Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: parentsfortruth on July 16, 2013, 11:17:37 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.
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)."
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 docuмentation for this claim? If it's correct, that would be huge.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Father Hannifin never used the 1962 missal.
-
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 cuм 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 cuм 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.
-
Yes, it wasn't even allowed to have a missal in the hands of the people before the very late 1800s. I don't even personally use one, as I already know what the Mass is, and contains, and I think it's more important to unite my prayers with the priest, than follow along in a book, paying little attention to what is actually going on up there.
But also yes, when you say that feasts were added and the others not abolished. The Missal of John XXIII abolished many feasts in the 1962 missal, rather than do what was traditionally done, leave the feasts there, and add another one.
Yet another good reason not to use the 1962 missal. Breaks with tradition not only in the fact that feasts are totally abolished, but the fact that he even dared to touch the sacred Canon of the Mass even to add one word.
-
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.
I've never heard of three editions, PFT. If any changes were made, they would have been made in official docuмents that would have been published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. But all there is John XXIII's Decree Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani of July 25, 1960, which laid down the changes used in the "liturgical books of 1962".
They're called "1962" because the definitive text that the printers had to use wasn't published until June 1962. So that's the earliest date that any books could exist for the 1962 liturgy.
Then it was very soon superseded by Paul VI's first post-conciliar instruction Inter Oecuмenici of September 26, 1964 which had to be used from March 7, 1965.
So the 1962 Mass was only used from (approx.) July 1962 until March 1965 - 21 months. Not much of a tradition to base the traditional movement on!
-
So the 1962 Mass was only used from (approx.) July 1962 until March 1965 - 21 months. Not much of a tradition to base the traditional movement on!
It is my hope that after the crisis is over, the Church will go back to the Mass as it was before any of the changes that happened in the middle of last century.
-
Yet another good reason not to use the 1962 missal. Breaks with tradition not only in the fact that feasts are totally abolished, but the fact that he even dared to touch the sacred Canon of the Mass even to add one word.
I absolutely agree, PFT. It's totally forbidden for anyone to change the Canon. "Canon" means the standard, the unchanging thing. And John XXIII added St Joseph to the Canon, to the prayer containing only the names of the early martyrs, as an act of personal devotion and because St. Joseph was the Patron of Vatican II.
What if every Pope added his favourite saint to the Canon???
Poor St. Joseph - first given the dreadful feast of St. Joseph the Worker, then put in charge of VII!
-
I had heard that Archbishop Lefevbre didn't want to use the 1962 missal because the second confeiteor was taken out. Well, we know that the SSPX doesn't fully use the 1962 missal, or else the second confeiteor would be out.
So that shows that the SSPX by placing that back into the 1962 missal, is picking and choosing what it did and did not like from the 1962 missal as it is strictly speaking.
Here is an excellent article on why we have a RIGHT to demand the use of the pre-1962 missal, and should, in fact, be demanding the use of a pre-1955 missal.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm
-
So the 1962 Mass was only used from (approx.) July 1962 until March 1965 - 21 months. Not much of a tradition to base the traditional movement on!
This is an excellent point!
:applause:
-
I've never heard of three editions, PFT. If any changes were made, they would have been made in official docuмents that would have been published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. But all there is John XXIII's Decree Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani of July 25, 1960, which laid down the changes used in the "liturgical books of 1962".
«In mid March 1962, six volumes of petitions had been sent to John XXIII, signed by 30 cardinals, 436 patriarchs, 60 archbishops and bishops and general superiors. After examining the signatures, John XXIII said: "Something will be done for Saint Joseph".
«On November 13 it was announced in the council hall John XXIII's "sovereign decision".
«That same day a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, signed by Cardinal Laarona, prefect, and Archbishop Dante, secretary, make it public and mandatory.
«This was the only modification made ​​to the typical edition of the Roman Missal of 1962 till Benedict's recent changing the form of solemn Good Friday prayer for the Jєωs.»
Source (https://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/el-misal-de-san-pio-v-2da-parte-especial-de-radio-cristiandad-con-el-p-ceriani/)
-
I had heard that Archbishop Lefevbre didn't want to use the 1962 missal because the second confeiteor was taken out. Well, we know that the SSPX doesn't fully use the 1962 missal, or else the second confeiteor would be out.
The following text was posted in IA, regarding the 1962 missal:
«- The SSPX never used, in a general, in a unanimous and public way, the liturgical reform of 1962.
«- Archbishop Lefebvre never imposed on members of the SSPX the rubrics of the liturgical reform of 1962 as a condition of belonging to the Society.
«- Archbishop Lefebvre never forbade to follow privately the rubrics previous to the liturgical reform of 1962.
«- Before being ordained as subdeacon, I exposed to Monsignor Lefebvre my intention to follow in private the rubrics before Pius XII. There was no opposition to it, and I've been doing so for 29 years. (32 years now)
«- During 27 years and a half, I never follow privately the rubrics of John XXIII to pray the Mass, and never named in the Canon the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph.
«- As for the recitation of the Breviary and the praying of the Mass in public, I followed the SSPX's customs: to keep away largely from rubrics of John XXIII.
«Now, it is important to consider about the July-of-1960 rubrics:
«- In general, we can say that they have been enacted by whom was suspected of modernism, and whom had summoned the Second Vatican Council.
«- In detail, we have seen that they (the rubrics) were made under the direction of Ferdinando Antonelli, who latter would subscribe the New Mass, and Annibale Bugnini, the gravedigger of the Traditional Mass, the architect of the New Mass, notorious modernist and Mason.
«- History shows that, as for the past, the rubrics are based on the principles of the "deviant liturgical movement", and for the future, they were preparing the New Liturgy in general and the New Mass in particular.»
Source (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12711&view=findpost&p=22071914)
-
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 docuмentation for this claim? If it's correct, that would be huge.
I know two people who own missals from around 1571 or shortly
thereafter, and I know of two priests who have used these missals
for Mass, and they say that everything in them is identical to the
altar missals they use every day which are pre-1954 versions.
There are some very minor things that have been added since the
16th century such as feast days of saints who had not yet been
born, and a few minor additions to some prayers or rubrics, but
the vast majority of everything is the same. You cannot say that
about the 1962 missal of John XXIII.
This does not mean the '62 missal is evil or abominable or full of
error or any of that, it's just that it was the second step toward
bringing in the Newmass. The first step was changing Holy Week -
which BTW the CMRI priests all use, the revised Holy Week liturgy,
because it was changed under the so-called last 'valid' pope,
Pius XII, and the sedevacantist position is based on the principle
that if the Pope is valid, you have to follow everything he does,
even if it involves deconstructing the sacred liturgy.
It is a cause-effect relationship, if A, then B.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25873&min=15#p4)
I had heard that Archbishop Lefevbre didn't want to use the 1962 missal because the second confeiteor was taken out. Well, we know that the SSPX doesn't fully use the 1962 missal, or else the second confeiteor would be out.
So that shows that the SSPX by placing that back into the 1962 missal, is picking and choosing what it did and did not like from the 1962 missal as it is strictly speaking.
Here is an excellent article on why we have a RIGHT to demand the use of the pre-1962 missal, and should, in fact, be demanding the use of a pre-1955 missal.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm
That's a good point about the picking-and-choosing aspect. It
rather seems to be the appearance of claiming authority above
the pope, as if the SSPX is a parallel church, which ABL wanted to
avoid entirely. It might seem like a small matter, but this is how
schism and heresy starts, with small things like that.
I don't have a copy of the Angelus Press 1962 missal, but I have
held one in my hands and have admire the excellent craftsmanship
used to make it. They used the best materials and highest
specifications. The paper is superb quality, the ribbons are great,
the binding is made to last for hundreds of years, the printing is
clear, sharp and accurate, and the cover is extremely durable.
And then, I have a friend who was using that missal until he found
out that it is an 'updated' version, a 'second step toward the
Newmass' and practically and objectively compromised in a few
places including but not limited to the fact that several saints' feast
days are not found in it. At that point, he lost ALL respect for his
daily missal and acted like he wanted to throw it in the trash can.
It seems to me that's a bit of an over-reaction. There are a lot of
useful aspects to the Angelus Press 1962 missal, and so long as you
are aware of where its shortcomings or defects are, you can steer
around those. It is a good thing for us to be informed about where
to find error or defects, so we can be capable of defending the truth.
Of course, if you simply want to have no truck with compromise,
then fine, don't use the AP 1962 missal. But neither should you
toss it into the dust bin, as the Brits say.
-
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.
I've never heard of three editions, PFT. If any changes were made, they would have been made in official docuмents that would have been published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. But all there is John XXIII's Decree Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani of July 25, 1960, which laid down the changes used in the "liturgical books of 1962".
They're called "1962" because the definitive text that the printers had to use wasn't published until June 1962. So that's the earliest date that any books could exist for the 1962 liturgy.
Then it was very soon superseded by Paul VI's first post-conciliar instruction Inter Oecuмenici of September 26, 1964 which had to be used from March 7, 1965.
So the 1962 Mass was only used from (approx.) July 1962 until March 1965 - 21 months. Not much of a tradition to base the traditional movement on!
Dear Parents for Truth,
I think I'm wrong about the above. From Rubricarum Instructum:
1. We command that, beginning on the first day of January of next year, 1961, all those who follow the Roman rite shall observe the new code of rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal arranged under three headings - "General Rubrics," "General Rubrics of the Roman Breviary," and "General Rubrics of the Roman Missal" - to be published shortly by our Sacred Congregation of Rites.
The question is, when were the texts first published? You're right, there were three editions, in January 1962, April 1962, then one following the "typical edition" of June 1962. Though it appears that the only difference between them was that in January and April the text of the Mass was put between the Temporal and Sanctoral cycles, while in the June "typical edition" it went back to its traditional position between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. But perhaps this only applied to altar missals and Latin hand missals. It seems to have been a general mess.
So you could say that the 1962 liturgy was in force, at least officially, from January 1961 to March 1965 - so not 21 months (which should have been 33 months (sorry, I can't count), but 4 years 2 months. Still not very long though!
-
.
January 1961 to March 1965 = 4 yr. 2 mo.
4 years + 2 months = (48 + 2) months = 50 months.
-
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.
Wikipedia is hardly de fide! Anyone can write or edit articles on it, and although errors often (but not always) do get caught and corrected, at any given moment there's no guarantee that any purported fact in any Wikepedia article is correct.
-
I had heard that Archbishop Lefevbre didn't want to use the 1962 missal because the second confeiteor was taken out. Well, we know that the SSPX doesn't fully use the 1962 missal, or else the second confeiteor would be out.
The following text was posted in IA, regarding the 1962 missal:
«- The SSPX never used, in a general, in a unanimous and public way, the liturgical reform of 1962.
«- Archbishop Lefebvre never imposed on members of the SSPX the rubrics of the liturgical reform of 1962 as a condition of belonging to the Society.
«- Archbishop Lefebvre never forbade to follow privately the rubrics previous to the liturgical reform of 1962.
«- Before being ordained as subdeacon, I exposed to Monsignor Lefebvre my intention to follow in private the rubrics before Pius XII. There was no opposition to it, and I've been doing so for 29 years. (32 years now)
«- During 27 years and a half, I never follow privately the rubrics of John XXIII to pray the Mass, and never named in the Canon the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph.
«- As for the recitation of the Breviary and the praying of the Mass in public, I followed the SSPX's customs: to keep away largely from rubrics of John XXIII.
«Now, it is important to consider about the July-of-1960 rubrics:
«- In general, we can say that they have been enacted by whom was suspected of modernism, and whom had summoned the Second Vatican Council.
«- In detail, we have seen that they (the rubrics) were made under the direction of Ferdinando Antonelli, who latter would subscribe the New Mass, and Annibale Bugnini, the gravedigger of the Traditional Mass, the architect of the New Mass, notorious modernist and Mason.
«- History shows that, as for the past, the rubrics are based on the principles of the "deviant liturgical movement", and for the future, they were preparing the New Liturgy in general and the New Mass in particular.»
Source (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12711&view=findpost&p=22071914)
Fr. Themann told us that in order to use a pre-1962 missal, he would "have to obtain permission from his superiors." This goes directly against Quo Primum anyway, as it says no censure can be placed on anyone for the use of that missal. But if you're Fr. Themann, you think that Quo Primum was "part dogmatic and part disciplinary," which is bogus as well.
-
Add this priest to our list!
-
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.
Wikipedia is hardly de fide! Anyone can write or edit articles on it, and although errors often (but not always) do get caught and corrected, at any given moment there's no guarantee that any purported fact in any Wikepedia article is correct.
Yes, and I agree, which is why I qualified it by saying "even if you look at wikipedia."
Here's confirming the voracity right here, and an interview totally worth listening to with Fr. Patrick Perez on the anomalies in the missals.
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2011/05/interview-with-father-patrick-perez.html
Please take a listen. He's a very good historian especially when it comes to the missals.
-
I should point out that he doesn't start talking about the missal problem until about 19-20 minutes into his interview. He spends about 20 minutes talking about how he went from the ICK, to the FSSP, and how he was ordained by Cardinal Stickler, and then he starts talking about the missal problem. So if you'd like to start there, that would be a good spot unless you want to hear the beginning of it where he talks about how he got where he was.
-
.
Maybe Msgr. Perez knows if Padre Pio ever used the missal of John XXIII?
-
I wish I could listen to the rest of that interview, but I heard it costs upwards of $100 for the rest, and I'd rather spend that money driving down to Mass once a month, honestly.
-
I wish I could listen to the rest of that interview, but I heard it costs upwards of $100 for the rest, and I'd rather spend that money driving down to Mass once a month, honestly.
Heiner wants to have his own corner on the market and cash in on
the crisis, apparently. The longer he hogs his material the less it
will get around, and it will basically only serve to protect the devil.
How would you like to answer to that in your final judgment?
-
Neil Obstat/ParentsforTruth
Issue #1: You can buy the entire Fr. Perez interview for $9.99, not $100.
http://www.truerestorationmedia.com/purchase/perez1
If you want to watch it on your TV you can get the DVD for $20.
http://truerestorationpress.com/node/42
Issue #2: In order to keep the entire interview project going, I have to earn enough money to break even on my flights, rental car, and most expensively, video postproduction, in which a regular video gets rendered in HD for the web and for placement on my subscription site for download, not to mention the cost of building the website in the first place.
For those who can't afford a $150 annual subscription they can buy the $9.99 interview.
Now that's out of the way...
What Neil would know, if he had ever provided a job for anyone in his life (via owning businesses, like I have for the last decade), or had ever bothered to do the slightest research into what a project like mine would cost (creating a streaming site from the ground up, doing it in HD, etc. doesn't come for free). I, unlike Neil, perhaps, am not independently wealthy and hence cannot finance said venture out of my own pockets, so I "share" the cost with those who are willing to pay, and thankfully, we make enough to break even, but not much more.
You want to talk about "cornering the market for financial gain" talk to the people at the Remnant. They don't do anything other than that. I don't have that luxury. I have regular professions that pay my regular life so that I can afford (both time and money wise) to break even or lose money on True Restoration.
This is of course to say nothing of our radio broadcasts, with 4000 listeners in over 20 countries, which is provided FREE all the time. There's also our Youtube channel in which more than one interview is provided in full length FOR FREE (I put those out about a year after they were available to my subscribers). http://www.youtube.com/truerestoration
While my particular judgment will be heavy, for I am a sinful man, I won't go to it wondering about yours, Neil. I have better things to do. Like provide interviews with Traditional Clergy and laymen on topics that matter. I'll continue to be the main source for that, thanks to the support of others who are neither as myopic nor as ignorant as yourself.
-
Thanks, when my mom told me it was over $100, I think she was talking about the sub for the year, not the video. I'm glad you cleared that up. I might just get it, because I'd really like to hear the rest of it.
-
Neil Obstat/ParentsforTruth
Issue #1: You can buy the entire Fr. Perez interview for $9.99, not $100.
http://www.truerestorationmedia.com/purchase/perez1
If you want to watch it on your TV you can get the DVD for $20.
http://truerestorationpress.com/node/42
Issue #2: In order to keep the entire interview project going, I have to earn enough money to break even on my flights, rental car, and most expensively, video postproduction, in which a regular video gets rendered in HD for the web and for placement on my subscription site for download, not to mention the cost of building the website in the first place.
For those who can't afford a $150 annual subscription they can buy the $9.99 interview.
Now that's out of the way...
What Neil would know, if he had ever provided a job for anyone in his life (via owning businesses, like I have for the last decade), or had ever bothered to do the slightest research into what a project like mine would cost (creating a streaming site from the ground up, doing it in HD, etc. doesn't come for free). I, unlike Neil, perhaps, am not independently wealthy and hence cannot finance said venture out of my own pockets, so I "share" the cost with those who are willing to pay, and thankfully, we make enough to break even, but not much more.
You want to talk about "cornering the market for financial gain" talk to the people at the Remnant. They don't do anything other than that. I don't have that luxury. I have regular professions that pay my regular life so that I can afford (both time and money wise) to break even or lose money on True Restoration.
This is of course to say nothing of our radio broadcasts, with 4000 listeners in over 20 countries, which is provided FREE all the time. There's also our Youtube channel in which more than one interview is provided in full length FOR FREE (I put those out about a year after they were available to my subscribers). http://www.youtube.com/truerestoration
While my particular judgment will be heavy, for I am a sinful man, I won't go to it wondering about yours, Neil. I have better things to do. Like provide interviews with Traditional Clergy and laymen on topics that matter. I'll continue to be the main source for that, thanks to the support of others who are neither as myopic nor as ignorant as yourself.
Do you have to subscribe to the channel to watch the interviews you said are available? I don't see any of the Fr. Perez videos up there at all.
-
Parents
It costs additional money to clip, edit, and render a video excerpt for youtube so we've started with our most recent interviews to integrate that process. We went back and did some, but not all, of our old videos. That's why the Fr. Perez video is not up - sorry about that. Even then, it would just be an excerpt :-)
Glad to have cleared up the misconception about pricing!
-
.
My apologies to you, dedalus a.k.a. Stephen Heiner.
I should know better than to rely on rumors. It's good to know
that someone is able to put together a production business that
doesn't constitute covering his primary living expenses. So I'd
like you to know that I'm glad you've done this for Catholic
Tradition.
All the best to you and yours.
-
.
Looking at the one-time download offer, it seems to me rather
unfortunate you have chosen Adobe Flash as your medium, since
it tends to crash a lot.
I haven't been able to watch anything longer than about 1 hour
on Flash, without having to restart my system, because it's
pretty old. The most convenient recordings I've used are the
VLC audios like the Verboten website has for Resistance priests,
which are free through Mediafire. I don't know if Mediafire has
any option for one-time playback like you're doing with Flash.
For example, here (http://www.mediafire.com/listen/mzlbccf5oktq68j/Fr._D._Hewko%2C_June_2013%2C_25th_Anniversary.mp3) is a link to the recent audio of Fr. Hewko
on the 6th Sunday After Pentecost.
Note: click on the "Download" button to select your file preferences
so you can use the VLC player and volume controls.
-
Neil
agree that flash can be buggy, but that's only if you want to stream your one-time download. You can download it and watch it on whatever player you want. That might be a better solution for those who don't want to deal with Flash.