Author Topic: The updated 1962 Missal: Coming soon? (Read 2091 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** September 20, 2011, 03:06:06 PM »

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-1962-missal-coming-soon.html

The 'updated' 1962 Missal: Coming soon?

Universae Ecclesiae, citing Benedict XVI's letter to the bishops on the occasion of the publication of Summorum Pontificuм, mentioned that "New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently." However, UE didn't mention that a commission to effect this was already established last year.

From Sandro Magister's latest article on Chiesa:

VATICAN CITY, September 19, 2011 – "The activity of the Holy See" is a hefty volume that gives a year-by-year account of the actions of the pope and the Roman curia. It is an "unofficial publication," as specified on the frontispiece, but in spite of this it contains not a little information, sometimes rather unusual, that cannot be found in other Vatican sources.

To verify this it is enough to leaf through the latest edition, on the activities of 2010, which has just been printed by Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1343 pp., 80.00 euro).

In it we learn, for example:

- that last year the disciplinary office of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith opened 643 procedures, 82 percent of which concern "delicta graviora" (which include the sɛҳuąƖ abuse of minors by clergy), 8 percent "offenses against the faith," 3 percent "cases of apparitions," and 7 percent other matters of various kinds.

- that during the same period, the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments dealt with several hundred cases regarding requests for papal dispensations in order to remarry after a marriage "ratified but not consummated." A dispensation that was granted in 301 cases, and withheld in 2.

- that the congregation for the evangelization of peoples gave, through the pontifical society for the propagation of the faith (whose charitable fund, however, has been "significantly" reduced because of the economic recession), more than 85 million dollars in assistance to dioceses in mission territory. More than 30 million was distributed through the pontifical society of St. Peter the Apostle. And more than 19 million through the pontifical society of missionary childhood.

- that the Roman Rota, whose jurisprudence is a model for all the ecclesiastical tribunals in the world, during the judicial year of 2010 issued 175 definitive verdicts on the nullity of marriage, the majority of them (93 versus 82) in favor of nullity.

- that the pontifical council for legislative texts, at the direction of the pope, set up four study groups in view of a possible revision of parts of the code of canon law, on questions of penal law, procedural law, marriage and family law, and the relationships between the code of the Latin Church and that of the Eastern Churches.

- that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission "Ecclesia Dei" and of the congregation for divine worship, for the "updating" of the commemorations of the saints and the "possible insertion of new prefaces" into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.

- that the office of papal charities, in response to almost seven thousand letters from individuals and families requesting help, provided "with discretion" and "on a day-by-day basis," in the name of the pope, a sum "close to one million euro." A sum entirely covered by the contributions received for parchments with apostolic blessings requested by the faithful: 115,500 parchments issued directly by the office of papal charities, and 112,00 distributed through almost eighty partner organizations.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2011, 04:22:49 PM »

See, I was warning that EXACTLY THIS would happen.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-morphing-of-the-Traditional-Mass

Quote from: I, back in May, when we were discussing this

They know now that they can't get rid of the Traditional Catholics, and so, they're going to try to do their version of "inculturation" on US!

I wonder how many people are going to fall for this stuff, before it turns into the same thing as the Novus Ordo?

Incrementalism worked when the Novus Ordo was implemented. Not everything changed all at once. My prediction is that they're going to do the same thing, slowly over time, until they have everyone right where they want them, like a spider in a web, and with people not paying attention and only worrying about excessive obedience, the spider will strike.

:stare:

"Oh, my prophetic soul."

Gregory I · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2011, 01:22:55 AM »

Yeah, as long as they don't make a lot of noise and keep everyone ad orientim and praying in latin, then it will be a horrifically perfect storm. We, the laity, have proven before that we are quite capable of having the wool pulled over our eyes. But twice? Please God, no.

aquinasnmore · « **Reply #3 on:** September 21, 2011, 11:47:10 AM »

What really matters is what prefaces. A saint is a saint so there shouldn't be any problem as the calendar has been updated throughout history.

It also should be noted that the Mass was changed in the 50's (revised Holy Week), 1960 (adding St. Joseph to the Canon) and 1962 (removal of the second confiteor).

Further, Pius X did a major revision of the breviary and also called for reforms of the missal.

The 1962 missal can't be declared unchangeable because the missal has been altered many times, whether adding or removing prefaces, adding or removing sequences, adding saints to the calendar, etc.

While what was done after '62 doesn't follow any previous precedence and would have St. Pius X rolling in his grave, that doesn't make every other type of change against some non-existent rule heretical.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 21, 2011, 11:49:59 AM »

This is different as post-VCII we have dubious Saints and dubious prefaces in the NO.

aquinasnmore · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2011, 12:03:33 PM »

What dubious saints?

I agree that any textual changes need to be very carefully watched.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2011, 12:10:40 PM »

St. Escriva for one. I'm sure there are more. JPII is on the way.

Raj · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2011, 02:05:37 PM »

I don't know why people are surprised at the talk of adding new feasts. This was predicted when SP first came out, because B16 mentioned in the letter he wrote to the bishops.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2011, 02:06:29 PM »

Not completely surprising but disturbing nonetheless....

aquinasnmore · « **Reply #9 on:** September 21, 2011, 03:17:26 PM »

I guess the real issue is whether or not the pope is the pope and the Church is the Church in whatever state of crisis it is.

If the Church in Rome isn't the Church then every saint they name is suspect. If they are the Church then regardless of our own personal dislike of someone who is named a saint, that person is a saint. The Church can't get it wrong.

Just because JPII was fast-tracked to beatification he may never be named a saint. There are plenty of beati who never make it past that stage.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 21, 2011, 03:36:51 PM »

There is a good argument that drastically changing the procedure for sainthood did away with infallibility in the matter.

Gregory I · « **Reply #11 on:** September 21, 2011, 07:55:04 PM »

So, most likely SSPX will resist these changes to the Missal. So, what good is joining with Rome if you are just gonna give them ANOTHER reason to try and excommunicate you? lol.

Vladimir · « **Reply #12 on:** September 21, 2011, 08:44:29 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

St. Escriva for one. I'm sure there are more. JPII is on the way.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Saints that have been canonized after 1962 that we know are in Heaven. Plenty of martyrs from the Far East have been locally venerated for centuries and were only canonized recently.

On the other hand, you have a man like Cardinal Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, who despite leading a seemingly immaculate life, did go along with the Novus Ordo. What do you think of a man like him?

PereJoseph · « **Reply #13 on:** September 21, 2011, 09:14:33 PM »

Wouldn't Benedict just be "updating" the 2007 missal, which itself is a departure from the 1962, which itself is a departure from the 1958, including radical alterations (such as changing the Roman Canon by including St Joseph). If Benedict were to add the Novus Ordo prefaces, or were to alter any other prayers, it would not be a revision of the 1962, it would be the promulgation of a different missal by definition (perhaps the 2012). I am surprised SSPXers aren't more sensitive to this, that the Conciliar popes are issuing a vast corpus of legislation that isn't merely revising docuмents and giving silly and insane interpretations to them; rather, they are changing the 1962 Rite itself, not to even mention declaring it to be of the same Rite as the NO. It seems that these new Benectine developments are yet to be addressed by official SSPX talking points; the issues dealth with by the Archbishop are being surpassed by new ones, and it doesn't seem that the leadership has the iron to formulate a position of official resistance (which assumes possession of a theological war seat, as it were, an impenetrable place from which to sally forth into battle) nor that it has any strong desire to do so. This itself is a problem that is also not being addressed, much like the problem of finding the theological justification for ignoring the same Magisterium one recognises as valid (which would mean that it has final authority on disputed questions). Eventually the SSPXers will either have to accept the "mutual enrichment of the two forms," the new prayer for the Jєωs, and religious liberty, &c., or else they will have to recognise that the logical implication of asserting that somebody does not hold to the Catholic Faith according to the original intentions of the Roman Pontiffs in their definitions is that he is a heretic, and proceed therefrom with clearer vision.

aquinasnmore · « **Reply #14 on:** September 21, 2011, 10:28:43 PM »

And who is to determine how to legitimately name a saint if not the pope?

There was a time when there wasn't a procedure at all for naming saints and they were basically declared saints by popular consensus. Do all of those pre-congregation saints count?