It also looks like they are waiting for Bennie to die.It would not surprise me if Bennie were to be αssαssιnαtҽd.
It would not surprise me if Bennie were to be αssαssιnαtҽd.What doesn't make sense to me is that Bennie doesn't seem to give a darn what they do, so why wait until he dies? I mean, honestly. Does anyone really think if they put this through while he was still alive that he was going to condemn Francis for it?? :laugh1:
http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Breaking News: Massive liturgical changes expected in 2018!Reliable sources close to the Holy See have indicated that sometime in the second half of 2018, the Novus Ordo Lectionary and Calendar are to be imposed upon the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.The new Roman Missal will become available on the First Sunday of Advent 2018 but the Vatican will allow a two-year period to phase it in. These changes are expected to be much more drastic than what was envisaged in Universae Ecclesiae (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/p/universae-ecclesiae.html) that states:25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently. (emphasis ours)The Vatican approved societies and institutes, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, will likely apply for exemptions, but all requests are expected to be turned down. The only exception seems to be the SSPX, which might be granted a temporary exemption, to ensure that an agreement is reached between the SSPX and Rome. However, if the exemption granted will be of a temporary nature, more SSPX priests are expected to join the so-called Resistance (formerly known as SSPX-SO) under Bishop Richard Williamson (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/2012/12/the-sspx-is-de-facto-split.html) and more will go independent.This would make the traditional Catholic movement more fragmented than ever before.
(some emphasis mine), original link provided.
From the above link:I have never thought of the celebration of the TLM as any kind of 'emergency.'
FRANCISCO WOULD PRETEND TO USE THE FSSPX AS A CAGE FOR THE TRIDENTINE MASS (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiTWlbbLRwgrK9u8juaRBKnm7ng-g)
RUMORS IN THE VATICAN: POPE FRANCIS PRETENDS TO END THE MASS IN LATINROME, July 26, 2017 ( LifeSiteNews (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-rumblings-pope-francis-aiming-to-end-latin-mass-permission&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhg1KkMQUSl5F20M_LWi55DswL4u7Q) ) : Vatican sources suggest that Pope Francis wants to end universal permission for priests to celebrate Pope Benedict's Traditional Latin Mass, also known as the "Extraordinary Form of the Mass." " While the line of action would be in tune with the expressly repeated disdain of Pope Francis for the Traditional Mass especially among young people, there has not been an open discussion of this to date.Sources in Rome told LifeSite last week that the liberal prelates within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, were casually overheard discussing a plan attributed to the Pope to abolish Pope Benedict's famous docuмent that gives priests the freedom to offer the ancient rite of the Mass.Traditionalist Catholics have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the docuмent, Summorum Pontificuм. Pope Benedict issued it in 2007, giving all Latin Rite priests permission to offer the Traditional Mass without seeking the permission of their bishops, undoing the restriction imposed on priests after the Second Vatican Council.The motu proprio outraged the liberal bishops, since it took away the power to prohibit the traditional Mass, as many did. Previously the priests needed the permission of their bishop to offer this Mass.Additionally, Summorum Pontificuм stated that wherever a group of faithful requested the Traditional Mass, the parish priests should gladly accept their request. The plans that were heard are almost identical to the comments of a leading Italian liturgist in an interview published by La Croix earlier this month. Andrea Grillo, a lay professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of San Anselmo in Rome, described by La Croix as "close to the Pope", is intimately familiar with Summorum Pontificuм. In fact, Grillo published a book against Summorum Pontificuм even before the papal docuмent was published.Grillo told La Croix that Francisco is considering abolishing Summorum Pontificuм. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Fraternity of St. Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. "But [Francisco] will not do it while Benedict XVI lives."The plan, as reported to LifeSite, involves making an agreement with the FSSPX and, with the agreement established, to confine Catholics who want the Traditional Mass to the SSPX. For most, this would take away their access to the Traditional Mass as there would not be enough SSPX priests to serve Catholics who want the Traditional Mass all over the world.Furthermore, the LifeSite source suggested that the plan could explain the May 20, 2017 letter by the recently dismissed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Although Cardinal Müller wanted the FSSPX to be completely reconciled to help fight Modernists in the Church, the letter of May 20 seemed to sink the agreement between Pope Francis and the SSPX, which would see them gain a personal prelature . The letter includes provisions that have long been completely unacceptable for the SSPX, thus nullifying the understanding that the FSSPX leader, Bishop Bernard Fellay, thought was imminent.The LifeSite source suggested that Müller's letter of May 20 was perhaps written because he knew what Francisco was up to and wanted to prevent the plan to bury the Summorum Pontificuм with Pope Benedict. "It is directed not so much against Fellay but against the agreement," the source said. "Pope Francis was very angry that the docuмent came from Cardinal Müller, and some say that's why he made the decision to dismiss him."https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248###This announcement needs to be broadcast worldwide.When Rome approves the SSPX, this means that no more Latin Masses will be allowed anywhere else, so the SSPX will have a monopoly.
SYNTHESIS OF THE NOVELTIES ABOUT "ECCLESIA DEI" (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2018/12/sintesis-de-las-novedades-con-ecclesia.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhDLOnGbTsfWe4GRk0CbdRCboEesw)If there were to be some kind of reorganization could it be that a reorganization would really serve to strengthen teh presence of the TLM in the life of the Church?(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8xI02gTB00/XCTe6OrR15I/AAAAAAAAD78/_eWG4ZMwBtUUNPOvHVBwE-lpk5AEQd3bwCLcBGAs/s400/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith.jpg) (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8xI02gTB00/XCTe6OrR15I/AAAAAAAAD78/_eWG4ZMwBtUUNPOvHVBwE-lpk5AEQd3bwCLcBGAs/s1600/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith.jpg)The headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to which the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei belongsQuote from Vaticanist Marco Tosatti: "It is not a mystery that the reigning pontiff and a good part of his power group (in particular the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Stella, one of the many Beria of the Vatican) , love, like the smoke in your eyes, everything that reminds you of the tradition, but that you have decided to push the Catholics to fill the churches of the SSPX, killing the liturgy Vetus Ordo seems really surreal. "A Cryptolefebvrist pontiff? ! " (from the article "Ecclesia Dei liquidada? Credible voices, we hope not." (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-liquidata-voci-credibili-speriamo-di-no/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiLJoGNrLZYzEH0uHsNuM_WvVXmjw) ).
Tosatti and, in general, the conservatives who value the Tridentine mass, think that the objective of the suppression or transformation of the pontifical commission Eclessia Dei, would be to restrict severely or, in fact, to prohibit the celebration of the mass according to the vetus ordo; what would cause that the faithful who at the moment attend the tridentine Masses celebrated according to the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм , are forced to emigrate en masse to the SSPX. Fearing this attack on the Tridentine mass, Tosatti expresses his hope that the suppression or transformation of Ecclesia Dei will not take effect.Others, however (see here (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiTWlbbLRwgrK9u8juaRBKnm7ng-g) and here (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2018/12/el-tarro-de-miel.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiJWaClTPRYI0uq7tXbSmN-7JVNgw) ), maintain, for some time now, that Pope Francis intends to "kill two birds with one stone": restrict the vetus ordo and control the SSPX, giving it the great Greek gift of a sort of world monopoly on the celebration of the "extraordinary rite" (which necessarily involves the regularization of the Fraternity).Another very important quote from Tosatti: "The Motu Proprio that establishes the end of Ecclesia Dei as an independent commission ... says that the pastoral emergency linked to the celebration of Vetus Ordo has come to an end, which led to the creation of the Commission Ecclesia Dei thirty years ago, and as a result, also the Commission, in its current form, no longer has any reason to exist. " ( source (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-pronto-il-motu-proprio-diventa-un-ufficio-alla-fede/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhjk6mMbuNsC7Do1ouu4dMBXwXjP_g) ) What was that "pastoral emergency"? For the existence of a congregation that, outside the control of liberal and modernist Rome, was able to attract to itself the Catholics who wanted to continue fighting in defense of the Catholic faith. According to the same Monsignor Lefebvre, this is the true purpose of Ecclesia Dei: it is, he said, a "Roman commission that is responsible for the recovery of the traditionalists to submit them to the Council" ( source (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/08/la-verdadera-mision-de-la-comision.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhiOqPhWI7iSzaFyFt75d5oBbi8sA) ) . That is why some reasonably assume that the regularization of the SSPX is close.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com%2F2018%2F12%2Fsintesis-de-las-novedades-con-ecclesia.html&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en
"It's a decision that could hide a new chapter in the Vatican war between progressives and conservatives. With this step, Francis wants to start another offensive against his adversaries."
"The pope, who finds it hard to bear the clergy and the faithful who are bound to the pre-Conciliar Mass, seized the opportunity to strike a direct blow to the conservative front by marginalizing Archbishop [Pozzo] without giving advantage to the traditional liturgy."
"Progressives are known to aim to free themselves from any remnant of the pre-Conciliar liturgy, even though Mass in its traditional form, attracts more and more believers, in contrast to many flat and disjointed Masses celebrated in our parishes. In November, Msgr. Roberto Maria Radaelli, Bishop of Gorizia, even claimed that Summorum Pontificuм, the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, with which the Latin mass was restored, was not valid under Canon Law. "
I don't think that is likely to happen. People tend to vote with their feet. What will happen is that more people will be going to the TLM and then they will have to realize that novelties and are going to have to be the thing of the past and there will be more of a move toward reverence for what is holy.
Time to trash the 1962 Transitional Missal (Extraordinary Form of the Novus Ordo) and claim the pre-Bugnini by right.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-pact-between-pope-francis-and-society.html#more
Monday, December 31, 2018
A Pact Between Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X for the Isolation of Tradition?(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IM0y6mfb71s/XCp0pQeyydI/AAAAAAAAWEs/s3eV8tSboGM5A-tQPmoMSNvUjSHf2-PFgCLcBGAs/s320/Lefebvrianer-Papst-Franziskus-Ecclesia-Dei-1030x438.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IM0y6mfb71s/XCp0pQeyydI/AAAAAAAAWEs/s3eV8tSboGM5A-tQPmoMSNvUjSHf2-PFgCLcBGAs/s1600/Lefebvrianer-Papst-Franziskus-Ecclesia-Dei-1030x438.jpg)Is Pope Francis preparing to eliminate the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Pius Brotherhood?
(Rome) More and more voices are dealing with the rumors that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is about to be dissolved.
The two authors Fabrizio Cannone and Alessandro Rico see it as a papal maneuver to αssαssιnαtҽ tradition from behind. Anzeige Fabrizio Cannone, born in 1974, holds a Doctorate in Church History and Religious Studies, and has written for Corrispondenza Romana, Fides Catholica, Homme Nouveau and numerous other Catholic media. Most recently, he published the book: "The Inconvenient Pope. History and background of the beatification of Pius IX." (1)
Alessandro Rico, born in 1991, studied philosophy at the Sapienza and Political History of Ideas at the LUISS in Rome. In 2017 he published together with Lorenzo Castellani the book "The end of politics? Technocracy, Populism, Multiculturalism". (2) He calls himself a "Catholic, Conservative and Opponent of Political Correctness". Both are close to the Catholic tradition.
In recent days, the rumors have been nearly confirmed that Pope Francis in January 2019 will dissolve the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and their tasks will be transferred to the Congregation of the Faith.
The Commission Ecclesia Dei was established in 1988 by John Paul II. It became the roof for the then and later emerging communities of tradition that remained in unity with Rome, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the newly-consecrated bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX) were declared excommunicated by Rome.
With the election of Benedict XVI. in addition, it was entrusted with discussions with the Society in preparation for reconciliation and canonical recognition. The Commission, headed by Curial Archbishop Guido Pozzo as Secretary, is also responsible for questions on the traditional form of the Roman Rite.
"Although Pozzo is not an ultra-conservative," the authors said, he has worked hard to bring the Society back into unity with Rome. "In the past, he rebuked the prelates who opposed the Tridentine Mass, which he regularly celebrates, so that he is a reference point for those who are still attached to the ancient Rite."
Pope Francis' new measure would therefore affect especially Archbishop Pozzo, who "was never disobedient to the Church". The Pope knows that the prelate would also submit to a dismissal from his present task without resistance.
However, Monsignor Pozzo was not only very popular with Pope Francis, but also - albeit for other reasons - with the Society. Both sides do not bother with the person, but with the institution he represents, with which the popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. have institutionalized tradition. Pope Francis, because he sees neither need for this institutionalization nor understanding of the tradition.
In the past, he spoke of a "temporary fashion" that he could not understand. The Society is struck by this, because it sees itself as the exclusive patron of tradition, recognizing "competition" in the Commission of Ecclesia Dei and the Ecclesia Dei communities. There are resentments that go back to the year 1988, when the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei was seen as a Roman countermeasure to the Society. This view is still to be found in the Society 30 years later.
The Society has petitioned in Rome its desire to be able to talk directly with the Congregation of the Faith, and not with the subordinate commission Ecclesia Dei.
At the same time Francis tries to play the two traditionalist souls against each other. He relied on the desire for revenge by the Society against the resulting "competition" of the Ecclesia Dei communities. The Society, according to the assessment of Francis, also felt "more and more pressure" to come to an agreement with Rome. Only three bishops have remained since the expulsion of Richard Williamson, whose ages are 73, 61 and 60. In the Society there is a desire for more bishops.
If everything does not start all over again in 1988, it needs the consent of the ruling Pope. The authors underline that it is understandable in this context that in the circles of the Ecclesia Dei communities, the apparently imminent dissolution of the Ecclesia Dei Commission is understood as a "pact between Lefebvrians and Francis to the detriment of the other communities of tradition". And further:
In 2017, in a RAI interview, the progressive liturgist Andrea Grillo demanded that the traditional Rite be allowed only for a small, well-defined group that was to be strictly defined and controlled. His words were understood by observers as a requirement to create a closely guarded, exotic reserve for the Society of Saint Pius X, while the other communities of tradition now in unity with Rome should be deprived of their right to exist. Rico and Cannone are of the opinion that Pope Francis has made this demand his strategy with the aim of first eliminating the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Society and then putting the Society on a short leash. They conclude with a question which, even after almost six years of Pope Francis' pontificate, has found no real answer:
"But why so much acrimony against the Tridentine Mass? The Catholic Church, shaken by sɛҳuąƖ scandals and the plague of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, pedophile priests, has very different concerns to worry about. In the Vatican, however, it still seems to be a priority to punish the Lord's Prayer, the cassock and receiving Communion while kneeling on the tongue. "
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: La Verità (screenshot) ______________________________
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Apparently +Benedict’s “motu” would be discarded and the TLM for all the dioceses would be stopped. The only churches where the TLM would be offered would be the new prelature, which would include the sspx, FSSP and all the other indults combined. It would probably have a new name as well.Did you read this portion of the last update in this thread? It seems to suggest getting rid of the other indults so that there is only one, the SSPX:
Traditio has long said that they think +Fellay would be in charge of this new, mega-indult “order”. His “50 pieces of silver” payment for betraying Tradition. Time will tell.
Did you read this portion of the last update in this thread? It seems to suggest getting rid of the other indults so that there is only one, the SSPX:
Rome is offering us a new structure. At its head will be a bishop, chosen by the Pope from a list of three Society members, named by the Society.
Right, so any priest of the FSSP or the ICK who wants to stay "traditional" will just join the new-sspx. This new-sspx will be the only TLM game in town. It will be easier for modernist rome to control and it will be "game over" for the TLM in the local dioceses.The SSPX is not an indult.
The SSPX is not an indult.Right, not currently but we're talking about the future. After they make a deal with new-rome, they'll have to accept V2 and the new mass and then they'll be an indult, just like all the other TLM/compromisers who are "under (heretical) rome".
Right, not currently but we're talking about the future. After they make a deal with new-rome, they'll have to accept V2 and the new mass and then they'll be an indult, just like all the other TLM/compromisers who are "under (heretical) rome".No one who is part of the SSPX is technically 'under Rome.'
1. How can the sspx "continue as they are" with only one bishop? Will one bishop do all the confirmations? Of course not. Novus Ordo bishops will be called in to "help".Novus Ordo "bishops" are already helping out with respect to SSPX marriages:
As of right now, no there is no agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican. Therefore any the idea of any 'novus ordo' bishop 'helping out' is out of the question.
Novus Ordo "bishops" are already helping out with respect to SSPX marriages:Notice that Card. Muller italicized "for the time being" and admits to "initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion".
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/0218/00485.html#ing
.
When Newrome grants "permission" for anything, they tacitly reserve the possibility of revoking said permission in the future.
.
Catholic priests don't need Newrome's "permission" to celebrate the TLM, because Quo Primum guarantees irrevocable permission FOREVER.
.
Case closed.
NOT for the 1962 Bugnini missal. That needs permission precisely because it's not the Immemorial Rite. For the Pre Bugnini, yes. That's why I cannot understand the SSPX Resistance still using it. They should formally adopt the older Missal now before the 1962 "Extraordinary Form" of the Novus Ordo is formally abrogated.Wait a minute. The 1962 missal was a legal revision of the 1955 missal, which was a legal revision of multiple others, going back to Quo Primum in the 1500s. So, the 1962 missal is a legal "child" of Quo Primum, according to the legal docuмents (all of which I've read).
Wait a minute. The 1962 missal was a legal revision of the 1955 missal, which was a legal revision of multiple others, going back to Quo Primum in the 1500s. So, the 1962 missal is a legal "child" of Quo Primum, according to the legal docuмents (all of which I've read).
Do you disagree? If so, why?
Novus Ordo "bishops" are already helping out with respect to SSPX marriages:That would only be if the SSPX priest cooperates.
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/0218/00485.html#ing
Notice that Card. Muller italicized "for the time being" and admits to "initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion".I hear rumors of that, but where I live I have seen no evidence of that. If you are seen as associating with them where I live then you are called a non Catholic.
'Your Eminence,
Your Excellency,
As you are aware, for some time various meetings and other initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion. Recently, the Holy Father decided, for example, to grant all priests of said Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful (Letter Misericordia et misera, n.12), such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.
Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions." etc.
The second half of this open letter should answer your questions. Why do you suppose the Vatican asked ABL to agree to always do the 1962 missal? Or, why are all the indult communities regulated by it and their priest ordained to do that missal?Your questions and the letter offer circuмstantial evidence for a conspiracy which everyone knows exists, and has already been proven - the plan to destroy Tradition gradually. But, as a matter of law, the 1962 missal is a lawful revision of the previous missal, i.e. Quo Primum. The intention of Bugnini to destroy the liturgy is irrelevant because the 1962 missal, if one looks at the changes in it, are non-essential changes to the liturgy. His intention doesn't matter because the changes don't reflect his intention; he only made SUBSTANTIAL changes starting in 1965.
Also, if you have a 1962 missal published by the SSPX, it's not the actual 1962 missal. It's a hybrid of the pre Bugnini and the Bugnini.Not sure what this means.
The 1962 missal IS regulated by Human Law: Summorum Pontificuм, Ecclessiae Universae and all the changes have been authorized though these Motu Proprios to bring the 1962 missal back to the Novus ordo while still calling it "the 1962 missal".
Don't take my word, read the docuмents and that is why Rome will be giving only the SSPX and exemption to keep (temporarily) the 1962 missal to force the indult communities who don't want the "new 1962 missal" coming soon, to join the SSPX.Rome's reasons for "why" they want the 1962 missal to be used are irrelevant. The 62 missal is the ONLY missal that ANY catholic is allowed (and commanded) to be used because this is order of law from Quo Primum. A future pope can legally change the 62 missal back to the pure liturgy but until that happens, we are stuck with it. Even though it is not perfect, it is substantially pure because only its "trimmings" are defective, not its essence.
The purpose of Summorum Pontificuм was not to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it (as a priest stated) its proper burial. Its the most restrictive of indults because for the first time we have to accept the Novus Ordo in order to have the right to use it and accept the N.O. as the "Ordinary Form" while the 1962 Bugnini version is the "Extraordinary Form".Yes, I agree this was the purpose of both indults (the 80s and Benedict's) but these indult laws are illegal, because they attempt to restrict that which Quo Primum does not allow to be restricted. Quo Primum is like the Constitution of the US and these indult laws are like a local law passed by a city. The Constitution overrules a city law and such local laws are null and void. Just like with everything post-V2, new-rome cares not if their laws are legal or binding - they only care if the people *think* such laws are legal/binding. New-rome only cares about the end result - which both indults have accomplished - that most catholics stay away from Tradition under the false idea that we are disobedient and extremists, even though the law is surely on our side, both Divine Law and Church law.
All the changes you mentioned in the 62 missal are non-essential changes, which the pope can make and permit. The pope is only prevented from making substantial changes to the Mass. If you accept that John XXIII was pope, then the 1962 missal was legally authorized and acceptable.
The 1962 missal is regulated by Quo Primum, which makes the additional laws of Ecclessiae Dei and Summorum Pontificuм irrelevant.
Rome's reasons for "why" they want the 1962 missal to be used are irrelevant. The 62 missal is the ONLY missal that ANY catholic is allowed (and commanded) to be used because this is order of law from Quo Primum. A future pope can legally change the 62 missal back to the pure liturgy but until that happens, we are stuck with it. Even though it is not perfect, it is substantially pure because only its "trimmings" are defective, not its essence.
Yes, I agree this was the purpose of both indults (the 80s and Benedict's) but these indult laws are illegal, because they attempt to restrict that which Quo Primum does not allow to be restricted. Quo Primum is like the Constitution of the US and these indult laws are like a local law passed by a city. The Constitution overrules a city law and such local laws are null and void. Just like with everything post-V2, new-rome cares not if their laws are legal or binding - they only care if the people *think* such laws are legal/binding. New-rome only cares about the end result - which both indults have accomplished - that most catholics stay away from Tradition under the false idea that we are disobedient and extremists, even though the law is surely on our side, both Divine Law and Church law.
"I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions and all other observances and constitutions of the Church… I also receive and admit the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."Pope Pius IV, Tridentine Profession of Faith
You are arguing that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the "received and approved" Roman rite and therefore the treating of it as an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege is itself "illegal". You may be right but I do not think so and, more importantly, neither does Rome.
The 1962 Missal is not the "received and approved" Roman rite and the proof of this is in the fact that Rome has never treated the 1962 Missal as the "received and approved" rite reducing it an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege.Not true. See above. The 62 missal requires no indult, as Pope Benedict admitted.
There is a wealth of evidence that liturgy is not and has never been a matter of mere discipline.I agree, it is not just a matter of discipline. But the 62 missal is essentially the same as the 1955 missal and the same as Pius V's 1500s missal, going all the way back to Pope Gregory the Great's missal of the 400s, therefore its revisions are allowed to be made by a valid pope and are not contrary to the Faith (even if many of the changes are not promoting piety or religious ferver).
The liturgical changes in the 1962 Missal are significant. Once it is understood that the liturgical changes overseen by Bugnini are a variation of the heresy of Iconoclasm, the damage done to the faith in the 1962 Missal becomes more evident. Such changes as the removal of St. Peter's Chair at Rome, the removal of saints because their only evidence were miracles, or the removal of liturgical celebrations grounded upon miracles, such as the finding of the body of St. Stephen, St. John before the Latin Gate, etc., destruction of most octaves and vigils, that addition of a non-martyr to the canon (St. Joseph), and all the Holy Week changes from 1956 that embodied numerous changes seen in 1969 Novus Ordo Missal. Iconoclasm was manifested by 1962.The changes may be significant, from a historical perspective, but are not ESSENTIAL changes, theologically or doctrinally. Getting rid of a feast day or an octave is not a denial that the saint existed. The changes to the 62 missal do NOT affect doctrine or dogma ESSENTIALLY. They are not a denial of the Faith. They are not a new theology. Not in the same degree as the novus ordo of 69, which is totally anti-Trent.
Yes, Rome does think that, and admitted it, though indirectly. In the 2007 "motu", Pope Benedict said that (paraphrasing) - the law which created the 1962 missal (i.e. Quo Primum) was never abrogated, therefore the old rite (i.e. True Mass) was always permitted (i.e. the "indult laws" which implied that the True Mass was outlawed and thus the indult law was necessary to "bring it back" are illegal).
This is the same conclusion reached by a commission in the early 80s, as ordered by JPII, who wanted to know if, legally speaking, the True Mass was outlawed by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution which created the new mass. Result - the commission said that Paul VI's law did not outlaw the 1962 missal. Therefore, by extension, it means that Quo Primum is still in force.
The only people who consistantly argued that the "old mass" was outlawed, banned and replaced were the bishops/cardinals, who do not have any legal standing or ability to legally rule on this question. Rome has consistantly and officially said that Quo Primum is still in force, though they said it indirectly (because they don't want to draw attention to Quo Primum), by admitting that the 1962 missal is valid.
Not true. See above. The 62 missal requires no indult, as Pope Benedict admitted.
I agree, it is not just a matter of discipline. But the 62 missal is essentially the same as the 1955 missal and the same as Pius V's 1500s missal, going all the way back to Pope Gregory the Great's missal of the 400s, therefore its revisions are allowed to be made by a valid pope and are not contrary to the Faith (even if many of the changes are not promoting piety or religious ferver).
The changes may be significant, from a historical perspective, but are not ESSENTIAL changes, theologically or doctrinally. Getting rid of a feast day or an octave is not a denial that the saint existed. The changes to the 62 missal do NOT affect doctrine or dogma ESSENTIALLY. They are not a denial of the Faith. They are not a new theology. Not in the same degree as the novus ordo of 69, which is totally anti-Trent.
Were there seeds planted which eventually sprouted into heresies in 1969? Yes. But such seeds of 62 are not a denial/change/subversion to an extreme degree.
The great problem with defending traditional Catholicism is that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith and regarded the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline. Those he formed hold the same opinion including the sedevacantists who were expelled in 1983 and use the pre-1956 Missal. They both argue that the pope is the "master of the liturgy" and can do whatever he wants as long as he does not injure the faith. Both have made themselves the judge of what or what does not constitute injury to the faith. Neither appeal to dogma. It is a no win argument.Straw-man much?
Straw-man much?
Archbishop Lefebvre had a doctorate in theology and his writings display a good understanding of the liturgy and doctrine, including lex orandi lex credendi. He is not infallible, but it's amusing to watch people with much less understanding try to argue that the Archbishop was fundamentally wrong.
Straw-man? Not only have you not identified the "straw-man" in the argument, [....]I quoted some straw in my first reply.
[....] And the Tridentine Profession of Faith cited in the previous post is sufficient to prove that liturgy cannot be a matter of mere discipline.
I quoted some straw in my first reply.
You assert Archbishop Lefebvre thought the liturgy was a matter of "mere discipline" as if no dogma was involved. That's a straw man.
I think Archbishop Lefebvre understood the relation between liturgy and dogma better than you.
I have provided evidence for my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre did not regard dogma as his rule of faith and therefore, could not see the relationship between liturgy and dogma. If you think this is a "straw-man" then you must refute the evidence with your own to support your accusation.No, I do not need to do that. If you have a claim, it is your job to prove it.
No, I do not need to do that. If you have a claim, it is your job to prove it.
What you have done is say that Archbishop Lefebvre did not subscribe to your version of EENS. From there you go to the broad claim he "did not regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith". Perhaps your "evidence" doesn't support your claim, because, for instance, your claim is too broad.
Frankly, you could work on communication. Try defining the terms you use, so that it does not appear that you are using them in different senses in different places.
"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." Vatican I
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998
For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.
John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis
Straw-man much?
Archbishop Lefebvre had a doctorate in theology and his writings display a good understanding of the liturgy and doctrine, including lex orandi lex credendi. He is not infallible, but it's amusing to watch people with much less understanding try to argue that the Archbishop was fundamentally wrong.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote: DrewQuoteThe 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.
Quote: DrewQuoteBut 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.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.
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.
Quote: DrewQuoteA 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.
Quote: DrewQuoteThe 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?
6. The introduction of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon was not new with this Missal. In the first session of the Council, Liberal bishops (probably coached by their more Liberal periti (advisors) began to make a great to-do about the fact that the name of St. Joseph was not in the Canon of the Mass. Their arguments were patently untheological, and patently shallow. They suggested that it was shameful that, after all these centuries, St. Joseph was still missing, as if this was an unpardonable oversight and disparagement toward the Foster Father of Christ, and the Spouse of our Lady--as if to say that our forefathers in the Faith deserved reprimand for such an omission. The reason why St. Joseph's name had never been included thus is obvious: Our Liturgy has its roots in the Church of the city and diocese of Rome. The names included in the Canon were the key personages in the devotion of the first Christians of the Eternal City: The Virgin Mary, St. John the Baptist, the Apostles, the first popes after St. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, and Sixtus, and the great martyr heroes and heroines, who gave their lives for the Faith in Rome. The early Christians did not include the name of St. Joseph in the Mass because he did not take part in the public ministry of Christ and in the great redemptive acts of the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, as Mary and the Apostles did, nor in the establishing of the Church in Rome. Through the centuries, the Church gave St. Joseph special recognition and named him the Protector of the Universal Church, but there is still no reason to name him in the Canon.
At the Council, the debate went for many days, when, toward the end of the First Session, Pope John, by his own authority included the name in the Canon. We know now that all the indignant protesting was not inspired by a genuine devotion to St. Joseph, because since the Council, less and less attention has been given to St. Joseph and all the other saints. The whole purpose of the demonstration was to "break the seal" of the sacred Canon of the Mass, to violate that which by its very name was meant to remain sacrosanct, untouchable, and inviolable. We priests who remember those days in 1961 cannot read the Communicantes at Mass without recalling that the adding of the name of St. Joseph was nothing but an irreverent and hypocritical tactic. We have had time to see that those who trashed the ancient Liturgy care nothing for the honor of St. Joseph, his most chaste Spouse, the Mother of our Savior, nor for our Savior Himself. Regardless, there is no point of argument now.
From PV last post quoting Fr. Wathen
"No harm is done by omitting St. Joseph's name, or including it. The Church will settle this matter in a saner day. "
I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy...
Pius XII Devant L'Histoire
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.
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.Whether or not the liturgical developments were organic or not is irrelevant. What matters are two questions:
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.Doesn't matter what Bugnini's intent was, it matters what the Pope said in his law which revised Quo Primum (for the 8th time in 500 yrs) and issued a new revision in 1962.
The laws that produced the 1962 Missal and those that did away with it by Paul VI are all of the same nature.They absolutely ARE NOT similar at all. Have you read these laws? They couldn't be more different. John XXIII said his missal was a revision of Quo Primum and was governed by this law and was a legal extension of it.
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.No, this isn't true. The 1962 missal requires no indult (which Benedict XVI admitted in his "motu") and it still doesn't because Quo Primum is the ULTIMATE, PERMANENT and FOREVER version of the indult. Those who choose to follow the lie of the ecclesia dei/motu laws do so because they are unaware that Quo Primum's legal protections outweigh a simple papal indult.
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.
Why not just wait until "the Church settles this matter in a saner day", and in the meantime do as St. Vincent of Lerins says: "Cleave unto antiquity" and go back to the 1954 Missal?
Canon 13, 7th Session of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administrations of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by any pastor of the churches whomsoever into new ones; let him be anathema.”
We know the 1954 or earlier are "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church",
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.Drew said the above. If this is true, then my question is:
How? Why can Pius XII make changes to St Pius V's missal but John XXIII cannot? Didn't Bugnini start his "updates" in the 40s?No Bugmini's influence started with 1955.
Drew said the above. If this is true, then my question is:
Isn't the 1954 missal part of Bugnini's updates, therefore just as wrong as the 1962 missal? How can you say that Bugnini's updates in 1954 are ok but his updates in 62 are wrong? Please be specific.
http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)
Massive liturgical changes expected in 2018!
Reliable sources close to the Holy See have indicated that sometime in the second half of 2018, the Novus Ordo Lectionary and Calendar are to be imposed upon the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.
The new Roman Missal will become available on the First Sunday of Advent 2018 but the Vatican will allow a two-year period to phase it in. These changes are expected to be much more drastic than what was envisaged in Universae Ecclesiae (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/p/universae-ecclesiae.html) that states:
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently. (emphasis ours)
The Vatican approved societies and institutes, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, will likely apply for exemptions, but all requests are expected to be turned down. The only exception seems to be the SSPX, which might be granted a temporary exemption, to ensure that an agreement is reached between the SSPX and Rome.
Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, an alleged Mason, directed the liturgical reform from 1948 until 1976. The 1962 Missal, issued at the mid-point of his liturgical tenure, existed only about 2½ years. It was regarded by Bugnini, who took credit for its authorship, as only a transitional Missal toward his ultimate goal of the Novus Ordo. Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificuм said that the relationship of the 1962 Missal to the Novus Ordo is one of organic development, that “They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
This is true statement for Bugnini said in his book, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1976, that the first principles of liturgical reform adopted by his commission, first principles that were novel, artificial ideological constructs, guided his work and remained absolutely consistent throughout his entire tenure. The first principles guiding the formation of the 1962 Missal are the same principles that would give us the Novus Ordo. When Bugnini was asked if the 1962 Missal represented the end of his liturgical innovations he said, “Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars. The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid). Thus such feasts as the Solemnity of St. Joseph, the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, the Finding of the True Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, and many, many other liturgical changes, considered “gross accretions and evident distortions” by those who would eventually give the Church the liturgical “fullness, dignity and harmony” of the Novus Ordo, were done away with in the 1962 Missal.
It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome. Every papal docuмent touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Dei as an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificuм as a grant of privilege by positive law. At no time in the history of the Church has an immemorial liturgical tradition been reduced to the status of an Indult, which is the permission to do something that is not permitted by the positive law of the Church. This constitutes presumptive proof that Rome does not regard the 1962 Missal as the Immemorial Roman Rite.
The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was adopted by the SSPX in 1983 as their liturgical standard.
^ footnote of the letter linked below.
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
Ok but you still have to show that the changes made to the 1955 and 1962 missal are wrong, are a new theology and/or teach new doctrine. This is because, even if Bugnini was the re-incarnation of Martin Luther, his changes were reviewed/approved by the pope, who has the authority to make changes to the liturgy.What about just the changes made to the Good Friday prayer for the Jєωs?
How do we know that what Bugnini first proposed in 62 wasn’t super-heretical (like the Novus Ordo) but John XXIII rejected the major changes and just implanted one’s that were minor? We don’t. Does it matter? No. All the matters is the end result - which changes of 62 are not major, even if Bugnini was involved.
Until you start giving SPECIFIC examples of doctrinal/theological/heretical changes in 1962, then your arguments are baseless.
You are arguing against Bugnini as if he was caught planning a murder that didn’t take place until later. I ask, was he guilty of conspiring to kill the liturgy? Yes. When did he kill the liturgy? 1969. You would say, What about all the preliminary attempts in 62? I answer - did anyone die in 62? No. So he can only be guilty of conspiracy, he can’t be guilt of murder until 1969. This is when his plan was realized, not before.
It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome. Every papal docuмent touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Deias an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificuм as a grant of privilege by positive law.This is just absolutely not true. Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal. It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.
This is just absolutely not true. Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal. It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.
You and Drew just keep repeating yourself, with no proof. Have you ever read the 1962 law change? I assure you it exists.
Therefore you accept all of Bugnini’s changes until 1962 and reject the Bugnini changes after 1962 because you regard them as harmful.No, I accept the 62 missal because IT IS A LEGAL REVISION OF QUO PRIMUM. Regardless of the intention of the changes, regardless of the goal of the changes, regardless of who envisioned the changes, the changes themselves WERE NOT SUBSTANTIVE alterations of the St Pius V missal. Therefore, the revisions are “approved and received” because in non-doctrinal changes, the pope has authority to chnage the liturgy. In non-essential matters, yes, the liturgy is a matter of discipline because a lot of the Church’s liturgy is of human origin and development.
Those who attend the Latin Mass in the 1962 Bugnini transitional edition accept it as a grant of legal privilege and in doing this they will have no legal or even moral argument when it is taken away, or revised in the "reform of the reform" to incorporate the celebrations of Novus Ordo saints, three years liturgical calendar, vernacular usage, etc.I’ll quote what I already said before. Please read this slowly and study the legal docuмents.
Unlike yourself, I do not place myself as the judge of the pope and his individual liturgical experimentations. I attend the immemorial “received and approved” rite of Mass before any of the Bugnini changes were imposed.
You argue that because the pope implemented these changes they should be accepted unless they are, in your personal judgment, harmful. Therefore you accept all of Bugnini’s changes until 1962 and reject the Bugnini changes after 1962 because you regard them as harmful.You keep arguing that the liturgy is "not mere discipline", yet everyone here says that.
Without the Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass,Good point, except the pre-Tridentine mass was revised multiple times by Pope St Gregory in the 400s, so his changes would be null as well. Then in the 200s and 300s you had the development of the Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Byzantine and Latin rites and these would all have to be rejected too, since if the pope can’t make changes then the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.
Good point, except the pre-Tridentine mass was revised multiple times by Pope St Gregory in the 400s, so his changes would be null as well. Then in the 200s and 300s you had the development of the Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Byzantine and Latin rites and these would all have to be rejected too, since if the pope can’t make changes then the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.
Not only St. Joseph's name added to the Canon broke with a ancient tradition but the 1700+ years old Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jєωs was changed.Doesn’t matter.
Doesn’t matter.A couple of points (one in which I disagree with you and one in which I agree):
(1) Both these prayers were not from Christ, therefore they aren’t part of the Divine/doctrinal part of the mass, which is the ONLY part that can’t be changed.
The canon prayers were not part of Church tradition until the 400s with pope St Gregory the great (and this only for the Latin rite...not sure if other rites have an old Canon).
(2) they were added/created by the Church and an earlier pope, so they are part of the human/changeable part of the liturgy. A pope has the power to change human laws, however old.
(3) These changes do not affect the doctrine/theology/substance of the mass, either in its sacrificial nature or its purpose as the greatest prayer to God.
Not only are you “making a mountain out of a molehill” but you are making yourself a judge of the Pope, since you’re claiming that John XXIII doesn’t have the power to chnage what another pope added. Hogwash.
(1) I disagree that the Good Friday prayer doesn't change doctrine. It removes the word "faithless/perfidious". This certainly changes the way the Church has always taught to view the Jєωs (also keep in mind that this led the way to the Novus Ordo prayer that now states that Jєωs are actually "faithful").Deleting the word doesn't change anything. What it "led to" is irrelevant because we're talking about the 1962 missal, not what came after it.
It is my understanding that the Church doesn't teach that Catholic doctrine is only reflected in certain sections of the mass. If you believe otherwise, please provide Church support for that.
No, I accept the 62 missal because IT IS A LEGAL REVISION OF QUO PRIMUM. Regardless of the intention of the changes, regardless of the goal of the changes, regardless of who envisioned the changes, the changes themselves WERE NOT SUBSTANTIVE alterations of the St Pius V missal. Therefore, the revisions are “approved and received” because in non-doctrinal changes, the pope has authority to chnage the liturgy. In non-essential matters, yes, the liturgy is a matter of discipline because a lot of the Church’s liturgy is of human origin and development.
The changes post 62 don’t have to be accepted because 1) they were not legally part of a revision of Quo Primum, and the docuмents never claimed they were. 2) the changes, therefore, lack the binding and authoritative legal elements that Quo Primum clearly expressed, and 3) Neither John XXIII or Paul VI ever commanded these changes to be accepted by all the Church, under pain of sin (unlike the 62 changes, which are enforced by Quo Primum’s strict regulations.)
I’ll quote what I already said before. Please read this slowly and study the legal docuмents.
Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal. It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.
The indult laws of the 80s and 2007 are null and void because they seek to limit the permissions and commands of Quo Primum, which are legally in force “in perpetuity”. No post 1962 law/pope has EVER revised or ended the law of Quo Primum, as Benedict XVI admitted in his “motu”. Thus, no Catholic must follow the indults (which are legal word games with no substance or penalty for ignoring them), or needs permission for the TLM because Quo Primum grants a perpetual indult/permission which is based on both doctrine and discipline and is legally binding under pain of sin.
One sees disagreement over ideas with the Benedictine's view that the Octave (of Pentecost) be retained but with the others agreeing it should be abolished. The 1948 Commission took the decision to abolish the Octave of Pentecost at its seventh meeting on February 14th, 1950. (Vide: Bugnini, 'Reform..', p.320 & Giampietro, 'Antonelli..', p. 289) although this was not to happen in practice for two decades being dependent on working out the lectionary etc. for 'Ordinary Time'.
Rubricarius, St. Lawrence Press
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
1962 Mass is valid and Catholic, as long as the priest is validly ordained. The 1962 Mass is even licit because adding the St. Joseph prayer didn't change the essence of the the Mass. Quo Primum allows small changes to the Mass, but it outlaws anything that makes substantial changes to, or replaces, the Tridentine Mass in the Latin Rite. Notwithstanding John XXIII adding St. Joseph to the Canon of the 1962 Missal was an act of false piety to trick the Church into accepting future massive changes and, ultimately, replacement of the true Mass with the Novus Ordo sacrilege, the St. Joseph addition, per se, doesn't make the 1962 Mass illicit nor invalid.
Your entire conceptual presentation of the typical 1962 Missal as an organic emendation of Quo Primum is a fantasy....This Missal and breviary were published in a general form in the Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, on July 25, 1962.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html)
There is no mention of Quo Priumum in this docuмent.
You claim that “a lot of the liturgy is of human origin and development”, that is, you are claiming the liturgy is essentially a matter of mere discipline and that the lawgiver can do with it what he please as long as it is a “non-essential matter”.
You accept the 1962 edition of the Bugnini transitional Missal because it was approved by the pope and you do not find anything in the Missal that offends your sense of what is “essential”.I accept it because it is a matter of law from the pope, which binds all the Church in the latin rite, as it clearly states. My thoughts are irrelevant.
You reject the 1965 transitional Missal even though it was approved by the pope because it offends your sense of what is “essential”. You have made yourself the judge of what or what is not essential in the liturgy and that is an authority you do not possess. Even Archbishop Lefebvre used the 1965 edition and with even some subsequent Bugnini changes after 1965 at Econe through the 70s and possibly until 1983. He found nothing in them that corrupted what he thought was “essential.”The 65 and 69 missals were issued due to Vatican 2's "wishes" (but not apostolic authority) and were not binding on the whole latin rite. There is nothing in the 65 or 69 docuмents which order me, or any catholic, to accept the changes, do the same degree as Quo Primum/John XIII's law. The 65 and 69 missals did not revoke, abrogate or revise the 1962 missal, which was still in force as law and which still carries the papal command to use/attend this mass.
Your argument can go nowhere. Neither you nor I can offer any more than opinions regarding what the pope can and cannot do regarding the liturgy. Neither you nor I can determine exactly when the Novus Ordo replaced the “received and approved” Roman rite. I admit this but you do not.If the 65 and 69 missals used the same legal language as Quo Primum or St Pius X or John XXIII, then I would agree with you, since all the laws would contradict and confuse each other. As it is, we know that the 1962 missal was never outlawed (as admitted by Benedict XVI in his "motu"), therefore we KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT, that the 65 and 69 missals DID NOT REPLACE the 62 missal. We also know that the 65/69 missals WERE NOT OBLIGATORY, since a new law cannot command something contrary to a previous law, unless the previous law is outlawed, revised or changed. Catholics during that time did not know this because they aren't obligated to know the law to such a degree. But Benedict cleared all this up in 2007 and gave us the legal answer we all knew was true - that the 1962 missal is the only missal REQUIRED to be used in the latin rite.
What is worse for your argument, the first typical edition of the 1962 Missal was first published in July 25, 1962. St. Joseph’s name was not added to the communicantes until December 8, 1962 by John XXIII in Nove hisce temporibus.I can't find the docuмent you reference which has an english translation of the addition of St Joseph. If this addition wasn't part of the original July 25 law, then my argument is STRONGER, because it means that this addition is not part of "legal chain" which links to back to Quo Primum. If the addition of St Joseph was an "extra" change by John XXIII, and does not carry the same legal obligations or command to use it (similar to the way the 65/69 changes were not obligatory) then such a change is optional and not binding under pain of sin.
So just what is the “typical edition” of the 1962 Missal? I do not know and neither do you, and a lot of people who are very knowledgeable about this question have not arrived at any definitive answer either.
PAXQuoteDrew
You claim that “a lot of the liturgy is of human origin and development”, that is, you are claiming the liturgy is essentially a matter of mere discipline and that the lawgiver can do with it what he please as long as it is a “non-essential matter”.
I think it was a king in the middle ages who started the liturgical practice of genuflecting during the Creed. If a future pope decided to get rid of this practice, he could, because this liturgical rubric is not of Divine origin. There are many such "developments" that happened during the course of centuries to the Latin Rite. I don't agree with getting rid of any of them, because the spiritual life is meant to grow, not go backwards. I'm only arguing that, in theory, and by law, what one pope added to the liturgy another can discard.
The essentials of the Mass are great and important. All the Apostles learned the same Mass from Christ, yet how different is the Western rite from the many Eastern rites? Liturgically, they are very different, even if in substance they are equal. The whole reason that Pope St Pius V issued Quo Primum was to draw a line in the sand and to say "No More Liturgical developments are needed! From now on, this is the Mass. It needs no further improvements."
To say that the liturgy in the West did not develop over time BY HUMAN MEANS, is to ignore history.
PAXQuoteDrewI accept it because it is a matter of law from the pope, which binds all the Church in the latin rite, as it clearly states. My thoughts are irrelevant.
You accept the 1962 edition of the Bugnini transitional Missal because it was approved by the pope and you do not find anything in the Missal that offends your sense of what is “essential”.
PAXQuoteQuote DrewThe 65 and 69 missals were issued due to Vatican 2's "wishes" (but not apostolic authority) and were not binding on the whole latin rite. There is nothing in the 65 or 69 docuмents which order me, or any catholic, to accept the changes, do the same degree as Quo Primum/John XIII's law. The 65 and 69 missals did not revoke, abrogate or revise the 1962 missal, which was still in force as law and which still carries the papal command to use/attend this mass.
You reject the 1965 transitional Missal even though it was approved by the pope because it offends your sense of what is “essential”. You have made yourself the judge of what or what is not essential in the liturgy and that is an authority you do not possess. Even Archbishop Lefebvre used the 1965 edition and with even some subsequent Bugnini changes after 1965 at Econe through the 70s and possibly until 1983. He found nothing in them that corrupted what he thought was “essential.”
PAXQuoteDrewIf the 65 and 69 missals used the same legal language as Quo Primum or St Pius X or John XXIII, then I would agree with you, since all the laws would contradict and confuse each other. As it is, we know that the 1962 missal was never outlawed (as admitted by Benedict XVI in his "motu"), therefore we KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT, that the 65 and 69 missals DID NOT REPLACE the 62 missal. We also know that the 65/69 missals WERE NOT OBLIGATORY, since a new law cannot command something contrary to a previous law, unless the previous law is outlawed, revised or changed. Catholics during that time did not know this because they aren't obligated to know the law to such a degree. But Benedict cleared all this up in 2007 and gave us the legal answer we all knew was true - that the 1962 missal is the only missal REQUIRED to be used in the latin rite.
Your argument can go nowhere. Neither you nor I can offer any more than opinions regarding what the pope can and cannot do regarding the liturgy. Neither you nor I can determine exactly when the Novus Ordo replaced the “received and approved” Roman rite. I admit this but you do not.
I know of no historical record that docuмents a specific king who on a specific date decided to genuflect at the Credo but I do not question the legend. If a king is inspired to genuflect during the Credo and this practice becomes a universal custom throughout the rite, the pope does not possess the authority to suppress it. Why? Because the act was inspired by God and approved by God.Who made the practice a "universal custom" except the pope? Therefore, another pope can suppress it. Human laws can be changed; I'm sorry, but that's a fact.
Established custom is source of law and the interpreter of law. The purpose of the custom as an outward sign that is a profession of faith and adoration of the Incarnation. The act is an outward sign that is an image of the true faith. St. Thomas says that the faith can be denied in word or in act. The act of genuflecting at the Credo cannot be suppressed without damaging the faith and the pope has no authority to damage the faith. It would be an act of Iconoclasm. He could only suppress an immemorial custom that became clearly abusive.When Pope St Pius V codified the latin rite, he suppressed a plethora of rites which had been around for over a 100 years. Some rites which were over 200 years also disappeared, voluntarily. So who decides what is "established custom" and what isn't? The pope does, because what the Church has added, can be deleted.
To argue that the pope has the authority to suppress this act of adoration is to presume that the liturgy is the work of man and therefore to presume that it is a matter of mere ecclesiastical faith and discipline that the pope created and the pope can do away with. This is Bugnini’s presupposition that underlies all liturgical innovation that has done so much damage to the Church.Some parts of the liturgy ARE a work of man. No matter how old a man-made liturgical custom is, it can NEVER become infallible, untouchable or of Divine-origin. Sorry.
If you accept that the pope can suppress the genuflection of the faithful during the Credo that you can offer no argument against any of the Bugnini liturgical innovations, not a single one of them.
The Motu Proprio of John XXIII, Rubricarum Instructum, has nothing to do, contrary to what you have claim, with Quo Primum or Divino Affatu, and therefore must be accepted.Wrong. It says it right in the law, in black and white.
You have no grounds whatsoever to insist that the 1962 liturgical Bugnni reforms must be accepted because they are legally binding by John XXIII in his Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum and refuse to be legally bound by the 1965 liturgical Bugnini reforms of Paul VI in Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecuмenici.I already said that until I can find an english translation of the 1965 changes, that I cannot respond on what the law says. You could be right; not sure yet.
What you had better give so thought to this. The SP did not “free” the 1962 Missal. He moved it from being an Indult to a grant of legal privilege. This constitutes additional prima facie evidence that the 1962 Missal is not the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite because the immemorial “received and approved” rite could no more be a grant of legal privilege than it could be an Indult.The 1962 missal was not "freed" by SP, I agree. It didn't NEED to be freed because Quo Primum always allowed it, as (contradictorily) Pope Benedict admitted. SP did not change Quo Primum's permissions, penalties or commands in any way. The 80s indult laws didn't affect Quo Primum in any way. Quo Primum is still law and it's missal (the 1962) is still the ONLY missal of the latin rite that can be used.
In accepting your grant of legal privilege you have made a profession of faith in the Novus Ordo and thus the entire liturgical reform; you have accepted the belief that liturgy is a matter of mere discipline; you have acknowledged that the 1962 Missal (whatever that is) can be outlawed; you have identified the Novus Ordo with the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal share a common provenance; you will have no legal or moral standing to complain when the 1962 Missal is changed; and you will have no legal or moral standing when your grant of legal privilege is modified or entirely withdrawn.How many times do I have to say this, until you get the point I'm trying to make? Quo Primum is like the US Constitution and the indult laws (all of them) are like a state law which is contrary to the Constitution, therefore these lessor laws are null and void. It took 50 years for rome to admit that Quo Primum is still in force, which Benedict did, when he said that the 1962 missal "was never abrogated, and thus always permitted."
I think you and Bugnini have a lot more in common than you might think.Really? Are you unable to calm down and have a civil discussion without getting so bent out of shape? You're a very smart guy and you've made some good points (which I will research and get back with you) but if you can't have a debate without hurling insults at me, then this is a waste of my time, because we need to just stick to the facts. Getting off topic by acting like i'm trying to destroy catholicism is just ridiculous. You're better than this.
You have no grounds whatsoever to insist that the 1962 liturgical Bugnni reforms must be accepted because they are legally binding by John XXIII in his Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum and refuse to be legally bound by the 1965 liturgical Bugnini reforms of Paul VI in Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecuмenici.Ok, I found some english translations of these 2 docuмents:
[...] If a king is inspired to genuflect during the Credo and this practice becomes a universal custom throughout the rite, the pope does not possess the authority to suppress it. Why? Because the act was inspired by God and approved by God. Established custom is source of law and the interpreter of law.How do you explain Pope Pius V suppressing several local customs and variants in the pre-Tridentine liturgy? The liturgical reform at that time removed many sequences from the Mass (leaving the few we have today, plus one was added later, well after Trent). It also stopped specifically a common Marian trope to the Gloria.
PAXQuoteDrew
I know of no historical record that docuмents a specific king who on a specific date decided to genuflect at the Credo but I do not question the legend. If a king is inspired to genuflect during the Credo and this practice becomes a universal custom throughout the rite, the pope does not possess the authority to suppress it. Why? Because the act was inspired by God and approved by God.
Who made the practice a "universal custom" except the pope? Therefore, another pope can suppress it. Human laws can be changed; I'm sorry, but that's a fact.
PAXQuoteDrew
Established custom is source of law and the interpreter of law. The purpose of the custom as an outward sign that is a profession of faith and adoration of the Incarnation. The act is an outward sign that is an image of the true faith. St. Thomas says that the faith can be denied in word or in act. The act of genuflecting at the Credo cannot be suppressed without damaging the faith and the pope has no authority to damage the faith. It would be an act of Iconoclasm. He could only suppress an immemorial custom that became clearly abusive.
When Pope St Pius V codified the latin rite, he suppressed a plethora of rites which had been around for over a 100 years. Some rites which were over 200 years also disappeared, voluntarily. So who decides what is "established custom" and what isn't? The pope does, because what the Church has added, can be deleted.
PAXQuoteDrew
To argue that the pope has the authority to suppress this act of adoration is to presume that the liturgy is the work of man and therefore to presume that it is a matter of mere ecclesiastical faith and discipline that the pope created and the pope can do away with. This is Bugnini’s presupposition that underlies all liturgical innovation that has done so much damage to the Church.
If you accept that the pope can suppress the genuflection of the faithful during the Credo that you can offer no argument against any of the Bugnini liturgical innovations, not a single one of them.
Some parts of the liturgy ARE a work of man. No matter how old a man-made liturgical custom is, it can NEVER become infallible, untouchable or of Divine-origin. Sorry.
PAXQuoteDrew
The Motu Proprio of John XXIII, Rubricarum Instructum, has nothing to do, contrary to what you have claim, with Quo Primum or Divino Affatu, and therefore must be accepted.
Wrong. It says it right in the law, in black and white.
PAXQuoteDrew
What you had better give so thought to this. The SP did not “free” the 1962 Missal. He moved it from being an Indult to a grant of legal privilege. This constitutes additional prima facie evidence that the 1962 Missal is not the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite because the immemorial “received and approved” rite could no more be a grant of legal privilege than it could be an Indult.
The 1962 missal was not "freed" by SP, I agree. It didn't NEED to be freed because Quo Primum always allowed it, as (contradictorily) Pope Benedict admitted. SP did not change Quo Primum's permissions, penalties or commands in any way. The 80s indult laws didn't affect Quo Primum in any way. Quo Primum is still law and it's missal (the 1962) is still the ONLY missal of the latin rite that can be used.
PAXQuoteDrew
In accepting your grant of legal privilege you have made a profession of faith in the Novus Ordo and thus the entire liturgical reform; you have accepted the belief that liturgy is a matter of mere discipline; you have acknowledged that the 1962 Missal (whatever that is) can be outlawed; you have identified the Novus Ordo with the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal share a common provenance; you will have no legal or moral standing to complain when the 1962 Missal is changed; and you will have no legal or moral standing when your grant of legal privilege is modified or entirely withdrawn.
How many times do I have to say this, until you get the point I'm trying to make? Quo Primum is like the US Constitution and the indult laws (all of them) are like a state law which is contrary to the Constitution, therefore these lessor laws are null and void. It took 50 years for rome to admit that Quo Primum is still in force, which Benedict did, when he said that the 1962 missal "was never abrogated, and thus always permitted."
If the 62 missal was never abrograted/outlawed, then guess what? The 80s indult laws that "allowed it" again were unnecessary and a waste of time! Why? Because Quo Primum is the law which grants a permanent permission to the true latin missal. Thus all these indult laws are just "smoke and mirrors" and a way to confuse the people and control the True Mass. It's all legal mindgames and trickery.
PAXQuoteDrew
I think you and Bugnini have a lot more in common than you might think.
Really? Are you unable to calm down and have a civil discussion without getting so bent out of shape? You're a very smart guy and you've made some good points (which I will research and get back with you) but if you can't have a debate without hurling insults at me, then this is a waste of my time, because we need to just stick to the facts. Getting off topic by acting like i'm trying to destroy catholicism is just ridiculous. You're better than this.
Here's another question, Drew. If the 1962 missal was replaced by the 65, then the 69 missals, then why did Pope Benedict say that the 62 missal "was never outlawed and always permitted"? A "motu proprio" is a legal docuмent, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic, (which, I'm sure, was reviewed and cross-checked by Vatican legal scholars). If the 62 missal wasn't any different than the 65 missal, (since you say that both were replaced by the 69 novus ordo) then you have no explanation for this legal fact.
If the 62 missal was replaced by the 65 missal, but then "brought back" by the 80s indult laws (as you argue), then Pope Benedict's statement that it was "never outlawed" and it was "always permitted" is contradictory, no? How can the 62 missal have "always been permitted" yet the 80s indult laws said THEY were giving the permission. So it was permitted twice?
This is the contradiction that cannot be explained, unless the 62 missal is legally a revision of Quo Primum, as John XXIII clearly intended, thus it was "always permitted" because Quo Primum is a law still in force.
The last version of the 'Missale Romanum' prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a 'Forma extraordinaria' of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two rites.' Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite
........ For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the 'usus antiquior,' will study the practical possibilities in this regard.
Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificuм, July 7, 2007.
How do you explain Pope Pius V suppressing several local customs and variants in the pre-Tridentine liturgy? The liturgical reform at that time removed many sequences from the Mass (leaving the few we have today, plus one was added later, well after Trent). It also stopped specifically a common Marian trope to the Gloria.
One might argue that authority has been overemphasized in the West - some Eastern Catholic theologians have suggested as much - but you seem to be going too far in the opposite direction.
The pope is not the creator of universal custom. He is the material cause by which it is given to the universal Church.
Pope St. Pius V established the term of 200 years for the determination of immemorial custom. He made no attempt to suppress such customs because he had no right to do so. What could not demonstrate a custom of 200 years was considered a novelty and not subject to the Church laws regarding the standing of custom.Why 200 years and not 201 or 250 or 256? Who determines what is a novelty and what isn't? The pope. Therefore, we can conclude that the pope can make such decisions about the liturgy. Unless you're saying he had a vision and God told him directly?
You believe that the pope can end any immemorial custom because they are of mere ecclesiastical faith and therefore a matter of mere church discipline. The pope becomes your proximate rule of faith but that honor belongs to dogma.You're inserting an argument about dogma when I'm talking about human, church law. Dogma is of Divine origin; many church laws are not, thus they can be changed.
If you re-read the quote previously provided from Msgr. Gamber, you will learn the Roman "received and approved" rite is and has always been regarded as a matter of Apostolic Tradition. The implications of this explains why the "received and approved" rites are a formal object of Catholic dogma. Remember, only objects of divine faith can be objects of dogma.The 1962 missal did not make any changes that relate to dogma or Apostolic Tradition; neither did St Pius V's missal, or Leo XIII's missal, or St Pius X's or Pius XII's. The "received and approved" rites (from Christ/Apostles) are the ESSENCE of the Mass but the historical liturgical additions of the Church over centuries can be changed, have been changed and do not affect the Mass' purpose and substance.
The only claim that you can make to Quo Primum from this liturgical reform is that it the docuмent is included in the preface of the Missal.Wrong. I pasted the legal wording wherein St Pius X's missal (Divina Afflatu) was made illicit and replaced by John XXIII's new missal. Accept it or not, it's a legal fact.
You cannot use SP to prove the 1962 Missal has not been abrogated and refuse to accept SP's teaching that the Novus Ordo and the 1962 Missal are one and the same rite.The proof regarding the 62 missal's ties to Quo Primum are in the docuмent itself and also in the 1984 Commission which studied the issue at the request of JPII. The only thing which SP did was corroborate a legal fact that most Bishops of the world had lied about. Secondly, SP never said they are "one and the same rite". It said they are "two usages of the same rite" which is quite a different meaning.
The truth of the matter there is no such thing as the 1962 Missal or the 1965 Missal.I guess all those 62 missals for sale are a figment of everyone's imagination.
You do not know what if fact is the "typical" edition of the 1962 Missal referred to in SP that was never "abrogated".Go online and buy a 62 missal. It exists.
"they are two usages of the one Roman rite." If the 1969 Misssal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite and it IS the same rite as the 1962 Missal then, the 1962 Missal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite.The 69 missal is a parallel rite, which is not in any way connected with Tradition, or Quo Primum, and it doesn't claim to be (neither in its docuмents, nor by Paul VI himself). It originated because of, and was created through, Vatican 2.
You must also accept that John Paul II Quattuor Abhinc Annos, as "a legal docuмent, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic," made the 1962 Missal an Indult which is the permission to do something the is normally "illegal." JP II presupposes that the 1962 Missal is no longer "legal" most likely because it had been obrogated by continual revisions implementing the Bugnini reforms. This may be the reason that the Italian episcopate have suppressed SP illegal and wants Rome to revoke it.
It is useless to argue petty legalisms as to when the Bugnini reforms constituted a formal break. That must be left to the authority of the Church in a more sober moment. The only possible position that is certain is the return to the "received and approved" rite before Bugnini ever touched it and leave the legal quibbling alone. Then you won't have to consider the question of "going too far in the opposite direction". The "opposite direction" of truth is falsehood.Well, I think your position is wrong.
The reform of Pius V suppressed customs and imposed a liturgy by authority;
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.
My argument is very simple. We know with divine and Catholic faith that the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" CANNOT BE "changed into other new rites by any of the pastor of the churches whomsoever."
After Pius V's original Tridentine Roman Missal, the first new typical edition was promulgated in 1604 by Pope Clement VIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_VIII), who in 1592 had issued a revised edition of the Vulgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate). The Bible texts in the Missal of Pope Pius V did not correspond exactly to the new Vulgate, and so Clement edited and revised Pope Pius V's Missal, making alterations both in the scriptural texts and in other matters. He abolished some prayers that the 1570 Missal obliged the priest to say on entering the church; shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor; directed that the words "Haec quotiescuмque feceritis, in meam memoriam facietis" ("Do this in memory of me") should not be said while displaying the chalice to the people after the consecration, but before doing so; inserted directions at several points of the Canon that the priest was to pronounce the words inaudibly; suppressed the rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross; and rewrote the rubrics, introducing, for instance, the ringing of a small bell.
It is useless to argue petty legalisms as to when the Bugnini reforms constituted a formal break.In Our Lord’s day, the Scribes and Pharisees ruled the people using “petty legalisms”. The Modernists do the same. This is precisely the world in which Satan, and his minions, operate - the “letter of the law”, which Christ tells us “kills”. As the old saying goes “the devil’s in the details”, which in our situation means that we have to “read the fine print” of these legal docuмents, and we have to be “wise as serpents” when dealing with what these Modernists do. Most of the time, their “laws” are not obligatory at all, but only appear so, until you examine them and find the “trick” used to deceive - that is, magic - another favorite devilish practice - things appear different than what they really are.
Quote: Cantarella
The Tridentine Mass was a new liturgical rite to be used following the Council of Trent. Pope Pius V, in his full capacity as Supreme Pontiff, promulgated a new Liturgical Rite, the Tridentine Mass, which differs from the pre-Tridentine Mass, although the substance remains intact. He also revised and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. Yes, popes can do that! Otherwise, as Pax said, the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639181/#msg639181)CantarellaQuoteDrew
Quote from: drew on Yesterday at 04:12:49 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639181/#msg639181)
My argument is very simple. We know with divine and Catholic faith that the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" CANNOT BE "changed into other new rites by any of the pastor of the churches whomsoever."
That section of Trent is not referring to the Supreme Pontiff, but just regular pastors. Even in Quo Primum, when Pius V decreed: "We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it.", he is evidently not referring to another Pope, who has the same authority as himself, to create new liturgical rites or modify existing ones, just as he himself did with the promulgation of his new Tridentine liturgy. Even Pius V himself added something new to his "recently published Missal" with the introduction of the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, just a year after his bull. And then came the modifications to the original Tridentine Roman Missal made by Pope Clement VIII and many others more throughout the centuries...
If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13
Reply #98 on: Yesterday at 11:23:49 PM
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639214/#msg639214
The above question has been answered in the thread below and in all the other links posted by drew. The link below has a video of Fr. Hesse answering the same question which was included on reply 697.
If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13
You keep saying "the immemorial received and approved" rites of Mass. What do you even mean by that? Approved by who? Without the living Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass before 1570, not even the Tridentine Mass of Pius V with Quo Primum.
For over thirty years, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established by the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, of July 2, 1988, has acquitted with sincere and praiseworthy solicitude the task of collaborating with the Bishops and the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, in facilitating the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, communities or individual religious men and women once attached to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who wished to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions.
In this way, the Commission was able to exercise its authority and competence over said Societies and Associations in the name of the Holy See, until otherwise provided.
Subsequently, under the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм of 7 July 2007, the Pontifical Commission extended the authority of the Holy See over those Institutes and religious communities, which adhere to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and earlier traditions of religious life, maintaining vigilance over the observance and application of established dispositions.
Two years later, my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI, with the motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, of 2 July 2009, reorganized the structure of the Pontifical Commission, in order to make it more suitable for the new situation created with the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated without pontifical mandate. Moreover, considering that, after such an act of grace, the matters handled by the same Pontifical Commission were primarily doctrinal, my predecessor linked the Commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith more organically, conserving its initial ends, but modifying its structure.
Now, since the Feria IV [the regular Wednesday meeting] of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of November 15, 2017 had formulated the request that the dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X [SSPX] be conducted directly by the aforementioned Congregation, and since the issues treated are of a doctrinal nature, to which request I gave my approval in Audientia to the Cardinal Prefect [Cardinal Luis Ladaria,SJ] the following 24 November, and [since] this proposal was welcomed by the Plenary Session of the same Congregation celebrated from 23 to 26 January 2018, I have come, after ample reflection, to the following Decision.
Considering today the conditions that had led the holy Pontiff, John Paul II, to the establishment of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei; noting that the Institutes and religious communities that usually celebrate in extraordinary form have today found their own stability of number and life; noting that the aims and issues dealt with by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei are of a predominantly doctrinal nature; wishing that these aims be ever more visible to the conscience of the ecclesial communities, with the present Apostolic Letter motu proprio data;
I establish (Delibero):
Quote1. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established on 2 July 1988 with the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, is suppressed.
2. The tasks of the Commission in question are assigned in full to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, within which a special Section will be set up to continue the work of supervision, promotion and protection so far conducted by the suppressed Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
The budget of the Pontifical Commission is part of the ordinary accounting of the aforementioned Congregation.. E’soppressa la Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei, istituita il 2 luglio 1988 col Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta.Moreover, I establish that the present motu proprio, to be observed in spite of anything contrary, even if worthy of particular mention, is promulgated by publication in the 19 January 2019 edition of the L’Osservatore Romano newspaper, entering into immediate force, and subsequently inserted in the official gazzette of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, in St. Peter’s, January 17, 2019, VI of Our Pontificate.Francesco [unofficial translation provided by the Catholic Herald]____________________1Cf. Joannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesia Dei adflicta’, 2 Iulii 1988, AAS, LXXX (1988), 12 (15 Nov. 1988), 1495-1498, 6a.2 Cf. Rescriptum ex Audientia Sanctissimi, 18 Oct. 1988, AAS, LXXXII (1990), 5 (3 Maii 1990), 533-534, 6.3 Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Summorum Pontificuм, 7 Iulii 2007, AAS, XCIX (2007), 9 (7 Sept. 2007), 777-781, 12.4 Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesiae unitatem, 2 Iulii 2009, AAS, CI (2009),8 (7 Aug. 2009), 710-711, 5
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/08/la-verdadera-mision-de-la-comision.html
THE TRUE MISSION OF THE COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEIThere are some who affirm that Francisco does not intend to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм once the FSSPX is recognized. While we can not claim that it will, history has something to say about it.We present below an article on the history of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and its mission, written by Fr. Guy Castelain (FSSPX) in his magazine "The Combat of Faith" of March 2016. By reading it, we will understand that Ecclesia communities Dei exist in function of the SSPX, and they continue to exist because of it, so that if the Fraternity is "recognized" by Rome, these communities will no longer have a reason to exist.In this regard, Dr. Peter Chojnowski, a renowned Thomistic philosopher, writer and lecturer who has been a close associate of the FSSPX, tells us in his blog (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/07/franciss-plans-for-latin-mass-on-agenda.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhwTFKTJxYgJt2yKkz2D9bvIrR3SA) : " In 2001, I was told by a District Superior of the FSSPX who had just met with Bishop Fellay - who in turn had just met with Cardinal [Castrillón] Hoyos - who ... the Cardinal told Bishop Fellay that the plan was to have all the traditional groups under Bishop Fellay. When the surprised Bishop Fellay asked the Cardinal: 'And what about the Fraternity of Saint Peter?' the Cardinal said 'They will be under you!' However, the condition was that all four bishops of the SSPX should enter together. This was in the time of John Paul II . ""Let all those who imagine that there is a vocation identity between the Ecclesia Dei institutes and the FSSPX open their eyes. The Ecclesia Dei commission and the institutes attached to it are a great danger to the work founded by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre. They have the vocation to neutralize, paralyze and dissolve it "THE TRUE MISSION OF THE COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEIOn November 22, 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre said in an interview with François Brigneau on Radio Courtoisie: "Despite the persecutions, we can say violent, from Rome and from the Roman commission ( Ecclesia Dei, ndlr) that is responsible for the recovery of the traditionalists to submit them to the Council [...] the situation is more stable, stronger, more dynamic than ever "(Month derniers cahiers, première série, n ° 1, Pour saluer Mgr Lefebvre, par François Brigneau, Publication FB, p.35).Archbishop Lefebvre said it right: The Ecclesia Dei commission "is responsible for the recovery of the traditionalists". Today, this mission has not changed. This we must demonstrate. To do so, it is necessary to go through the great stages they have made and make the history of the aforementioned commission. Four docuмents must be taken into account: 1) The Letter of October 3, 1984; 2) the Motu proprio of July 2, 1988; 3) the Motu proprio of July 7, 2007; 4) the Motu proprio of July 2, 2009. The letter of October 28, 2013 from the Nuncio to the San Pedro Fraternity will serve as confirmation of the thesis.1) The Circular Letter Quattuor abhinc annos of the Congregation for Divine Worship addressed to the episcopal conferences on October 2, 1984.This docuмent predates the creation of the Ecclesia Dei commission, but it is extremely important. In effect, this will remain as the fundamental docuмent that will inform the spirit of the future commission that will refer to it.In 1980, Rome asked all the bishops of the world to make a report on the application of the liturgical reform wanted by Pope Paul VI. This report had, among other things, to express itself on "the difficulties encountered in carrying out the liturgical reform" and "the possible resistance" that should have been "overcome".After the answers sent to Rome, it seemed that the problem of the priests and the faithful attached to the Tridentine rite was, so to speak, fixed.In fact, the problem of the old mass remained completely. Modernist Rome realizing that it could not suffocate the movement in favor of the old mass, decided to try to take control:"The sovereign pontiff, wishing to give satisfaction to these groups" granted the celebration of the Tridentine Mass "but observing the following norms", being the first: "That it is very clear that these priests and these faithful have nothing to do with those who they question the legitimacy and doctrinal rectitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and that his position be unambiguously and publicly acknowledged. "Therefore it was well established that a priest could not benefit from the old Mass except on the condition of abandoning the fight against the mass of Paul VI, and that this position should be public and known to all.On the other hand, this concession should "be used without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the ecclesial communities." It was also clear that this concession could not have the pretension of supplanting the mass of Paul VI and that it should retain all its rights of liturgical "primacy".There are several conclusions to be drawn from this pardon: 1) Its publication made the whole world believe that the Mass of St. Pius V was forbidden, since it was not and could not be (the docuмent of July 7, 2007 of Benedict XVI confessed it ); 2) made believe, therefore, that a special permission was necessary to celebrate the old mass; 3) far from being liberated, the old mass was, because of the conditions to be met to benefit from it, instrumentalized to achieve the acceptance of the new Mass of Paul VI.This pardon was then a "doctrinal trap". Thus, those who pretended to enjoy the Mass of St. Pius V "legally" did, in fact, a "legal" profession of officially accepting the new Mass that they had rejected until that moment. Consequently, this Motu proprio , far from being a victory for the supporters of the ancient liturgy, was in reality a victory of modernist Rome in favor of the conciliar liturgical reform. It was clear then that the SSPX could not in any way avail itself of such pardon. The priests of this Fraternity should never ask permission to celebrate their Mass in a church or sanctuary based on this pardon. The imposed conditions prohibited them, in any case, from obtaining this faculty, since their position regarding the new Mass did not allow them to comply with the requirements.2) The Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, in the form of motu proprio of Pope John Paul II.Ecclesia Dei are the first two words of a text published by Rome the day after the alleged excommunication of Bishop Lefebvre. Indeed, on June 30, 1988, the bishop proceeded to what he called "the survival operation of Tradition", consecrating four bishops to whom he gave no jurisdiction. These, supported by the principles of canon law of the Church, were to ensure a substitution (provided by the ecclesiastical law in several matters) in the heart of the conciliar crisis for the preaching of the faith, the administration of the sacrament of confirmation and Sacrament of order.The excommunication, although existing on paper, was in fact devoid of foundation. Bishop Lefebvre, before consecrating, studied and studied the ancient canon law to ensure that he acted according to the Spirit of the Church contained in this axiom: Suprema lex, salus animarum . A thesis of Father Murray even had, in 1995, the audacity to prove that, according to the new right of John Paul II, excommunication was not founded!The excommunication of July 1, 1988On July 1, 1988, the decree Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre unjustly excommunicated, both from the point of view of the canon law of 1917 and the new one of 1983, the consecrating bishop and the four consecrated bishops.Excommunication null and void, ghost excommunication, excommunication of paper playing the role of scarecrow to cause fear to the poor people who had rediscovered hope in the Church thanks to the Athanasius of the twentieth century.The Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei from July 2The scarecrow was going to fulfill its effective role in precipitating the good people, the formalists and the fearful in the "open arms" of conciliar Rome: the threat of schism and therefore the fear of the eternal loss of his soul. Everything then went to effectively remove them from the Brotherhood of Bishop Lefebvre and take them forever to the conciliar Church.Thus, John Paul II decreed the establishment of a commission for those "who wish to remain united to the successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions."Therefore it was absolutely a commission of recovery of the faithful and priests who had frequented the SSPX.The effects did not wait: clerics, more formalist than canonists, believed it was their duty to leave the Brotherhood of Bishop Lefebvre to found the Fraternity of St. Peter in order to be "in law". Conciliar legality, it goes without saying.They were received by a commission that bore a name composed of the three words of the beginning of the letter that was the origin of this commission: Ecclesia Dei afflicta . That is to say: The Church of God is afflicted ... Afflicted why? For the alleged schism of Bishop Lefebvre, a schism that no one could ever prove or prove, and which many specialists have denied.It was, for these priests, accept to submit to a conciliar commission and, of this fact, go against the spirit of the law: "He who, to keep the letter of the law, goes against the spirit of the law, has sinned against the law "( Regula juris 88 ). For formalism, he committed a kind of "legal sin": a sin against the law under the pretext of being in order with it.Dissociate from the FSSPXI do not intend to make a complete analysis here of this Motu proprio of 1988. All the paragraphs deserve, not only a commentary, but a severe criticism, both the presentation they make of the facts is contrary to reality.I would simply like to call attention to the call made by John Paul II to dissociate himself from the SSPX in this docuмent: "In the present circuмstances, I wish above all to address a call at once solemn and fervent, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now they have been linked in various ways with the activities of Archbishop Lefebvre, so that they fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and stop sustaining in any way that this reprehensible way of acting. Everyone should know that formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offense against God and carries with it excommunication duly established by the law of the Church "(§ 5, c).As explained above, in compensation for this separation "a Commission is constituted, with the task of collaborating with the bishops, with the dicasteries of the Roman Curia and with the interested circles, to facilitate the full ecclesial communion of the priests, seminarians, communities, religious or religious, which until now were linked in different ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre and who wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions "(§6, a).The mission of the Ecclesia Dei commission is therefore very clear: to combat the work of spiritual health of the founding bishop of the SSPX. Then he was right to say that the Ecclesia Dei commission was "in charge of the recovery of the traditionalists."From 1984 to 1988: same combatAnother extremely important point: the Motu proprio of July 2, 1988, states in point 6 c: "the sensitivity of all those who feel bound to the Latin liturgical tradition, through a wide range of and generous application of the rules issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962. "This paragraph refers to footnote 9, which refers to the docuмent of October 3, 1984: Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos , October 3, 1984: AAS 76, 1984, 1.088 -1.089. It is clear then that the Ecclesia Dei commission continued in its original line: they will only be in legality if they no longer fight the mass of Paul VI, if they do not cause harm to the conciliar liturgical reform and if their position is publicly known throughout the world.So the Ecclesia Dei commission had the purpose:1) To marginalize the work of Bishop Lefebvre and make it inaccessible; 2) remove priests and the faithful from it; 3) to make all the recalcitrants accept the new Mass; 4) no longer allow anyone the exclusivity of the old mass; 5) and finally, stop the combat of Tradition. Ecclesia Dei became the refuge of Catholics who "prefer the old Mass" for personal pleasure, but have ceased the good fight that consists in rejecting the new Mass for reasons of faith and keep the old for the same reason.For or against the SSPXSince then the question of an " Ecclesia Dei option" has been raised, which has finally resulted in a dilemma "for or against Bishop Lefebvre" or "for or against the SSPX". More generally, a false problem now appears: "in the Church with Ecclesia Dei , or outside the Church with the SSPX". Even simpler: Catholic or excommunicated. There was a false dilemma in conscience and, apparently, a dilemma in serious matters, which logically compromised the salvation of those who chose knowingly. It was not, in fact, more than a scruple of conscience invented by the men of the Council to bring its liturgical revolution to a good conclusion and to make the work of Bishop Lefebvre disappear forever.3) The Apostolic Letter Summorum pontificuм of July 7, 2007 in the form of Motu proprio of Benedict XVI .This docuмent is what led many Catholics to believe that the Mass of St. Pius V had been "liberated." It deserves a comprehensive comment. However, it is necessary, in this article, to limit oneself to what follows.After falsely applying to the new Mass of Paul VI everything that could be said with all truth of the rite of St. Pius V, the pope recalls that: "In some regions, however, not a few faithful adhered and continue to adhere with much love and affection to the previous liturgical forms, which had impregnated their culture and spirit in such a profound way, that the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by pastoral concern regarding these faithful, in the year 1984, with the special pardon " Quattuor abhinc annos ", issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by Blessed John XXIII in 1962; Later, in the year 1988, with the Apostolic Letter " Ecclesia Dei ", given in the form of Motu Proprio, John Paul II exhorted the bishops to widely and generously use this faculty in favor of all the faithful who requested it ". The line of thought is clear: conciliar Rome is always on the path traced by the docuмent of October 3, 1984.Twelve articles come immediately, of which the first ends in these terms: "That is why it is permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962, which has never been abrogated, as a form extraordinary of the liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this missal established in the previous docuмents " Quattuor abhinc annis " and " Ecclesia Dei ", shall be replaced as set forth below ". Follow 11 articles that enunciate the new conditions to benefit from the old mass.One could believe that everything had changed, that the old Mass was definitely free, because the agreed faculties seemed truly more "broad". This is not the case, because Article 11 of the docuмent states bluntly: "The Pontifical Commission" Ecclesia Dei ", erected by John Paul II in 1988, continues to exercise its mission". And it refers to note 5 that says: "Cf. JUAN PABLO II, Lett. ap in the form of Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei , July 2, 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498 ". What is this mission? Which is fixed in the docuмent of 1988 already mentioned: to remove the faithful from the work of Bishop Lefebvre and, in reference to the docuмent of October 3, 1984, not to grant the Tridentine rite more than to those who do not question the new mass, without prejudice to the liturgical reform and whose position is publicly known.Article 12 provides that "The Commission itself, in addition to the powers it already enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, overseeing the observance and application of these provisions." And in fact, articles 7 and 8 refer to the mentioned commission in case of litigation in the petitions to celebrate the ancient rite.The line is therefore always the same and the Motu proprio of 2007 does not do more than materially expand the ability to use the ancient rite.For, formally, its use is always conditioned by the same principles and the same spirit: those formulated in the docuмent of July 2, 1988 that refer to the docuмent of October 3, 1984. Despite appearances, the old mass it was not liberated, it remains captive of the conciliar reform and ended by a renunciation: cease the fight of the Faith regarding the mass of Paul VI and accept in principle the conciliar liturgical reform. The Wikipedia article on this is not wrong: "The provisions presented in this letter follow the logic of the previous texts Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei ."4) The Apostolic Letter Ecclesiae unitatem of July 2, 2009 in the form of motu proprio of Benedict XVI.In this docuмent, the successor of John Paul II recalls paragraph 6 a of the docuмent of July 2, 1988 that wants "to facilitate the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, communities, religious or religious, which until now were linked from different forms to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre and who wish to remain united to the successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions "(n ° 2). Doing this, the pope wanted to "expand and update ... the general indication contained in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei " (n ° 3).It is useful to underline here two significant points:1. The commission retains its original name and therefore retains the motu proprio of July 2, 1988, as the founding text, with all that it entails, especially its reference to the pardon of October 3, 1984. She then continues with her original mission: to remove Catholics from the work of Bishop Lefebvre;2. Paragraph 2 refers explicitly to the docuмent of origin: John Paul II, motu proprio Ecclesia Dei , July 2, 1988, No. 6: AAS 80 [1988] 1498. So this new docuмent remains in line with 1984 and 1988. It is always the same war against Tradition.On the other hand, in this docuмent, Benedict XVI makes a decision of great consequences. He wants to "reform the structure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, uniting it closely with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". Here is the purpose of the letter: to join the Ecclesia Dei commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The objective of this maneuver is indicated in n ° 5: "Precisely because the problems that must be dealt with at present with the Fraternity are of an essentially doctrinal nature, I decided - at the twenty-first year of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and in accordance with what I had reserved myself (see motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, Article 11) - to reform the structure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, uniting it in a close way to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ". With the pretext of focusing the discussions on the doctrinal level (what is fair), Benedict XVI takes a measure that will force the SSPX to have as interlocutor, no longer the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but a commission which was founded to make it disappear! What is this commission? Ecclesia DeiFrom here, the SSPX will be forced to dialogue with its sworn enemy from July 2, 1988: the commission Ecclesia Dei . And this commission, we must remember, rests, as on its cornerstone, on the excommunication of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.5) The blessing of Pope Francis on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Fraternity of Saint Peter.The facts show that the Ecclesia Dei commission and Vatican II continue to carry out the same fight. In his letter of October 28, 2013, the Apostolic Nuncio of Paris, Luigi Ventura, assured the members of the San Pedro Fraternity that "Pope Francis joins the thanksgiving of his members for the work accomplished in the course for a quarter of a century in the service of ecclesial communion cuм Petro et sub Petro ". What ecclesial work is it about? The one that has consisted, as indicated by Motu proprio of July 2, 1988, in separating the faithful from the SSPX to take them to the conciliar Church. The pope, on the other hand, refers to the events that gave birth to him, that is, the consecrations of 1988 and the excommunication of Bishop Lefebvre: "It is at a moment of great proof for the Church, that the Fraternity of Saint Peter was born. "Francis then encourages them "to continue their mission of reconciliation among all the faithful, whatever their sensitivity". It can not be treated, logically, more than reconciliation with the conciliar Church and the new rite. Here is the proof: "That celebrating the Sacred Mysteries according to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (Mass of St. Pius V) and the orientations of the Constitution on the Sacrosanctum Concilium Liturgy (arising from Vatican II), as well as transmitting the apostolic faith which is presented in the Catechism of the catholic (conciliar) Church, contribute, in fidelity to the living Tradition of the Church, to a better understanding and application of the Second Vatican Council ".conclusionBishop Lefebvre was quite right in stating that the Roman commission ( Ecclesia Dei ) is in charge of recovering the traditionalists to submit them to the Council.The mission of the commission Ecclesia Dei , from July 2, 1988, is then to reconcile the priests and faithful attached to the work of Bishop Lefebvre with the conciliar Church.With this objective, she continues her mission even now: the "recovery" of the priests and faithful of the SSPX and their friendly communities to stop the fight of the Faith.May all those who imagine that there is a vocation identity between the Ecclesia Dei institutes and the SSPX open their eyes. The Ecclesia Dei commission and the institutes attached to it are a great danger to the work founded by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre. They have the vocation to neutralize, paralyze and dissolve it.This is clearly inscribed in the founding texts of this commission. Against factum, non fit argumentum. Against the facts, there is nothing to replicate.P. Guy Castelain +
The Psalm 129 blogger, and also Louie Verrecchio, are wearing rose-colored glasses!I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!
https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/contra-fellay/.....................
If the first several months of Fr. Pagliarani’s reign were perhaps underwhelming, his strong emphasis on the need for the Pope to return to Tradition and his apparent making of doctrine pre-eminent above a practical arrangement is a possible sign liberalism may be on its way out in the highest levels of the SSPX. It is now up to the Superior General to make sure liberalism is driven out of the SSPX completely. And that is a much taller order. Only time will tell.
I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!
Yes all 3 of those legal docuмents are related, but they are legal trickery. Yes, I agree that these laws are trying to trick people into accepting the new mass, but no one has to accept the V2 heresies, either morally or legally. Much likes states which impose illegal gun registration on their citizens, even though the Constitution allows free ownership (without registration), so these laws seek to put limits on the True Mass, which has a papal permission "in perpetuity".
Let's look at it another way. The indult was started in the 80s right? The new mass was started in 1969. So we're talking about a period of 15 or so years where the new mass was "illegal", right? Then the indult came along and mass was now "available", with restrictions, right?
If this is so, why did Pope Benedict say in his "motu" of 2007 that the 1962 missal "was always allowed"? If it was always allowed, then why did we need the indult laws?
The truth of the matter is that the indult laws are overruled by Quo Primum's perpetual permission of the latin mass, which is why the latin mass was "always allowed".
And lastly, why is it that Rome convinced AB Lefebvre to sign an agreement to always do the 1962 missal?Excellent question, Maria.
But again, is the 1962 the "traditional Roman Rite"?You keep bringing up this question without a shred of evidence to prove it isn’t, other than your own opinion. Is there one Vatican official, ever, to suggest that the 62 missal isn’t legal?
When that happens, the 1962 will have to be abrogated because C. Ratzinger's idea was to "merge the two rites into one". As pope, he approved it.1. If a new hybrid 62-new mass missal is released, that doesn’t mean that the 62 missal is abrogated, unless the law specially says so. When Paul VI issued the new mass, he didn’t abrogate the 62 missal so abrogation cannot be assumed; it must be clearly spelled out in the law.
I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!Psalm 129 is out to lunch.
Maybe the Psalm 129 blogger wrote a day too soon. News that the SSPX has now acquired a Conciliar bishop (reported only one day after the dissolution of Ecclesia Dei--that in itself an ominous sign, since it was yet one more 'gift' to the SSPX from His Humbleness), doesn't exactly inspire confidence that things are headed back in the right direction. Do we really think +Fellay is out of the picture now? No way. Rorate Caeli's report is correct in that the SSPX is "fast reaching full regularization by installments", and so it saddens me to see those who are holding on to false hope, even still.Who is this new 'conciliar bishop?'
What doesn't make sense to me is that Bennie doesn't seem to give a darn what they do, so why wait until he dies? I mean, honestly. Does anyone really think if they put this through while he was still alive that he was going to condemn Francis for it?? :laugh1:The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being αssαssιnαtҽd are the ones who think he is still the pope and that he was coerced into resigning therefore it is null. People like Louis Verrachio and Fr. Kramer. They somehow want to believe he was a good pope.........
1. If a new hybrid 62-new mass missal is released, that doesn’t mean that the 62 missal is abrogated, unless the law specially says so. When Paul VI issued the new mass, he didn’t abrogate the 62 missal so abrogation cannot be assumed; it must be clearly spelled out in the law.
2. Even if Pope Benedict put the new hybrid missal together, since he did not issue it under his papacy, then he did not “approve” it, formally and legally speaking. When/If a new hybrid missal is issued, it will be approved by +Francis, because he’s the pope (in theory). It doesn’t matter when the missal was put together, it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
SUMMORUM PONTIFIcuм
"...the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
"...For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."
"...There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture ...Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html), 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF SUMMORUM PONTIFIcuм
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
"In the first place, there is the fear that the docuмent detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood..."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html
INSTRUCTION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER SUMMORUM PONTIFIcuм
2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/index.htm) promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.
7. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy...
11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal[9] (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html#_ftn9), according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.
26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.
The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being αssαssιnαtҽd are the ones who think he is still the pope and that he was coerced into resigning therefore it is null. People like Louis Verrachio and Fr. Kramer. They somehow want to believe he was a good pope.........No, actually they know for a fact that Pope Benedict was/is a bad Pope, a material heretic; unlike Pope Francis whom they think is an apostate and formal heretic.
No, actually they know for a fact that Pope Benedict was/is a bad Pope, a material heretic; unlike Pope Francis whom they think is an apostate and formal heretic.They think he is a heretic but not as bad as Pope Francis and they do believe that Pope Benedict is still Pope.
You don't understand Summorum Pontificuм and its related docuмents (still in effect)."Summorum Pontificuм" (SP) concerns itself with when/where Bishops are to allow the latin mass to be said. It is a revsion of the previous indult law. It does NOT apply, in ANY way, to Quo Primum, which is still law.
Your claim that: "it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force" is meaningless. As you can see, Benedict keeps referring to the older indults througout his own docuмents. You need to read them without prejudice.That comment was in response to your claim that "Benedict already approved a hybrid missal." This isn't possible, since the hybrid missal doesn't yet exist and he's not pope anymore. A pope CANNOT approve something which hasn't happened or hasn't been finished.
The purpose of Summorum Pontificuм was never to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it it's proper burial. As I mentioned before, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (published in 2000), that two rites (Novus Ordo &1962) were too difficult to manage therefore they would eventually have to be merged into one (missal).Who cares? It hasn't happened yet. You're projecting what the modernists want vs the present. We're talking about CURRENT law, not the future.
That is what he accomplished through Summorum Pontificuм. He authorized Ecclesia Dei to make all the changes necessary to the 1962 missal so that the two "FORMS" would complement each other: " new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal and that "The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard".Again, it doesn't matter. Firstly, the Ecclesia Dei doesn't exist anymore (as of this month) so any authorization is pointless now. Secondly, popes authorize commissions to do things all the time. It's how governments work. That doesn't mean the commission has the power of the pope or that it can do whatever it wants. Commissions create multiple drafts, which the pope and his advisors review, then changes are made, again and again, until a final version is complete...THEN the pope signs off on it and makes it law.
Regarding Summorum Pontificuм, Benedict XVI says: "I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."The SP law was a continuation of the indult laws. I've admitted this as it's very clear. But these laws are meaningless and are null because they violate Quo Primum, as I explained above. The indult laws oblige NO ONE to follow them, they have NO PENALTIES for violating them and since they contradict a CURRENT LAW, they can/should be ignored.
Those who consider the Mass a matter of mere discipline and the pope "master of the liturgy" have to accept the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962." Benedict XVI explains why the 1962 missal "was never juridically abrogated" (which implies that it can) : "...when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy..."Of course the pope can abrogate teh 1962 missal (but no pope has yet). Just like St Pope Pius V abrogated his own missal a few years after Quo Primum. And then, 5-6 popes abrogated the missal after that and issued new ones, all the way down the line from 1571 to 1962. The problem is not the abrogation (this happens all the time with Church law), the problem is if the new missal is DOCTRINALLY/ESSENTIALLY different than the previous ones.
After the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962" are implemented, the "juridical abrogation" of the 1962 missal now in use will necesarily follow.1) Hasn't happened yet. 2) When/if a new missal is made, we'll read the law and see what it says. If the language is non-specific, non-obligatory and non-binding (like the law which created the new mass), then I'll say "who cares?" because no catholic will have to accept it and the 1962 missal will still HAVE TO be used, since Quo Primum demands it.
You answered your own question. Look at the facts. Which came first, JPIIs commission or the indults? The commission did. What does that mean? It means that the commission decided BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED that the True Mass wasn’t outlawed.
That means that the 62 missal wasn’t outlawed and the indults are legal trickery, trying to get people to “ask” for something that they already have the right to have. The indults were accepted by everyone but Traditionalists because we know that Quo Primum is a higher law. And since the commission ruled that Quo Primum is still law, and this was again confirmed in 2007 by +Benedict, then this is fact.
What we disagree on is which missal is the True Missal. For some reason (which you’ve yet to explain) you say the 62 missal is illegal, immoral and unusable. You’ve yet to prove this with any facts. The legal fact is that if you say that the 62 missal is illegal then you’d have to use Pius Xs missal. This would be the last valid missal. Is this your argument?
If so, then you’d have to say that John XXIII isn’t the pope because his 62 law abrogated Pius Xs missal and does not allow it to be used any longer.
Further, earlier on in this debate, it was said that the 62 missal is wrong because Bugnini was involved. But John XXIII is the one who suspended Bugnini and took him off the liturgical commission, so that argument doesn’t fly.
I still don’t understand why you’re against the 62 missal, if you’re not a sedevacantist.
You keep treating the 62 missal as if there’s some MASSIVE changes in it which make it different from the previous one. It’s not essentially different, that’s a fact.
Also, if you think John XXIII was Pope, how do you explain the fact that he specifically says that Pius X’s missal and the Pius XII Holy Week changes are abrogated? What missal does your priest use? Why is this law invalid? Please explain.
Thirdly, was St Pius Xs missal the Tridentine missal? Yes, it was the legal child of Quo Primum, which started the Tridentine rite. Therefore, if the 62 missal replaced St Pius Xs missal, then the 62 missal is the valid successor of the Tridentine rite.
After St. Pius X, little by little, the so called “Liturgical Movement” strayed from its original path, and came full circle to embrace the theories which it had been founded to combat. All the ideas of the anti-liturgical heresy — as Dom Guéranger called the liturgical theories of the 18th century — were now taken up again in the 1920s and 30s by liturgists like Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960) in Belgium and France, and by Dom Pius Parsch and Romano Guardini in Austria and Germany.
The “reformers” of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the “Dialogue Mass,” because of their “excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions.” In some cases — in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations — the innovators succeeded in introducing Mass in the vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people, and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini.
https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/liturgical-revolution/
- The Prayer for the Conversion of Heretics became the “Prayer for Church Unity”
- The genuflection at the Prayer for the Jєωs, a practice the Church spurned for centuries in horror at the crime they committed on the first Good Friday.
- The new rite suppressed much medieval symbolism (the opening of the door of the church at the Gloria Laus for example).
- The new rite introduced the vernacular in some places (renewal of baptismal promises).
- The Pater Noster was recited by all present (Good Friday).
- The prayers for the emperor were replaced by a prayer for those governing the republic, all with a very modern flavor.
- In the Breviary, the very moving psalm Miserere, repeated at all of the Office, was suppressed.
- For Holy Saturday the Exultet was changed and much of the symbolism of its words suppressed.
- Also on Holy Saturday, eight of the twelve prophecies were suppressed.
- Sections of the Passion were suppressed, even the Last Supper disappeared, in which our Lord, already betrayed, celebrated for the first time in history the Sacrifice of the Mass.
- On Good Friday, communion was now distributed, contrary to the tradition of the Church, and condemned by St. Pius X when people had wanted to initiate this practice
- All the rubrics of the 1955 Holy Week rite, then, insisted continually on the “participation” of the faithful, and they scorned as abuses many of the popular devotions (so dear to the faithful) connected with Holy Week.
Ecuмenism in the Reform of John XXIII. The Jansenists hadn’t thought of this one. The reform of 1960 suppresses from the prayers of Good Friday the Latin adjective perfidis (faithless) with reference to the Jєωs, and the noun perfidiam (impiety) with reference to Judaism. It left the door open for John Paul II’s visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє.
Number 181 of the 1960 Rubrics states: “The Mass against the Pagans shall be called the Mass for the Defense of the Church. The Mass to Take Away Schism shall be called the Mass for the Unity of the Church.”
The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being αssαssιnαtҽd are the ones who think he is still the pope and that he was coerced into resigning therefore it is null. People like Louis Verrachio and Fr. Kramer. They somehow want to believe he was a good pope.........
Still haven’t answered the question. John XXIII abrogated St Pius Xs missal so how can anyone use it without breaking the law?
Second, John XXIII suspended Bugnini before the 62 missal was released so your claim that this missal had a “bad intent” is unprovable because Bugnini wasn’t involved until Paul VI put him back on the commission.
Thirdly, was St Pius Xs missal the Tridentine missal? Yes, it was the legal child of Quo Primum, which started the Tridentine rite. Therefore, if the 62 missal replaced St Pius Xs missal, then the 62 missal is the valid successor of the Tridentine rite.
The only way that your theory makes any sense is if you prove that John XXIIIs law which created the 62 missal was never legal. Other than that, you can’t explain this law and its effects.
The “reformers” of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the “Dialogue Mass,” because of their “excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions.” In some cases — in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations — the innovators succeeded in introducing Mass in the vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people, and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini.
Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:Ok, but Holy Week is not "the mass". The 62 missal did not ESSENTIALLY change the mass. This is the main point.
"Unfortunately, in the “traditionalist” camp, confusion reigns: one stops at 1955; another at 1965 or 1967.....We hope that this and other studies will help people understand that these changes are part of the same reform and that ALL of it must be rejected if ALL is not accepted.This logic will lead to chaos because who decides which reforms are "ok" and which aren't? We have to look at THE LAWS which promulgated these reforms - this is the key.
Your questions are immaterial. I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.
John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.
The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd. It is referenced in the docuмent itself.
To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.
I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege. Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated. It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite.
As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so. Until then, I will not. That is not likely to happen. When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.
Is this a joke? "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum. So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.
So you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not? If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions. ..
This isn't how the Church works. You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.
The only conclusion is that you don't think John XXIII was a true pope. Just admit it and we'll stop the discussion.
PAXQuoteDREWI'm not speculating - I'm reading the laws and what they say
Your questions are immaterial. I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.
PAXQuoteDrewSo you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not? If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions. I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what his FUTURE intentions were, it matters what the changes actually were.
John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.
If I decided to murder my friend by sneaking over to his apartment and shooting him, but when I tried to pick the front door lock I got scared and ran, I didn't commit murder. I didn't hurt my friend or his apartment in any way. The only sin was a sin of intention. There was NO sin in ACT.
In the same way, John XXIII may have had the intention to destroy the mass, which is a sin...but only in intention. It was NOT a sin of ACT because the 1962 missal does not have any ESSENTIAL changes to the mass, therefore his plans were not realized in 1962. One's intention does not change reality until the ACT is committed.
PAXQuoteDrewJohn XXIII removed Bugnini from the commission, a historical fact. Bugnini was put back on under Paul VI.
The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd. It is referenced in the docuмent itself.
PAXQuoteDrewIs this a joke? "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum. So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.
To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.
PAXQuoteDrewWrong. The 1962 missal was "received and approved" in 1962 and this was still the case when JPII's commission said that it hadn't been outlawed. This commission happened BEFORE the indult even existed, so this proves that the indult was pointless and legal trickery.
I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege. Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated. It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite.
PAXQuoteDrewYour views are full of contradiction. First you say that John XXIII didn't have the right to issue the 1962 missal, but now you're saying that a FUTURE POPE could say that John XXIII's changes were ok?
As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so. Until then, I will not. That is not likely to happen. When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.
PAX
Why can't you accept John's authority? Why do you need a future pope to "bless" a previous pope's actions? This isn't how the Church works. You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.
you have submitted yourself to the conditions stipulated in its usage. (ie the Indult)Problem 1 with your logic: The 1962 missal was issued prior to the Indult laws and the 62 law has never been abrogated therefore the missal still is legal, which is why both a) JPIIs commission said the True Mass wasn’t outlawed, and b) why Benedict said the 62 missal was never outlawed.
The 1955 Holy Week: Other InnovationsDidn't Pope St Pius X call for participation of the laity when he initiated a reform of the Liturgy?
Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:
This brief examination of the reform of Holy Week should allow the reader to realize how the “experts” who would come up with the New Mass fourteen years later had used and taken advantage of the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy.
It is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites. This dogma was incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.
So, how did over 20 Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church came to be in the first place, if there is no one on earth with the authority to "receive them and approve them". This is, if the Roman Pontiff is also included in the "no pastors of the Churches" canon, as you curiously believe.
You have no authority to do anything other than speculate. You are pretending to be a legal and liturgical expert without papers.
The the three legal docuмents touching upon the nature of the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal consistently regard this Bugnini production as Indult or grant of legal privilege.
So anyone who questions the decisions of a pope is a schismatic?You ignore John XXIII's legal authority to revise the missal and you ignore his law which abrogates all previous missals to 1962. If you believe he was a pope, this is schismatic thinking.
No one, not even the pope, possess the right or the authority to harm the faith or corrupt worship.Agree, the 1962 missal did neither.
It does not matter one twit what the intention of John XXIII was with regard to implementing Bugnini’s liturgical reforms, so, in answer to your question, I am not judging the internal disposition of John XXIII even in light of the evidence that he attended Masonic meetings while in Paris. The end for which the Bugnini reforms were intended from the very beginning was the destruction of the “received and approved” rite of Mass.You contradict yourself greatly by first saying that you're not judging John XXIII's internal disposition but then saying the reforms were "intended" as a destruction of the roman rite. It is impossible to say that someone INTENTED to do wrong, without judging their INTENTIONS as wrong. The only way you can condemn the 62 missal is by its INTENDED end because, on its face, as it is in reality, this missal is not a "destruction of the rite". Total contradiction.
It is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites. This dogma was incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.The 62 missal is not a new rite. It is the SAME rite, essentially, as St Pius X's missal, which was the same as....all the way back to St Pius V's missal....which was the same as Pope St Gregory's missal in 600....which was the same as in Apostolic times.
I do not have the official title of the Roman Missal published by St. Pius V before me at this time but if you are able to look it up you will find that the word “restored” is in the title of the Missal.Of course it was a restoration. But the "tridentine rite" was started by St Pius V. That doesn't mean that the "tridentine rite" was new or novel. No, it just had a new name but it was ESSENTIALLY the same as Pope St Gregory's rite in 600 and before that.
From Cardinal Strickler we know the JPII was advised that the immemorial Roman rite was never outlawed and any priest was free to use that Missal irrespective of any objections by the hierarchy of the Church. The 1962 Bugnini Missal was never considered in the question of JPII or in the advice given him by the cardinals.That doesn't mean anything. The commission didn't mention ANY missal by name; it just said the "immemorial roman rite". You are arguing that because it didn't say the 1962 missal, therefore this isn't the immemorial rite. Ok, but they didn't mention St Pius X's missal either, so I can argue that it too isn't the immemorial rite. They also didn't mention St Pius V's missal or Quo Primum, so those aren't immemorial either.
Problem 1 with your logic: The 1962 missal was issued prior to the Indult laws and the 62 law has never been abrogated therefore the missal still is legal, which is why both a) JPIIs commission said the True Mass wasn’t outlawed, and b) why Benedict said the 62 missal was never outlawed.
Problem #2. Since the 62 missal was never outlawed/abrogated, therefore it’s still valid, therefore it was valid BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED, therefore the indult laws are unnecessary.
Problem #3. None of the indult laws obligate ANY catholic to follow them, nor is there any penalty for disobeying them. Therefore, in addition to being unnecessary, they are legally unenforceable.
Problem #4. None of the indult laws require ANY catholic at accept the Novus Ordo, or V2 or any novelty whatsoever. They make a legal argument that the old vs new missals are “two usages of the same rite” (which they are), but neither law requires me to accept the new usage NOR must i accept that the new usage is “just as good”.
One who attends an actual indult mass, said “under Rome”, does implicitly accept the above errors through their public appearance, but the indult laws do not prevent me from attending the True Mass at a non-diocesan, non-“under Rome” mass.
Quote from: DrewYou have submitted yourself to the conditions stipulated in its (the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal) usage (i.e.: the Indult and under the norms of Summorum Pontificuм as a grant of legal privilege).
Problem 1 with your logic: The 1962 missal was issued prior to the Indult laws and the 62 law has never been abrogated therefore the missal still is legal, which is why both a) JPIIs commission said the True Mass wasn’t outlawed, and b) why Benedict said the 62 missal was never outlawed.
Problem #2. Since the 62 missal was never outlawed/abrogated, therefore it’s still valid, therefore it was valid BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED, therefore the indult laws are unnecessary.
Problem #3. None of the indult laws obligate ANY catholic to follow them, nor is there any penalty for disobeying them. Therefore, in addition to being unnecessary, they are legally unenforceable.
Problem #4. None of the indult laws require ANY catholic at accept the Novus Ordo, or V2 or any novelty whatsoever. They make a legal argument that the old vs new missals are “two usages of the same rite” (which they are), but neither law requires me to accept the new usage NOR must i accept that the new usage is “just as good”.
One who attends an actual indult mass, said “under Rome”, does implicitly accept the above errors through their public appearance, but the indult laws do not prevent me from attending the True Mass at a non-diocesan, non-“under Rome” mass.
You are correct, there are over 20 Liturgical Rites in the Catholic Church, all under the pope BUT each one has the own liturgy and traditions
Quo Primum concern only the Latin Roman Rite.
That is not the point. If the dogma was really, "that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches (including the Supreme Pastor, the Pope) whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites", as Mr. Drew wants to read it, then there could not be more than 20 Liturgical Rites in existence. Evidently, there must be someone on earth with the power to receive, approve, and modify Liturgical Rites. In the Catholic Church, that someone is no other but the Roman Pontiff. That is the point.
Agreed and that only proves that this bull is not dogmatic; but only disciplinary, because it was only binding to the Latin Rite, not the Eastern Rite. Liturgical rites are a matter of discipline, not dogma. Dogmas must necessarily concern the Universal Church, both Western and Eastern. That is why Liturgical Rites are disciplinary, not dogmatic. You cannot have something which is a dogma in the Latin Rite; but not in the Eastern Rite.
You by your own authority have declared that the Bugnini 1962 Missal is the “received and approved” Roman rite of MassNo, Pope John XXIII declared it was the roman rite in 1962, not me.
while the “master of the liturgy” says it is a grant of legal privilege conditioned upon accepting Vatican II in its entirety and the liturgical reforms in their entirety.Pope John Paul II said that the 62 missal could be allowed by diocesan bishops, with conditions. He never said that the 62 missal couldn't be used outside of the diocese, without conditions.
You are neither a liturgical nor a legal expert and yet you make judgments as if you were.Ha ha. So do you! You make yourself a liturgical/legal expert when you declare that the 62 missal is a corruption of dogma, which allegation you've yet to prove.
You have no right to attend the 1962 Bugnini transitional liturgy that exists only as a grant of legal privilege without accepting its conditions. You are not the “master of the liturgy,” you are not the lawmaker, and you are not the interpreter of the laws.Of course I do. Because the 1962 missal, when it was first issued HAD NO CONDITIONS, because it was pre-V2. Since it wasn't abrogated, or revised, or changed in any way, then the law which issued this missal still stands, WITHOUT CONDITIONS. The only conditions that JPII added concern the allowance of this missal at diocesan chapels, under diocesan bishops.
Cantarella,
On the first paragraph , the question has been answered several times. It is NOT "what Mr. Drew wants to read" he posted the video of Fr. Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D. (highly respected by Fr. Gruner, JV and many long time traditional catholics), talking about the incorrect translation. But no one can teach you anything you don't want to learn.
This was my husband's reply with the video:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807
Regarding the secong paragraph, no one said that "Quo Primum is dogmatic".
I should add from a previous post that:
When Pope Nicholas II ordered the suppression of the Ambrosian Rite, he was opposed by the Catholics of Milan who refused his order. This order was subsequently overturned by Pope Alexander II who declared it to have been “unjust.”
OK. Change it to Fr. Gregory Hesse's interpretation of the canon about the incorrect translation, then. It does not change the fact that it is completely flawed, for the reason mentioned.
Stop linking to that thread which nobody is reading anyway, and whose half of posts were deleted (all the SV posts, by the way). Now it just looks like Mr. Drew's long monologue.
Simply address the point.
Thank you for the clarification. It is good to know we both agree that Quo Primum is NOT dogmatic.
Yes, because Popes can do that. They can overturn decisions of previous Popes, in matters of discipline, such as Liturgical Rites.
In Quo Primum St. Pius says, for the “preservation of a pure liturgy…. these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” The restoration was necessary because of the corruption of the Missal by heretics.Among other things, the Tridentine reform removed references to our Lady that were commonly added to the Gloria. It seems very odd to me to claim this part of the liturgy, with its devotion to our Lady, was a corruption by heretics?
Wrong. It was equivalent to a pope suppressing the "received and approved" Roman rite that is why the next pope restored it and declared it to have been "unjust".
Pope Nicholas II abolished the "received and approved" Ambrosian Rite. Then, Pope Alexander II reversed his predecessor' policy. How could he reverse it? or how could Nicholas II abolish the rite to begin with? it is simple: Liturgical Rites are disciplinary matters. If this were concerning dogma, then no Pope could ever touch it, as no Pope has ever done in history.
These laws need no "interpretion" because they aren't complex. You just read what they say and follow it. You, on the other hand, have judged John XXIII to be a "destroyer of the liturgy" and have rejected his 62 laws. You might as well be a sedevacant because that's the only logical reason one could use make in using a pre-62 missal. (And, to be honest, I have no problem with this view, as John XXIII probably was a freemason and therefore his spiritual office was impaired. But you can't say he was really the pope and then reject his 62 law. Makes YOU the interpreter of laws and it makes YOU the master of the liturgy. See the irony?
You have completely missed the point. Nicholas II passed a law abolishing the Ambrosian rite in Milan. This law, since it was not an act of reason for the common good, was never a valid law. Pope Alexander II revoked this "law" declaring it to have been "unjust," this is, he declared it to be no law at all. St. Thomas directly says that an "unjust law is no law." The reason the law was "unjust" is because the "received and approved" Ambrosian rite is not a matter of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.
This doctrine was ultimately defined as a dogma of faith at Trent that declared that 'no pastors of the churches whomsoever may change the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments into other new rites.' This dogma, of the many dogmas declared at Trent, was incorporated in the Tridentine Profession Faith.
If this dogma was referring at all to what you think it does, then the Ambrosian Rite would not have been revised and edited by the Holy See in 1475, 1594, 1609, 1902 and 1954.I'm done . None of us know much about the Ambrosian rite. I know my limits. You don't even understand your own rite.
[font={defaultattr}] [/font]Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraYou have completely missed the point. Nicholas II passed a law abolishing the Ambrosian rite in Milan. This law, since it was not an act of reason for the common good, was never a valid law. Pope Alexander II revoked this "law" declaring it to have been "unjust," this is, he declared it to be no law at all. St. Thomas directly says that an "unjust law is no law." The reason the law was "unjust" is because the "received and approved" Ambrosian rite is not a matter of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.Yet the Ambrosian Rite has been revised several times. Many editions of the Missal have been issued, latest being in the 50's, I believe. The same with the Tridentine Missal. The latest authorized edition is the one from 1962. The only way to say this Missal edition is harmful to the faithful is if the Authority (Pope) who promulgated it was not legitimate. Otherwise, it is safe to assume that Catholics adhering to the Tridentine Rite are just fine using the 62s Missal. If I believed that John XXIII was actually Pope, then I would not have a choice. The previous editions have been abrogated.
Quote from: Maria AuxiliadoraThis doctrine was ultimately defined as a dogma of faith at Trent that declared that 'no pastors of the churches whomsoever may change the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments into other new rites.' This dogma, of the many dogmas declared at Trent, was incorporated in the Tridentine Profession Faith.If this dogma was referring at all to what you think it does, then the Ambrosian Rite would not have been revised and edited by the Holy See in 1475, 1594, 1609, 1902 and 1954.
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy:
N.B. John Vennari confirmed to me personally that Fr. Kramer only wrote one chapter of this book, one chapter was written by John Vennari, and one by Chris Ferrara, the rest of the book was written by Fr. Nicholas Gruner.
So what have done? You did a web search for the Ambrosian rite, read an Catholic encyclopedia article, and now post as an authoritative commentator on the Ambrosian rite. The problem is you know little about the nature of divine worship and this is revealed in the nature of your question.
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
We have about 4 feet of book shelf space for liturgical books alone in our home that have been read over many years by my husband and still he would never pretend to be an authority on liturgical history.
Quote from: Marie AuxiliadoraSo what have done? You did a web search for the Ambrosian rite, read an Catholic encyclopedia article, and now post as an authoritative commentator on the Ambrosian rite. The problem is you know little about the nature of divine worship and this is revealed in the nature of your question.
I know enough to understand that the Sacred Liturgy includes both Divine and Human elements. The Divine cannot ever be changed because it was established by God Himself; but the human certainly can and indeed, do. That explains the existence of over 20 Liturgical Rites used in the Catholic Church, as well as the modifications, revisions, and editions of Missals, all of them legally authorized by the legitimate successor of St. Peter.
Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
I do not have to be an expert in the Ambrosian Rite or even my own Roman Rite to understand that the Holy See simply cannot promulgate defective or harmful Missal editions to the faithful, without the Universal Church having failed in Her Sacred Mission to safeguard Liturgical Worship. Our Lord handed the entire management of the Church Militant to St. Peter and his legitimate successors. That is it. If you rebel against the idea, as Jesus conceived it, then that it is your problem and not mine. Catholicism is so simple, a peasant or mere child can understand it.
Quote from: Marie AuxiliadoraWe have about 4 feet of book shelf space for liturgical books alone in our home that have been read over many years by my husband and still he would never pretend to be an authority on liturgical history.
Well, if you have read so many liturgical books over the years, and have certainly arrived to the conclusion that there was a defect in the 1962's Tridentine Missal, you should probably start seriously entertaining the possibility that the Ecclesiastical Authority who promulgated it, was illegitimate. Otherwise, a defective Missal is truly impossible.
If there is indeed a major defect in this Missal as you claim, to the point of Catholics having to reject it, then that right there to me would be yet another indication (as if we need more?) of an impostor issuing intrinsically harmful laws, not a Pope. Evidently, it is impossible that a true successor of St. Peter does such a thing. Only a true conspirator could do that.
N.B. John Vennari confirmed to me personally that Fr. Kramer only wrote one chapter of this book, one chapter was written by John Vennari, and one by Chris Ferrara, the rest of the book was written by Fr. Nicholas Gruner.
Absolutely false. Please get your facts straight. Fr. Kramer most certainly wrote the entirety of the book: The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. It was The Devil's Final Battle that was "Edited and Compiled by Father Paul Kramer" (right there on the front cover), and its contributors were Andrew Cesanek, Mark Fellows, Christopher Ferrara, Father Nicholas Gruner, Father Gregory Hesse, Father Paul Kramer and John Vennari.
Maria Auxiliadora:
In this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641100/#msg641100) you provide quotes from Msgr. Gamber and Fr Kramer. These quotes refer to "abolish[ing] the traditional liturgy" or "chang[ing] into new rites". Trad. Catholics typically apply arguments like this to the mass of Paul VI as an attempt to replace the traditional liturgy with something else. Only you seem to apply it to changes within the traditional liturgy prior to the mass of Paul VI.
The mass of Paul VI, to paraphrase the Ottaviani intervention, displays a striking departure from the theology and dogma of the traditional liturgy as formulated at Trent. The authors of the Ottaviani intervention did not, however, say anything similar about any preceeding missal, not even the 1965 missal.
I asked John Vennari directly when Fr. Kramer attacked my husband and I on CI as "Feeneyite heretics" (and contradicted his own book) and John told me that it wasn't a secret that he (JV) wrote one chapter, Chris Ferrara one chapter, Fr. Kramer wrote one chapter and Fr. Gruner the rest. I stand by it. My name is Claudia Drew, you may ask Mr. Ferrara what JV told me and ask him if he wrote one chapter of The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. I don't know Mr. Ferrara personally and never asked him but if he confirms what you say in writting, I will definitely retract it.
I just compared the two books and you are correct. I had the wrong book. My apology to Fr. Kramer. Perhaps Matthew would be so kind to remove the NB on Fr. Kramer's quote? https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641100/#msg641100
We now know from Bugnini’s own book that the end of liturgical revolution was completely envisioned from the beginning.What is first in intention is last in execution. The revolution that trads oppose happened in 1969 when a very different missal was published.
I shall respond as time permits. I have Mass, a chapel 15th anniversary preparations for tomorrow and a wedding next Saturday but I'll try to find time later.
Man being constituted of a body and a soul, it is just that the body, with its various capabilities, which are so many gifts of God, should come forward on the side of religion, especially as it is the nature of man to need external assistance to enable him to rise to the meditation of divine things. Internal piety, therefore, requires to be excited and nourished by ceremonies, or certain sensible signs. Moreover, every man ought to be religious and pious, not only so as to be conscious within himself that he worships God, but also to the extent of promoting the piety and instruction of his fellow-men, especially of those who are entrusted to his care; and this cannot be done, unless we profess by some external sign the intimate sense of religion with which we are animated.
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be...changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: let him be anathema.
I completely agree with the quotation provided by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei but deny your conclusions which are derived from your misunderstanding of the pope, his office, and the Attributes of the Church.
"The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be...changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: let him be anathema.
"The SOVEREIGN PONTIFF ALONE enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
"Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology”.
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy
“They wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial properties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered."
Pope Piux XII, Mediator Dei
AND:
"Lex orandi, lex credendi’ -- the law for prayer is the law for faith”, and, “In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly”….. “The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
St. Pius X, in his condemnation of Modernists in Pascendi Dominid Gregis;
They (the Modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church”
The Liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of equipment, something made, but rather to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development. In the West there has been, of course, another factor involved. This was the Papal authority, the Pope took ever more clearly the responsibility upon himself for the liturgical legislation, and so doing foresaw in a juridical authority for the forth setting of the liturgical development. The stronger the papal primacy was exercised, the more the question arose, just what the limits of this authority were, which of course, no-one had ever before thought about. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecuмenical Council. Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church]. In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch! Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word. The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy. The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities. Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity.
Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy
Cantarella,
Why don't you read, pray and reflect on this quotes. There's none so blind as those who will not see".
All emphasis mine.
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be...changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever (INCLUDING THE ROMAN PONTIFF HIMSELF): let him be anathema.
"The SOVEREIGN PONTIFF ALONE enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
All of the Eastern rites of Mass of long prescription can ultimately be shown to be developments of either the Antiochene or Alexandrian rites, and both of those rites can be shown to be developments of apostolic rites. Can those who deny this point to one single example, pre-Vatican II, of an Eastern rite of Mass of long prescription that could truthfully be referred to as a “banal fabrication” or an “on-the-spot product?” In what century did this “banal fabrication” or “on-the-spot production” of an Eastern rite occur? I doubt we will ever receive an answer.
Why don't you just simply address my last post, instead of re-posting the old quotes?
If the dogmatic canon is:
Then Pope Pius XII' Mediator's Dei contains this heretical statement:
What is first in intention is last in execution. The revolution that trads oppose happened in 1969 when a very different missal was published.
Bugnini himself, then secretary to the Congregation of Divine Worship, was not spared. He was a systematic person who programmed the liturgical reform and courageously pushed its implementation against all opposition. I remember that in one of his visits to the Pontifical Liturgical Institute he declared, “I am the liturgical reform!” In more ways than one his self-assessment was correct. The postconciliar reform would not have progressed with giant steps had it not been for his dauntless spirit and tenacity.
Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, former president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, from his book, What, Then, Is Liturgy? Musings and Memoir
“The Roman Rite is dead.”
Fr. Josef Andreas Jungmann, S.J., member of the Concilium, one of the chief liturgical revolutionaries, author of the 2-volume set, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, in 1969
“And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices.”
Rev. Annibale Bugnini, March 19, 1965 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, on changing the Good Friday prayer for heretics and schismatics.
“Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
“IF THEY ARE BISHOPS, WE ORDER THEM TO BE DEPOSED; BUT IF THEY ARE MONKS OR LAY PERSONS, WE COMMAND THEM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY.” Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.
St. Pius X in Pascendi referenced Nicaea II which condemned the heresy of Iconoclasm which is the destruction of the images of our faith. He reaffirmed its condemnations.I think you've come up with what looks like a simple answer to a difficult problem, but from my viewpoint, your answer just doesn't match reality.
Cantarella,
So does Michael Davis. In the link to Short History of the Roman Mass by Michael Davis you can also click any chapter.
Short History of the Roman Mass
https://unavocecanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Short-History-of-the-Roman-Mass.pdf
In 1955 Pope Pius XII authorized a rubrical revision, chiefly concerned with the calendar. In 1951 he restored the Easter Vigil from the morning to the evening of Holy Saturday, and, on 16 November 1955, he approved the Decree Maxima redemptionis, reforming the Holy Week ceremonies. These reforms were welcomed and have been highly praised by some of the traditionalists, who implacably opposed to the reform of Pope Paul VI. Pope John XXIII also made an extensive rubrical reform which was promulgated on 25 July 1960 and took effect from 1 January 1961. Once again this was concerned principally with the calendar. In none of these reforms was any significant change made to the Ordinary of the Mass. It is thus unscholarly, dishonest even, to attempt to refute traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass by citing changes made in the Missal by the popes just named.
You have an erroneous understanding of the term "new rite" in pre VII docuмents. There is no contradiction between Canon XIII and Pius XII quotes.
You insist that Pius V started a new rite.Where do I insist so?
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.
There is no contradiction simply because Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!.
Where do I insist so?
He could have simply modified it, and the end result is the same. Revisions were made to the pre-Tridentine Liturgy. (Not the Divine core, or substance of the Mass which comes from Christ, of course). The Tridentine Mass is the Roman Rite Mass which appears in the Missals published from 1570 to 1962. All of the editions approved by the Church are safe for the faithful to use. If the last one is harmful, then the only possibility is that the Authority who promulgated it is false. I don't oppose you using a pre-1962 Missal. I do so myself, but I think you do it for the wrong reasons, lacking the proper obedience due to the one you consider Pope, in all matters liturgical, as stipulated in Vatican I Council.
There is no contradiction simply because Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!.
Where do I insist so?
He could have simply modified it, and the end result is the same. Revisions were made to the pre-Tridentine Liturgy. (Not the Divine core, or substance of the Mass which comes from Christ, of course). The Tridentine Mass is the Roman Rite Mass which appears in the Missals published from 1570 to 1962. All of the editions approved by the Church are safe for the faithful to use. If the last one is harmful, then the only possibility is that the Authority who promulgated it is false. I don't oppose you using a pre-1962 Missal. I do so myself, but I think you do it for the wrong reasons, lacking the proper obedience due to the one you consider Pope, in all matters liturgical, as stipulated in Vatican I Council.
The purpose for those links was to correct your error that Pius V created a "new rite".
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641598/#msg641598
Here and at least in one other post.Fine. You have more time than me to remember every.single.post. ever made
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639201/#msg639201
And my husband reasponded to this one.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639268/#msg639268
Fine. You have more time than me to remember every.single.post. ever madeI don't have more time but I remember obvious errors. Listen to Fr. de Pauw.
I think you've come up with what looks like a simple answer to a difficult problem, but from my viewpoint, your answer just doesn't match reality.
For example, in the breviary before 1911 there was a tradition of reciting the "laudete" psalms every morning at lauds. This practice was one of the most ancient traditions in the prayer of the Church. Our Lord may very well have said these same psalms in morning prayer.
Nevertheless, St. Pius X's reform of the breviary did away with this.
If I understand your argument correctly, you must reject the breviary reform of Pope St. Pius X as "iconoclast" for daring to set aside ecclesiastical traditions.
The liturgy is not "purely discipline" and no one here thinks that. We all agree the divine elements can't be changed. But human elements can and have changed, as evidenced by history such as the Pius X breviary reform.
How do you in right conscience reject the infallible teachings of Vatican I Council? Your traditionalist position is a contradiction, merely founded upon rebellion towards the one you consider Vicar of Christ.
Pastor Aeternus, Chapter III "On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff"
If John XXIII was indeed Pope, then the 1962' Tridentine Missal is the one you should be using, in good Faith.
The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the sacred liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Until you understand this you will have no intellectual or moral grounding.
"It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places…. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself."
You have read nothing. Your entire reason is subjected to a perverse will.This is just uncalled for. We’re trying to have a discussion and you’re calling people perverse? Bad will? Maybe you’re right and we’re totally wrong but did you ever stop to think that your EXPLANATIONS are lacking or aren’t perfect? Is there ANY way, in ANY SMALL degree, you could be wrong, or are you infallible? Or is everyone perverse who disagrees with you? It’s not like we’re making fun of you’re view; we’re asking intelligent questions. Golly whiz, take a chill pill.
CIC 1917, Canon 1257:
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51236097_10156206623913691_2210488632093966336_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=f85ca14abb7903a57d541ba156d2aca5&oe=5CF5C2E3)
Until you can demonstrate that the form of the Sacred Liturgy was indeed altered in the 1962 revision of the Tridentine Rite, you have no grounds to resist anything.
I don't have more time but I remember obvious errors. Listen to Fr. de Pauw.
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.
Your appeal to Dogma does not work in your favor. The Council of Trent declared concerning "the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacraments of the Eucharist"
Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2
The introduction, approval, and modification of liturgical rites does belong to the Church, so long as the substance is not changed.
Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Liturgy in 1570. It was used in the Latin West until 1962. The Pope himself calls it a "new" rite in Quo Primum bull, even though the intention was restoring the Roman Missal "to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers". The fact that there exists a pre-Tridentine Mass before the Tridentine Mass is evidence that changes, modifications, and revisions of the original Mass in Aramaic and Greek, indeed occurred. You can blind yourself to historical realities; but when you deny reality, it automatically works against you.
Quo Primum, 4:
Did the Pope make a complete liturgical innovation out of thin air? of course not. Undeniably, the substance of the Eucharist cannot ever be changed because Christ Himself instituted the Sacrament. That part alone is what is unchangeable until the end of time and what you can call "immemorial" because it is of Divine origin.
That's on the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. I don't see a problem. You seem to have a problem with session 7, canon XIII.
The problem is that you have constructed an entire reason for "resistance" based upon a massive, unbelievable, misinterpretation of that particular Tridentine canon, which is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse. It was an effort of Pius V to regulate and codify an uniform Latin Rite of Mass to be used by everyone, which he in fact did shortly after, in Quo Primum.
You are hopelessly wrong on this, and I think you have spent entire decades of your life following this single error, so I can understand why you would not want to admit it. The "approved and received" rites of the Catholic Church are simply the ones which the Pope (the Holy See) "approves and receives". Once the Roman Pontiff promulgates a liturgical rite, such rite becomes part of the "approved and received".
We are in the company of Fr. Gommar de Pauw who ONLY did the Missal he was given at his ordination in 1942 until his death, so when he speaks about the changes in the Missal he includes the 1962 although not specifically.He could do that and no laity would notice because both missals are 99.9% the same, as far as daily/weekly mass is concerned. If you throw out the addition of "St Joseph" and add back the 2nd confiteor, then the mass is exactly the same.
The problem is that you have constructed an entire reason for "resistance" based upon a massive, unbelievable, misinterpretation of that particular Tridentine canon, which is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse. It was an effort of Pius V to regulate and codify an uniform Latin Rite of Mass to be used by everyone, which he in fact did shortly after, in Quo Primum.I didn't have time for a full reply earlier.
You are hopelessly wrong on this, and I think you have spent entire decades of your life following this single error, so I can understand why you would not want to admit it. The "approved and received" rites of the Catholic Church are simply the ones which the Pope (the Holy See) "approves and receives". Once the Roman Pontiff promulgates a liturgical rite, such rite becomes part of the "approved and received".
At be beginning of the thread you said:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg638830/#msg638830
And you still don't have a clue. Read Tradition and the Church.
You keep saying "the immemorial received and approved" rites of Mass. What do you even mean by that? Approved by who? Without the living Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass before 1570, not even the Tridentine Mass of Pius V with Quo Primum.
Canon XIII is, like all dogmas, a revealed doctrine formally defined. It is a universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. You have been provided the reference to the lecture of Fr. Hesse multiple times who specifically addresses this dogma and its correct Latin translation. So does Fr. Kramer. Still you continue to corrupt it.
Canon XIII prevents the clergy from saying Mass in whatever rite they please or with whatever modification or innovation they want to add. There is all there is to it. I don't care what Fr. Hesse says and Fr. Kramer even less; but I care what the Church actually says.
If I provided the historical context of the Tridentine canon is not because I want to undermine its dogmatic status; or because I believe that it applied then; but no longer applies now, as the modernists do. The dogma is not subject to change according to time. However, this "universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith" simply has absolutely nothing to do with your claims. It concerns something else, completely different. It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones. It is true then; and it is true forever. You don't want having individual priests all over the world modifying and creating new liturgical rites at whim. That is why the Authority to do so is reserved to the HOLY SEE ALONE.
You may seriously reconsider your reasons for rejecting the 1962's Mass, because I tell with you with all certainty, that the Tridentine canon has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor whomsoever can change the “received and approved” immemorial rite of Mass into a new rite. This truth binds ever faithful Catholic. The denial of this truth is heresy by definition. To affirm as you have, that this revealed truth binds everyone in the Church but not the pope is absurd. The pope is bound by every dogma as much as every other Catholic. That is the nature of TRUTH itself. Your claim that this truth binds everyone but the pope could only be possible if it were a preceptive norm but it is not. You peddle this non-sense by corrupting the translation of the dogma and the nature of dogma itself. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and those who corrupt dogma incur a double curse from God for destroying their neighbors landmarks.
No Stanley, you do not understand the argument correctly. I am not familiar with the changes in the breviary but the breviary is not the “received and approved” rite and even if it were, my argument is NOT grounded upon making formal judgments that are reserved to properly constituted authority. My argument is grounded upon drawing conclusions from a few simple facts:The breviary is the official prayer of the Church. It is part of the liturgy of the Church. But you just dismiss the historical argument as if it doesn't matter. I could have made similar historical observations from reforms of the missal.
a) The “received and approved” rite was ended before 1962 because Rome under three popes has legally relegated this Missal to an Indult and to a grant of legal privilege attached to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics. This fact is absolutely incompatible with a “received and approved” rite.I want to make sure I understand this. So if an indult were ever given to use, for example, the 1949 missal, that would mean the "received and approved" had to have ended before then, and therefore would rule out the 1949 missal as "received and approved"?
The breviary is the official prayer of the Church. It is part of the liturgy of the Church. But you just dismiss the historical argument as if it doesn't matter. I could have made similar historical observations from reforms of the missal.
It appears to me that your argument is incompatible with liturgical history. If your argument is not incompatible, you're not doing a great job of explaining how.
I want to make sure I understand this. So if an indult were ever given to use, for example, the 1949 missal, that would mean the "received and approved" had to have ended before then, and therefore would rule out the 1949 missal as "received and approved"?
And therefore the faithful would be required to find a mass following an even older missal?
It is not that the Pope is not bound by the Tridentine canons. It is simply that such tridentine canon has nothing to do with the approbation, introduction, modification, or annulment of liturgical Catholic rites, which is reserved to the Holy See alone. I know this single mistake is at the core if your 'Resistance' so you won't ever have the humility to admit it. As I said, the canon is addressed to the clergy to stop them from committing liturgical abuse by unapproved innovations; not preventing the Supreme Pontiff from making revisions, modifications, introductions or annulment of liturgical rites. This is so easily proved by historical evidence, that anyone can see it and you are just embarrassing yourself by keep insisting in this error. Just think of the first revision ever made to the Tridentine Missal, and the last one...the substance, the essential was never changed.
If you ever find a pre - Vatican II ecclesiastical resource of reputation (long before the Fr. Kramers of this world came to existence), which teaches that the Pope himself is to be included in the "any pastors of the Churches" in Canon XIII from Trent, then I will sincerely apologize.
I'll wait....
They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.You’re falsely applying the word “immemorial” to many liturgical changes because you don’t know what the word means. Since we know when the genuflection during the Creed was added (and many other such liturgical additions), then such additions/edits are not “immemorial”, per the definition above.
What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.1. You continue to peddle the ASSUMPTION that the 62 missal was Bugnini’s by ignoring the fact that Pope John took Bugnini off the liturgical commission. Therefore you don’t know which changes in 62 are from Bugnini and which aren’t. To assert an assumption as fact is dishonest. At least admit your error.
Quote from: DrewWhat is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.1. You continue to peddle the ASSUMPTION that the 62 missal was Bugnini’s by ignoring the fact that Pope John took Bugnini off the liturgical commission. Therefore you don’t know which changes in 62 are from Bugnini and which aren’t. To assert an assumption as fact is dishonest. At least admit your error.
2. The 62 missal (previous to the 80s indult laws) DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION to the new mass. So for 20+ years, the 62 missal was NOT a “grant of privilege” or a “mere discipline”.
3. The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are “in communion with” new-Rome. Those traditionalists who reject V2, the novus ordo and new-Rome’s heresies aren’t obligated to follow the indult laws and there is no penalty for ignoring them.
Traditionalists can/should continue to use the 62 missal UNDER THE LAW PREVIOUS TO THE 80s, before the indult existed. The law of Pope John which created/allowed the 62 missal is still valid, still applicable and still in force. No indult law changed Pope John’s law, therefore the indults are unnecessary, unenforceable and can/should be ignored.
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641923/#msg641923)
« Reply #217 on: Today at 04:17:22 AM »Quote from: DrewThey are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.You’re falsely applying the word “immemorial” to many liturgical changes because you don’t know what the word means. Since we know when the genuflection during the Creed was added (and many other such liturgical additions), then such additions/edits are not “immemorial”, per the definition above.
You fail to distinguish between these non-immemorial customs (which any pope can change) and the ACTUAL immemorial rubrics of the mass, such as are described in books like “How Christ said the First Mass”, which details the similarities/fulfillment of the mass with the Jєωιѕн liturgy. Such customs/rubrics which are of Jєωιѕн origin (and there are many) cannot/should not be changed since they are “immemorial”. All other customs/rubrics can be changed, in theory.
If we can’t use the 62 missal without sinning by accepting the new mass, and if we can’t use an earlier missal because it’s a sin to use an illegal missal (since John XXIII abrogated all missals pre-62), then there are only 2 logical conclusions.
1.). John XXIII isn’t the pope since he didn’t have the power to create/approve the 62 changes....Pius XII is also not a pope since his changes are wrong being they came from Bugnini as well.
Or 2.) Pius XII and John were popes but There’s no missal anyone in the Roman rite can use. The 62 is immoral and all others illegal.
When Pope Nicholas II ordered the suppression of the Ambrosian Rite, he was opposed by the Catholics of Milan who refused his order. This order was subsequently overturned by Pope Alexander II who declared it to have been “unjust.” Further, human law, even the highest form of human law imposed by the pope, has all the limitations of every human law. That is, it must be a promulgation of reason, by the proper authority, promoting the common good, and not in any way opposed to Divine or natural law. As St. Thomas has said, an ‘unjust law is not a law.’ St. Thomas lists three principal conditions which must be met for any human law to be valid: 1) It must be consistent with the virtue of Religion; that is, it must not contain anything contrary to Divine law, 2) It must be consistent with discipline; that is, it must conform to the Natural law; and 3) It must promote human welfare; that is, it must promote the good of society (Fr. Dominic Prummer, Moral Theology). These criteria, required for the validity of any human law, make the suppression of immemorial tradition all but impossible to legitimately effect. The pope has no authority to bind an unjust law and therefore the Catholics of Milan were completely within their rights to refuse the order of Pope Nicholas II. And we are, like them, within our rights to refuse any of liturgical innovations that overturn immemorial custom.
Drew
“…this missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used… Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. … Accordingly, no one whatsoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, direction, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Pope St. Pius V, Papal Bull, QUO PRIMUM
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”
Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy
Considering much of what has taken place in the sanctuaries of the Latin Church since Mediator Dei, Pius XII’s reversal in that encyclical of the historical principle “legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, i.e. let the rule of prayer establish the rule of belief”, is no less disturbing:
Quote“Indeed if we wanted to state quite clearly and absolutely the relation existing between the faith and the sacred liturgy we could rightly say that the law of our faith must establish the law of our prayer:”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
This liberty taken with a theological tradition going back to apostolic times has been considered by some a most serious flaw in an otherwise excellent exposition of Catholic teaching on the liturgy.
The maxim quoted above was first expressed in the fifth century by Prosper of Aquitaine in an anti-Pelagian treatise entitled Indiculus de gratia Dei, and it is commonly shortened to the aphorism “lex orandi, lex credenda” ...
The basic meaning of the teaching is that in the traditional liturgy we have the oldest witness to what the Church believes, since Christians were worshipping God in public well before the first theological treatises were composed. Living tradition is bipartite, its two aspects distinct yet interrelated. ‘The rational aspect of Catholic Tradition consists of the Magisterium which interprets Sacred Scripture and apostolic teaching, while the sacred liturgy constitutes its symbolic and mystical aspect, and the latter has a chronological primacy over the former. Given, therefore, that the sacred liturgy is not something arbitrarily devised by theologians but theologia prima, the ontological condition of theology, the Church’s teachings must always be in harmony with the beliefs that the traditional liturgical texts express. This is of course very different from George Tyrrell’s modernistic abuse of Prosper’s maxim, by which doctrines are valid only insofar as they are found in the liturgical texts and have produced practical fruits of charity and sanctification.
However, given the normative and testimonial nature of the liturgical tradition whose historical growth had its own dynamic, there can be absolutely no question of artificially restructuring sacred rites to make them reflect new doctrines or new doctrinal emphases, which is precisely the Protestant approach to liturgy.
Dr. Geoffrey Hull, Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church
Your hypothetical question is of no interest to us. It is immaterial to the discussion because it presupposes an expertise and authority that we do not claim to possess. What is a fact is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal has been reduced to an Indult and a grant of legal privilege tied to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics. This constitutes prima facie evidence that it cannot be the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. You cannot dismiss this evidence as Pax has done by calling "trickery."It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
If there were an indult from Rome to use some other, older missal (for example, the 1949 missal), would that be "prima facie evidence" that that older version could not be the immemorial rite of Mass?
The reason for canon XIII was your insistence that Pope Pius V had created a "new rite". In case you forgot:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641628/#msg641628
No other comments. Good luck.
24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the “matter and form”. All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”.
There is a historical example of a pope declaring a “received and approved” rite illegal and this “law” was overturned and declared to have been unjust, that is, it was declared to not have been a law at all. Therefore, should the pope attempt this act he need not be obeyed. He does not possess the authority to overturn the dogmatically established rites or the authority to enact laws that are contrary to right reason and against the common good. This is fully consistent with what Msgr. Gamber said which I previously posted, and it is fully consistent with Catholic moral theology, which I also previously posted.
The question is still of no interest and it has nothing to do with the consequences of the argument. It is not possible for the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite to be reduced to the status of an Indult or grant of legal privilege regardless of the conditions. It becomes even more unpalatable when the conditions are morally and doctrinally repugnant.What I think you're saying is that you think the 1949 missal is the "received and approved" rite, so any attempt to give it as an indult would be void. If so, how is that different than Pax's argument about the 1962 missal - that 1962 is "received and approved" and the later attempt to give it as an indult is void? The 1962 missal, like the missals before, included Quo Primum and the constitutions of Urban VIII and Clement VIII; it is prima facie in the line of revisions of the missal of St. Pius V. This is unlike the missal of Paul VI which only has the constitution of Paul VI - it clearly started a new line.
That article is garbage. The FSSP accepts the 62 as a “gift”/indult and the heresies of the new mass/V2 along with it, in exchange for this “gift”.
Traditionalists, of which the SSPX still claims to be, view the 62 missal as a “legal right” and reject the V2 novelties, which arent required or imposed on any catholic.
Drew says the use of the 62 missal is always an indult/gift. But the facts show that the use of the 62 while still rejecting V2 is legal and can be used outside of the indult requirements. Rome has said that to attend an sspx mass (ie any trad mass) is illicit, BUT NOT BECAUSE THE MASS/missal IS ILLICIT only because the priests have no jurisdiction (which is technically true, though canon law supplies this jurisdiction).
If the 62 missal was only legal IF ONE ACCEPTS V2 then the sspx’s masses THEMSELVES would be illegal, all the time, everyday and Rome could condemn the entire Trad movement with one simple, legal docuмent and excommunicate every Trad catholic in a split-second. Yet Rome has never said this because they can’t. Because the 62 missal IS NOT ILLEGAL, and THE INDULT LAWS ARE NOT BINDING.
The only generalized statement of “condemnation” against Trads that new-Rome can say is that we're “not in full communion” with new-rome. But this “full communion” phrase is a novel term, only in existence since the 50s. So new-rome is just saying that we’re not “in communion” with their heresies and their indults (and we don’t want to be); it has nothing to do with doctrine or law, which new-rome seeks to avoid debating because they know that their modernism is both heretical and illegal, therefore immoral.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood..."
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
"...the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
"...For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."
At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.
Benedict is saying the modernists didn't think it was necessary to allow the latin mass (i.e. force the heretic bishops to admit that the latin mass was legal) from 1969 til 1988 because (they hoped) all catholics would've accepted the new mass and the old mass would be forgotten. He was speaking practically, not legally.
Notice, he never said that those who used/attended the latin mass from 1969 til 1988 (i.e. BEFORE THE INDULT) were illegally attending this mass, because they weren't. And they still aren't, indult or not.
The indult only applies if you want to attend a diocesan church which is "in communion with" new-rome. No one is prevented legally/morally from the 1962 missal by new-rome. The only consequence is that you'll be considered "not in full communion" (i.e. not a heretic). Which is a badge of honor and a sign you're a True Catholic.
OH, excuse me! He was talking about the Modernists! And Benedict is not one?The modernists "in charge" in 1969, of which Benedict wasn't one. He was also a modernist, but wasn't pope in 1969. Don't put words in my mouth.
Of course not. It wasn't abrogated. They hadn't thought it necessary until 1984 (First indult).THIS IS THE POINT. The indult laws DID NOT ABROGATE THE 1962 MISSAL. None of them did. And IT'S STILL NOT ABROGATED. Therefore, it is legal to use regardless of the indults or not.
Not until Summorum Pontificuм some really saw the direction the 1962 missal was going. Do you think AB Lefebvre would have kept the 1962 missal after Summorum Pontificuм? You didn't answer.I don't care what he would've done. I'm not going to put words into his mouth.
Would he have accepted the 1962 missal as the "Extraordinary Form" and the Novus Ordo as the "Ordinary Form"? Or would he have been appalled and adopted another missal?The only people who have to accept the new mass as the "ordinary form" are those who want to be "in communion with" new-rome. All real Trads can just ignore the indults (there is no penalty for ignoring them) and CONTINUE TO USE THE PERMISSIONS OF THE 1962 LAW, WHICH WERE NEVER ABROGATED.
The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956Rorate Caeli first presented the following translation of Fr. Stefano Carusi's work on the reform of Holy Week under Pope Pius XII seven years ago. As our readership has grown dramatically over that time we are compelled to bring it back and share with new readers. This translation is the work of Fr. Charles W. Johnson, a U.S. military chaplain, and one of the first priests in the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society:THE REFORM OF HOLY WEEK IN THE YEARS 1951-1956
FROM LITURGY TO THEOLOGY BY WAY OF THE STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN LEADING THINKERS (ANNIBALE BUGNINI, CARLO BRAGA, FERDINANDO ANTONELLI)
by Stefano CarusiFrom Disputationes Theologicae (http://disputationes-theologicae.blogspot.com/2010/03/la-riforma-della-settimana-santa-negli.html):(link to the original Italian publication)https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951.html
(https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951.html)
(We) should stop using Fr. Bugnini as a liturgical bogeyman and look instead at the person who formed the Commission for Liturgical Reform, gave it its mission, appointed its members, and ordered its ideas to be implemented: the same person who, in giving the First International Congress in Pastoral Liturgy (Assisi, 1956) his "whole-hearted" Apostolic Blessing, praised the liturgical movement for making "undeniable progress... both in extent and in depth" and the new decree on Holy Week for having "helped the faithful to a better understanding and closer participation in the love, suffering, and triumph of our Lord."
Anonymous poster, quoting Pope Pius XII from The Assisi Papers, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1957.
Many are familiar with the Bugnini changes in Holy Week but not many understand the liturgical and theological significance of those changes. This examination by Fr. Stefano Carusi was translated from the Italian by Rorate Caeli and posted on their blog in 2010. It was posted again in 2018. Fr. Stefano Carusi covers not just what was done but why and the theological and liturgical implications of the changes. It should be examined and reflected upon by everyone concerned in restoring the purity of divine worship. If the resistance clings to the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal they will become a non-entity in this fight, and thus, the fight to defend dogma.
In the 2010 posting of Fr. Carusi's article, this comment was posted:
Pope Pius XII overturned the dogma, 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' initiated the liturgical reform, and lined up all the key players that would give us Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Surprising that he has not already been declared a Novus Ordo "saint."
It is unfortunate that has fallen to conservative Catholics to take the lead in the work of liturgical restoration while "traditional" Bugninian apologists (whether they know it or not), who hold the pope as their rule of faith, cling to the 1962 version of the liturgical reform which includes the Bugnini mutilations of Holy Week that were implemented in 1956, but that is what in fact has happened.