.

Post

.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only part I see different from the 1962 Missal here is no Confiteor.  Because they removed the prayers at the foot of the altar in a later edition.  The SSPX retains the Prayers, as well as the Second Confiteor (at the Communion of the Faithful).

This would seem to be further indication of what we can expect in the new "hybrid Mass" that is rumored to be coming out soon:  Starts with the Latin we all are familiar with, then goes to vernacular for the "readings" (which I have heard SSPX pew-sitters say is just fine with them) and so on, whatever.  

But it's going to be touch and go with the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, then a maybe a Confiteor,
Introit in Latin,
Kyrie (2 or 3 reps, depending on the region!),
Gloria in excelsis in Latin, Missa de Angelis (Gregorian Chant),
Victimæ paschali laudes in Latin, Chant again, (or other sequence or tract)
Collect in Latin
Then Liturgy of the Word in Italian... or English...  or German ......... etc....



..........Get ready to hear Fellay and his cronies have a good word to say about this.........

.

I think the Monastery of St Cecilia of Solesmes is behind some of this. If you know French it could be informative.

http://www.saintececiledesolesmes.org/

O come on.

You are using your own posts as a source of reference.

You are an inestimable joke neil obstat, and I cant stand you.
If it was not for the resistance internet phenomenon giving upstarts a cause to attack the SSPX, whom they ought to be grateful to, then you would have nothing to do, except perhaps ridicule Jєωs along the lines of some pseudo Catholic form of nαzιsm.

Tragically, it doesn't surprise me. Liberalism only knows extremes.

.

I really appreciate your words, Tyler, for you have a gift of being able to put the hard facts into a conversational style, easy for our ear to comprehend.  Your contribution is most helpful:

The so-called "hybrid mass" is what Vatican II called for. The Council recommended reading the readings in the vernacular while keeping the rest of the mass in Latin. It was the idea of the hybrid mass that led the Modernists to change the rest of the mass to the vernacular. The hybrid mass is a slippery slope from tradition to modernism.

There IS a new hybrid Mass coming soon.  

It's not a myth or a fantasy, but a fact.  

There are apparently some confused Catholics around who don't understand this, and they may misconstrue this anticipation of what is soon coming, to be some manner of pessimism or false accusation against the SSPX or the product of someone's over-active imagination.   Or, if you only go by what you'll hear at your local chapel or parish Mass, you may be unaware of the advent of the new hybrid in the works.  

In 1964, during the summer months, the first wave of changes came to our parish in my area, and I have heard that some changes came elsewhere before then.  What we had were parts of the Mass in the vernacular, and the change of "Canon of the Mass" to "Eucharistic Prayer."  

Today we can see, in the Libretto, for the Newcanonizations slated for Rome tomorrow, Quasimodo Sunday, the first portion which contains the formula of canonization in three parts, that this is all in Latin, and according to the longstanding and traditional Missa de Angelis and Gregorian Chant.  They have even gone so far as to employ the neums and stave of classical Chant notation, which is as old as the Apostolic Church.  And then, at the very moment when the form of canonization is finished ("...Beatos Ioannem XXIII et Ioannem Paulum II Sanctos esse decernimus et definimus, ac Sanctorum catalogo adscribimus, statuentes eos in universa Ecclesia inter Sanctos pia devotione recoli debere.  In nomine Patris et filii et Spiritus Sancti..."), the neums and stave of Chant are GONE and modern music notes appear, with the Italian for "the Assembly," "L’assemblea: A-men, a-men, a-men.  -- Vengono collocate accanto all’altare le reliquie dei nuovi Santi insieme ai ceri."

For a few more minutes, Latin and Gregorian Chant trappings re-appear, briefly, for a hymn or two and for the Collect of the Traditional Latin Mass, i.e., for those  "desiring to be filled with crumbs that fell from the rich man's table" [/i](Lk. xvi. 21).

When it's time for the Epistle, the language remains in the vernacular, which is Italian (since Rome is in Italy!), but it's not called "Epistle" and "Graduale," but the "Liturgy of the Word" (headlined "LITURGIA VERBI" - in Latin, but the content is all in Italian, "LITURGIA DELLA PAROLA") with the NovusOrdo "First Reading, Responsorial Psalm and Second Reading" (under the obligatory Latin headlines).  

The Latin Sequentia, (Italian) Sequenza or (English) Sequence Victimae paschali laudes is chanted, complete with Gregorian notation on the printed page-in-your-hand from the rich man's table, before the Evangelium, Vangelo, or Gospel is read aloud.  

The Gospel is intoned with the obligatory Latin, but after the vernacular instruction:  Il Diacono:  Dominus vobiscuм.  Et cuм spiritu tuo.  Lectio sancti Evangelii secundum Ioannem 20, 19-31. Gloria tibi, Domine.

The Gospel, however, is read in the vernacular:  Italian.


...COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU!...


This is not a dream.  
No, it's not a dream;  it is rather the fulfillment of prophesy, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.


.

Also, one would hope most Catholics have at least a passing familiarity with the Passion of St. Matthew.  

..........Get ready to hear Fellay and his cronies have a good word to say about this.........

I've been reading your posts for a while now and you have a mental sickness. You need to see a psychoanalyst or a psychiatrist, I'm not joking, I'm being very serious. Your hatred for Bishop Fellay is beyond that of any healthy human being. I don't even harbour that kind of hate for someone like Hitler or Summer Redstone. I don't think I even need to bring up the teaching of Jesus Christ about loving your enemies, doing good to those who hate you, and praying for them that persecute and calumniate you. Your behaviour is neither Catholic nor psychologically healthy.

.I have no problem hearing a priest read the Epistle and Gospel in English just before he gives his sermon, even though it is a repetition of what he had just read a few minutes before at the altar in Latin.

The SSPX in France reads the Epistle and Gospel in French from the altar. I guess Archbishop Lefebvre was a crypto-modernist? And lets not forget all those reforms he did on the missionary circuit, you know, the reason why John XXIII wanted him to help write the preparatory schemas for Vatican II.

I have known doctors who scoff at Latin as though it's contemptible.  They think they're so well informed -- don't they know that only in the recent past all of science was communicated in Latin, and it was the standard international language of all doctors?  We have ensconced today Latin terms for all the plant species, and even new ones discovered are not catalogued until they've had their obligatory Latin names assigned.  All pharmaceuticals have names based in Latin, and the many parts of human anatomy are all Latin names.  These same doctors, many of them traditional Catholics, can't settle down and be all right with the priest reading in Latin the Gospel of the day even if there isn't time to do it in English too, but they cope just fine with Latin day-to-day at work where they don't have any choice in the matter.

Did these doctors go to Bovine University? I would stay away from them. I don't know of any university that doesn't teach the importance of Latin in taxonomy class.

What manner of self-contradiction is this?  

When they favor hearing a new wave of liturgical evolution whereby the Gospel is only read in the vernacular worldwide, they are squarely setting foot onto the slippery slope of Modernist corruption, and they are PROUD OF IT.  What foolishness!

Archbishop Lefebvre was a proud fool? A corrupt modernist?

.It is a matter of record that Bishop Fellay and his various sympathizers and helpers have been instigating adjustments in their liturgical practices, at a very subtle and gradual pace, so as to not be too noticeable.  And furthermore, when these things are noticed and opposed, there are consequences.  Sometimes a priest is suddenly transferred for no good reason, or a parishioner is refused the sacraments, or else told he cannot attend this particular chapel.  Imagine having the job as a bouncer at your church.  I have known men who have had to do that job, and they did not appreciate it.  There is a difference between that and the office of Porter, in the traditional sense.  An usher does a task that is an outgrowth of the Porter level of minor orders.


..........Get ready to hear Fellay and his cronies have a good word to say about this.........


Apparently someone mistakenly extracted "hate" from this warning.  We already know that there has been, and there continues to be, an abiding intention to assimilate the SSPX into the mainstream Newchurch.  The current 'excuse' is that from the 'inside' the Society would be much better able to help the modernist Romans to reform themselves and become more traditional.   If you don't believe me when I warn you that this will not happen, maybe you'd believe the more wise words of Archbishop Lefebvre.  For one, the SSPX doesn't have to 'change' anything to be on the 'inside' because the SSPX is already inside the Church.  The SSPX has never left.  It's the Conciliar and modernist Romans who have left.  

But it's the abiding push toward the prospect of becoming somehow 'recognized' or 'normalized' that the current leadership uses to advance their subtle agenda.  They're afraid of being too obvious.  In 1994 when +F was first elected, he was extremely subtle.  He hid his agenda very well.  I saw him give a 3-hour conference just a few years later (I was present for the WHOLE THING) in which he described the recognition or normalization of the SSPX as a kind of "luscious plum" (his exact words, I assure you!) that is most appealing to behold.  Does that sound familiar at all to you?  How about the Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse six?  

"And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold :  and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..."

There is absolutely no doubt, and I am not making it up, that for the past 20 years, +F has been expressing his GREAT DESIRE to achieve an accord with Rome.  Please pardon me for going to the logical extreme, and saying the obvious, it has always been for him an obsession.  

I am not saying that it's bad to want to be normalized with the One True Church, but the problem is, Rome, in its current condition, is not acting like that, and ask any sedevacantist, some of whom are on this forum,  and they will immediately assure you that therefore, the post-conciliar Romans are not in the Church of Christ.  They might even quote Vat.II to prove their point (LG 8).

Just as +F has made no secret of his constant drift toward eventual normalization, he has likewise not abstained from daring to use doctrine as a poker chip on the craps table of negotiations with Rome.  Sorry if my language is shocking to your ears.  And Solidus, you're not supposed to be reading this, so you're disobedient!!  But this has to be said by someone.  Doctrine is not a play-toy.  Doctrine cannot be bargained with.  Because doctrine is non-negotiable.  If you don't understand that, then there is your problem, right there.  

SINCE IT IS TRUE that +F has dared to bargain using doctrine as a thing that can be compromised, and SINCE IT IS TRUE that he has said that if ABL had seen the NovusOrdo performed so well as +F saw it done that ABL would "never have taken the step he did," and SINCE IT IS TRUE that +F has gone to the extent of introducing various innovations in his liturgical practices as if accommodation with Newchurch doings is something somehow attractive or desirable, it's not any kind of leap, really, to expect that he or his friends will have something positive to say about the way that the Newcanonization liturgy is being conducted tomorrow, Quasimodo Sunday, will be something commendable, in some manner.  

Mark my words.   They WILL have good things to say about the Newcanonizations (they won't use THAT term, though), even if they have already gone on record denouncing the fact that the Newcanonizations are taking place at all.  These proceedings are being broadcast for the first time by the Vatican in high definition, 3-D live streaming video, to all the world.  This is another first.  I could make a list of all the firsts, if you want one.  Do you want a list?

Therefore, I am not just making it up when I say the following:


..........Get ready to hear Fellay and his cronies have a good word to say about this.........


The reason they will most assuredly have a good word to say about this is, there are a number of things about "this" that are commendable, that is, if you only look at individual, narrow things.  I could make a list.  Do you want a list?  

But the reason I say they're going to have a good word to say about it is, they been tending to have good words to say about just about everything these two recent popes have done for the past 9 years since JPII passed away on April Fools' Day, I mean, the day after that. (Maybe.)  

If you need a list of that, I can help you out there, too.  Therefore, anyone who says that my warning constitutes some kind of 'hatred' is just fooling himself.  This is just the plain truth, and if you don't like the truth, then that's not my doing, is it?


.