith, which was unquestionably
under violent attack even from within the curia?

I THINK HE WAS RATHER STRONG AND CLEAR ON IT.

And last but not least, with all these wise and learned assistants, why did he
literally install and give the big green light to the likes of Hannibal Bugnini?

BUGNINI WAS ONE OF HE "WISE" AND "LEARNED" ASSISTANTS. BUT THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. AND THERE ARE OTHER GOOD QUESTIONS THAT COULD BE ASKED ABOUT PIUS XII. BUT IT WILL NOT BE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION. OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE FALSE PONTIFFS AND HOW WE CAN GET A TRUE ONE. IF AND WHEN WE GET A TRUE ONE HE WILL SETTLE THESE ISSUES.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Capt McQuigg on October 11, 2012, 04:30:17 PM: Quote from: brotherfrancis75
Jansenism

How do you define "Jansenism"?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Hobbledehoy on October 11, 2012, 09:00:53 PM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
If Pope Pius XII was so wonderful, why did he dare to tamper with the most ancient rites in the Roman liturgy, those of Holy Week?

THIS IS A QUESTION MANY GOOD WILLED AND INTELLECTUALLY HONEST INDIVIDUALS HAVE ASKED. UNFORTUNATELY SOME PEOPLE GET INFALLIBILITY MIXED UP WITH IMPECCABILITY. THEY SEEM TO THINK A POPE ALWAYS DOES THE BEST THING AT THE BEST TIME, NEVER DOES ANYTHING IMPRUDENT, NEVER COWERS UNDER PRESSURE. POPE PIUS XII EVEN IF HE WAS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY SIGNED OFF ON DID NOT INVALIDATE THE MASS OR DESTROY IT AS PAUL 6 DID. POPE PIUS XII DID NOT DO SOMETHING A POPE CANNOT DO. PAUL 6 DID COUNTLESS THINGS A VALID POPE CANNOT DO.

It is a question that betrays a woeful ignorance of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and the infallibility of the general ecclesiastical discipline of Holy Mother Church, the earnestness and good will of the layfolk who have proprosed the query notwithstanding.

So, Pope Pius XII having restored and reformed the ceremonies of Holy Week pertains to mistaking infallibility with impeccability, how exactly?

The way certain polemicists, especially Fr. Cekada and his disciples, have been slandering and vilifying the reforms promulgated by Pope Pius XII, it certainly would seem that what the Pope did with the Holy Week rites was a "sin" or could lead to sin, and such an opinion is truly a Jansenistic error if not outright heresy, for the Jansenists were heretics on account of their denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, particularly regarding matters of ecclesiastical discipline.

This not a question of whether, for example, Pope Pius XI handled the Mexican persecutions horribly or not: for those such things are prudential decisions which are not the object of Papal infallibility. The Pope promulgating a Decree, by the Congregation of Sacred Rites, that touches upon the general discipline of the Church (over which he has supreme and unquestionable power) and that binds in conscience and under pain of sin and canonical censure all the clerics of the Roman Rite, is an entirely different question.

As one poster has asked rhetorically:

Quote
How "dare" Pope Pius XII undertake ecclesiastical discipline? Who did he think he was? One might "dare" to state that he was the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, Holder of the Keys...

That question is for people such as Fr. Cekada to answer, for it is principally due to his amateur liturgics and theological errors that many of the faithful have erred grievously on this point and have asked the question which Mr. Gregory cited.

1.) The Restored Order of Holy Week was promulgated by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites Liturgicus Hebdomadae Sanctae ordo instauratur (Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria) together with the Instruction De ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae instaurato rite peragendo (cuм propositum) on 16 November 1955 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. xlvii [1955], p. 838-847). This very fact alone should have obviated any controversy or confusion regarding the question raised by certain traditionalist polemicists of whether or not to observe the Restored Order of Holy Week. For the principles of liturgical law―that is, “that part of Divine and Canon Law that concerns the Sacred Liturgy, i.e., the worship of God by the Church,” as Rev. Father J.B. O’Connell defined "liturgical law" his great work The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956)―forbid any individual to pronounce opinions involving any interpretation or application of principles of Canon Law contrary to this and all other General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

2.) The Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II [1917]), declares that “it belongs to the Holy See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy as well as to approve liturgical books." ( Can. 1257: “Unius Apostolicae Sedis est tum sacram ordinare liturgiam, tum liturgicos approbare libros"). It is to preserve the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy that the Apostolic See has been given supreme authority over it, as Pope Pius XI teaches in the Apostolic Constitution Divini cultus (20 December 1928; A.A.S., vol. xxi. [1929], pp. 33-41) “Since the Church has received from her founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of course after preserving the substance of the sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chants―by which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action”(Denz., no. 2200). Citing the above-mentioned Canon in his celebrated Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (20 November 1947; A.A.S., vol. xxxix [1947], p. 521-595), Pope Pius XII makes it clear that “the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification” (“Quamobrem uni Summo Pontifici ius est quemlibet de divino cultu agendo morem recognoscere ac statuere, novos inducere ac probare ritus, eosque etiam immutare, quos quidem immutandus iudicaverit).”

This is because the Roman Pontiff “is the shepherd and teacher of the faithful, and has by divine right and delegation the primacy of jurisdiction, being successor de jure and de facto of S. Peter, so that he is the supreme lawgiver in the Church, jurisdiction being the power of ruling subjects in matters over which the Superior has control," as Rev. Father Henry Davis, S.J., teaches in his Moral and Pastoral Theology (vol. I, p. 149; London, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1958). It is as Pope Eugenius IV had taught in the Bull Laetentur coeli (6 July 1439): “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church” (Denz., no. 694). Moreover, regarding the supreme and absolute primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the sacred Vatican Council in its fourth session (18 July 1870) defined that “the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church” (Denz., no. 1827. Dogmatic Constitution I of the Church of Christ Pastor aeternus (Acta Sanctæ Sedis, vol. vi. [1870-71], pp. 40 sqq.).

Those who have the audacity to deny this have been solemnly anathematized by the same holy Council (Denz., no. 1831: “Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit"). For it is “the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation" (Denz., no. 1827). The Code of Canon Law has affirmed this absolute and universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff in the selfsame words that the Vatican Council employed to define this dogma: Can. 218, § 1: “Romanus Pontifex, Beati Petri in primatu Successor, habet non solum primatum honoris, sed supremam et plenam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam tum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores, tum in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent.”

3.) Although at times availing himself of this authority directly through such docuмents as an Encyclical Letter or a Motu Proprio, the Roman Pontiff ordinarily legislates in liturgical matters through the Roman Congregations, particularly through the Congregation of Sacred Rites (Sacrorum Rituum Congregatio), as Rev. Father J.B. O’Connell wrote in The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956). Pope Pius XII, in his above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, states that his predecessor Pope Sixtus V in the Apostolic Constitution Immensa aeterni (22 January 1588) established the Congregation of Sacred Rites “when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics [of the 16th Century Protestant revolt] and further spread their errors” and it was therefore “charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation" (“Atque ita factum est ut, cuм saeculo XVI id genus usus ac consuetudines nimis magis increvissent, cuмque hac in re privatorum incepta fidei pietatisque integritatem in discrimen inducerent, magno cuм haereticorum profectu magnaque cuм eorum fallaciae errorisque propagatione, tum Decessor Noster imm. mem. Sixtus V, ut legitimos Ecclesiae ritus defenderet, ab iisdemque quidquid impurum inductum fuisset prohiberet, anno MDLXXXVIII Sacrum constituit tuendis ritibus Consilium; ad quod quidem institutum nostra etiam aetate ex credito munere pertinet ea omnia vigilanti cura ordinare ac decernere, quae ad sacram Liturgiam spectent”).

This Sacred Congregation, according to the Code of Canon Law, “has the right of watching over and determining all that immediately concerns the sacred rites and ceremonies of the Latin Church” and “is its concern, especially, to see that the sacred rites and ceremonies are diligently observed in celebrating Mass, in administering the Sacraments, in the carrying out of the divine offices, in fine, in all that regards the worship of the Latin Church” (Can. 253, §§ 1, 2: “Congregatio Sacrorum Rituum ius habet videndi et statuendi ea omnia quae sacros ritus et caeremonias Ecclesiae Latinae proxime spectant [...] ejus proinde est praesertim advigilare, ut sacri ritus ac caeremoniae diligenter serventur in Sacro celebrando, in Sacramentis administrandis, in divinis officiis persolvendis, in iis denique omnibus quae Ecclesiae Latinae cultum respiciunt”).

The decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, “when drawn up in due form and duly promulgated,” have the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “even if they had not been referred to him," as Rev. Father O’Connell teaches (op. cit., p. 26). When a decree is “drawn up in writing and signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and its Secretary, and furnished with the seal of the Congregation” it is considered authentic, and therefore possessed of binding force (ibid.) Furthermore, when a decree, both in its content and form, concerns the entire Latin Church, it is a formally general decree, which is of obligation for all who follow the Roman Rite (ibid., pp. 27, 28).

4.) The General Decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria, together with its accompanying Instruction cuм propositum, fulfills the requisites of an authentic decree, being signed by His Eminence Gateano Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and by His Eminence Alfonso Cardinal Carinci, titular Archbishop of Seleucia in Isauria, and Secretary of the same Roman Congregation. It is clear that the Decree is formally general as its very text demonstrates: “Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound in the future to follow the Restored Order of Holy Week, set forth in the original Vatican edition [...] all things to the contrary notwithstanding” (“Qui ritum romanum sequuntur, in posterum servare tenentur Ordinem hebdomadae sanctae instauratum, in editione typica Vaticana descriptum [...] Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus”).

Not only is the General Decree of 16 November 1955 binding on all who follow the Roman Rite by reason of its authentic and formally general nature, but the fact that it is endowed with the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is made abundantly clear by the fact that it was promulgated by express command of the late Holy Father himself: “by special mandate of Our Most Holy Lord the Pope, by Divine Providence, Pius XII, the Congregation of Sacred Rites decrees that which follows" (“Quapropter, de speciali mandato eiusdem Ssmi D. N. Pii divina Providentia Papae XII, Sacra Rituum Congregatio ea quae sequuntur statuit”). This is to be expected, since the endeavor to restore the Rites of Holy Week was conceived by the paternal solicitude of this same Holy Father, as the General Decree states: “Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius XII commanded the Commission for the Restoration of the Liturgy, established by the same Most Holy Lord, to examine this question of restoring the Order of Holy Week and propose a solution" (“Ssmus D. N. Pius Papa XII mandavit ut Commissio instaurandae liturgiae, ab eodem Ssmo Domino constituta, quaestionem hanc de Ordine hebdomadae sanctae instaurando examinaret et conclusionem proponeret"). The supposition set forth by certain polemicists who contend that the Restored Order of Holy Week was enacted without the knowledge or consent of the late Holy Father, or that he was somehow fooled into sanctioning it, is therefore utterly absurd and cannot be either demonstrated or proven.

Considering all these things, together with the principles of liturgical law and in light of the ecclesiastical primacy and sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council and declared by Canon Law, there can be no doubt that the rites of Holy Week as found in the old Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum have been abolished stricte dicitur. Furthermore, those who are bound to the Roman Missal and Breviary by virtue of the Bulls Quo primum (14 July 1570) and Quod a nobis (9 July 1568) of Pope St. Pius V and by the Bull Divino afflatu (1 November 1911; A.A.S., vol. iii. [1911], pp. 633 sqq.) of Pope St. Pius X cannot stricte dicitur lawfully avail themselves of them as they are bound in conscience to observe the rites of Holy Week as found in the typical edition of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus.

5.) Since the Apostolic See has exclusive and absolute authority over liturgical matters, no Ordinary in virtue of his own authority and competence can presume “to abrogate, dispense from, or give an authentic interpretation of, such laws,”as Rev. Father O’Connell taught (op. cit., p. 37; cf. Can. 1257). On the contrary, as the Code of Canon Law states and as Pope Pius XII has reiterated in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, the Ordinaries “have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship” (“Episcopis autem ius et officium est vigilare diligenter ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur;” cf. Can. 1261, § 1: “Locorum Ordinarii advigilent ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur”). “Private individuals, therefore,” continues the late Roman Pontiff in his celebrated Encyclical Letter, “even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters” and, moreover, “no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity, and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself" (“Haud igitur fas est privatorum arbitrio, etsi iidem ex Cleri ordine sint, sacras atque venerandas res illas permittere, quae ad religiosam christianae societatis vitam pertineant, itemque ad Iesu Christi sacerdotii exercitium divinumque cultum, ad debitum sanctissimae Trinitati, Incarnato Verbo, eius Genitrici augustae ceterisque caelitibus honorem reddendum, et ad hominum salutem procurandam attineant; eademque ratione privato nemini ulla facultas est externas hoc in genere actiones moderari, quae cuм Ecclesiastica disciplina et cuм Mystici Corporis ordine, unitate ac concordia, immo haud raro cuм catholicae etiam fidei integritate coniungantur quam maxime”).

Those clerics of the anti-modernist resistance (who can claim only supplied jurisdiction, and cannot arrogate to themselves the authority and prerogatives of the Ordinaries and lawful Superiors appointed by the Roman Pontiff) who pertinaciously advocate the observance of the abolished rites of Holy Week as found in the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum can be said to be rebuked by Pope Pius XII in the words of his abovementioned Encyclical Letter: “The temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve reproof” (“Verumtamen temerarius eorum ausus omnino reprobandus est, qui novas deliberato consilio liturgicas consuetudines invehant, vel obsoletos iam ritus reviviscere iubeant, qui cuм vigentibus legibus ac rubricis non concordent”). Although the Pope here speaks of those foolhardy scholars who pretended to justify proposed modernistic liturgical innovations with groundless appeals to archeology and history, nothing forbids the application of these words to those who attempt to revive the rubrics and ceremonies abolished by the decrees of Congregation of Sacred Rites. Polemicists who would argue otherwise―because they erroneously hold that the late Holy Father contradicted himself by allowing the very reforms that these words of Mediator Dei condemn―seem to suggest that these words would actually apply to the reforms promulgated by the same Roman Congregation, which is a heretical and perilous notion to entertain. It ultimately constitutes an implicit denial of the inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, thereby indirectly attacking the dogma of the infallibility Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council.

Moreover, the late Supreme Pontiff declares that “ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity” (“Verumtamen vetus usus, non idcirco dumtaxat quod antiquitatem sapit ac redolet, aptior ac melior existimandus est vel in semet ipso, vel ad consequentia tempora novasque rerum condiciones quod attinet”). “The more recent rites,” continues the Holy Father, “likewise deserve reverence and respect. They too owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world [S. Matt. ch. xxviii., 20]. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of men” (“Recentiores etiam liturgici ritus reverentia observantiaque digni sunt, quoniam Spiritus Sancti afflatu, qui quovis tempore Ecclesiae adest ad consummationem usque saeculorum, orti sunt; suntque iidem pariter opes, quibus melita Iesu Christi Sponsa utitur ad hominum sanctitatem excitandam procurandamque”).

Just as no Catholic in his right mind would reject “the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas of the Church […] because it pleases him to hark back to old formulas,” so “is obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical, would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of Divine Providence to meet the changes of circuмstance and situation” (“Quemadmodum enim e catholicis cordatus nemo, eo consilio ductus ut ad veteres revertat formulas, a prioribus Conciliis adhibitas, illas respuere potest de christiana doctrina sententias, quas Ecclesia, adspirante moderanteque divino Spiritu, recentiore aetate, ubere cuм fructu, composuit retinendasque decrevit; itemque quemadmodum e catholicis cordatus nemo vigentes leges repudiare potest, ut ad praescripta regrediatur, quae ex antiquissimis hauriantur canonici iuris fontibus; ita pari modo, cuм de sacra Liturgia agitur, qui ad antiquos redire ritus consuetudinesque velit, novas repudiando normas, quae ex providentis Dei consilio ob mutatas rerum condiciones fuere inductae, non is procul dubio, ut facile cernere est, sapienti rectoque movetur studio”).

Such a course of thought and action, as the Holy Father teaches, ultimately leads clerics, together with the layfolk who follow them, “to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise,” and succuмb to the grave errors that “tend to paralyze and weaken the process of sanctification by which the sacred Liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father for their souls’ salvation” (“Haec enim cogitandi agendique ratio nimiam illam reviviscere iubet atque insanam antiquitatum cupidinem, quam illegitimum excitavit-Pistoriense concilium, itemque multiplices illos restituere enititur errores, qui in causa fuere, cur conciliabülum idem cogeretur, quique inde non sine magno animorum detrimento consecuti sunt, quosque Ecclesia, cuм evigilans semper exsistat «fidei depositi» custos sibi a divino Conditore concrediti, iure meritoque reprobavi! Etenim prava id genus proposita atque incepta eo contendunt, ut actionem illam exténuent ac débilitent, sanctitatis effectricem, qua sacra Liturgia -adoptionis filios ad caelestem Patrem salutariter dirigit.”). Sadly, this calamity, of which the late Pope attempted so earnestly to warn clerics and layfolk in his paternal solicitude and loving-kindness, has become the harrowing reality of the present age amongst the majority of traditionalist clerics and faithful.

6.) “Let no one,” the late Pope Pius XII declares, “arrogate himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will” (“Nemo sibi arbitrium sumat normas sibimet ipsi decernendi easdemque ex voluntate sua ceteris imperandi”). For the Apostolic See alone is the "Iuris Liturgici suprema moderatrix," the supreme Moderatress of liturgical law, as Pope Benedict XV taught in his Apostolic Constitution Sedis hujus Apostolicae (14 May 1920; A.A.S., vol. XII [1920], pp. 317 sqq.).

The authority that promulgated the Restored Order of Holy Week is none other than that of the Apostolic See, that of the Supreme Pontiff himself, which no Christian can refuse to obey if he wishes to profess inviolate the Catholic faith. Let no one forget the solemn words of Pope Boniface VIII found in his Bull Unam sanctam (18 November 1302; Denz., n. 469.): “Furthermore, We declare, say, define and pronounce as entirely necessary for salvation for all human creatures to be subject unto the Roman Pontiff" (“Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronuntiamus omnino de necessitate salutis"). Those who advocate disobedience and rejection of the decrees promulgated by the authority and express command of the late Holy Father ought to carefully consider and meditate upon these words, that they may discern what spirit animates their zeal for the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy.

7.) Stricte dicitur, the clerics who obstinately and rebelliously adhere to the abolished Holy Week rites in bad faith have exposed themselves to the above-cited censures, but whether or not the present-day indiviudal clerics are to be imputed any culpability in this regard at the subjective level is another question: it is a matter of casuistry, and one for each individual cleric to discuss with his Spiritual Director. The latter is especially true for those clerics who err in this regard in good faith: the probity and sanctity of life and manners, especially Apostolic zeal and pastoral solicitude together with the ceaseless practice of self-abnegation, of these clerics serving as testimony to their good will.

However, there is no reason whatsoever to impute culpability on those clerics of the anti-modernist resistance who do obey the reforms of Pope Pius XII, nor to denigrate them in any way whatsoever. Their course is safer because it is more orthodox and consistent, and the burden of proof rests upon those who say or write to the contrary: a burden which seems to be akin to that of King Sisyphus of ancient Classical lore.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 12, 2012, 08:20:08 AM: I was distinguishing between impeccability and infallibility. My observation is that some seem to think that a valid Pope can do no wrong. That is incorrect. Valid Popes can and have done plenty wrong. I am as dismayed as Father Stepanich and others that are knowledgeable and of good will on the topic. I do not think it is a stretch to acknowledge the possibility that he was taken advantage of and trusted his bad-willed modernist experts.

We are not accusing the Pope of doing something a Pope cannot do. That would be worthy of rebuke. We are merely observing what happened and wondering how or why it happened.

I do not think anyone should be scandalized over a suggestion that a certain Pope, while not doing anything outside the realm of what a valid Pope can do, or even coming close to it, appears to have done something imprudent. It seems like a valid observation and with the weight of Father Stepanich and others behind it.

My Priest, for instance, who is not Sedevacantist, gave a talk to the Holy Name Society some years ago on why he does the liturgy as it was before the Bugnini changes attributed to Pius XII; basically stating that if he was going to do the Catholic Mass he figured he ought to go with what was in force since the time of Gregory the Great and codified by Pius V. I believe he makes a valid point.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on October 12, 2012, 03:22:10 PM: Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: brotherfrancis75
Jansenism

How do you define "Jansenism"?

An excellent question! First, this writer must thank my fellow contributors to this thread for, at least so far, being so kind as not to blast me away to perdition. It seems they have tolerated my solitary missals, both wise and foolish, and an expression of my humble gratitude to them for it is in order.

A working definition of Jansenism: The false understanding of Roman Catholicism as something to be searched for in the records of the past rather than something to be heard and accepted in the living present. Hence a half-Protestantism that shares the Protestant heresy of an alleged radical depravity of human nature implying that the Good God, the All-Merciful, condemns men for sins impossible for them to avoid, lacking grace allegedly impossible for them to obtain.

In particular, Jansenism rejects historic Romanity and the objective embodiment of Catholicism in our historic white European Roman noble clergy, aristocracy, warrior-farmers and their Western Civilization. Instead an impoverished sentimental religion of mincing devotions and private judgement is made to substitute for the rich Roman history to which we Catholics are the rightful heirs. Jansenists timidly indulge the ignorant red-neck barbarism of disobedient commoners whereas Roman Catholics bravely champion the well-educated disciplined noble heritage of all things Roman.

Jansenists are rationalists who seek truth only in the vagaries of their own feeble intellects whereas Catholics are supra-rationalists who seek truth in the omnipotent sacramental Divine Economy of the Church of Rome. Catholics are ROMANS and therefore men of Roman panache and modest civilized elegance whereas Jansenists are Philo-Semites and therefore cringing creatures of mongrel vulgarity and arrogant bourgeois decadence.

And, having already said far too much, this Franciscan Solitary must fall silent and for a time say no more.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on October 12, 2012, 07:16:12 PM: Are you third order Franciscan? (sorry off topic... just wondering.)
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on October 13, 2012, 12:13:30 AM: Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
Are you third order Franciscan? (sorry off topic... just wondering.)

Yes, in the lineage of the late Fr. Victor Mroz of Buffalo, New York. A Solitary is a Franciscan Tertiary who has also taken a private religious vow of chastity. Hence we normally wear the habit and are legally classified by Holy Mother Church as beggars under the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy of Eternal Rome.

Thank you for wondering.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 15, 2012, 11:05:28 AM: I had to go back 5 pages in the Index to find this thread...

There have been a lot of replies, and I think I've read them all, but there is a
lot of redundancy and irrelevant material also. When a member posts 20,000
words in 4 successive entries over a grand total of 7 minutes, it's obvious that
it was just copied from somewhere else, conveniently. And when a member
can't bother to indicate where his words are coming from, without the reader
trying to follow links he posted - links that are sometimes no longer active
when the post is more than a few days old - the reader can't tell who is saying
what; i.e., Am I reading what Thomas Droleskey wrote and LOT copied, or, am
I reading what someone unidentified said about what LOT posted in regards to
what Droleskey had mentioned on a forum where someone was asking him about
what he had written in an article two years ago on his voluminous website?

The Internet is a vast tool for research and inquiry, but it is becoming
commonplace for contributors to post things without reference so it's impossible
for anyone to know what the source is. It's fine if someone wants to make
the material their own, and put it down in a cogent form to address a present
question or topic, but when the 'shotgun approach' literally scatters an array
of perhaps-related paragraphs (and perhaps not-so-related?) the theme tends
to be lost, and the thread is therefore diverted.

On less tolerant forums, the moderators have taken to run around deleting posts
that don't conform to their pre-conceived notions of propriety, but their own
personal prejudice can't help but get in the way, and so the forum corrupts.
Matthew's approach is to let it stand on its own. And so, we have a free forum
without corruption from the moderators, but that doesn't assure us that the
members themselves won't keep it organized. Members have a responsibility to
maintain decorum and scholarship. Is that too much to expect?

In all these posts, it seems to me that the following post I made -
Posted Jul 21, 2012, 11:58 am

- has been entirely ignored:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

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 could 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!

I was saying that the clandestine Doctrinal Preamble is being followed by
the Menzingen-denizens, even while they refuse to make it public. It is a
hidden rule book, so to speak. We are left to ask: "Why?" But then we are
told, in no uncertain terms, that we are not 'allowed' to ask that question.

We are treated as subjects, minions, slaves, objects of derision...........

......Infantry of the MANIPLE, To Whom The Maxim Would Apply:

'Yours is Not to Question Why: Yours Is But to Do Or Die.'

The point is, there is a hidden agenda that was implemented on the Mass
of Ages, which has resulted in the worldwide misconception that the Mass
of Ages had been abrogated, and that it was a matter of "obedience" for
Catholics to no longer assist at such curiosities and/or historical time
capsules of museum display interest only.

The ancient rites were under attack by those who traditionally have been
consecrated for the primary purpose of protecting them. Consecrated
means "set aside." The pope and bishops of the world have the primary
duty of safeguarding the ancient rites, to "pass on what they have
received," words carved in the tombstone of the venerable Archbishop
Marcel Lfebvre of felicitous memory.

TO THE EXTENT that the changes and/or innovations that began in 1955
have resulted in the Mass of Ages being reduced to a remnant, reduced
to that from a position of worldwide universality and common practice in
1955, and we today being in a position of knowledge of what those changes
would lead to in their fullest development, WE ARE TO THAT EXTENT
JUSTIFIED in assisting at Mass that simply draws a line through those
changes, ~~like this~~, and gives us the Mass as it was practiced and
celebrated by Pope St. Pius X, or, for that matter, by Pope St. Pius V.

It was, and remains, essentially the same Mass for both pope-saints - still
the only pope-saints of the past 500 years, regardless of the devious intent
of the Modernists.

So, my question remains: What was the rule book?

There have been some posts that have answered this question in bits and
pieces, and maybe that's okay, for at least we can know where the material
came from. But I'd like to see a list compiled that explains what the
principles were that the wreckovationists were going by, something that
puts flesh on the bones of their actions, something that explains their
abiding enthusiasm.

The French Revolution had a trilogy of "rules," condensed into three words,
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY. But maybe that was in a time when men
were wont to act on matters of principle, and were inspired when the
principles were expressed succinctly. And maybe we are now living in an
age when the principles are more effective when they remain unexpressed.

No?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 15, 2012, 11:23:28 AM: Rats. Error. But the stupid cement dried again:

Quote

... And so, we have a free forum
without corruption from the moderators, but that doesn't assure us that the
members themselves ~~won't~~ (will) keep it organized. Members have a responsibility to
maintain decorum and scholarship. Is that too much to expect?
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on November 15, 2012, 12:47:42 PM: I'm not certain what you are asking or missing.

Your raised an issue.

I supplied articles that pertained to the issue with the link on top of each article so readers could check for themselves.

Can you explain what I did wrong, if anything?

I think those who wrote the articles are more qualified and can word things better than I can. Were you perfering that I write my own thoughts in my own words?

Thanks for explaining.

I don't think a definitive case was made on either side of the issue, but going with what was in place at the death of the last reigning Pope is certainly a strong and safe argument and one that cannot be easily dismissed despite all the legitimate arguments to the contrary. When it comes to laypeople we need to just go to whatever Catholic Mass is available to us, if any. If there is more than one valid Mass available we should pick the best one. The issue you raise needs to be settled by those qualified to do so, such as the next valid Pope in my opinion.

We can add another 23 pages to this thread if you would like, but to what purpose?

For the SV the issue comes down to going with the what was in place at the death of the last certain Pope or going with what was in place before Bugnini messed with it. Do you have input or a question on either side of that debate?

For the SSPXer it is a matter of going with what is imposed by the SSPX which has been the 1962 Mass for quite some time.

For the none-SV or SSPXer the question is:

What's the big deal? The new mass is fine. Go to the indult/moto if you prefer but the new mass is the norm and the 1962 (for now, it eventually will probably become a mish-mash of the 1962 and an "orthodox" version of the new mass) is the alternative according to pope Ratzinger so 1958 or pre-1955 is no longer on the table.

So is you question addressed to the SV who has two choices, though some would settle for the 1962 if they had to, or the SSPXer or to someone else?

After reading your latest post I suppose you wonder what a valid Pope would do now if he were elected?

The answer is he would go with the pre-1955 or the 1958. The 1962 would not even be considred because they broke the unbreakable canon with the insertion of Saint Joseph's [the list of martyrs in the canon had been set for 1500 years] name among other things. I'm inclined to think he would go with the pre-1955 for numerous reasons. Some might want to kill me for that thought, but that is my thought none-the-less.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Lover of Truth on November 15, 2012, 12:53:54 PM: Quote
But I'd like to see a list compiled that explains what the
principles were that the wreckovationists were going by, something that
puts flesh on the bones of their actions, something that explains their
abiding enthusiasm.

Satan wants the Mass destroyed. His willing agents, the conciliar Vatican leaders and those who follow their lead are willing compliants. The desired result is the destruction of the Mass. The way to get there is have an imposter under the banner of Peter "authorize" the changes so that the flock will comply due to obedience. But don't be to obvious about it or the resistence might be large. Do it incrementally. Get them used to one slight change after another. Get them used to constant change. And remember to instill the virtue of obedience. The good sheep are willing followers.

Once they got a fake pope in the rest was easy. The used our virtue against us.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 16, 2012, 12:31:03 AM: Quote from: Lover of Truth
I'm not certain what you are asking or missing.
Your raised an issue.

I supplied articles that pertained to the issue with the link on top of each article so readers could check for themselves.
Can you explain what I did wrong, if anything?

I think those who wrote the articles are more qualified and can word things better than I can. Were you perfering that I write my own thoughts in my own words?
Thanks for explaining.

I'm not making any accusations. We're all doing our best here, I would like to think.
You supplied some resources that will be helpful. I'm looking for something, as I
tried to explain, and I don't think I can explain it any better than that.
I appreciate your contribution.

God bless you.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: TKGS on November 16, 2012, 07:06:11 AM: There is, of course, one indisputable fact that conclusively demonstrates that the insertion of Saint Joseph into the Canon was not done in 1962 because of any devotion on the part of the liturgical revolutionaries.

That is the fact that Saint Joseph's name is not contained in any of the subsequent "Eucharistic Prayers" established for the Novus Ordo. None of them.

As soon as the revolutionaries got the unchangeable Canon changed, they completely forgot about Saint Joseph. The only reason they had for inserting his name into the Canon was to see if it could be done without opposition. What opposition they did receive was so weak and impotent that they reasoned that they had the green light to begin imposing ever more changes in the liturgy, in dogma, in custom, in...everything.

Saint Joseph was used as a disposable tool. Once he had done his work, Saint Joseph was discarded, thrown away, left to rust and rot in the dung heap of the Conciliar revolution.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Pyrrhos on November 16, 2012, 07:22:13 AM: Quote from: TKGS
There is, of course, one indisputable fact that conclusively demonstrates that the insertion of Saint Joseph into the Canon was not done in 1962 because of any devotion on the part of the liturgical revolutionaries.

That is the fact that Saint Joseph's name is not contained in any of the subsequent "Eucharistic Prayers" established for the Novus Ordo. None of them.

This is incorrect. See Anaphora I, Canon Romanus, his name is right there after Our Lady.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: JonahG on November 16, 2012, 07:15:21 PM: The 1962 Missile references Holy Spirit (Freemasonic) Whilst the Older Missiles pre 1958-properly reference Holy Ghost.

The Masonic baptism using the name of the Holy Spirit (Baphomet) is in fact the mysterious "mark of the beast."

“But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.”
- Mark 3:29 1899 D.R.

Worldwide Head of Luciferian Freemaonry, Albert Pike (1916):
"This agent, partially revealed by the blind guesses of the disciples of Mesmer, is preceisely what the Adepts of the middle ages called the elementary matter of the great work. The Gnostics held that it composed the igneous body of the Holy Spirit; and it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple, under the hieroglyphic figure of Baphomet or the hermaphroditic goat of Mendes."
Freemasonic Manual: Morals and Dogma page 734

The Common pre-1944 Rite:
"I BAPTIZE THEE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST."
"In difficult childbirth the infant may be baptized conditionally in the womb, but ought to be baptized again conditionally after birth (canon 746)."

The Masonic Initiation Rite into the Holy Spirit is the post-1944 Masonic curse, causing the population shift into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Masonry knows this secret, now you do too.

When Spiritum Sanctum is translated into English, it is the Holy Ghost (who was, is, and ever shall be). When Spiritus Sanctus is translated into English, it becomes the Holy Spirit (who will baptize you in water and fire. We have been told that they are the same, but the Council of Trent anathamatized anyone who said this.

Even Thomas Aquinas answers this question in Summa Theologica when he declares the names of God are NOT synonymous. Most educated theologians and higher level Bishops and Cardinals know the difference, but most in the Church hierarchy just overlook these changes and do what they are told by their superiors.
Once this horseman takes root after only a few generations, the lie sticks because, well, everyone is doing it. They they say, how can everyone be wrong? This is tragic.

The reason priests do not know this is because their Bibles have edited out this distinction between the opposing Rites, and they are not studying the Dogmas of the Councils. But there most definitely is a distinction and overlooking this horseman has tragically left countless souls without the Seal of God, the Indellible Mark on the Soul, the Character of Christ. In fact, in terms of numbers, this slight of hand has just about removed the population of real Catholics off the face of the planet.

This coup-de-tat actually explains why the world is the way it is today. This was done by design by Masonic infiltrators into the priesthood in 1777 at the Congregation of Rites after Pope Urban VIII was kidnapped in 1775. The “Seven Seals” of the Apocalypse were actually opened in 1777, and not many people know about this. This is a most startling discovery.

The reason this distinction has been lost is because the books that the “priests” rely on have been altered. Specifically, all post 1752 Catholic bibles do not have the important passage in Acts of the Apostles, Chapter XIX.
Title: 1962 Missal vs. 1954 and earlier iQuo Primumi
Post by: Capt McQuigg on November 18, 2012, 08:02:14 AM: Quote from: TKGS
Saint Joseph was used as a disposable tool. Once he had done his work, Saint Joseph was discarded, thrown away, left to rust and rot in the dung heap of the Conciliar revolution.

Now we know what the conciliarists meant by "St Joseph the worker".