CathInfo.com

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?

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."  

I have already said, but will repeat again for repetition may be helpful.  If Rome at some future date determines that the laws enacted by John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal were wrong and abrogates them and restores all the rights of immemorial tradition to this Missal and recognizes it as the normative form of the "received and approved" rite, I would accept that judgment.  But that is very unlikely to ever happen because when a restoration is accomplished by some future pope, the restoration will not include anything from Bugnini's Pian Commission.

Until then, the presupposition must be to the correctness of the law.  Why do you have a problem with this?  It is not my claim or my responsibility to determine what exactly is the limits of papal authority with regard to what pertains to liturgical discipline with the Mass, but it is possible to tell what is manifestly beyond the competency of the pope. 

It is dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor in churches whomsoever can change the "received and approved" rite into another new rites.   No pope has the authority to create a new rite out whole cloth.  Those that say that he does are heretics.  The 1969 Bugnini Missal is a new rite as determined by those who created it and those who promulgated it.  The exact moment when the new rite was created is a matter of dispute and I do not claim to know that exact moment.  But I do know that you are ignorant of the question as well.

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.

Now you can stay with the 1962 Bugnini Missal for all I care, but it is a liturgical argument that cannot be opposed to authority and it comes at a high price.  Those attending Mass by virtue of this grant of legal privilege have, whether they like it or not, accepted all the conditions tied its use and have no argument if the privilege is withdrawn or modified in any way.

You might be surprised to know that your arguments are alike in kind to those defending the 1969 Bugnini Missal.  They make the pope their rule of faith and insist that the substance of the Mass, although deficient in many respects, has not been adversely affected. 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.
 
That explains why Pax thinks you made a "great point."  

Drew

Definition of “immemorial” : extending or existing since beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition existing from time immemorial.

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.  

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.

Quote from: Drew

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.

I do not "ignore" this fact but recognize that it is immaterial and has already been addressed to you.  In fact, to suggest that this IS material, is an attempt to obfuscate the essential historical development of the liturgical reform.  

Bugnini directed the liturgical reform as secretary of the Pian commission beginning in 1948.  This commission envisioned the Novus Ordo as its end from the beginning of its deliberations.  This fact is confirmed in Bugnini's book.  On June 6, 1960, Bugnini was named Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Council by John XXIII which established the agenda for Vatican II on the liturgy.  John XXIII's Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, approving the new Roman Breviary and Missal was published July 25, 1960 in which he says directly that he is anticipating the Council and introducing the liturgical changes from the Bugnini Pian Commission.  The Council began in October 1962 at which time the Preparatory Commission changed its name to the Council Commission on the Sacred Liturgy.  Bugnini was replaced as secretary at that time in October 1962 and then restored by Paul VI as its secretary.  Nothing of Bugnini's preparatory work for the Council was ever changed.  Bugnini took full credit for the liturgical changes implemented before the Council.

Historically your complaint is bogus.  The removal has nothing to do with the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal which was actually implemented by a succession of acts by the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy.  

It might not have occurred to you that the removal of Bugnini by John XXIII may not have been motivated by any opposition to his plans of liturgical reform, but rather by the hope of John XXIII that a less controversial figure might be more successful in actualizing Bugnini's preparatory agenda?

In summary, your #1 complaint is historically wrong and intellectually baseless and to point out this fact is not "dishonest."

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”.

This is absurd.  "No Connection"?  Bugnini is the acknowledged author of both works.  Bugnini's own book is entitled,  The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975.  It may surprise you but 1962 and 1969 are included in the years 1948 to 1975.  I have a copy of this book and it might do you some good to buy one.  For "20+ years" the 1962 Missal was regarded as on obrogated Bugnini transitional Missal.  It has been relegated to the status of an Indult and then a grant of legal privilege with specific conditions legally stipulated for its use.  Those using this Missal willingly or unwillingly have accepted these conditions.

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.

"The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are 'in communion with' new-Rome."   So, when John XXIII makes a liturgical law, it must be accepted but when John Paul II or Benedict XVI make a liturgical law it only applies to those "in communion with new-Rome."  And who are you to render this legal determination?  And this is just your opinion and nothing more, and an opinion based on what?  You appeal to Summorum Pontificuм to "prove" that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is "legal" and yet you pretend that the legal stipulations for its use do not apple to you.  You pick and choose the evidence that suits your ideology.  You may have convinced yourself but your argument could not get you a passing mark in a high school civics class.  

Bugnini was an enemy of the Catholic faith with the intent to destroy the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass.  Those who accept his earlier steps in the implementation of this mutilation of the liturgical calendar which began well before 1962, as well as his overturning of the apostolic tradition of only including martyrs in the canon of the Mass, are liturgical philistines.  Those who would permit the crown jewel of the Catholic Faith to be mutilated by Bugnini deserve what they will get.

You hold the pope as your proximate rule of faith and the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline.  You therefore recognize in the pope the arbitrary authority to do whatever he wills with regard to the worship of God as long as it does not offend your personal sensibilities.  Your concept of liturgy is crude, legalistic with a gross mechanical understanding of divine worship.  Your theology is evidently a product of the SSPX who have a conception that the substance of the Mass involves only the words of consecration and nothing more.  It is from this conception that the SSPX actually believes the ridiculous idea that a priest can simply say "this is my body" and consecrate all the bread in a bakery or "this is my blood" and consecrate all the wine in a wine cellar.  You are in the same mold, the same liturgical tradition.

You can whine all you want but in accepting the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal you have accepted all its legal conditions and have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.  Imagine making your argument before the Roman Rota.  They would laugh you out the door.

Drew