Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked  (Read 5509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline parentsfortruth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3820
  • Reputation: +2658/-2
  • Gender: Female
"Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
« on: July 16, 2013, 11:17:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did every Church in the world, once a new missal was published, purchase or receive a new one? No. We know Padre Pio did not accept the 1965 missal, but do we really know if he was even given a 1962 missal? No. We do not. This is the point of contention here.

    Many churches didn't get new missals for many years. Some weren't even using a 1962 missal in 1962, and didn't receive a new missal until 1965 when there were substantial "forced" "experimental" changes.

    So the argument that Padre Pio used the 1962 missal, much less was even aware that there was a change during that time, is in direct question.

    I'd like some absolute proof that Padre Pio was even aware that there was a new missal in 1962, like a missal that showed the date on the missal he used between 1962 and 1965. If no one can show me this, as far as I'm concerned, Padre Pio wasn't even aware that Saint Joseph was inserted into the new missals, or that any feasts had been abolished or moved, or any such thing.

    Since no one can really provide this, all we know is that he rejected the 1965 missal, not that he accepted the 1962 missal.

    Discuss. :)

    Edit: Also, the Mass of Pius V, is not the Mass of John XXIII.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5329
    • Reputation: +2918/-110
    • Gender: Male
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #1 on: July 16, 2013, 01:20:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would not be surprised if he used the 1962 Missal. Didn't he use the new 1955 Holy Week which was also bad compared to the old one it replaced, just as the 1962 Misssal is bad compared to the one before it.

    P.S. I consider the 1962 Missal to be acceptable and go to an SSPX Mass where the 1962 Missal is used, but I consider the Missals before the Holy Week changes to be best.
    In a Station of the Metro
    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3820
    • Reputation: +2658/-2
    • Gender: Female
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #2 on: July 16, 2013, 01:52:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    I would not be surprised if he used the 1962 Missal. Didn't he use the new 1955 Holy Week which was also bad compared to the old one it replaced, just as the 1962 Misssal is bad compared to the one before it.

    P.S. I consider the 1962 Missal to be acceptable and go to an SSPX Mass where the 1962 Missal is used, but I consider the Missals before the Holy Week changes to be best.


    That's a fine claim, to say you "wouldn't be surprised" if he used it. But to definitely say that he -did- use it, is not provable.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5329
    • Reputation: +2918/-110
    • Gender: Male
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #3 on: July 16, 2013, 01:55:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: parentsfortruth
    That's a fine claim, to say you "wouldn't be surprised" if he used it. But to definitely say that he -did- use it, is not provable.

    You are right. I haven't researched it so I have no evidence or proof. Someone out there might know for sure and have written about it, but if he did, I haven't read it.

    P.S. About the 1962 Missal: It must have been strange for priests to say the canon differently after it had remain unchanged for centuries.
    In a Station of the Metro
    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6720
    • Reputation: +1889/-109
    • Gender: Female
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #4 on: July 16, 2013, 03:33:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1962 a lot of things were omitted including the prayers after mass.   So the 1962 of then is not the. 1962 of today.

    Many independent Catholics say that 1962 John xxiii is a sellout and preparation to Vatican ll.
    we used st Andrew. Missal of pope Pius v.    





    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17918
    • Reputation: +8177/-616
    • Gender: Male
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #5 on: July 16, 2013, 04:42:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Quote from: parentsfortruth
    Did every Church in the world, once a new missal was published, purchase or receive a new one? No. We know Padre Pio did not accept the 1965 missal, but do we really know if he was even given a 1962 missal? No. We do not. This is the point of contention here.

    Many churches didn't get new missals for many years. Some weren't even using a 1962 missal in 1962, and didn't receive a new missal until 1965 when there were substantial "forced" "experimental" changes.

    So the argument that Padre Pio used the 1962 missal, much less was even aware that there was a change during that time, is in direct question.

    I'd like some absolute proof that Padre Pio was even aware that there was a new missal in 1962, like a missal that showed the date on the missal he used between 1962 and 1965. If no one can show me this, as far as I'm concerned, Padre Pio wasn't even aware that Saint Joseph was inserted into the new missals, or that any feasts had been abolished or moved, or any such thing.

    Since no one can really provide this, all we know is that he rejected the 1965 missal, not that he accepted the 1962 missal.

    Discuss. :)

    Edit: Also, the Mass of Pius V, is not the Mass of John XXIII.




    This is a good question.  

    It is known that when he was in his last year or two, in 1967
    or 68, he was commanded to start saying the "transitional rite"
    which had elements of the imminent Novus Ordo Newmass in
    it.  He attempted to obey and do as he was ordered, but at the
    altar, his pain increased to such a degree he had to stop saying
    the "Mass."  Note: this is no small matter, for he was well
    aware that a priest is obligated to keep on going, once he
    makes the sign of the cross at the foot of the altar he is duty-
    bound to finish the Mass, even if his life is in danger by doing so.  
    Therefore, the pain that Padre Pio must have experienced in this
    moment must have been unimaginable to us in its severity,
    otherwise he would have kept on going even if it put his life in
    danger.  It must have been a pain that actually prevented him
    from moving.  

    I had something like that when I had a spinal injury and had
    spasms that went from head to toe.  I was unable to move
    any part of my body except breathing and swallowing, lest the
    spasms returned.  Even so much as turning my head, or
    extending one finger or twitching my toes caused the spasms
    to begin all over again.

    Some may argue that he had the ability to know things that
    were not immediately evident by natural senses like sight,
    sound, touch or smell.  But this ability was not his own power
    but one given to him by God, and if God did not allow him to
    know that there was a 1962 missal, then Padre Pio would not
    have been allowed to know it.  

    However, people were coming to him from all over the world,
    to confess their sins and to seek his advice.  For a time, he
    was forbidden to hear confessions, but I don't recall when
    that was, and for a time he was forbidden to say Mass in
    public, but I don't recall when that was, either.  So unless
    he had been so kept away from his Faithful, his spiritual
    children (as he used to call them), in 1962, it would seem to
    be impossible for him not to know about the release of the
    missal of John XXIII, or the new, changed calendar that got
    rid of St. Christopher, St. Barbara and St. Philomena (among
    others), or for that matter, the opening of the Second
    Vatican Council on October 11th, the Feast of the Divine
    Maternity of Mary.

    He would have been, perhaps, kept sequestered from the
    world during that time to keep him ignorant, and to
    prevent his advice from getting in the way of "progress,"
    but that's just speculation without knowing more facts.

    There have been a number of books written about him and
    his life, but most of them seem to be somewhat propaganda
    works, inasmuch as they omit a lot of important details and
    only give out what is tolerable for the movement to which
    they subscribe, favorable to the aggiornamento, or
    "updating" of Vat.II.

    Now, I have a word of caution for you, and that is, that anyone
    who endeavors to "research" this question -- of whether Padre
    Pio adopted the use of the 1962 missal and rubrics, or if he
    ever once did, for example, with the possibility that he later
    returned to the pre-1954 missal or whatever -- would have
    to keep in mind that a lot of disinformation was circulated about
    Padre Pio.  There was a serious propaganda movement that
    attempted to use movie film and photographs of his Masses to
    "prove" that he was saying the so-called transitional rite, for
    political purposes;  that is, the promoters of the Newmass
    (which would not come out until a year after Padre Pio had
    died) were hard at work preparing the way for it, and one of
    the things they did was to start turning the altars around to
    face the people, like Martin Luther had done over 400 years
    previously.  IOW, for anyone with eyes to see, this was
    nothing unprecedented.  What do you suppose Pope St. Pius
    X would have had to say about a movement to turn the altar
    around like Martin Luther had done?  "Sounds good to me?"
    Well, that's pretty much the reaction of Paul VI of infelicitous
    memory.


    So they turned Padre Pio's altar around, to let the spectators
    see his face while he celebrated Mass.  And Padre Pio did obey
    this order, even though from reliable sources he was said to
    have not been appreciative of having to make this change.  But
    we also know that he spent a lifetime enduring unjust demands
    of his superiors, which he obediently endured and offered it all
    up to God as a penance for the salvation of souls, reparation for
    sins, and for Holy Mother Church, and that sort of thing.  We
    are left to wonder how much worse off the world would have
    been without his voluntary self-sacrifice and atonement for sins
    he did not commit, in true imitation of Our Lord crucified.  His
    stigmata, obviously, was the same wounds that Our Lord
    received in his crucifixion.  The parallel is undeniable for all time
    and in eternity.

    But there are those, even now, who attempt to deny it.  I have
    met some who, out of ignorance, refuse to believe that Padre
    Pio had the stigmata.  So I know this denial in fact exists in the
    world.  

    But there were those who promoted posters, actually, literal ad
    posters, of Padre Pio saying Mass facing the people, to sell the
    idea of turning the altar around and getting "up-to-date" with
    the latest wave of changes coming out of Rome.  Along with the
    use of such photographs came the message that this was
    something that Padre Pio was happy to do and was enthusiastic
    about.  But then we also have testimony of some who knew
    him personally, who say that he only did it because he was
    commanded to do it, and he suffered this oppression just as he
    had suffered so many other things in his lifetime, offering it up
    as a penance, mind you, penance for sins he had not committed,
    penance for the sins of others, even penance for the sin of
    commanding him to say Mass facing the people, committed by
    his own religious superiors!! -- And, he offered it up in reparation
    for sin, even for the sin he did not commit, of circulating posters
    of him saying Mass facing the people connected to the lie that he
    was doing so with joy and eagerness to participate in Rome's
    agenda of aggiornamento of modernist Rome --like the
    current eagerness of one Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.  BTW if real
    Catholics today refer back to Pope Paul VI with INFELICITOUS
    MEMORY, how do you suppose the next generation of real
    Catholics will refer back to HEBF?  Will they choose to recall only
    the propaganda agents of our time like so many do about the
    great Padre Pio?  Or will they recall things that
    the propagandists are trying to cover up?

    There is one excellent movie about Padre Pio, the best ever made,
    directed by Carlo Carlei, who I met at its only screening in America
    in Hollywood in the year 2000 if I recall correctly, and in this film,
    Padre Pio is shown emerging from the shadows of a street fair
    at San Giovanni Rotundo in those troubled times before Vat.II,
    and he went forth smashing the displays of the local merchants
    who were selling little statues of him, and pictures of him and
    copies of personal effects and so forth, and watching this scene,
    one is reminded of the Scripture when Our Lord chased the
    money changers from the Temple with righteous indignation.
    That had happened years before his image saying Mass facing the
    people was being distributed, for by then, he was too old and in
    too much physical pain, to go out fighting the abuse of his images
    as this scene in the superb "Miracle Man" so well depicts him doing.

    Therefore, if we today would imitate Padre Pio, we would endure
    the sinful demands of our legitimate superiors and offer up our
    obedience as a penance in reparation for those same sinful
    demands.  However, at some point, one must stop.  And Padre
    Pio did stop at one point.  For him it was inescapable because the
    physical pain he endured increased to such a degree that he was
    unable to continue obeying the unjust and sinful command of his
    superior, that is, to say the so-called transitional rite (the version
    of Mass that came just before the Novus Ordo would come out).  
    But for us, it might not be so obvious.  For us, we could be only
    held responsible for stopping our would-be obedience when it
    becomes evident to us that ours would be FALSE obedience to
    continue, or when our obedience would put our Faith in danger,
    or, as far as that goes, would unnecessarily endanger the faith of
    others.

    Because, as Fr. Hewko said in a recent sermon (July 7th) we have
    no right to put our Faith in danger by adopting religious practices
    that carry the odor of heresy or the taint of rejection of sacred
    Tradition.  We only have the right to defend our Faith, to guard it,
    to put the one true Faith on a lampstand where it illuminates with
    truth, and to make this our rule of life for all to see.

    As the Holy Medal of St. Benedict says, "Let the Cross be my light,
    and let the dragon not be my guide (or leader)."



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Raphaela

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 265
    • Reputation: +360/-22
    • Gender: Female
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #6 on: July 16, 2013, 07:56:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Of course he would have used the 1962 books - every priest in the Church did. He had a solemn vow of obedience and could hardly have disobeyed the Pope and his Superior in the Order by refusing to change. For a start, his monastery would be saying all their Masses according to the new calendar. He couldn't have got away with being an exception -  no one was. Until the appearance of the Novus Ordo in 1969, priests said Mass as the Church told them to.

    Also, he would have had no incentive. St. Pius X had made huge changes to the calendar and the Divine Office, and shortly before he died, was planning a major revision of the liturgical books which he estimated would take 30 years - hence Pius XII's setting up of the Liturgical Commission in 1948 (with Bugnini as secretary). (Pius XI had no interest in liturgy, so had done nothing about it.) But after Pius XII's (Bugnini's) rewriting of Holy Week, John XXIII's changes in 1962 were minor in comparison.

    As Padre Pio died in 1968, before the Novus Ordo was promulgated, we can safely assume that he said Mass just as all the other priests in the Church were doing.

    I don't know of any priest who refused any of the changes before 1969. It would be interesting to know if there were any, though!

    Offline Adolphus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 467
    • Reputation: +467/-6
    • Gender: Male
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #7 on: July 16, 2013, 09:09:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • P.S. About the 1962 Missal: It must have been strange for priests to say the canon differently after it had remain unchanged for centuries.[/quote]

    The "original" typical edition of the 1962 missal kept the canon unchanged.  It was in its first modification (in the same year 1962) when the name of St. Joseph was introduced in the canon.


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3820
    • Reputation: +2658/-2
    • Gender: Female
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #8 on: July 17, 2013, 08:38:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raphaela
    Of course he would have used the 1962 books - every priest in the Church did. He had a solemn vow of obedience and could hardly have disobeyed the Pope and his Superior in the Order by refusing to change. For a start, his monastery would be saying all their Masses according to the new calendar. He couldn't have got away with being an exception -  no one was. Until the appearance of the Novus Ordo in 1969, priests said Mass as the Church told them to.

    Also, he would have had no incentive. St. Pius X had made huge changes to the calendar and the Divine Office, and shortly before he died, was planning a major revision of the liturgical books which he estimated would take 30 years - hence Pius XII's setting up of the Liturgical Commission in 1948 (with Bugnini as secretary). (Pius XI had no interest in liturgy, so had done nothing about it.) But after Pius XII's (Bugnini's) rewriting of Holy Week, John XXIII's changes in 1962 were minor in comparison.

    As Padre Pio died in 1968, before the Novus Ordo was promulgated, we can safely assume that he said Mass just as all the other priests in the Church were doing.

    I don't know of any priest who refused any of the changes before 1969. It would be interesting to know if there were any, though!


    As I said in the OP, not everyone got a copy of the missal every year they were published. We really don't know for a fact that his Church got a copy of the 1962 missal. All we really do know is that he got the 1965 edition and rejected it, asking to say the "Missal of Pius V" which if true, would not have been the 1962 missal, as that is the "Missal of John XXIII."

    This is my point.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3820
    • Reputation: +2658/-2
    • Gender: Female
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #9 on: July 17, 2013, 08:41:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Adolphus
    P.S. About the 1962 Missal: It must have been strange for priests to say the canon differently after it had remain unchanged for centuries.


    The "original" typical edition of the 1962 missal kept the canon unchanged.  It was in its first modification (in the same year 1962) when the name of St. Joseph was introduced in the canon.
    [/quote]

    Yes, and there were three editions of the 1962 missal, is what I understand. One came out near the beginning of the year, one near the middle and one near the end.

    This is what is so confusing about people saying they're using the 1962 missal because there are 3 editions of that missal for that year.

    Any missal before that (even following the 1955 changes) stay the same except for holy week, and there is absolutely no difference.

    If you go back to 1951, there is only one change during Holy Week for Holy Saturday.

    If you have a 1950 missal, that's the exact same missal (except for the added feasts that were totally normal to change, as those are the changeable parts of the Mass) that was used since 1570, with absolutely no changes outside of the added feasts.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline MiserereMeiDeus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 466
    • Reputation: +421/-1
    • Gender: Male
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #10 on: July 17, 2013, 10:44:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: parentsfortruth
    If you have a 1950 missal, that's the exact same missal (except for the added feasts that were totally normal to change, as those are the changeable parts of the Mass) that was used since 1570, with absolutely no changes outside of the added feasts.

    I've never heard this before. Can you provide any documentation for this claim? If it's correct, that would be huge.
    "Jesus was the fruit of Mary, as Elizabeth expressed it: 'Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.' Whoever wishes for the fruit, must go to the tree; whoever wishes for Jesus must go to Mary; and he who finds Mary, also certain


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3820
    • Reputation: +2658/-2
    • Gender: Female
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #11 on: July 17, 2013, 11:29:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not hard to follow, even if you look on wikipedia.

    There were a couple of times they had to put out new typical editions because of some corrections that needed to be made, in 1604, and then in 1634, but these were not to the ordinary of the Mass.

    Benedict XV put one out standardizing the changes made to the missal by Pius X where he added feasts to the calendar.

    The first major changes occurred in 1951, and weren't fully implemented until 1955 by Pius XII.

    There hasn't been any changes whatever to the Ordinary (unchangeable parts) of the Mass since Quo Primum up until the addition of Saint Joseph by John XXIII. None. Whatever.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline hugeman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 342
    • Reputation: +669/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #12 on: July 17, 2013, 12:18:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raphaela

    As Padre Pio died in 1968, before the Novus Ordo was promulgated, we can safely assume that he said Mass just as all the other priests in the Church were doing.

    I don't know of any priest who refused any of the changes before 1969. It would be interesting to know if there were any, though!


    Father Francis E. Fenton, STL,  Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Pastor of St Mary's Church and Blessed Sacrament Church. refused the new Mass.He refused the 1962 changes, and  he spoke around the country about the "Treason of the Churches", which included the bishops of the United States, who were openly supporting leftist causes, socialist movements, and humanistic theology. Father Fenton, with several others, founded, in 1970, the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, which established parishes and chapels in Monroe, Connecticut, Brewster, N.Y., Wheeling, West Virginia,and in many other places ( New Jersey, North Carolins, Ohio, California, etc).

        The ORCM priests included Father Fenton, Father Black, Father Carly, Father McKenna, Fr. White, Msgr Donoghue, and others. All of these priests said the Mass according to the 1954 or 1958 Missal-- I don't believe any of them used the 1962 Missal.(Possibly now Fr. Carly does, but that may be because the SSPX is breathing down his neck to take the chapel).
       
        When the Archbishop's priests came to the United States to assist the traditionalists in America, they ALL said Mass according to the 1954, or 1958 Missal. because that was the accepted Missal in the US, before the liberal explosion-- and Archbishop Lefebvre agreed not to make changes in the Mass. So, wherever Father Kelly, Fr Buldoc, Father Sanborn, Fr.Dolan, (and I believe Fr. Cekada--but you can ask him), or any of the others said Mass, up until 1983, they used the traditional Missal ( pre-1962).  This was one of the major reasons for the so-called "split" of 1983.

        Msgr Gomar DePauw, the advisor to Pope Pius XII ( along with Archbishop Lefebvre), never said the Mas according to the 1962 Missal. In his nationally televised Mass from New York City, and in his chapel on Staten Island, fr. DePauw maintained use of the traditional pre-1962 books.

         The priests and Abbots of Culman, Alabama. As far as I know, they had never, until the sell out to new rome of a few years ago, used the books of the 1960's. And they only sold out because their venerable founder passed away, and the snakes that took over reached quickly for a deal with Rome, to get "recognition" from mammal for what Almighty God had already commanded them to do!

       Of course, the Society does not tell it's people these things, because they want everybody to believe that THEY are the standard of Tradition. They also want to re-write history, so it will be easier to act as change agents and bring everybody in line with the brogoglio/ratzinger conciliar church. The faithful have to read and study independently of the writings of SSPX spokesmen. All you get from their journals is what they want you to believe today.
        Contact the SSPV, or Father Cekada, or traditio, or CMRI, or the Brothers in Lawrence, Mass, or just about any other source than the SSPX. The other sources will not be under the Fellay/ Rostand gag order.

    Offline drivocek

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 172
    • Reputation: +130/-0
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #13 on: July 17, 2013, 12:26:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Father Hannifin never used the 1962 missal.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17918
    • Reputation: +8177/-616
    • Gender: Male
    "Padre Pio used the 1962 missal" debunked
    « Reply #14 on: July 17, 2013, 04:48:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: parentsfortruth
    Quote from: Adolphus
    Quote from: someone else
    P.S. About the 1962 Missal: It must have been strange for priests to say the canon differently after it had remain unchanged for centuries.


    The "original" typical edition of the 1962 missal kept the canon unchanged.  It was in its first modification (in the same year 1962) when the name of St. Joseph was introduced in the canon.


    Yes, and there were three editions of the 1962 missal, is what I understand. One came out near the beginning of the year, one near the middle and one near the end.

    This is what is so confusing about people saying they're using the 1962 missal because there are 3 editions of that missal for that year.

    Any missal before that (even following the 1955 changes) stay the same except for holy week, and there is absolutely no difference.

    If you go back to 1951, there is only one change during Holy Week for Holy Saturday.

    If you have a 1950 missal, that's the exact same missal (except for the added feasts that were totally normal to change, as those are the changeable parts of the Mass) that was used since 1570, with absolutely no changes outside of the added feasts.


    It is a bit misleading to say that it was "totally normal to change"
    the feasts in the missal.  It was NOT "totally normal" to ABOLISH
    feasts, but rather it was only normal to ADD feasts.  There are
    feasts in the pre-1954 Roman missal that are from antiquity, the
    basis of which are somewhat lost due to scant explanations to
    be found anywhere, but they have been retained nonetheless out
    of a respect for the honor given them from ages past.  It is a
    Modernist error to presume that we must know WHY a thing is
    the way it is in order for the thing to have MEANING for us.  This
    is an outgrowth of pride, actually, and a disrespect of our forbears.

    New feast days were added through the centuries, and sometimes
    they were added on days where there was already a feast day, but
    the older one was not therefore displaced but became
    commemorated or else became an option for certain areas to use,
    such as St. Patrick in Ireland, for example or St. Philomena in
    America.  Also, on days when a particular church has two or more
    Masses on one day, one or more of them could be the Mass of an
    older feast for that same day.  BTW commemorations were another
    casualty of the missal of John XXIII, where longstanding
    commemorations and octaves were ABOLISHED.  The innovation of
    John XXIII, therefore, included the novelty of ABOLISH-MENT
    (abolition) becoming implemented under the auspices of "CHANGE."


    It's too easy to overlook the fact that before about 1880,
    Catholics in the pews did not have daily hand missals to read.  
    They went to Mass with some simple prayer books, if anything
    at all, books that had an example of a typical Mass in Latin, but
    often no translation into vernacular of the propers or the Epistle
    or Gospel and such, so they relied on what the priest said to
    them about what was being said in the Mass. When we say "the
    missal of Pope Pius V" we are talking about the missal that the
    priest had on the altar, from which he read the prayers of the
    Mass.  Prior to 1570 there were at least 3 different altar books
    to use, the Sacramentary, Lectionary and Gruaduale, among
    others.  Pope St. Pius V combined them all into one book which
    he called the Roman Missal, which is the subject of the landmark
    Quo Primum, which was found inside the front cover of all such
    altar missals along with the papal bulls Cum Sanctissimum of
    Clement VIII and Si Quid Est of Urban VIII, the latter two
    being re-affirmations of the perpetuity of Quo Primum in those
    later pontificates. It was not until Vat.II and the Newmass that
    the perpetuity of Quo Primum would become somehow
    enoughacceptable to the Pope and his collaborators in the
    Vatican, that it was purged from the front pages of the so-called
    Roman Missal, along with Cum Sanctissimum and Si Quid Est.

    People in the pews, even today, did not/ do not generally have
    that kind of missal to use.  A Daily Missal very commonly used
    today at traditional Masses is the Fr. Lasance New Roman Missal,
    which was copyright 1945;  and the reason its title is "New..."  is
    because it was something of an innovation, because it had so
    much additional information in it that was previously not provided
    to the Faithful to have in their hands when they went to Mass.  
    Another example is the St. Andrew's Missal, compiled by Dom
    Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B., in 1945.  Both of these came out in the
    midst of the Second World War.  



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

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