CathInfo.com

PAX

Quote: Drew

Quote

The immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass cannot be abrogated.  Any discussion as whether or not it has been done presupposes that it can be done.

Agree, the True Mass cannot be abrogated.  I never said it had.

I'm saying that the 1962 is ESSENTIALLY, SUBSTANTIALLY and NON-ACCIDENTALLY the same as St Pius V's missal, which is the same as Pope St Gregory's missal of the 400s and which is the same (in all essentials) as what Christ taught the Apostles.

If you are arguing that the 1962 missal has serious, substantial changes to it, then please be specific.

The 1962 Missal is the mid-point of liturgy reformation under the direction of Bugnini.  You are arguing  that his work produced liturgical improvement until 1962 and somehow, liturgical ruination thereafter.

This is contrary to what Bugnini said himself.  Bugnini says in his own book that the liturgical reformers adopted principles of liturgical reform at the very beginning of their work in 1948 and those principles remained unchanged and were uniformly and consistently applied throughout his tenure. You are claiming that these principles produced liturgical perfection until 1962 and then liturgical ruination until the publication of the Novus Ordo.  In my opinion this is impossible.

It is not possible to regard the liturgical principles of reform adopted by the Bugnini commission in 1948 as good in themselves but were unfortunately improperly applied after 1962, like a medication in a limited dose is beneficial and in an excessive dose may become toxic.  The principles determine the end for which the act is directed. The end of giving a medication is not the medication itself but the health of the patient.  The Novus Ordo as an end in itself is well visualized in the reformers from the beginning. In Pius XII Mediator Dei lists and censors numerous explicit liturgical acts that the reformers were already, not just contemplating, but implementing by the early 1950 in liturgical experimentation.


PAX

Quote: Drew

Quote

But the whole purpose of Summorum Pontificuм (SP) was not to "free" the Missal but to restructure the "reform of the reform."  Those who accepted the "freeing" of the 1962 Missal from SP also accepted the legitimacy of the entire liturgical reform in principle and acknowledged that the 1962 Missal and the 1969 Missal were two forms of one rite as necessary conditions for its use.  This last claim is in fact true since both were products of Bugnini's reform principles.

By the way, after Benedict published SP he then revoked additional liturgical reform docuмents specifically the two that brought about the 1965 changes.  The whole thing was therefore a legal scam and the Italian Episcopate may have a valid legal argument.  

You are currently witnessing the revoking of Ecclesia Dei and the Italian Episcopal conference declaring SP illegal.  The argument you are making is not built upon anything more stable than legal opinion.  Even if I were to grant your claim that Benedict was correct and JPII was in error by treating the 1962 Missal as Indult, it makes no difference.  Benedict treated it as a grant of legal privilege.  In fact, SP imposed new requirements on the use of the 1962 Missal that did not exist before.  All those using the 1962 Missal have at least implicitly accepted all these conditions.  It really makes no difference between the two because a "received and approved" immemorial rite grounded upon dogma can no more be a grant of legal privilege than can it be an Indult.  Either way, it reduces the Missal to matter of mere discipline.  As I said in the previous post, Rome has treated the 1962 Missal as a matter of mere discipline from 1962 until this present day without exception.  

All the indult laws are superfluous, contradictory and illegal.  Your points above, while great points, are irrelevant to my argument.  The 1962 missal existed LONG before the indult laws, so these are irrelevant.

You and Fr. Wathen may consider the 1962 Missal as a legitimate organic liturgical development but I strongly disagree.  All the evidence is against this opinion.  What Bugnini produced was not organic development but rather the implementation of artificial that according to Msgr. Gamber produced nothing but disaster from the very beginning.  But the argument is moot.   This may be your opinion and it is not my opinion.  But so what?  The question can only be settled when there is a restoration of the “received and approved” rite established by custom by legitimate Church authority.

To say that “all the indult laws are superfluous, contradictory and illegal” is a useless claim even if were true.  Bugnini is the real author of the 1962 transitional Missal and Bugnini and those who commissioned his work considered the liturgy exclusively as a subject of Church discipline.  The laws that produced the 1962 Missal and those that did away with it by Paul VI are all of the same nature.   Those who have enacted these laws and those using the 1962 Missal regard these laws as valid and have accepted the use the 1962 Missal under these legal stipulations.  This, and this alone, is sufficient reason by itself to reject it because the “received and approved rite” cannot be a matter of mere discipline.  This argument will not work because everyone who now uses the 1962 Missal uses it as a grant of legal privilege or Indult. b


PAX

Quote: Drew

Quote

A lengthy book could easily be written on the changes in the 1962 Missal and the damage they have done to the faith.

Please explain in detail.  I disagree.

In detail would take a lengthy book.  Hardly a week passes that you cannot see Bugnini’s hand tampering with the holy liturgy in the 1962 edition of his reform.  A compilation of these changes can easily be found with an internet search but the implications require some reflection.  In light of the Novus Ordo as its end, consider why were the following feasts abolished by Bugnini: St. Peter's Chair in Rome, Finding of the Holy Cross, St. John Before the Latin Gate, Apparition of St. Michael, St. Anacletus, St. Peter in Chains, Finding of St. Stephen, and others? He called them “gross accretions a and evident distortions”.
In light of the Novus Ordo as its end, consider why Bugnini would end all but three Octaves and destroyed the liturgical relationship that existed between the feast day and its octave day?  There are many examples that I could give but I will limit myself to just a few.  Jesus Christ appeared to St. Margaret Mary and told her that he wanted the Church to establish a feast day in honor of His Sacred Heart.  Jesus Christ said the feast day must be celebrated following the “octave of Corpus Christi”.  There is a liturgical and theological relationship between the Sacred Heart and the Blessed Sacrament that Jesus Christ liturgically established and Bugnini destroyed.  The feast of the Visitation was established following the octave of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist for a specific reason.  The octave day is the day that St. John was circuмcised and given his name.  It is the day the St. Zachery tongue was loosened and he prophesized his Benedictus, “To enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death; to direct our feet into the way of peace.”  The liturgical relationship concerns the prayers of the Church to end the Western Schism. There is specific relationship between the Assumption and the Feast of the Immaculate Heart; between Epiphany with the Magi and its octave the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan by St. John; between Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Feast of her Seven Sorrows.  Why do you suppose Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end in mind would want to destroy these liturgical relationships?  And for Christmas, Christ born in Bethlehem (city of bread) and laid in a manger (a feeding trough), where Bugnini kept the octave, he destroyed the relationship by ending the feast of the Circuмcision which is the first shedding of the Precious Blood.

Consider the vigils before great feasts such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and all the Apostles.  Almost all of them were destroyed by Bugnini whose end was the Novus Ordo.  Or the feast for the dedication of Churches that the “received and immemorial” rite has always held in such esteem celebrating them in a season when they would always be celebrated on a common Sunday.

Take the simple removal of the Benedicamus Domino which was said in Masses where the Gloria was not recited.  It is a tradition that can be traced back to at least the third century for the purpose of simply offering praise of God.  Why do you suppose the philistine Bugnini with the Novus Ordo in mind would want to end this tradition?  

Bugnini eliminated the commemorations which included the prayers in honor of the Blessed Virgin, the saints, the pope or the Church, the repose of the poor souls from common Sundays.  He eliminated the second Confiteor before the communion for the faithful. He eliminated several details in rubrics such bowing the head to the tabernacle and crucifix whenever the holy name of Jesus is said, the use of the voice audible only to those serving in the sanctuary.  Why would Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end do all this?

Many important feasts were not eliminated but downgraded so that they would never be celebrated on a common Sunday.  Why would Bugnini make the recitation of the Dies Irae optional at high masses?

The litany of saints in the canon of the Mass has been limited to martyrs and the Church teaches that this is matter of Apostolic tradition.  St. Joseph is not a martyr.  Why do you suppose Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end would tamper with the canon of the Mass?  While addressing St. Joseph, his greatest feast was the Solemnity of St. Joseph which was replaced by Bugnini with St. Joseph the Worker.

Fr. Bugnini argued that in “some countries there are popular non-Christian feasts that can be Christianized by celebrating some great Christian feast on the same day: for example, the feasts of St. Joseph” that would “achieve new brilliance if it were coordinated with the concrete exigencies of a particular culture.”  So, Karl Marx was an admitted Satanist, and his followers chose May 1^st because it is the most important ancient pagan festival celebrated in honor of the demon known as “Beltaine” in the British Isles and by other names throughout Europe.  The name is believed to literally mean Bel-Fire, lord or god of light. It is the worship of the scriptural demon known as Baal in a pagan rite once requiring ritual human sacrifice.  Why do you suppose the Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end dump the Solemnity of St. Joseph for St. Joseph the Communist Worker?

I have said nothing about the changes in Holy Week which can be found in their full development in the Missal of 1969.


PAX

Quote: Drew

Quote

The primary damage is most certainly the relegation of the Missal to a matter of mere discipline.  Still, whether or not the 1962 Missal is the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite would be moot because it can only be proved by competent authority.  Since "competent authority" is not accessible you and others who adopt the 1962 Missal have taken a position that is liturgically and legally indefensible at this time.

The competant authority is Pope John XXIII, if you believe he was pope.  If you don't believe he was pope, then I see why you would reject the 62 missal.  What is your stance?

The same question could be asked about Paul VI.  "If you don't believe he was pope, then I see why you would reject the 65 Missal".  After all it was the Missal used at Econe before 1983.  If you like SSPX consider the liturgy a matter of mere discipline ant the pope is the "master of the liturgy" as Fr. Richard Williamson said, then why not accept these changes?  

Yes John XXIII was the pope but liturgy is not a matter of mere discipline.  When Pope Leo XIII was asked to add the name of St. Joseph to the canon he replied that he was ‘only the pope’.  The liturgy is grounded upon dogma and John XXIII was the great neo-modernist.  Neo-modernism is a variant of Modernism.  The end of both heresies is to overthrow dogma.  Neo-modernism does it indirectly by positing a disjunction between dogmatic truth and the words by which the dogma is formulated.  In his opening address to Vatican II John XXIII announced that the purpose of the council was to reformulate Catholic truth for modern man.  The council was directed to neo-modernism from the opening bell.

The 1962 liturgy is a Bugnini transitional Missal that existed less than two years.  It is now and has always been completely regarded as a subject of mere discipline.  It was created by positive law and replaced by positive law.  Those who control it and those who use it today regard it as a matter of mere discipline governed by the free will of the legislator as either an Indult or grant of legal privilege.  It is impossible to argue that any Catholic has a right to the “received and approved” rite of Mass while clinging to 1962 Missal.  

Drew

The 1962 Missal is the mid-point of liturgy reformation under the direction of Bugnini.  You are arguing  that his work produced liturgical improvement until 1962 and somehow, liturgical ruination thereafter.

No, I'm arguing that Bugnini's liturgical changes were not ESSENTIAL changes up until 1962.  Once 1969 came around, with the novus ordo, the changes were so grave, serious and essential that the SUBSTANCE of the mass was changed in its liturgy, theology and doctrine.

I've asked for specifics and you can provide none.  Instead, you are making a generalized argument, which is not logical.

1.  Bugnini was a modernist heretic that wanted to destroy the mass and liturgy of the Faith.
2.  Bugnini started his changes in the 40s/50s and the end result was in 1969 with the anti-catholic novus ordo.
3.  Therefore, the changes starting with the 40s/50s/60s were evil because that was the intent of the author.

This is incorrect logic because there are 2 sins involved and you are combining them erroneously.  The first sin is that of Bugnini's INTENT to destroy the mass.  The second sin involves the ACT of changing the liturgy, regardless of Bugnini's intent.  In other words, the ACT of changing the liturgy could be a venial sin or a mortal one, or none at all - it depends on what was changed.  To analyze this, one has to look at the actual missals themselves, and I say that the 1962 missal does NOT contain essential corruptions/changes to the missal.  It is BASICALLY the same missal as Pope St Pius V's missal, therefore it is still valid and legal.

To use your logic above, let's apply it to a different moral situation and see how it is flawed:

1.  John Doe was an alcoholic who lost his job and decided to go to a bar and get stone-cold drunk.
2.  John Doe started drinking and ended up having 12 beers by the end of the night and was absolutely intoxicated.
3.  Therefore, John Doe committed a mortal sin of drinking after his 1st beer because his intent was to keep drinking.

The above conclusion is faulty moral reasoning.  Just like in the Bugnini example, there are 2 sins involved - one of a mortal sin of INTENT, which John Doe committed when he went to the bar and decided (in his mind) to get drunk.  But the ACTUAL sin of getting drunk was not committed until (I'm guessing) he had drank the #7 or #8 beer.  The time between the 1st and 7th beer was not a mortal sin but just a venial sin of excess, since it's not a mortal sin to get "buzzed".

Just like the Bugnini situation, even though the 1962 missal was part of a liturgical "process" or "plan", that doesn't mean that the changes AT THAT TIME, in the middle of the process, were MAJOR, SUBSTANTIAL changes to the mass.  Until you provide specific examples, you can't argue that the 1962 missal is different from the missal of St Pius V.  The evidence says otherwise.

All the changes you listed concerning reduction of feasts and octaves, etc are not changes to the mass but to the calendar.  The changes to the mass were minor (if you don't include the addition of St Joseph to the canon, then the changes to the mass are almost nothing).

The same question could be asked about Paul VI.  "If you don't believe he was pope, then I see why you would reject the 65 Missal".  After all it was the Missal used at Econe before 1983.  If you like SSPX consider the liturgy a matter of mere discipline ant the pope is the "master of the liturgy" as Fr. Richard Williamson said, then why not accept these changes?

 Paul VI's 1965 changes were done outside of Quo Primum and, if you read the docuмent, were not obligatory nor under penalty of sin.  Just like the novus ordo of 1969, these changes were not ordered by the pope's apostolic authority but were made "due to V2 docuмents".  No one has to accept these changes and they have no legal authority to bind because the pope did not say they did.

Yes John XXIII was the pope but liturgy is not a matter of mere discipline.  

Agree.  But the pope can make changes to the human/non-essential parts of the mass, breviary, calendar of saints, liturgy, etc, etc.

When Pope Leo XIII was asked to add the name of St. Joseph to the canon he replied that he was ‘only the pope’.  The liturgy is grounded upon dogma and John XXIII was the great neo-modernist.  Neo-modernism is a variant of Modernism.  The end of both heresies is to overthrow dogma.  Neo-modernism does it indirectly by positing a disjunction between dogmatic truth and the words by which the dogma is formulated.  In his opening address to Vatican II John XXIII announced that the purpose of the council was to reformulate Catholic truth for modern man.  The council was directed to neo-modernism from the opening bell.

Agree, but what matters is when do the changes cross the line into ESSENTIAL changes?  When is the Faith/mass actually changed into something non-catholic?  Before this point, the pope/Church has the power to make changes because the mass is both disciplinary (i.e. human laws) and doctrinal (i.e. Divine origin). 

The 1962 liturgy is a Bugnini transitional Missal that existed less than two years.  It is now and has always been completely regarded as a subject of mere discipline.

 Wrong.  The 1962 missal is essentially the same missal as St Pius V's missal.  This was made clear in the law which created it, it was made clear by the pope and is clear based on any method of comparing the 2 missals, side-by-side.

It was created by positive law and replaced by positive law.  Those who control it and those who use it today regard it as a matter of mere discipline governed by the free will of the legislator as either an Indult or grant of legal privilege.  

It doesn't matter what people THINK about the 1962 missal, it matters what is - and this is based on the law.  If you read the law which created the 62 missal, it VERY CLEARLY says that it is a revision of Quo Primum and it intends to be the same missal except for updates of a minor nature.