Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei  (Read 13059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1361
  • Reputation: +1321/-113
  • Gender: Female
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #75 on: January 09, 2019, 06:02:44 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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.  

    Yes, "the Pope has authority on these matters". But all the changes to the Missals previous to 1962 have been ORGANIC. If the pope could do anything he wanted ("master of the liturgy") it would not have been codified by Pius V. Re read Quo Primum and I recommend The Liturgical Year by Gueranger O.S.B.
     
    Adding St. Joseph to the Canon is not a "minor" change. It broke away from the tradition of only having martyrs named in the Canon which Leo XIII refused even to discuss, when he was asked about it he replied: "I'm only the pope". He also had the vision of the future of the Church that prompted him to write the old Prayer to St. Michael.
     
    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 Jews was changed.
     
    The changes by Bugnini were massive and serious changes he viewed as "gross accretions  and evident distortions". I attend Mass daily and I'm edified by these "accretions" that as Bugnini said were only the beginning to arrive at the Novus Ordo and made it clear in 1962 that it was only transitional.


    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #76 on: January 09, 2019, 06:36:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    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 Jews was changed.
    Doesn’t matter.  

    (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.


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4491
    • Reputation: +2102/-649
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #77 on: January 09, 2019, 07:02:12 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Doesn’t matter.  

    (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.
    A couple of points (one in which I disagree with you and one in which I agree):

    (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 Jews (also keep in mind that this led the way to the Novus Ordo prayer that now states that Jews are actually "faithful").  

    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.


    (2)  I agree with your point about judging a Pope if one believes that John XXIII is actually a true pope.  If John XXIII was a certainly true pope, then he can make accidental (vs substantial) changes to the liturgy just like any other true pope.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #78 on: January 09, 2019, 08:45:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote
    (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 Jews (also keep in mind that this led the way to the Novus Ordo prayer that now states that Jews are actually "faithful").  

    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.
    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. 

    Secondly, this change affects one prayer, of one subsection of prayers, of one particular liturgy, which is used only once a year.  It has NO effect on the mass.  Hardly a ground-breaking matter. 

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 368
    • Reputation: +1084/-225
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #79 on: January 09, 2019, 09:18:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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 documents 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 documents.

    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.


    PAX,

    Your entire conceptual presentation of the typical 1962 Missal as an organic emendation of Quo Primum is a fantasy.  It is fantasy because no one really knows what the 1962 typical edition is.  

    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/documents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html

    There is no mention of Quo Priumum in this document.  And neither does the publication by the Cardinal Larraona, Sacred Congregation of Rites who was responsible for the publication of the Missal and breviary.  (I have included a picture of that document, but not sure if it uploaded properly).




    What John XXIII does appeal to in Rubricarum Instructum is the Pian Commission and he says that he is implementing their work in anticipation of the Council.

    You are claiming that the 1962 typical edition is an organic development of the Roman rite and has all the binding authority of Quo Primum.  The only possible grounds for this is that the Quo Primum was reprinted in the preface of the Missal.  Now understand this, Quo Primum was in every edition of the 1962 Missal until the Missal that was published in 1965.  In the later editions of the 1962 Missal the entire Mass was in the vernacular excepting the canon.  This is a link to pictures a late edition of the 1962 Missal in the vernacular.  
    https://ordorecitandi.blogspot.com/search?q=1962

    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.  Every subsequent republication of the 1962 Missal contains the name of St. Joseph in the canon. 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.

    In Summorum Pontificum multiple references are made to the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 but the only reference link is to the Vatican web page of John XXIII providing links to all his publications and speeches. No “typical edition” of the 1962 Missal is identified.  Why?  Because no one knows what it is.


    The 1962 Missal is a Bugnini transitional Missal and characteristic of all the Bugnini transitional missals, they were here today and gone tomorrow.  Bugnini took credit for the 1962 Missal and in the very act of taking credit for it, he announced that the Missal itself was already history.  The liturgical transition that Bugnini effected was the moving from the “received and approved” rite of Mass to the man-made production of the Novus Ordo.  The end was visualized from the beginning. One example to demonstrate this claim:

    Quote
    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

    I have Bugnini’s book, but I do not have compatriot Antonelli’s.  Bugnini’s book is full of examples that were adopted by the Pian Commission but were not implemented for many years.

    But the end for which Bugnini was working for you is immaterial.  You argue for the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal that intention for the changes and the end for which the changes were made is immaterial because the changes were legally imposed by John XXIII.  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 disagree and think that if you would spend a year reading daily Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, you would recognize how very, very little of the liturgy is of “human origin”.  It is essentially overall and in specific details the work of the Holy Ghost. Even Msgr. Gamber who was praised by Cardinal Ratzinger does not support this claim on the origin of the liturgy and the authority of the pope to do whatever he wants:

    Quote
       "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 document, 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
                                                                                   
    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”.  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.”


    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.

    What I do is return to what is certain before Bugnini laid his filthy Masonic hands on the work of the Holy Ghost, with an argument grounded upon Catholic dogma.  What you cling to is an illusion that has no more stability now than it did in 1962 and cannot now or ever serve as unifying force defending Catholic tradition.  

    Drew  




    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 487
    • Reputation: +248/-354
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #80 on: January 09, 2019, 10:38:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 487
    • Reputation: +248/-354
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #81 on: January 09, 2019, 11:10:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Edit - I meant just adding St. Joseph, not "St. Joseph prayer"
    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #82 on: January 10, 2019, 10:03:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    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/documents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html

    There is no mention of Quo Priumum in this document.

    There isn't a mention of Quo Primum (specifically) because when you revise a law which has already been revised multiple times, you don't mention the ORIGINAL law, you mention the MOST RECENT edit of the law.  The original law of Quo Primum of the 1570s was edited/replaced by Pope St Pius V himself.  So it lasted a few years at most.  Then came Pope Clement VIII's revisions, Pope Urban VIII's revisions, Pope Leo XIII's revisions, Pope St Pius X's revisions, Pius XII's edit of Holy Week and then John XXIII's revisions - which specifically mentions the laws of St Pius X and Pius XII, because these were the CURRENT laws IN EFFECT in 1961.

    St Pius X's law doesn't mention Quo Primum either (because that law was replaced by St Pius V himself), but he does mention St Pius V and all the popes who made revisions after St Pius V, because these are all "legal links" in the "chain" of St Pius V's liturgy.   John XXIII's law only mentions St Pius X's law, because up until 1961, Pius X's missal and Pius XII's changes to the Holy Week liturgy were the LAW of the roman rite.  St Pius X's missal (up until John XXIII's changes) was = Quo Primum, in legal terms, because it was the current MISSAL of Quo Primum.  What matters is the question:  What rite/missal is legally binding on the whole Latin Church?  Pope John XXIII's law makes this clear, that it's his that is binding (which I will show, in detail).

    ---

    But first, let's look at the legal language of St Pius X's changes, so we can compare them to John XXIII's legal language.

    Pius X's law "Divino Afflatu" of 1911 - A revision of the Breviary   (https://breviary.net/divino-afflatu.htm)

    (Referencing the linked document above, 3rd paragraph):
    With good reason was provision made long ago, by decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, by canons of the councils, and by monastic laws, that members of both branches of the clergy should chant or recite the entire psaltery every week. And this same law, handed down from antiquity, our predecessors St. Pius V, Clement VIII and Urban VIII religiously observed in revising the Roman breviary. Even at present the psaltery should be recited in its entirety within the week were it not that owing to the changed condition of things such recitation is frequently hindered.

    (7th-9th Paragraphs)
    Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.

    We command, therefore, all the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots and other prelates of the church, not excepting even the cardinal archpriests of the patriarchal basilicas of the city, to take care to introduce at the appointed time into their respective dioceses, churches or monasteries, the psaltery with the rules and rubrics as arranged by us; and the psaltery and these rules and rubrics we order to be also inviolately used and observed by all others who are under the obligation of reciting or chanting the canonical hours. In the meanwhile it shall be lawful for everybody and for the chapters themselves, provided the majority of the chapter be in favor, to use duly the new order of the psaltery immediately after its publication.

    This we publish, declare, sanction, decreeing that these our letters always are and shall be valid and effective, notwithstanding apostolic constitutions and ordinances, general and special, and everything else whatsoever to the contrary. Wherefore, let nobody infringe or temerariously oppose this page of our abolition, revocation, permission, ordinance, precept, statue, indult, mandate and will. But if anybody shall presume to attempt this let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and of his apostles the blessed Peter and Paul.

    Given at Rome at St. Peter’s in the year of the incarnation of our Lord 1911, on November the first, the feast of All Saints, in the ninth year of our pontificate.


    Summary:  St Pius X's law tells us 1) the current law in force is abolished, 2) his new law must be used, 3) who must follow the law, 4) when it takes effect, 5) the penalties for not obeying.

    ---

    Now let's look at Pius XII's changes to Holy Week.

    Pius XII's law - "Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria"  https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136 

    (9th Paragraph)
    The Most Eminent Fathers, assembled in extraordinary congregation at the Vatican Palace on July 19, 1955, after mature deliberation, recommended by unanimous vote that the restored Order of Holy Week should be approved and prescribed, if it should please His Holiness.
     
    When all these matters had been individually reported to the Holy Father by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, His Holiness deigned to approve the recommendations of the Most Eminent Cardinals.  Wherefore, by special mandate of our Most Holy Lord, Pius XII, by divine Providence Pope, the Sacred Congregation of Rites has decreed the following:

    I. The restored Order of Holy Week is prescribed
    1. Those who follow the Roman rite are bound to observe in the future the restored Order of Holy Week, as described in the typical Vatican edition. Those who follow other Latin rites are bound to observe only the time set in the new Order for the liturgical functions.
    2. This new Order must be observed from March 25, 1956, the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday.
    3. No commemoration is allowed during the entire Holy Week, and collects commanded under any title are prohibited at Mass.
    II. The proper hour for the celebration of the sacred Liturgy in Holy Week

    etc, etc, etc.  It's a very long document, which makes many minor changes to the breviary, missal and Holy Week rites, but it is the law and all in the Roman Rite must follow.

    ---

    Now let's look at John XXIII's law to see the similarities in language.

    John XXIII's law - "Rubricarum Instructum"   http://sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/11/rubricarum-instructum-english.html

    (2nd paragraph)
    Hemce, it is not surprising that our Predecessor Pope Pius XII, of happy memory, acceding to the wishes of many of the bishops, should have judged it expedient to reduce the rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal to a simpler form in certain respects. This simplification was enacted by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated March 23, 1955.

    (5th - 8th paragraphs)
    We ourselves, therefore, of our own accord [motu proprio] and with full knowledge, have seen fit to approve by our apostolic authority the body of these rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal prepared by the experts of the Sacred Congregation of Rites and carefully revised by the aforesaid pontifical commission for general liturgical reform. And we decree as follows:

    1. We command that, beginning on the first day of January of next year, 1961, all those who follow the Roman rite shall observe the new code of rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal arranged under three headings - "Genreal Rubrics," "General Rubrics of the Roman Breviary," and "General Rubrics of the Roman Missal" - to be published shortly by our Sacred Congregation of Rites. As for those who observe some other Latin rite, they are bound to conform as soon as possible both to the new code of rubrics and to the calendar, in all those things which are not strictly proper to their own rite.

    2. On the same day, Janurary 1, 1961, the "General Rubrics" of the Roman breviary and missal, as well as the "Additions and Variations" to the rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal according to the bull Divino afflatu of our predecessor St. Pius X, which have hitherto been prefixed to these books, shall become inoperative. As the provisions of the decree, The Reduction of the Rubrics to a Simpler Form , dated March 23, 1955, have been incorporated into this new edition of the rubrics, this general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites shall likewise become inoperative. Finally, any decrees and replies on doubtful points issued by the same Congregation which do not agree with this new form of rubrics shall be abrograted.

    3. Likewise, statues, priveleges, indults, and customs of any kind whatsoever, including those that are centenary and immemorial, even if they are worthy of special and individual mention, shall be revoked if they are opposed to these rubrics.



    -----Comments:  Pope John XIII issued a new missal/breviary, he said that the old missal/breviary of St Pius X was inoperative (i.e. cannot be used) and he said that Pius XII's law of 1955 was also inoperative (because Pius XII's Holy Week changes were included in John XXIII's new missal).  Then he said, lastly, that any other decrees which disagree with his new missal are "abrogated" (which means stopped, overturned, repealed).  Pope John is VERY clear that every missal/breviary change BEFORE his missal is now illegal.  His missal is now to be used and only used. 

    Let us also note that Quo Primum was not revoked.  The 1962 missal of Pope John is a REVISION of Pius X's missal, which is a revision of Pope Leo XIII, etc, etc all the way back to Pope St Pius V.  All these popes who made revisions to Quo Primum were not revising the SUBSTANCE of the missal, but only the RUBRICS.  The rubrics are part of the missal but do not change the ESSENCE of the mass.  The rubrics govern the where, how, when you say the breviary/mass but do not change the substance of the breviary/mass itself. 

    Every change made by Clement, Urban, Leo, Pius X, Pius XII and John XXIII to St Pius V's law of Quo Primum were accidental changes, rubrical changes and non-essential changes.  Quo Primum's commands, permissions, authorizations and allowances relating to the Roman Rite were both rubrical AND doctrinal/theological.  The rubrics can be changed/updated over the course of time, while the doctrinal/theology of the mass can never be changed and was codified "in perpetuity".  No pope to date has attempted to change the essense of the mass of Pius V, who was passing along the essence of the mass which Pope St Gregory the Great formulated, who he received from the Apostles themselves.

    Paul VI did not attempt to change the essence of the latin rite (for he knew he could not); he attempted to issue a new rite and have the latin church accept it voluntarily.  But that's another topic...


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #83 on: January 10, 2019, 10:14:21 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote
    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.



    Quote
    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.


    Quote
    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 documents 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.


    Quote
    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.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #84 on: January 10, 2019, 01:22:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    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.

    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.
    I can't find the document 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.

    Every law must state its purpose, its limits, its audience and its penalities for disobedience.  Unless I can read the document, I don't know these facts related to this issue.

    The "typical edition" would have to be understood as what was published on July 25, 1962.  All additional changes were made as part of V2 reforms (and EVERY V2 reform is optional on the conscience of all catholics).






    Offline Tridentine MT

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +34/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #85 on: January 11, 2019, 05:26:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, it seems that the Maltese Una Voce had already indicated such changes in November 2018:

    Summorum Pontificum will NOT be abrogated - NOT YET

    and further elaborated this month:

    Concerning the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei


    "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful" Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani

    "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 368
    • Reputation: +1084/-225
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #86 on: January 11, 2019, 06:48:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    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.

    Liturgy develops typically from a local innovation whose origin is unknown.  The innovation typically becomes a local custom, the custom spreads, and is eventually approved by Rome and offered to the rite throughout the Church. The Church recognizes this as the work of God and not the work of man.  These are called “immemorial” because there specific origin goes beyond memory.  Its origin can only be traced to a general time and general location.  Almost the entire “received and approved” rite of Mass is of immemorial custom.
     
    I know of no historical record that documents 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.  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.  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.
     
    True liturgical development is the work of God.  He is both the formal and final cause of true worship.  The pope, the servant of God, can only be the material instrumental cause of true liturgical development.  The pope is somewhat analogous to a florist who can arrange a bouquet but is powerless to make a flower.
     

    Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    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.

    I think you need to re-read my last post in its entirety. Your claim that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is grounded upon Quo Primum, exists is a "typical form", and was formally imposed by the pope is fantasy.  The imposition of the 1962 Bugnini reforms are not different in kind than the 1965 imposition of the Bugnini reforms.  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 Oecumenici. That is unless, you are the “master of the liturgy”.
     
    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.  Rubricarum Instructum is the formal imposition by John XXIII of changes from the Sacred Congregation of Rites from the Pian Commission, that is, it is the imposition of the Bugnini liturgical reform whose intent is to destroy the "received and approved" immemorial rite of Mass.   Rubricarum Instructum does not place limit in any way those rubrical changes from the Sacred Congregation of Rites.  In fact, you could appeal to this document as imposing every Bugnini change right up to the 1969 Bugnini Missal.  These changes in rubrics never constituted a fixed form and that is why no one knows what exactly what the "typical" 1962 Bugnini transition Missal is.  This has been established by the provided evidence regarding the date of adding St. Joseph's name in the canon and the link to images of the 1962 Missal reprinted with the authorization of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1964, with Quo Primum in the preface, that has the Mass in the vernacular excepting the canon.     
     

    Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Quote Drew
    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 documents 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 have made yourself the “master of the liturgy”.  Please produce your evidence for your claim:
          1.      Produce evidence that the legal binding authority of John XXIII in his Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, a Motu Proprio that enforces the rubrics from the Sacred Congregation of Rites of the Bugnini Pian Commissin, is different in kind from the legal binding authority of Paul VI in Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici which imposes Bugnini changes directly by the pope.
          2.      Produce what explicitly John XXIII bound, that is, produce the typical 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a formal object of what is bound by the document Rubricarum Instructum.
          3.      Explain how Archbishop Lefebvre erred by not recognizing what is evident to you until 1983.
     

    Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    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.

    It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that “no pastor in the churches whomsoever” possess the authority to change the “received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments… into other newer rites.”  This dogma binds all pastors in the Church and no pastor more so than the supreme pastor, the pope.  The intent from the Pian Commission from the very beginning was to do just that.  This is an established fact.
     
    So you know from Summorum Pontificum (SP) “KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT” that the 1962 Missal was never “outlawed”.  Then explain why Benedict/Ratzinger had to subsequently abrogate the liturgical documents Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici if they were not legal obrogations of the Bugnini transitional missalsYou have rejected, on your own authority, these laws that Benedict/Ratzinger treated as valid laws.  You have accepted in principle that the pope is the "master of the liturgy" and can do whatever he wants as long as he does not offend you liturgical sensibilities.  So if Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici can be abrogated (or obrogated) so can Summorum Pontificum.  When that happens, legal opinions notwithstanding, you will have no option but to follow the "mater of the liturgy". 
     
    You know also from SP “KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT” that the 1969 Missal and the 1962 Missal are two forms of one rite with a common provenance.  That common provenance is Bugnini and the principles of liturgical reform adopted by the Pian Commission.  
     
    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. 
     
    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. 
     
    I think you and Bugnini have a lot more in common than you might think.

    Drew

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #87 on: January 11, 2019, 08:56:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    I know of no historical record that documents 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.


    Quote
    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.


    Quote
    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.


    Quote
    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.


    Quote
    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 Oecumenici.
    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.


    Quote
    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.

     
    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #88 on: January 11, 2019, 09:09:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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 document, 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.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4188
    • Reputation: +2598/-1195
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #89 on: January 11, 2019, 12:53:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • An earlier question you've yet to answer, Drew or Maria:

    What about the 1954 missal?  What missal came before it?  Why is the 1954 missal allowed to have changes/updates but the 1962 missal cannot?

    Why is Pope Pius X allowed to overhaul the breviary in the early 1900s but John XXIII can't overhaul the calendar of saints 60 years later?
    Why can Pius XII make changes in 1954 but John XXIII can't make changes in 1955 and 1962?  

     

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