Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Centroamerica on July 02, 2015, 02:28:55 PM
-
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/bishop-fellay-and-his-support-for-new.html
In his interview responding to the question: "What do you think of the proposition of Cardinal Sarah to introduce the traditional offertory in the new Mass?", Bishop Fellay said:
"This idea is not new; it has been circulating in Rome already for about ten years ago. I'm happy that it is being taken up. Some criticize this proposal saying that it would be to mix the sacred with the profane. On the contrary, in a perspective of sanitation of the Church, I think this would be a great step forward, because the offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass and of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Most Holy Trinity, directed to God in reparation for sins by the priest, accompanied by his faithful. And this would gradually lead the faithful to the traditional Mass they lost."
Cardinal Sarah
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
Cardinal Koch among his friends
This and nothing more is the objective of this "reform of the reform". This is also stated by arch-modernist Cardinal Kurt Koch:
"Here also shines the deepest sense of the reform of the reform put in motion by Pope Benedict XVI with the motu proprio; just as the Second Vatican Council had been preceded by a liturgical movement, whose ripe fruits were brought into the constitution on the Liturgy, also there exists today the need for a new liturgical movement, which has as its objective to bring to fruition the true heritage of Vatican II in the current situation of the Church, while consolidating the theological foundations of the liturgy . (...) The motu proprio is only the beginning of this new liturgical movement. In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite. (...) The Motu Proprio can be converted into a solid ecuмenical bridge if it is only perceived and received as 'a hope for the whole Church'."
Fr. Jacqmin SSPX
Father Jacqmin SSPX gave a good warning speaking on the betrayal of Menzingen:
"Let's be careful. This is the 'unity...in Vatican II': there are two Masses because there are two groups, and the conflict must lead to progress and evolution (cf. Pascendi No 36): the reform of the reform, 'the mass of St. Thesis' [a play on words in French for synthesis:translator] (as, according to Hegel, the useful and necessary conflict between a thesis and an antithesis produces a 'synthesis' that leads to progress through an evolution)."
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/bishop-fellay-and-his-support-for-new.html
-
This is the damning part for Bishop Fellay's reputation:
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
This is revolutionary.
The Tridentine Mass has NOTHING to learn from the Novus Ordo, just like the Catholic Church has nothing to learn from the Lutherans or Methodists.
But in the heretical world of Vatican II, BOTH of those things have something to learn from their illegitimate, demonic counterparts.
Note that Bishop Fellay didn't qualify anything he said. He was simply for it. So we have to assume he has all the thinking and motivations of Cardinal Sarah.
-
The hybrid Mass has been talked about for ten years. I think that this is clearly what he is indicating here. Really, though it's not just talked about. It was put in practice from the begininng of Summorum Pontificuм. It is Hegelian to its core, which reflects Ratzinger's image. Leave it to the German theorists.
I remember hearing and reading a good bit of this in the days of the pseudo-hype of the Motu Proprio. Here in Brazil, in our state there are three valid Masses that I know of [the rest are doubtful because they say "for all" as ordered by the Brazilian bishops I believe]. There is the resistance Mass, of course the only one I would ever support or attend. But the Campos priests come here nearby. The word is that they offer the Traditional Mass in mostly Portuguese, the Credo, the Our Father, the Gospel, the Epistle, the Agnus Dei, but they use the Traditional Rite. They also have lay announcers who hold a microphone and announce the page of the ordinary...ridiculous. Their community doesn't grow because the priests cannot fix the issue of half dressed women presenting themselves for communion and confession. I'm not sure but I think that in extreme cases of scantily clad women, they have had to send them away without the sacraments. Then in the capital, in what seems like a desperate attempt of competition with our Mass, there is a diocesan Mass in a historic church. This is the crowd that loves phrases like "I have to obey my Church" or "full-communion with Rome" and "with permission from the bishop of the diocese". They are some of the same who attend with the Campos priests I believe and they are a really nauseous, annoying crowd. They fall into the legalism with obedience, but violate all rubrics of the Mass. They use electric light bulb candles and who knows what else. It is essentially a Paul VI- Bugnini Mass in Latin Ad Orientem with hardly any genuflections and a wide variety of other novelties. So, as you can see, you have the Traditional Mass in the Vernacular, the New Mass in Latin, or those notoriously disobedient resistors. The hybrid Mass is old news. That Bishop Fellay supports it is more clear evidence that he has sold out the Archbishop, but of course, we cannot prove it. Bah!
-
One of the big lies of +Fellay is The Hybrid Mass (or "reform of the reform" or "New 1962 Missal"), or rather, its denial. Cardinal Ratzinger first speaks about this in his book "Spirit of the liturgy". In this book, the cardinal says that two rites are difficult to manage so eventually, they would have to be merged into ONE!. Summorum Pontificuм is the vehicle to bring the 1962 & N. Ordo missals into ONE. The printing was postponed until the canonizations of the post VII popes. That is taken care of, so the "new 1962 Missal" is around the corner. +Fellay knows is coming and now has to start selling it to the trusting members/faithful.
This missal has been experimented in different communities in France, Italy, USA and other countries. It is the Mass said by the EWTN Friars and the Community of St. Martin in France as well as the one at the "Abbey near Florence" which bishop Fellay witnessed with some of his priests according to Cardinal Canizares.
Why lie? In February 2011, in the 54 answers by Bishop Fellay he says:
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay1.htm
54 Answers from +Fellay, February 2011:
Question #20: For a long time the Pope has been speaking about “the reform of the reform”. Do you think that he hopes to try to reconcile the old liturgy with the teaching of Vatican II in a reform that would be a middle term?
Listen, at the moment we know nothing about it! We know that he wants this reform, but where that reform is headed? Will everything eventually be blended together, “the ordinary form” and “the extraordinary form”? That is not what we find in the Motu Proprio, which requires us to distinguish the two “forms” and not to mix them: this is very wise. We have to wait and see; for the moment let us stick to what the Roman authorities say.
Now in 2015, he says:
"This idea is not new; it has been circulating in Rome already for about ten years ago. I'm happy that it is being taken up. Some criticize this proposal saying that it would be to mix the sacred with the profane. On the contrary, in a perspective of sanitation of the Church, I think this would be a great step forward, because the offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass and of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Most Holy Trinity, directed to God in reparation for sins by the priest, accompanied by his faithful. And this would gradually lead the faithful to the traditional Mass they lost."
To fully understand this hybrid missal, read:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html
https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificuм2.htm
If SSPX members read every word of these docuмents instead of listening and blindly trusting +Fellay, they would have jumped ship a long time ago. At least the ones who want to remain faithful to tradition.
-
I'd like to point out here that a person -- your average good-willed Catholic -- often has a major choice to make:
Is he ignorant?
or
Is he malicious/doing it on purpose?
Well, I think we can eliminate Bishop Fellay being an ignoramus. He's neither uneducated nor slow of mind. He's been a cleric for a very long time. What do you suppose he's been doing with all his years? Raising a family? Watching TV? Working a secular job?
If he WERE in ignorance about something like this, it would be more even more damning in many ways (because he would have spent decades as a cleric doing worldly or unbecoming things).
For a single man to not find a few hours to learn about this over DECADES, he would have to not care -- again, that would be quite damning. In other words, it would be willful ignorance, not invincible.
I, for one, am not prepared to believe +Fellay has been thus squandering his time since he was ordained. I have no reason to believe such a supposition.
Most of his life has been spent as a cleric, which involves much prayer, reflection, and study. Remember, he was barely 30 when he was consecrated bishop in 1988 (he was born April 12, 1958). "On 29 June 1982 he was ordained a priest by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre." So he was 24 when he was ordained.
He's had 33 years of priesthood so far. That's a lot of time to study up on Church issues.
-
It's just a matter of time,the sellout is picking up speed. My question is this,at what point or what will it take for the SSPXers to see the light and jump ship?
-
This is the damning part for Bishop Fellay's reputation:
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
This is revolutionary.
It's nothing of the sort, at least not for Bishop Fellay. The far better translation of the relevant passage at Rorate Caeli and in the SSPX newsletter reads as follows:
What do you think of Cardinal Sarah's suggestion of introducing the traditional offertory into the New Mass?
It is not a new idea; it has been around in Rome for ten years. I am glad it has been taken up again. Some criticize the idea, saying it is a way of mixing the profane with the sacred. On the contrary, in the perspective of bringing health back to the Church, I think it would be a great step forward, because the Offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass, of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Blessed Trinity, offered by the priest to God in reparation for sins, and accompanied by the faithful. And that would gradually bring the faithful back to the traditional Mass they have lost.
The most that can be said of this passage, especially its last sentence, is that +Fellay might be well advised to remove his rose-colored glasses. Of the remaining sentences, no. 1 is true; no. 2 is a debatable opinion (not one I share incidentally); no. 3 is true; no. 4 is half questionable opinion (through "great step forward"), half a statement of plain dogmatic fact; no. 5 is the rosy scenario again.
Matthew's gotcha quote is a statement by Cardinal Sarah. While its content and theology are utter rubbish—to that extent I am fully in agreement with my pointing and spluttering colleagues—it has been appended as a gloss to +Fellay's statement in such a way as seems calculated to deceive the reader into believing that +Fellay either explicitly endorsed Sarah's words or certainly would have done so had he been offered the chance.
In the absence of any directly supportive evidence for the charge, +Fellay may well be convicted of poor judgment (i.e., by those commenting on this thread), but he must be acquitted of sacrilegiously equating the conciliar "rite" with the Traditional liturgy. Even those who sincerely believe that he represents a grave danger to the Faith—indeed, especially those—owe him the courtesy of not condemning him on the basis of a calculated misrepresentation.
-
Well, I think we can eliminate Bishop Fellay being an ignoramus. He's neither uneducated nor slow of mind. He's been a cleric for a very long time. What do you suppose he's been doing with all his years?
He has been conspiring with GREC since 1997. Interestingly enough, that same year (1997), JPII gave Fr. Fessio (Ignatius Press) a letter of permission to publish a missalette with the same exact instructions as S.P. In 2007, as soon as S.P. came out, Fr. Fessio published his own hybrid missalette which caused a lot of indignation among traditionalists. I bought the Missalette out of curiosity and the letter of JPII giving Fr. Fessio (his good friend) permission, was published in the first page of the missalette with the date 1997!
-
Back in the summer of 2012 Marie Aux. posted the so-called "hybrid missal" would be put into use by the SSPX in Advent of that year. It didn't happen.
Bishop Fellay is NOT for an overall third rite, a blending of the two rites. All he was saying in the recent interview is that, for the NO Mass, a big step like fixing the Offertory is a big step in the right direction.
-
Back in the summer of 2012 Marie Aux. posted the so-called "hybrid missal" would be put into use by the SSPX in Advent of that year. It didn't happen.
Bishop Fellay is NOT for an overall third rite, a blending of the two rites. All he was saying in the recent interview is that, for the NO Mass, a big step like fixing the Offertory is a big step in the right direction.
True. I also published on IA an email (I may still have it) from Baronius Press confirming the printing of the "New 1962 Missal" was almost ready. I specifically asked and confirmed that it was according to S.P/U.E. Shortly after, the publication was stopped/cancelled. Germany had ordered a lot of missals from the Roman publisher (can't recall the name) and a German friend (related by marriage to an SSPX priest) said they cancelled the publication until the canonizations of the post Vatican II popes so they could be added to the missal.
If you are looking for a liar, look elsewhere. By the way, did you sign up just to accuse me? I must have struck a nerve!
-
It's just a matter of time,the sellout is picking up speed. My question is this,at what point or what will it take for the SSPXers to see the light and jump ship?
If and when +T de M jumps.
-
This is the damning part for Bishop Fellay's reputation:
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
This is revolutionary.
It's nothing of the sort, at least not for Bishop Fellay. The far better translation of the relevant passage at Rorate Caeli and in the SSPX newsletter reads as follows:
What do you think of Cardinal Sarah's suggestion of introducing the traditional offertory into the New Mass?
It is not a new idea; it has been around in Rome for ten years. I am glad it has been taken up again. Some criticize the idea, saying it is a way of mixing the profane with the sacred. On the contrary, in the perspective of bringing health back to the Church, I think it would be a great step forward, because the Offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass, of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Blessed Trinity, offered by the priest to God in reparation for sins, and accompanied by the faithful. And that would gradually bring the faithful back to the traditional Mass they have lost.
The most that can be said of this passage, especially its last sentence, is that +Fellay might be well advised to remove his rose-colored glasses. Of the remaining sentences, no. 1 is true; no. 2 is a debatable opinion (not one I share incidentally); no. 3 is true; no. 4 is half questionable opinion (through "great step forward"), half a statement of plain dogmatic fact; no. 5 is the rosy scenario again.
Matthew's gotcha quote is a statement by Cardinal Sarah. While its content and theology are utter rubbish—to that extent I am fully in agreement with my pointing and spluttering colleagues—it has been appended as a gloss to +Fellay's statement in such a way as seems calculated to deceive the reader into believing that +Fellay either explicitly endorsed Sarah's words or certainly would have done so had he been offered the chance.
In the absence of any directly supportive evidence for the charge, +Fellay may well be convicted of poor judgment (i.e., by those commenting on this thread), but he must be acquitted of sacrilegiously equating the conciliar "rite" with the Traditional liturgy. Even those who sincerely believe that he represents a grave danger to the Faith—indeed, especially those—owe him the courtesy of not condemning him on the basis of a calculated misrepresentation.
The Rorate caeli translation is practically identical. I don't see why it is "far better". Because they said "glad" instead of "happy" or "health" instead of "sanitation" or because they added a few "ands" that weren't in the original text. Whoopty doo.
-
So let me see if I understand this correctly. Claudel's defense of Bishop Fellay, based on his far-better, nearly identical Rorate translation is that Bishop Fellay's statements are "debatable opinions".
Wow, he sure had the entire resistance fooled.
And who are you accusing of a calculated misrepresentation? What is misrepresented in his words in the text that I provided? Anybody who has ever taken the time to read the SSPXs publications in more than one language knows that the SSPX rarely translates their internet docuмents using exact and literal translations. But really, because they use a few different words that actually have the same exact meaning, now are you trying to say that I gave a calculated misrepresentation? Isn't that a rash judgement to say the least?
-
If you are looking for a liar, look elsewhere. By the way, did you sign up just to accuse me? I must have struck a nerve!
A little paranoid, and don't think yourself so important, I didn't sign up just to accuse you. How would I know 3 days ago you would make posts on this thread about this subject.
-
If you are looking for a liar, look elsewhere. By the way, did you sign up just to accuse me? I must have struck a nerve!
A little paranoid, and don't think yourself so important, I didn't sign up just to accuse you. How would I know 3 days ago you would make posts on this thread about this subject.
Fair enough. Beg your pardon!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjlWYp1qQLA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjlWYp1qQLA)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/jjlWYp1qQLA[/youtube]
-
For all of you who think that a hybrid Mass is not an official stance of the SSPX, THINK AGAIN! I stand by this was said to me in the Coffee room next to the kitchen as Matthew knows only too well. A certain SSPX seminary professor said in my presence, now I'm paraphrasing, that since the Church evolves [ this is true in non-essential things, but not in the essential I.e. the Church's Doctrine ] since many generations have been deprived of the traditional Mass and don't understand Latin the Church will need to evolve to adopt some of the liturgy in the vernacular and the essential e.g. the Canon of the Mass be in Latin. I swear this before God my Judge that this was said.
Now you can all reject this, it is no skin off my nose, I know that I heard this as I was there. Matthew knows me personally, and you can ask him about my honesty.
If you reject this that's up to you.
In Christo
Ark.
-
Thank you, ark of covenant, for your post.
In the video posted by GottmitunsAlex, ABL says: "...even if you concede us the whole Liturgy of 1962...we will not collaborate!...impossible, because we work in a diametrically opposite direction!...Rome is in apostasy...Rome has left the Church..."
Not only is +Fellay betraying ABL and every traditional Catholic that trusted him and financially supported the SSPX, but he is compromising for crumbs. ABL would not "collaborate" with Rome even if Rome "conceded the whole Liturgy of 1962...(and more)". Bishop Fellay is ready to accept its mimicry at a time when the "general apostasy" is obvious.
ABL refused to compromise for the 1962 Bugnini missal and he didn't even live to see "Summorum Pontificuм". Would he have accepted the 1962 Missal as the "extraordinary Form" of the "Novus ordo"? For which we have to bend the knee to the N.O. missal in order to have the right to it? Would he have sang the Te Deum in thanksgiving for such nonsense? How many priests are out there (even in the new church) who have been "excommunicated" because they have refused to do the Novus Ordo Mass since (the "Freeing" of the Mass) Summorum Pontificuм? I know a few.
The resistance should abandon the 1962 Missal because when the "hybrid Missal" is out, the 1962 will have to be abrogated. That is the goal. One rite. No one has ever needed permission for the pre-'62 while the 1962 has always been regulated by human law and subject to change.
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
It's scary enough that bishop Fellay agrees with the part about the two liturgical forms enlightening each other from a traditional perspective, but I don't think that the average novus-ordo attender cares at all about having more Latin, chant or traditional prayers added to their Mass.
The NO was designed by a committee to be completely understandable in the vernacular, and to not have any silence or mystery. It has done a good job of what the committee who invented it set out to do. I think that Bp. Fellay doesn't have a grasp of what the NO people want, and neither does Card. Sarah. They can't fix the problems in the Church by adding traditional elements to a boring dumbed-down Mass. The NO faithful are happy that it is the way it is. It's what they've been trained to accept these last fifty years or so.
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
It's scary enough that bishop Fellay agrees with the part about the two liturgical forms enlightening each other from a traditional perspective, but I don't think that the average novus-ordo attender cares at all about having more Latin, chant or traditional prayers added to their Mass.
The NO was designed by a committee to be completely understandable in the vernacular, and to not have any silence or mystery. It has done a good job of what the committee who invented it set out to do. I think that Bp. Fellay doesn't have a grasp of what the NO people want, and neither does Card. Sarah. They can't fix the problems in the Church by adding traditional elements to a boring dumbed-down Mass. The NO faithful are happy that it is the way it is. It's what they've been trained to accept these last fifty years or so.
Wonder why Cardinal Sarah proposes such things. He was ordained on 20 July 1969, possibly in the New Rite of Ordination. He must have celebrated the NOM from day-one, so why this proposal now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sarah
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
It's scary enough that bishop Fellay agrees with the part about the two liturgical forms enlightening each other from a traditional perspective, but I don't think that the average novus-ordo attender cares at all about having more Latin, chant or traditional prayers added to their Mass.
The NO was designed by a committee to be completely understandable in the vernacular, and to not have any silence or mystery. It has done a good job of what the committee who invented it set out to do. I think that Bp. Fellay doesn't have a grasp of what the NO people want, and neither does Card. Sarah. They can't fix the problems in the Church by adding traditional elements to a boring dumbed-down Mass. The NO faithful are happy that it is the way it is. It's what they've been trained to accept these last fifty years or so.
Wonder why Cardinal Sarah proposes such things. He was ordained on 20 July 1969, possibly in the New Rite of Ordination. He must have celebrated the NOM from day-one, so why this proposal now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sarah
Because cardinal Sarah, like the (new) "traditionalist" Cardinal Burke understands the goal of S.P. When Summorum Pontificuм was released, Cardinal Burke (as many other bishops and cardinals now doing the 1962) was openly opposed to it. A while later, he declared in an interview: "Now I understand what S.P. is about" and started to say the 1962 Missal and cater to conservatives. The goal (I have several articles on the subject) has been to work on the two missals individually until there is no difference and abolish the 1962 as it is now known. A missal that has been subject to indults (human law) under the last 3 popes because it was in effect only for less than three years.
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
It's scary enough that bishop Fellay agrees with the part about the two liturgical forms enlightening each other from a traditional perspective, but I don't think that the average novus-ordo attender cares at all about having more Latin, chant or traditional prayers added to their Mass.
The NO was designed by a committee to be completely understandable in the vernacular, and to not have any silence or mystery. It has done a good job of what the committee who invented it set out to do. I think that Bp. Fellay doesn't have a grasp of what the NO people want, and neither does Card. Sarah. They can't fix the problems in the Church by adding traditional elements to a boring dumbed-down Mass. The NO faithful are happy that it is the way it is. It's what they've been trained to accept these last fifty years or so.
Wonder why Cardinal Sarah proposes such things. He was ordained on 20 July 1969, possibly in the New Rite of Ordination. He must have celebrated the NOM from day-one, so why this proposal now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sarah
Because cardinal Sarah, like the (new) "traditionalist" Cardinal Burke understands the goal of S.P. When Summorum Pontificuм was released, Cardinal Burke (as many other bishops and cardinals now doing the 1962) was openly opposed to it. A while later, he declared in an interview: "Now I understand what S.P. is about" and started to say the 1962 Missal and cater to conservatives. The goal (I have several articles on the subject) has been to work on the two missals individually until there is no difference and abolish the 1962 as it is now known. A missal that has been subject to indults (human law) under the last 3 popes because it was in effect only for less than three years.
The Church truly needs to spawn an uncompromising counter-revolutionary movement. Pray to God that will happen.
-
The Church truly needs to spawn an uncompromising counter-revolutionary movement. Pray to God that will happen.
Well, in my opinion it has already started.
I don't see any compromise with Bishop Williamson and the priests who work with him.
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
It's scary enough that bishop Fellay agrees with the part about the two liturgical forms enlightening each other from a traditional perspective, but I don't think that the average novus-ordo attender cares at all about having more Latin, chant or traditional prayers added to their Mass.
The NO was designed by a committee to be completely understandable in the vernacular, and to not have any silence or mystery. It has done a good job of what the committee who invented it set out to do. I think that Bp. Fellay doesn't have a grasp of what the NO people want, and neither does Card. Sarah. They can't fix the problems in the Church by adding traditional elements to a boring dumbed-down Mass. The NO faithful are happy that it is the way it is. It's what they've been trained to accept these last fifty years or so.
Wonder why Cardinal Sarah proposes such things. He was ordained on 20 July 1969, possibly in the New Rite of Ordination. He must have celebrated the NOM from day-one, so why this proposal now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sarah
It's likely that it's as Marie Auxiliadora has said, in that they want to blend the two rites. There's a slight chance that they have the idea that more sacrality can be put into the NO by the addition of traditional elements, but I don't think it's a good idea. I used to think so, but not anymore. There's a series of articles by Una Voce in the UK on this subject, about why it's not be a good idea to add traditional elements to the NO. This is of course an indult perspective, so take it for what it's worth:
http://www.lmschairman.org/search/label/Death%20of%20the%20Reform%20of%20the%20Reform
I think, too, that the FSSP are far less likely to support a hybrid than Bp. Fellay. I know that they seem quite timid in the face of diocesan authority, but I think they'll strongly defend the Old Mass if it comes to that. I could be wrong.
-
The Church truly needs to spawn an uncompromising counter-revolutionary movement. Pray to God that will happen.
Well, in my opinion it has already started.
I don't see any compromise with Bishop Williamson and the priests who work with him.
For what it's worth here is Guimaraes' opinion:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/138bev10_26_2011.htm
Bird’s Eye View of the News
Atila Sinke Guimarães
THE VATICAN & THE CAKE - The correspondence desk of TIA sent me the following letter requesting an answer. Since I believe other readers may benefit from the response, I will address it in this column. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Guimarães: I am a regular reader of the Tradition in Action website, where I find orientation in these difficult times we live in. I admire the clarity with which you analyze current events in the Church. Taking this into consideration, I ask for your opinion about what is going on in the negotiations between the Vatican and the SSPX. I am hearing all kinds of contradictory reports about, on one hand, possible compromises by the heads of the SSPX and, on the other, the rejection of an immediate agreement and an undefined extension of the present day dialogue with Rome. I would like to know your view, which I believe may help me and others. Best regards, In Christ Jesus, E.J.
This is my response to the correspondent: Dear Mr. E.J., Thank you for the confidence you place in my comments. I will do my best to meet your expectations. The following commentaries are intended to be of assistance to you and others. Cordially, A.S.G.
Real politik
Pope Benedict XVI opposes tradition
How to eliminate the traditionalists?
Real politik is a German expression that refers to a politics or diplomacy that seeks the deepest motives moving a party or chancellery to achieve their real but non-revealed objectives. The expression presupposes that politicians and diplomats normally employ a duplicious language of flattery that does not reveal their true intentions. This surface language is intended mostly to please the audience; consequently, it changes at random according to the latter’s hopes and sentiments.
It is sad that almost all politicians adopt such false and misleading tactics, but it is the reality. Hence, the real politik tries to discover and work with those real-hidden objectives. However, these aims are not impossible to fathom; a careful political analysis can often expose the real interests of a person, a group or a nation.
Since today we are seeing both the Vatican officials and the SSPX heads using what seems to be duplicious language that is difficult to understand, your question could be translated in this way: What, in terms of real politik, is the plan of the Vatican in dealing with the SSPX? What game are the SSPX heads playing with their members? Let me raise some hypotheses meant to help you.
Mixed acceptations of Vatican II
When one analyzes the acceptation of Catholic Progressivism in the Church, one can distinguish several phases from the Council on.
The bare altar of the new mass
The stripped altar, a consequence of Vatican II
An iconoclast phase began as soon as the Liturgical Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated (1963). It was characterized by the stripping of the churches (the destruction of the Communion rails, pulpits, confessionals, statues and bells), priests and religious abandoning their cassocks and habits, the introduction of pop music in the churches. The New Mass (1969) crowned those novelties and brought them to a paroxysm - masses in the vernacular, altar versum populum, laymen taking the places of the clergy, women on the altar, inculturation, liturgical dances etc.
In the temporal sphere, in Medellin (1968) Paul VI endorsed the Liberation Theology that would spread Communism in Latin America. His encyclical Populorum progressio (1967), issued in the wake of John XXIII’s Pacem in terris (1963), placed the Catholic Church in the left on the social-political international scenario.
The Catholic public received those changes with various degrees of adhesion. Those who supported Progressivism cheered them. The majority, however, were perplexed and only accepted those changes out of obedience to the Pope and the Church authorities they were accustomed to trust. A germen of dissatisfaction, nonetheless, was growing in the majority of Catholics.
This situation generated a phase of silent distrust, which developed into a position of respectful resistance against the new orientations of the Vatican. This resistance first manifested itself against the Vatican Ostpolitik, i.e., its concessions made to Communist regimes. The landmark of this resistance was the 1974 Declaration of Resistance by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira published in many newspapers around the world.
Paul VI greets Dictator Tito in 1971
Vatican Ostpolitik: Paul VI receives communist dictator Tito at the Vatican - 1971
Then, two years afterward, when the public position of resistance was already established and known, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained some priests in Ecône (1976) without the permission of Paul VI. This represented the beginning of a disciplinary resistance and caused his suspension a divinis. Both resistances - in the temporal and ecclesiastical spheres - fed that silent distrust that grew considerably in Catholic public opinion.
As it became stronger and more vocal, this resistance was no longer satisfied with opposing the leftist social-political novelties of the Vatican or seeking permission to say the Tridentine Mass - the first limited goal of the SSPX. Instead, it looked toward the cause of that whole religious-temporal revolution: Vatican II itself.
Now then, insofar as the Council was mistrusted and considered as the cause of all those evils, traditionalist Catholics began to reject it. As long as it was applied, it fed the more advanced tendencies of the progressivists, which in turn fed the suspicion of the traditionalists. This mortal vicious cycle is producing the paralysis in the Council's application; it can only be broken when one of the two sides gives up: Progressivism or Traditionalism.
Trying to resolve this dilemma, that is, to make Traditionalism give up, Paul VI and John Paul II attempted many maneuvers. The “conservative” Benedict XVI was elected to remove the traditionalist obstacle from the road and make it possible to apply Vatican II again, or at least to save it from a mounting rejection.
The traditionalist problem for the Vatican
Today traditionalists represent a significant minority of the Catholic public that cannot be overlooked by any serious analyst. Affirming this, I distinguish two realities: the growing segment of Catholics who reject Vatican II, and the organizations representing them, which may or may not take this position. Among these groups, SSPX is the more important.
Other large traditionalist groups, both ecclesiastical and lay, were broken or silenced. Some of these organizations split and lost their counter-revolutionary significance (the TFPs); others are anesthetized by compromised cupolas (Spanish Carlism, Mexican Cristeros); still others sold out for prestige and careers (Institute of Christ the King, Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney, Institute of the Good Shepherd), to mention just some. Therefore, as the army’s companies break, sleep or betray, the eyes of the faithful turn to the SSPX, which remains the sole large organization in the battlefield.
This group claims to have one million followers. I do not discuss this number; I believe it may well be real. Nonetheless, at this moment the group is catching the attention of a much larger circle of traditionalist Catholics. I call this ensemble “the cake”: the followers of Lefebvre, plus the frustrated grassroots of other groups, plus the growing number of conservatives who are daily joining the traditionalist ranks in the Church.
Cardinal Levadas
Cardinal Levada looking for the largest part of the traditionalist cake
What does the Vatican want in its negotiations with the SSPX? It is to bring the largest possible chunk of this cake to a compromised position. Let me exemplify with just their supposedly one million followers.
If Bishops Fellay, Tissier and Galarreta are able to drag 800 or 900 thousand members to a progressivist position “according to Tradition,” this would be a good deal for the Vatican. But if they can bring only a smaller parcel of the cake, 600 or 500 thousand or less, then it would be better to wait until this percentage grows.
The reason is quite simple: At the moment that the three bishops merge and accept whatever “secret doctrinal protocol” is prescribed – which can only be to accept Vatican II and the New Mass and cease their resistance to the Pope and the Hierarchy – those who refuse to follow them will continue the resistance and repeat the same process again. They will continue to resist these points and, after a time, will find a leadership that will cause as much problem to Progressivism as today’s SSPX.
If this is true, at this present moment both the Vatican and the already-in-the-game heads of the SSPX would be making a careful auscultation of the SSPX grassroots to know whether they will follow the heads in an accord. They would also be doing everything to convince as many as possible to accept the agreement. The result of this auscultation will determine whether the official merge of SSPX into the Conciliar Church will be made now or later.
Preparing a new false-right
At the same time, both the Vatican and the three Bishops would be preparing their fourth colleague, also in the game, to be the leader of the non-compromised slice of the traditionalist public. Doing this, they would maintain control of that piece of the cake as well, and thus prevent any authentic leadership from taking it over after the merge.
Bishop Williamson accused of being a nαzι
Painting an ugly picture of a "nαzι" bishop
In order to make this leader-to-be as unattractive as possible, they would affix some more bad epithets to his name. So, to the rumors already spreading that Bishop Williamson is a Rosicrucian, the accusation of being nαzι has been widely disseminated. The recent threat by Fellay to expel him from SSPX should he not cease posting public comments on the Internet seems intended to present him as a “uncontrollable rebel” as well.
The three Bishops would leave behind their “villain” so that his bad fame would discourage as many traditionalists as possible from enrolling in a branch under his leadership.
In the realm of real politik this is what seems to be the plan for the Vatican and SSPX to play in order to remove the traditionalist obstacle from the progressivist road, save Vatican II and allow it to be applied again.
This hypothetical overview is what occurs to me to answer my reader.
-
TIA:
If Bishops Fellay, Tissier and Galarreta are able to drag 800 or 900 thousand members to a progressivist position “according to Tradition,” this would be a good deal for the Vatican. But if they can bring only a smaller parcel of the cake, 600 or 500 thousand or less, then it would be better to wait until this percentage grows.
This is about what I think too, though I would not accuse Tissier of plotting this end along with Fellay and Galarereta. He is, apparently, just weak and unable to stand against Fellay in support of his own convictions.
I await the eventual mass enlightenment of the SSPX rank and file. +Fellay is a spent force. His shelf life is over. He has far exceeded his expiration date. Just listen to the man for 45 minutes to an hour. This poor cleric is an empty cassock.
-
+Fellay is a spent force. His shelf life is over. He has far exceeded his expiration date. Just listen to the man for 45 minutes to an hour. This poor cleric is an empty cassock.
Meanwhile, +W is as virile as ever.
Just listen to him for 45 minutes to an hour. You'll think it's only been a few minutes.
No one was looking at his watch during the whole recent conference in "wherever" (hahaha) with Fr. Zendejas' Connecticut group.
+Williamson has so much conviction, so much to teach us all. He is the opposite of an empty cassock.
-
Matthew:
Meanwhile, +W is as virile as ever.
Just listen to him for 45 minutes to an hour. You'll think it's only been a few minutes.
No one was looking at his watch during the whole recent conference in "wherever" (hahaha) with Fr. Zendejas' Connecticut group.
+Williamson has so much conviction, so much to teach us all. He is the opposite of an empty cassock.
Yes, the good bishop desires the truth, I am persuaded. His total demeanor seems to reveal this. That doesn't mean that he may be always right on a given issue. I am persuaded that even the writers of Holy Scripture were not always right. St. Peter warned that "the end of all things is at hand, (i.e. imminent) I Pet. 4:7
St Paul talked about seeing the "Day approaching" two thousand years ago. He wrote: "Yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and not tarry (Heb. 10:37)
Well, obviously, the Lord has tarried.
-
It's likely that it's as Marie Auxiliadora has said, in that they want to blend the two rites. There's a slight chance that they have the idea that more sacrality can be put into the NO by the addition of traditional elements, but I don't think it's a good idea. I used to think so, but not anymore. There's a series of articles by Una Voce in the UK on this subject, about why it's not be a good idea to add traditional elements to the NO. This is of course an indult perspective, so take it for what it's worth:
This is much like the "do I hang out with worldly people, to bring them up?" argument.
In both cases, human nature insists that the better (Tradition, the Catholic friend, Reason) will be pulled down by the lower, easier, path (the Novus Ordo, the worldly friend, Emotion).
Just the way things are, in this fallen world.
That "step up" to Tradition is equally a step-down to the Novus Ordo -- which is why it's bad.
-
The Church truly needs to spawn an uncompromising counter-revolutionary movement. Pray to God that will happen.
Well, in my opinion it has already started.
I don't see any compromise with Bishop Williamson and the priests who work with him.
As it relates to this thread, the resistance so called, had the perfect opportunity to step back from the earlier mistake of using the 1962 Missal which is indeed compromised.
As a point of principle, they could have returned to a Missal which was not created as a means to begin the changes in the liturgy, slowly at first but, its small subversions have helped lead to this state of affairs in which the rites are being slowly moved to a position of convergence.
This group holds to the 1962 Missal, an unnecessary compromise.
That is all I will say in relation to the subject of this thread.
-
J Paul:
they could have returned to a Missal which was not created as a means to begin the changes in the liturgy, slowly at first but, its small subversions have helped lead to this state of affairs in which the rites are being slowly moved to a position of convergence.
This is a Red Herring. The 62 missal has little to do with the overall crisis in the Church. The NO rite of Paul VI, yeah. But the '62 Missal just gives trads and opportunity to nitpick among one another. It's the least of our problems, and I think ABL recognized this ans was willing to let it go. I doubt that that "position of convergence" will come in my lifetime,
-
Careful, Hollingsworth; before you state that complaints about the 1962 Missal are a "red herring", you should really study the matter in depth. After your investigation, it is quite possible that you will have changed your opinions (which are always very strong).
-
The Church truly needs to spawn an uncompromising counter-revolutionary movement. Pray to God that will happen.
Well, in my opinion it has already started.
I don't see any compromise with Bishop Williamson and the priests who work with him.
As it relates to this thread, the resistance so called, had the perfect opportunity to step back from the earlier mistake of using the 1962 Missal which is indeed compromised.
As a point of principle, they could have returned to a Missal which was not created as a means to begin the changes in the liturgy, slowly at first but, its small subversions have helped lead to this state of affairs in which the rites are being slowly moved to a position of convergence.
This group holds to the 1962 Missal, an unnecessary compromise.
That is all I will say in relation to the subject of this thread.
And I will say that some people have blown the "compromise" that is the 1962 Missal out of all due proportion.
Even to the point that they will STAY HOME ON SUNDAY, EVERY SUNDAY because the only Mass option is a solid priest like Fr. Zendejas (for example) who says the 1962 Missal.
That is wrong. Not my opinion, but objectively WRONG. There is not sufficient danger or objection to the 1962 Missal that a person can legitimately dispense himself from his Sunday Obligation to attend Mass if that is his only option.
But plenty of uneducated Trad Catholics make this mistake. I know one person in my area that won't attend Mass because we use the 1962 Missal. She's been Trad for 2 or 3 years. Hey, she must be an expert!
That is why I'm very leery of criticism of the 1962 Missal. It smacks of Bishop Fellay's unspoken boast, "I can do better than the Archbishop".
The 1962 was good enough for Archbishop Lefebvre -- it's good enough for me. The 1962 Missal saves souls, full stop. I'm willing to stake my eternal soul on that.
-
The main difference being that St. Jospeh was added to the Canon. St Joseph, protector of the Church and most privileged saint. What could be so wrong?
-
I addressed this subject in the context of this thread, as but a small example, not as a great betrayal. A small principle set aside to please the conciliar authorities of the time, when the Archbishop believed that there was a possibility of change.
-
I addressed this subject in the context of this thread, as but a small example, not as a great betrayal. A small principle set aside to please the conciliar authorities of the time, when the Archbishop believed that there was a possibility of change.
It's not that simple.
I used to think that the Archbishop picked the most recent one that didn't have any compromises or problems in it (adding vernacular, etc.) And if this were the case, it would still be enough justification for what he did.
But there is more to it than that.
For example, if you say the "1955 Missal" you also can't have evening Mass, and everyone receiving Communion has to fast after Midnight. There are other issues as well: the Easter reforms as well as the Divine Office restoration (getting rid of the ill-conceived Pius XII Psalter).
You can't "pick and choose" which Missale you want, like some kind of cafeteria menu.
I trust the Archbishop's judgment on this matter.
The fact is that the only "compromise" was that they added St. Joseph to the Canon. That supposedly "opened the floodgates" until 10 years later, you had communion in the hand, altar girls, and people dancing in the pews to rock music.
But I maintain that there is no connection between the two. Yes, the Novus Ordo Missae came 7 years after the 1962 Missal, but it also came just 14 years after the 1955 Missal!
My point is, unless there is something inherently wrong with the Missal, you have to go with the authority of the Pope and the Church on such a matter. You can't use the "slippery slope" argument to condemn an innocent Missal.
Hundreds of people will walk out of their homes today, and head to strip joints. Should walking out of our homes be considered evil, because in so many cases it results in a man sitting in a seedy strip joint, wallowing in mortal sin? Sometimes there is no connection between the "pebble" at the top of the mountain, and the "boulder" that it becomes towards the bottom of the mountain. That's the essence of why the slippery slope fallacy is exactly that: a logical fallacy.
-
As I said, this Missal does not represent a major conciliar deviation, and objection to it is based mostly upon principle, and not because it has a glaring doctrinal problem.
It is absurd for someone to avoid Mass simply because the priest uses this Missal, when Mass is still valid with its use.
I have never used this Missal. All of my Missals are from the 1920's, 30's and 40's, with a few early fifties for backup. I make do without scruple of conscience.
Others who object could do the same.
If the priest, Mass, and sacraments are valid, then there is no excuse not to attend Mass and fulfill your obligation to the Church, If it is possible distance wise.
That being said, a return to the pre-conciliar, books, practices, laws, and doctrinal understandings would be the safest, wisest course, until the conciliar scourge has been purged from the church.
-
J Paul:
As I said, this ('62) Missal does not represent a major conciliar deviation, and objection to it is based mostly upon principle, and not because it has a glaring doctrinal problem.
It is absurd for someone to avoid Mass simply because the priest uses this Missal, when Mass is still valid with its use.
Then why not leave it at that? Why should a missal, which you yourself admit does "not represent a major conciliar deviation," be the focus of so much attention? The '62 missal is one of the least critical issues confronting the Church, IMO.
-
I can't remember where in the world it is, but the Archbishop explains why he choose the 1962 liturgy. He says that it was the legal limit that he could go to. In choosing the 1962 liturgy he was not rejecting the papal authority. He wanted to choose the last acceptable missal, and that's what he did. This position shows that he believed that the later missals were illicit, and also that he was obeying the authorities as much as possible. That he would want a Priestly Union to unanimously use this missal also makes sense. The codification of the Mass by St. Pius V was the result of the need of uniformity of the Latin Rite, which took place first in the Dominican Rite. For the Archbishop to want to continue in this line seems completely prudent. It is actually a protection against both liberals and sedevacantists, as well as against future claims of disobedience to John XXIII's publication of a licit Missal.
-
J Paul: As I said, this ('62) Missal does not represent a major conciliar deviation, and objection to it is based mostly upon principle, and not because it has a glaring doctrinal problem.
It is absurd for someone to avoid Mass simply because the priest uses this Missal, when Mass is still valid with its use.
Then why not leave it at that? Why should a missal, which you yourself admit does "not represent a major conciliar deviation," be the focus of so much attention? The '62 missal is one of the least critical issues confronting the Church, IMO.
I believe that is what I have said. It is more a point of principle and not a doctrinal disaster, but, small concessions almost always lead to larger ones when you are dealing with dishonest and evil men.
However, it is not wise to ignore the seemingly small alterations of this Missal that would open the door to others at a later time, of course keeping things in proper perspective.
-
But the '62 Missal just gives trads and opportunity to nitpick among one another.
"Nitpick" began when BXVI changed the Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs and the
Transalpine Redemptorists had to choose between obedience to bishop Fellay or Obedience to the BXVI.
Bishop Fellay claimed that the prayer changed was 1600 yrs. old and the SSPX would not accept the prayer change. That was NOT true. The main change to the prayer was in 1962. The SSPX, on their own authority.
But the '62 Missal just gives trads and opportunity to nitpick among one another. It's the least of our problems, and I think ABL recognized this ans was willing to let it go. I doubt that that "position of convergence" will come in my lifetime,
The published their own missal and still do which kept many of the traditions that were change in 1962 to keep it more traditional. In expectation for Summorum Pontificuм Fr Peter Scott raised a lot of money for massive printing of the actual 1962 Missal. Rome outsmarted the SSPX and their publishers printed their own missal as the only authorized missals. The massive printing of these missals were of not use to SSPX faithful and they rotted in the shelves (or boxes). They ended up disposing of them. That was public knowledge and discussed in forums at the time.
The 1962 was good enough for Archbishop Lefebvre -- it's good enough for me.
Not good enough reason. Credit to ABL were credit is due. However, he could not have imagined before his death were the 1962 missal was going. I believe he would have gone to the pre- 1962 missal after summorum Pontificuм. That, or +Fellay was right when he stated to cardinal Canizares llovera that "If ABL had seen the (reform of the reform) Mass as said at the Abbey near Florence, he (ABL) would not have taken the step he did".
The fact is that the only "compromise" was that they added St. Joseph to the Canon. That supposedly "opened the floodgates" until 10 years later, you had communion in the hand, altar girls, and people dancing in the pews to rock music.
That was not the "only compromise". The list is endless if you want to search. Because the SSPX missal is so mixed (1962 & pre- 1962) SSPX faithful could not tell unless you bought an actual 1962 missal or an old one not published by the SSPX.
My point is, unless there is something inherently wrong with the Missal, you have to go with the authority of the Pope and the Church on such a matter. You can't use the "slippery slope" argument to condemn an innocent Missal.
My problem with the 1962 missal besides the braking with the Ecclesiastical Tradition of only having martyrs in the canon and changing the Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs is that from the very beginning it was meant to be a "transitional" missal into the N.O. Mgr. Bugnini made that clear.
IMO, that is why the last three popes have treated the 1962 (which existed less than three years) as an indult which means, permission to do what otherwise is forbidden. Our (Catholics) main claim to the pre-1962 missal it's not just Quo Primum which has not nor can be revoked but to our right to our Ecclesiastical Traditions as baptized Catholic. That claim was made before when Rome suppressed the Ambrosian Rite. The next pope declare that to have been an injustice and to this day, they have it in Rome.
The main difference being that St. Jospeh was added to the Canon. St Joseph, protector of the Church and most privileged saint. What could be so wrong?
The brake with the Ecclessiastical Tradition of only adding martyrs to the canon. When this request was made of Leo III, he responded: "I'm only the pope".
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” (emphasis mine).
I can't remember where in the world it is, but the Archbishop explains why he choose the 1962 liturgy. He says that it was the legal limit that he could go to. In choosing the 1962 liturgy he was not rejecting the papal authority. He wanted to choose the last acceptable missal, and that's what he did. This position shows that he believed that the later missals were illicit, and also that he was obeying the authorities as much as possible.
I know what you are talking about it. We used that argument when +Fellay demanded obedience of the T.Redemptorists in regard to the new GFP. However the Roman authorities, through Summorum Pontificuм, the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (and the letter to the bishops of the world also on 7/7/07) have given authorization to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to "looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite. Such as
Quote:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedinsumpon.HTM
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, 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.
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/explanatory-letter-on-summorum-pontificuм
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.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/05/la-nef-after-over-three-years-what.html
To those who claim not to understand the intentions of Summorum Pontificuм, I suggest a re-reading of the Letter to the Bishops, written by our Holy Father when it was promulgated, as well as the numerous writings of the Holy Father on sacred liturgy, published before and after his election to the Chair of Peter. I think, for instance, of his masterpiece: The Spirit of the Liturgy.
http://www.reformofthereform.org/apps/blog/show/10629043-cardinal-burke-on-the-reform-of-the-reform
In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church’s ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors.“It seems, to me, that what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite — the ‘reform of the reform,’ if we may — all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent.”
The link below is from Amazon advertising the book "The Old Mass and the New, Explaining the M.P. Summorum Pontificuм of P. BXVI". It's an eye opener about the docuмent.
http://www.amazon.com/Old-Mass-New-Explaining-Pontificuм/dp/1586173626/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436045287&sr=8-1&keywords=the+old+mass+and+the+new#reader_B0041T51IC
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/cardinal-burke-with-leadership-of-pope.html
What is Cardinal Burke referring to in this video which came out just previous to the expected "reconciliation" in June, 2012. Listen carefully to 1:20 minutes. Talking about the SSPX and the Liturgy the cardinal says: "...there will have to be a change in the way of thinking and acting..."
-
I messed up.The top comments should read as one paragraph:
"Nitpick" began when BXVI changed the Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs and the
Transalpine Redemptorists had to choose between obedience to bishop Fellay or Obedience to the BXVI.
Bishop Fellay claimed that the prayer changed was 1600 yrs. old and the SSPX would not accept the prayer change. That was NOT true. The main change to the prayer was in 1962. The SSPX, on their own authority published their own missal and still do which kept many of the traditions that were changed in 1962 to keep it more traditional, including the ancient GFP. In expectation for Summorum Pontificuм Fr Peter Scott raised a lot of money for massive printing of the actual 1962 Missal. Rome outsmarted the SSPX and their publishers printed their own missal as the only authorized missals. The massive printing of these missals were of not use to SSPX faithful and they rotted in the shelves (or boxes). They ended up disposing of them. That was public knowledge and discussed in forums at the time.
-
I messed up.The top comments should read as one paragraph:
"Nitpick" began when BXVI changed the Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs and the
Transalpine Redemptorists had to choose between obedience to bishop Fellay or Obedience to the BXVI.
Bishop Fellay claimed that the prayer changed was 1600 yrs. old and the SSPX would not accept the prayer change. That was NOT true. The main change to the prayer was in 1962. The SSPX, on their own authority published their own missal and still do which kept many of the traditions that were changed in 1962 to keep it more traditional, including the ancient GFP. In expectation for Summorum Pontificuм Fr Peter Scott raised a lot of money for massive printing of the actual 1962 Missal. Rome outsmarted the SSPX and their publishers printed their own missal as the only authorized missals. The massive printing of these missals were of not use to SSPX faithful and they rotted in the shelves (or boxes). They ended up disposing of them. That was public knowledge and discussed in forums at the time.
Interesting article here:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=36&catname=6
Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass
Most Rev. Daniel L. Dolan
Was it Pius XII and John XXIII? Or was it really Bugnini?
The recent attempt by Archbishop Lefebvre to impose the reformed liturgy of John XXIII upon Catholic clergy and laity faithful to tradition is nothing short of a tragedy, as recent events have demonstrated. But for all this, it contains the certain ironies — but ironies which sting rather than amuse.
The Society dedicated to St. Pius X, the great foe of Modernism, has attempted to compel its members to abandon the liturgical books bearing its holy Patron's name, a guarantee of orthodoxy, in favor of the provisional reforms of John XXIII, a man long suspected of Modernism, as he himself personally told Archbishop Lefebvre. The reforms of John XXlll were intended merely to "tide the Church over" until Vatican II could revise everything, and now they are being used to divide those who have been attempting to salvage what souls remained after the mass destruction of that Council.
The Society has rightly resisted the abuses of authority by the Conciliar Church. But it now attempts to legislate in matters liturgical — a right which it does not have, for such power belongs to the Holy See alone (Canon 1257). Instead of following its own prudent practice of keeping the custom of each country (sanctioned by the General Chapter of 1976 and never revoked), it now demands an unquestioning obedience in the name of "liturgical unity." Priests who are unwilling to give an unquestioning obedience to the demands that they "reform" the way they say Mass are first subjected to threats and finally, if that fails, they are made the objects of bitter denunciations. It is as though history is repeating itself before our eyes.
Another irony is that the Liturgy of John XXIII is not really his at all, any more than the new Holy Week can be attributed to Pope Pius XII. These interim changes which prepared the way for the Novus Ordo Missae were prepared under the direction of two men: Rev. (later Cardinal) Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., and Rev. (later Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini, C.M.
In 1969 Antonelli would sign the decree promulgating the Novus Ordo.
And Bugnini, who supervised the liturgical reform from its inception in 1948 to its culmination in 1969 with the New Order of Mass, is the one Vatican prelate against whom the oft-raised charges of complicity with Masonry seem to stick. In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre himself, based on his personal experience, thinks it highly probable that Fr. Bugnini was a Mason.
But now we are asked to accept all the liturgical mischief done during the fifties and sixties by Fr. Bugnini, all the while rejecting what he produced a mere eight years later! Perhaps Catholics are right to feel they are being "set-up" for a compromise! Not irony, but tragedy!
How many times have you heard someone ask, "How could it have happened?" The answer is that it did not happen overnight. Those responsible for replacing our Holy Mass with a Community Celebration were content for years to work slowly — very slowly. A detective who examines what seems to be the corpse of Catholicism (as the world judges: truly She lives yet!) would find irrefutable evidence of the murderers' modus operandi: their method is one of gradualism, the very same one employed by Satan in slaying souls. This was as much as admitted by Cardinal Heenan of Westminster who said the changes had to be made gradually, or the people would never have accepted them.
Let us look at the history of "the first stages in the destruction of the Roman Liturgy" — the phrase is taken from a book on the pre-Conciliar reforms to which Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote the preface. We shall see how by design the liturgical changes — the ones we are now asked to accept — followed each other every few years until the clergy were accustomed to living in an atmosphere of constant change, so that most of them inevitably gave in to the confusion. They no longer considered themselves bound to know and apply properly the body of rubrics, or even felt "at home" anymore in the sanctuary. In the name of "simplification," the rules and principles which governed the liturgy for centuries were slowly exchanged for the constant state of flux which presently obtains in the Conciliar Church.
After studying this cleverly conceived chronology of change you will find it no wonder that most priests were left bewildered and confused, with no more sure or unchanging principle to cling to than blind obedience, expressed by a ready acceptance of whatever new rubrics were to be found in the morning mail.
I. The “Experimental” Easter Vigil (1950)
This work of gradual change began on May 28, 1948 by the appointment of a Commission for Liturgical Reform with Father Antonelli as General Director, and Father Bugnini as Secretary, the men who respectively imposed and composed the Novus Ordo Missae.
Two years later on November 22, 1950, Cardinal Liénart, in his capacity as head of the French assembly of bishops, formally petitioned the Holy See for permission to celebrate the Easter Vigil at night rather than in the morning for "pastoral reasons." He got more than he bargained for. Under the guise of a simple change of times, a substantially rewritten rite was slipped in, even as later the "English Mass" was imposed in the name of the vernacular, with little reference to that fact that only thirty percent of the text of the traditional Mass remains.
The first jarring, discordant strains of the "New Order Symphony" were already heard in this new Easter Vigil:
1. The principle of optional rites used experimentally was introduced.
2. For the first time, the vernacular was introduced into the liturgy proper. (This was Cranmer's first step as well in 1548)
3. The rubric directing the celebrant to "sit and listen" (sedentes auscultant) to the lessons rather than reading them at the altar is introduced for the first time and is immediately interpreted as justifying the exclusive use of the vernacular in this part of the liturgy.
In 1953 the immemorial midnight eucharistic fast was mitigated to three hours under certain conditions as a concession to modern weakness. The modernist liturgists, however, saw in this the beginning of the gradual destruction of the Church's sacramental discipline, which would end with Paul VI's "15 minutes."
Already in 1954 the first rumblings of liturgical anarchy were heard, and Pope Pius XII warned priests in an allocution not to change anything in the liturgy on their own authority. But still changes continued.
II. The New Holy Week (1955)
The whole of the Church's venerable Holy Week got the axe in 1955 with the publication of Maxima Redemptionis. The lie is repeated and extended: this is merely a change of times. The drastic overhauling of most of the ceremonies of the Church's most sacred week receives no justification. How could it?
A. Key Features: The new Holy Week was a kind of trial balloon for the Novus Ordo. What were some of the key features?
1. Everything must be short and simple.
2. Key rites are to be performed by the priest with his back to the altar, facing the people: the Blessing of Palms, the final prayer of the Palm Sunday Procession, the Holy Saturday Blessing of the Baptismal Water, etc.
3. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel are suppressed for the first time.
4. Everyone, priest and laity, must recite together the Our Father On Good Friday.
B. Palm Sunday: In particular, the Palm Sunday service lost its ancient rite of blessing which incorporates many prayers of the Mass, thus associating the sacramental palm with the Blessed Sacrament. The seven collects were reduced to one, the Fore-Mass of the Blessing entirely disappeared, as did the ceremony of the Gloria Laus at the door of the Church. The Passion account was shortened, omitting the Anointing at Bethany and the Last Supper.
C. The Triduum: The whole of the balance of the Triduum Sacrum, the last three days of Holy Week, was upset. The beautiful Office of Tenebrae practically disappeared, as did the popular devotion of the Tre Ore.
1. The ancient Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday was abolished and replaced with a simple Communion Service for the people. Contrary to immemorial custom, a genuflection was prescribed at the prayer for the Jєωs.
2. The Holy Saturday Vigil was entirely changed, with its lessons reduced from twelve to four, and a there was drastic modification of the traditional rite of the Blessing of the New Fire and Paschal Candle. (In 1955 as well, the equally ancient Vigil Service for Pentecost Eve was entirely suppressed.)
Even this necessarily superficial overview of the new Holy Week rite will enable us to understand how it was that a noted liturgical modernist, Fr. Duployé, could say, "If we succeed in restoring the Paschal Vigil in its original value, the Liturgical Movement will have triumphed; I give myself ten years to do that." The modernist theologian Fr. Chenu comments: "Ten years later it was done."
III. “Reform” of the Rubrics (1955).
The year 1955 was a bad one for the Roman Liturgy; it saw as well a modernist-oriented reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary, with the decree cuм Nostra Hac Aetate.
So called "undesirable accretions" were removed from the Sacred Liturgy "in the light of modern scholarship," to wit:
1. The ancient ranks of semi-double and simple feasts were abolished.
2. Most vigils of feast days were suppressed, leaving the celebration of vigils "a shadow of its former self." (Vigils such as All Saints, the Apostles, Our Lady, etc.)
3. The number of octaves was reduced from fifteen to three. Some of the suppressed octaves went back to the seventh century!
4. For the first time a distinction between "public" and "private" recitation of the Divine Office was introduced, even though tradition teaches us that the Office is by its very nature a public prayer. This foreshadows the Novus Ordo distinction between Masses with and without people.
5. The Our Fathers recited in the Office were reduced from sixteen to five, and the ten Hail Marys and three Creeds were entirely omitted, as were certain other prayers before and after the office.
6. The penitential ferial prayers were abolished with two minor exceptions.
7. The Suffrage of the Saints and the Commemoration of the Cross were abolished, and the beautiful Athanasian Creed (dating from the eighth century) was said but once a year.
8. The additional Collects said at Mass during the different seasons of the year (such as those of Our Lady and Against the Persecutors of the Church) were abolished.
9. The Proper Last Gospel was abolished. Here again we have been obliged to content ourselves with a brief overview of these changes which were described as "provisional" — but which so altered the sacred liturgy as to discourage all but the most dedicated priest from learning them. Why should he bother, anyway? In five years the rubrics would change again.
Finally, in 1955 the Solemnity of St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, was suppressed. It was replaced with a kind of Feast Day of Labor, St. Joseph the Worker, on the international socialist holiday of May Day.
In 1957, further changes in the Holy Week were introduced, including provision for a Solemn High Mass without a subdeacon.
IV. Consultation on Further Changes (1957)
In 1957 as well, the bishops of the world were consulted about further liturgical changes. The majority asked that the traditional structure of the Divine Office be preserved. Fr. Thomas Richstatter, in his book Liturgical Law. New Style, New Spirit, gives the following account:
"One bishop quotes Saint Thomas (Summa, I-II, q. 97, art. 2) where he states that the modification of any positive law will naturally bring with it a certain lessening of discipline. Consequently, if there is to be a change, it must be not just for something 'a little better' but for something 'much better' in order to compensate for this falling off of discipline which necessarily accompanies any change in legislation. Therefore, the bishop states, we must be very cautious in this matter. It is not easy to say 'no' to requests for change, but that is the proper action here. The bishop concludes by stating that he is among that large number who are not only satisfied with the liturgy as it is, but who consider any change not only undesirable but dangerous to the Church."
V. Dialogue Masses and Commentators (1958)
On September 3, 1958, one month before the death of the beleaguered Pius XII, the Instruction on Sacred Music was issued. The use of the "Dialogue Mass," first conceded in 1922, was extended and encouraged, so that the congregation would recite much of the Mass along with the priest: the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, etc., as well as all the responses. It should be noted here that the traditional form of congregational participation is Gregorian Chant. Popular recitation of Mass prayers was never done until the "Dialogue Mass" was introduced.
Under the cover of participation, lay commentators made their appearance for the first time. Their role was to read in the vernacular while the priest read in Latin.
On October 28 of that same year John XXIII was elected. He wasted no time in calling a general Council which would "consecrate Ecuмenism." The following year, in June of 1960, John XXIII appointed Fr. Bugnini to serve as secretary of the Preparatory Liturgical Commission for the Council.
In the meantime, Fr. Bugnini continued his work with the commission for the reform of the liturgy, producing yet another series of provisional changes, to last until the conciliar reforms. The Missal and Breviary were again changed, as was the Calendar, and for the first time, the Pontifical and the Ritual.
VI. The John XXIII Changes (1960–62)
At last we come to "the liturgy of John XXIII," more properly called that of "middle Bugnini." The following changes were instituted in the Mass, the Divine Office and the Calendar:
1. The lives of the saints at Matins were reduced to brief summaries.
2. The lessons from the Fathers of the Church were reduced to the briefest possible passages, with the somewhat naive wish that the clergy would continue to nourish their souls with patristic writings on their own.
3. The solitary recitation of the Divine Office was no longer held to be public prayer, and thus the sacred greeting Dominus vobiscuм was suppressed.
4. The Last Gospel was suppressed on more occasions.
5. The proper conclusion of the Office Hymns was suppressed.
6. Many feast days are abolished, as being redundant or not "historical, for example: (a) The Finding of the Holy Cross. (b) St. John Before the Latin Gate. (c) The Apparition of St. Michael. (d) St. Peter's Chair at Antioch. (e) St. Peter's Chains, etc.
7. During the Council, the principle of the unchanging Canon of the Mass was destroyed with the addition of the name of St. Joseph.
8. The Confiteor before Communion was suppressed.
It is to be noted that the "Liturgy of John XXIII” was in vigor for all of three years, until it came to its logical conclusion with the promulgation of the Conciliar Decree on the Liturgy — also the work of Bugnini.
VII. Liturgy in the Society of St. Pius X
A question: "Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?"
The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular — without reading them first in Latin.)
It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of (a) what the Archbishop liked, and (b) what one did in France. These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. Jt is simply the "Rite of Ecône," a law unto itself.
To this day it would be impossible to study a rubrical textbook and then function, say, in a Pontifical Mass at Ecône. There is no uniformity, because there is no principle of uniformity — certainly not the "Liturgy of John XXIII." Perhaps one day someone will codify this Rite of Ecône for posterity.
As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today.
The traditional Mass is a work of discipline and of art — every little gesture is carefully prescribed and provided for. It is a pity that today so many priests trained at Ecône are content with saying Mass "more or less" properly. But with no training and the bad example of older priests who had been subjected to twenty years of constant confusing changes, could anything else be expected?
Another happier result emerged from the liturgical chaos at Ecône. Some seminarians simply went back to the unreformed rubrics of the Church. After all, had they not been told by Archbishop Lefebvre himself that this Bugnini was a Freemason? And didn't he have his finger in the liturgical pie since 1948 ?
Say “No” to the Reformers
At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely, since, again according to the Archbishop, so many of its actions "began in heresy and ended in heresy." Why then follow the provisional liturgy which paved its way? Why, indeed? Archbishop Lefebvre saw no need in 1976 to attempt to force a liturgical "reform" on England, Germany and America which were following the unreformed liturgy.
I do not claim that the "Liturgy of John XXIII" is heretical or offensive to God in any way like the Novus Ordo is. I do know it to be a step towards the Novus Ordo, authored by the same men who produced the Novus Ordo. I do believe, finally, that to accept these "reforms" today with the benefit of twenty years hindsight would be wrong. I know as well — I have seen with my own eyes — that the cuмulative effect of these gradual changes on priests is disastrous.
The Church today must be rebuilt practically from the ground up. Will we look to the man glowing with health or the one slowly dying as our model? Will we take as our principle the same adage of St. Vincent of Lerins: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus" (What always, what everywhere, what by everyone was done) or the "laws" (if indeed they could be considered such) which in the proven intent of their creators served only to pave the way for the destruction of the "most beautiful thing this side of Heaven," the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
(The Roman Catholic, June 1983)
-
Good comments above, very informative.
As we can see, it is not that simple, and when researched, it really is a big issue.
This more in depth understanding of this Missal's purpose and implications was what I had in mind when in my first comments.
Marie,
The published their own missal and still do which kept many of the traditions that were change in 1962 to keep it more traditional. In expectation for Summorum Pontificuм Fr Peter Scott raised a lot of money for massive printing of the actual 1962 Missal. Rome outsmarted the SSPX and their publishers printed their own missal as the only authorized missals. The massive printing of these missals were of not use to SSPX faithful and they rotted in the shelves (or boxes). They ended up disposing of them. That was public knowledge and discussed in forums at the time.
Yes, we are speaking about the 1962 Missal, not the SSPX modified hybrid, which in itself is another contradiction of their R&R policies. They claim to be following the law of the legal authorities in the "Church" and ignore or change what suits them and still claim to be in submission to the conciliar dictates.
Marie,
Our (Catholics) main claim to the pre-1962 missal it's not just Quo Primum which has not nor can be revoked but to our right to our Ecclesiastical Traditions as baptized Catholic.
This brings up another important point of principal, Quo Primum.
Archbishop Lefebvre could have, (in my opinion, should have), instituted and remained with the use of the Missal of Saint Pius V. He could have found both legal justification and and a defense of his position in Quo Primum. The use of this Missal was commanded, allowed, and encouraged "without scruple of conscience". Both Father Gommar De Pauw and Father Gregorius Hesse have made excellent statements on Q.P.
The SSPX's deviations from the 1962 Missal as originally authorized by the conciliar church has no such legal defense. If they accepted the conciliar authority as the true authority, they had no right not to adhere to its form of the Missal.
And herein is my point about the resistance so called. They had a clean
opportunity to stand upon the solid principle of Quo Primum and Tradition and use a Missal which had no taint of the long sought after liturgical revolution's influence. A chance to step away from the SSPX and its alphabet soup of obedience/non-obedience illogical policies. A chance to finally stand directly against the false council and its adherents, to challenge this revolution without the insanities such as seeing it, "in the light of Tradition" etc.
But what seems to be is that they are simply seeking to recreate the SSPX without Bishop Fellay and the cabal.
The issue of the Missal would have cost them nothing, and it would have enhanced the idea that they were to be more principled and coherent than Bishop Fellay's SSPX.
It appears that this opportunity never occurred to them, or they simply let it go by.
-
AJNC, Thank you for the article you posted yesterday.
-
Marie,
Our (Catholics) main claim to the pre-1962 missal it's not just Quo Primum which has not nor can be revoked but to our right to our Ecclesiastical Traditions as baptized Catholic.
This brings up another important point of principal, Quo Primum.
Archbishop Lefebvre could have, (in my opinion, should have), instituted and remained with the use of the Missal of Saint Pius V. He could have found both legal justification and and a defense of his position in Quo Primum. The use of this Missal was commanded, allowed, and encouraged "without scruple of conscience". Both Father Gommar De Pauw and Father Gregorius Hesse have made excellent statements on Q.P.
The SSPX's deviations from the 1962 Missal as originally authorized by the conciliar church has no such legal defense. If they accepted the conciliar authority as the true authority, they had no right not to adhere to its form of the Missal.
And herein is my point about the resistance so called. They had a clean
opportunity to stand upon the solid principle of Quo Primum and Tradition and use a Missal which had no taint of the long sought after liturgical revolution's influence. A chance to step away from the SSPX and its alphabet soup of obedience/non-obedience illogical policies. A chance to finally stand directly against the false council and its adherents, to challenge this revolution without the insanities such as seeing it, "in the light of Tradition" etc.
But what seems to be is that they are simply seeking to recreate the SSPX without Bishop Fellay and the cabal.
The issue of the Missal would have cost them nothing, and it would have enhanced the idea that they were to be more principled and coherent than Bishop Fellay's SSPX.
It appears that this opportunity never occurred to them, or they simply let it go by.
The main actors in the resistance drama hang onto Bugnini's handywork because the last thing they want is to be accused of SVism. If there were a choice to be made they would even prefer to go the same way as Fellay & Co.
Which brings up the subject of carrying on the R & R inheritance of ABL. There was the hope among many old-time trads that in view of the situation in Rome getting worse and worse the original policy of accommodating SVs would return. But as they insist on attacking them, I can understand why some folk may see little differences among the SSPX family members on this point.
For people that avoided the Society well before the current disagreements, there is not much incentive to be strong supporters of the resistance. We can admire the work put in by Fr. Pfeiffer and feel drawn to Bp W's highly politicised traditionalist positions. But we are in danger of not keeping our eye on the ball if we concentrate on personalities. As we have found, a lot can happen if we do that.
-
Wessex,
But we are in danger of not keeping our eye on the ball if we concentrate on personalities. As we have found, a lot can happen if we do that.
That is what, in many cases has happened. This is illustrated by many comments on this forum which are very defensive of personalities, regardless of the issues under discussion.
A counter-revolutionary movement is sorely needed now, and indeed one which is organized and identified by solid principles and not by personalities and sectarian bias.
Catholic principles, laws, and theology are readily available to those courageous enough to use what the Church has provided for such a defense of the Faith.
Resources which should be used to directly confront the revolution and the alien perpetrators who protect it.
Otherwise, we see what happened in the past decades of "wait and see", when we lost everything and gained nothing.
-
For all of you who think that a hybrid Mass is not an official stance of the SSPX, THINK AGAIN! I stand by this was said to me in the Coffee room next to the kitchen as Matthew knows only too well. A certain SSPX seminary professor said in my presence, now I'm paraphrasing, that since the Church evolves [ this is true in non-essential things, but not in the essential I.e. the Church's Doctrine ] since many generations have been deprived of the traditional Mass and don't understand Latin the Church will need to evolve to adopt some of the liturgy in the vernacular and the essential e.g. the Canon of the Mass be in Latin. I swear this before God my Judge that this was said.
Now you can all reject this, it is no skin off my nose, I know that I heard this as I was there. Matthew knows me personally, and you can ask him about my honesty.
If you reject this that's up to you.
In Christo
Ark.
Well, if Bishop Fellay himself says in an interview that he thinks it's a good idea to mix the two rites, and the SSPX itself sees nothing wrong with putting this up on their website, I can well believe that an SSPX seminary professor could also say the same thing. We've all had experience of hearing some pretty dodgy things said by various priests over the last few years, nothing would surprise me at this stage.
In fact, I think this is the SSPX taking the first step on the slippery slope towards eventually accepting the New Mass at least in principle if not in practice. I could be wrong, I sincerely hope I am. The SSPX has already promoted the Motu Propio Mass for years, despite the fact that it designates the Mass of All Times as the "extraordinary rite" and places it on the same level as the Novus Ordo mass which it calls the "ordinary rite". This compromise on the Mass has been promoted for years to Traditional Catholics as the "freeing of the Latin Mass". Eh, I don't think so. And the SSPX conveniently forgot to mention that the Motu Propio only gives "freedom" to priests to celebrate the Latin Mass in private. That doesn't sound like freedom for the Mass to me. Yet this compromise has been presented as a good thing, as a good way to promote the Mass and the Faith. And now we have Bishop Fellay saying that putting a traditional offertory in the Novus Ordo Mass will bring people to Tradition, or something to that effect (it's a few days since I last read his recent interview so forgive me for paraphrasing). Is it too far fetched to sadly wonder if perhaps in the future the SSPX may end up saying one Novus Ordo Mass a year so as not to alienate modern Catholics and "bring them back to the Faith"? Or at least to accept the New Mass in principle. The SSPX has stopped speaking out strongly against the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass and all the other problems a long time ago as it is, probably for fear of offending anyone in Rome. The Society seems to think that compromising is the only way to promote the Faith. That's how twisted the thinking has become. I hope that I will be proved wrong.
-
Now in 2015, he says: (Bishop Fellay of the idea of an hybrid mass)
"This idea is not new; it has been circulating in Rome already for about ten years ago. I'm happy that it is being taken up. Some criticize this proposal saying that it would be to mix the sacred with the profane. On the contrary, in a perspective of sanitation of the Church, I think this would be a great step forward, because the offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass and of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Most Holy Trinity, directed to God in reparation for sins by the priest, accompanied by his faithful. And this would gradually lead the faithful to the traditional Mass they lost."
Those Traditional Catholics who have stopped supporting the SSPX or who are seriously considering withdrawing their support for the SSPX are no longer shocked by the questionable statements coming from its priests and publications. Saddened but no longer shocked. And yet I can't help thinking how surreal it is to hear these comments coming from the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X, even in the context of the current crisis that the Society is going through. Can you imagine how scandalized and dismayed the SSPX faithful would have been only ten years ago if Bishop Fellay had come out with the above comments? Before we had been exposed to years of propaganda? It will be very telling to see how many of the faithful will react today to the above compromising comments of Bishop Fellay.
-
I think back to the folk who fought to keep the Mass 40 years ago, they would never have listened to such drivel, they 'knew stuff', and could smell modernism a mile off. All we have now, are people who are scared stiff their Chapel will be closed by these nasty resisters,
-
Returning to the former subject, some of the above clearly demonstrates how the revolutionaries have slowly chipped away at resistance to its changes. The 1962 Missal was one of the very first steps in the subversion. It was the first turning away from the protection of Quo Primum, and the eventual and deliberate abandonment of that Divine law which the Church gave us for the perpetual sustaining of the True Mass of Christ.
Archbishop Lefebvre should not have conceded to use it, and the resistance so called, once out from under the Menzingen overlords, should have straight away reverted to a sound Missal which was in FULL compliance with a Quo Primum.
If the defense of the Missale Romanum of the Church is not a first principle, which should have been, and should today, be defended, as a line which cannot be crossed, then there is no principle that is worth protecting.
A tool of the revolution is no fitting implement, in the hands of a Catholic priest.
-
http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/McCall,Brian_Reply_Justice_Comments_10-13-12.htm
McCall recognizes “that it appears some Roman authorities may be planning to play with the Missal, mixing in Novus Ordo elements and options.” It is a little late to be figuring this out. The Reform-of-the-Reform has been official policy of Pope Benedict since the publication of Summorum Pontificuм and has been his unofficial position for many years before that. McCall naively believes that if Rome agrees to the 1962 Missal request it will really mean something. The 1962 Missal is not the immemorial Roman rite of Mass. The proof for this is demonstrated by the manner in which Rome has treated it. The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal, the extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo, was never intended by Bugnini or anyone else to have anything more than a transitory existence. Bugnini when asked in 1962 if this Missal was the last of his renovations replied: “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).
Same author, 2008 in a letter to Mr. Michael Matt:
"...The liturgy is determined by the faith and nothing has been done to correct the heresies that have given us the Novus Ordo. Msgr. Gamber's said, "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”. Now you are endorsing the “reform of the reform,” a recasting of the traditional Mass during a time of general apostasy. The consequences of this will be a complete fragmentation of the traditional movement and a recasting of the liturgy in a conservative manner that will be acceptable to neo-Catholic and modernist alike..."
Now Bishop Fellay himself admits in the interview that he thinks it's a good idea to mix the two rites.
-
In listening to Fr. McDonald's talk when he left the xsspx and joined the resistance, he stated that Archbishop Lefebvre chose the 1962 missal as a mark not to go past and most sspx priests at the time were using earlier editions than the 1962 missal and that was permitted. I am totally paraphrasing but that is what I remember hearing. If I were better at finding old links, I would provide it.
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
Sorry, I am having a hard time following this. To whom should the quote above be attributed? Bishop Fellay or Cardinal Sarah?
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
Sorry, I am having a hard time following this. To whom should the quote above be attributed? Bishop Fellay or Cardinal Sarah?
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
Sorry, I am having a hard time following this. To whom should the quote above be attributed? Bishop Fellay or Cardinal Sarah?
Thanks. As Matthew wrote earlier the quote from Cardinal Sarah is revolutionary in that there is nothing that the extraordinary form can receive from the ordinary form.
However, I don't see where Bishop Fellay supports a Hybrid Mass (a melding of the two forms) as the thread title claims. What he does support is the ordinary form being amended to include the traditional offertory, without any tinkering with the extraordinary form.
Why is that a problem?
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
Sorry, I am having a hard time following this. To whom should the quote above be attributed? Bishop Fellay or Cardinal Sarah?
Thanks. As Matthew wrote earlier the quote from Cardinal Sarah is revolutionary in that there is nothing that the extraordinary form can receive from the ordinary form.
However, I don't see where Bishop Fellay supports a Hybrid Mass (a melding of the two forms) as the thread title claims. What he does support is the ordinary form being amended to include the traditional offertory, without any tinkering with the extraordinary form.
Why is that a problem?
First off, I don't believe in a such a thing as an extraordinary form and an ordinary form. There is one Latin Rite. In the past many cardinals and bishops called this as it is: two rites. Archbishop Nienstedt even went so far as to say that Catholics do not have the right to choose rites, referring to a dying man's request to receive a Requiem Mass in the Traditional Latin Rite.
What you term "the ordinary form" is an aberration of liturgy. This terminology was never heard of or used before July 2007. It is a novelty, and anyone concerned with the current crisis of Faith and state of the Church must avoid this modernistic, new terminology. The New Mass is ecuмenical, masonic (bugninian), an invention of modern minds, influenced by Protestants, and will never be anything close to ORDINARY. An aberration cannot be ordinary. It is illicit because no one, not even the pope or an angel from heaven has the right to invent a new form of worship.
A hybrid is a mixture of two things resulting in a synthesis of the two. If putting a Traditional offertory in a bastardized Mass is not a mixture than what is it? My use of the term hybrid is irrelevant and just a distraction. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics. I admit that there may well be a case against properly saying that it would be a hybrid. What term do you prefer? A simple modification? A harmless approach to enrich a new form?
You don't see any problem with any of this because you don't see any problem with the new Mass, it seems. I would suggest doing some more research on your own. The Ottaviani Report is a good place to start.
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
Sorry, I am having a hard time following this. To whom should the quote above be attributed? Bishop Fellay or Cardinal Sarah?
Thanks. As Matthew wrote earlier the quote from Cardinal Sarah is revolutionary in that there is nothing that the extraordinary form can receive from the ordinary form.
However, I don't see where Bishop Fellay supports a Hybrid Mass (a melding of the two forms) as the thread title claims. What he does support is the ordinary form being amended to include the traditional offertory, without any tinkering with the extraordinary form.
Why is that a problem?
First off, I don't believe in a such a thing as an extraordinary form and an ordinary form. There is one Latin Rite. In the past many cardinals and bishops called this as it is: two rites. Archbishop Nienstedt even went so far as to say that Catholics do not have the right to choose rites, referring to a dying man's request to receive a Requiem Mass in the Traditional Latin Rite.
What you term "the ordinary form" is an aberration of liturgy. This terminology was never heard of or used before July 2007. It is a novelty, and anyone concerned with the current crisis of Faith and state of the Church must avoid this modernistic, new terminology. The New Mass is ecuмenical, masonic (bugninian), an invention of modern minds, influenced by Protestants, and will never be anything close to ORDINARY. An aberration cannot be ordinary. It is illicit because no one, not even the pope or an angel from heaven has the right to invent a new form of worship.
A hybrid is a mixture of two things resulting in a synthesis of the two. If putting a Traditional offertory in a bastardized Mass is not a mixture than what is it? My use of the term hybrid is irrelevant and just a distraction. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics. I admit that there may well be a case against properly saying that it would be a hybrid. What term do you prefer? A simple modification? A harmless approach to enrich a new form?
You don't see any problem with any of this because you don't see any problem with the new Mass, it seems. I would suggest doing some more research on your own. The Ottaviani Report is a good place to start.
First off, I don't care what you believe. Language is important and, and in spite of your pollyannaish desires for debate to be had according to your definitions and beliefs, the Crisis has its own vernacular.
The working definition of Hybrid is exactly as it has been debated by many in this thread which is apparently not in accord with how you meant it. Tough. Start your own forum.
Like it or not there are two different forms, a new Mass and a traditional one, a traditional Missal and a new Missal. And "hybrid" is debated by us mere mortals in the context of this reality.
Now who is arguing semantics?
You go on the attack because I pointed out the obvious: That you claimed Bishop Fellay was for a Hybrid. He is not. You implied Bishop Fellay agreed with Cardinal Sarah's statement. He did not.
And you dropped the proverbial microphone by claiming my disagreement with you must be because I don't have a problem with the new Mass.
Do you always take positions when you haven't a clue? To satisfy your curiosity I agree with Bishop Williamson's view of the new Mass. I've stepped foot in the new Mass twice for family funerals.
You're a real pro. Every time the Resistance takes a step forward we can rely on people like you to move it two steps back.
-
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?
"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."
Sorry, I am having a hard time following this. To whom should the quote above be attributed? Bishop Fellay or Cardinal Sarah?
Thanks. As Matthew wrote earlier the quote from Cardinal Sarah is revolutionary in that there is nothing that the extraordinary form can receive from the ordinary form.
However, I don't see where Bishop Fellay supports a Hybrid Mass (a melding of the two forms) as the thread title claims. What he does support is the ordinary form being amended to include the traditional offertory, without any tinkering with the extraordinary form.
Why is that a problem?
First off, I don't believe in a such a thing as an extraordinary form and an ordinary form. There is one Latin Rite. In the past many cardinals and bishops called this as it is: two rites. Archbishop Nienstedt even went so far as to say that Catholics do not have the right to choose rites, referring to a dying man's request to receive a Requiem Mass in the Traditional Latin Rite.
What you term "the ordinary form" is an aberration of liturgy. This terminology was never heard of or used before July 2007. It is a novelty, and anyone concerned with the current crisis of Faith and state of the Church must avoid this modernistic, new terminology. The New Mass is ecuмenical, masonic (bugninian), an invention of modern minds, influenced by Protestants, and will never be anything close to ORDINARY. An aberration cannot be ordinary. It is illicit because no one, not even the pope or an angel from heaven has the right to invent a new form of worship.
A hybrid is a mixture of two things resulting in a synthesis of the two. If putting a Traditional offertory in a bastardized Mass is not a mixture than what is it? My use of the term hybrid is irrelevant and just a distraction. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics. I admit that there may well be a case against properly saying that it would be a hybrid. What term do you prefer? A simple modification? A harmless approach to enrich a new form?
You don't see any problem with any of this because you don't see any problem with the new Mass, it seems. I would suggest doing some more research on your own. The Ottaviani Report is a good place to start.
First off, I don't care what you believe. Language is important and, and in spite of your pollyannaish desires for debate to be had according to your definitions and beliefs, the Crisis has its own vernacular.
The working definition of Hybrid is exactly as it has been debated by many in this thread which is apparently not in accord with how you meant it. Tough. Start your own forum.
Like it or not there are two different forms, a new Mass and a traditional one, a traditional Missal and a new Missal. And "hybrid" is debated by us mere mortals in the context of this reality.
Now who is arguing semantics?
You go on the attack because I pointed out the obvious: That you claimed Bishop Fellay was for a Hybrid. He is not. You implied Bishop Fellay agreed with Cardinal Sarah's statement. He did not.
And you dropped the proverbial microphone by claiming my disagreement with you must be because I don't have a problem with the new Mass.
Do you always take positions when you haven't a clue? To satisfy your curiosity I agree with Bishop Williamson's view of the new Mass. I've stepped foot in the new Mass twice for family funerals.
You're a real pro. Every time the Resistance takes a step forward we can rely on people like you to move it two steps back.
If anybody else wants to respond to this, be my guest.
-
In my simple way of thinking I think I understand what centramerica is saying. The "new mass" is unacceptable in any form it may take, now or in the future. For Bishop Fellay to agree that somehow adding something taken from the True Mass is going to help to give it some legitimacy is a betrayal to the Truth. Nothing they can do is ever going to bring it near to the True Mass. What it will do is fool people into thinking that it does. This "new mass" or whatever you want to call it can only be "improved" by its demise.
-
This "new mass" or whatever you want to call it can only be "improved" by its demise.
To suggest that the Offertory of the Old Mass can be rolled into the New Mass is a de facto legitimating of the NO Missae, isn't it? JPM says that +Fellay did not tinker with the Extraordinary form. He is innocent of any accusation to that effect. He is being maligned unjustly, and misrepresented by anyone who who says that he's pushing for a "hybrid" Mass. The man is innocent. :laugh1:
I can only speculate at this point. But I do not think that the Fellay-led sspx will raise too much of a fuss once a "hybrid" has been fully developed and is operational throughout the world. He'll simply give a two hour speech after the fact. He'll not fully endorse the amended rite, nor will he completely reject it. Fellay will do what he does best: He'll equivocate, while seeming not to do so. This has been his MO to date. I don't see how it will change in the future.
-
The hybrid Mass has been talked about for ten years. I think that this is clearly what he is indicating here. Really, though it's not just talked about. It was put in practice from the begininng of Summorum Pontificuм. It is Hegelian to its core, which reflects Ratzinger's image. Leave it to the German theorists.
I remember hearing and reading a good bit of this in the days of the pseudo-hype of the Motu Proprio. Here in Brazil, in our state there are three valid Masses that I know of [the rest are doubtful because they say "for all" as ordered by the Brazilian bishops I believe]. There is the resistance Mass, of course the only one I would ever support or attend. But the Campos priests come here nearby. The word is that they offer the Traditional Mass in mostly Portuguese, the Credo, the Our Father, the Gospel, the Epistle, the Agnus Dei, but they use the Traditional Rite. They also have lay announcers who hold a microphone and announce the page of the ordinary...ridiculous. Their community doesn't grow because the priests cannot fix the issue of half dressed women presenting themselves for communion and confession. I'm not sure but I think that in extreme cases of scantily clad women, they have had to send them away without the sacraments. Then in the capital, in what seems like a desperate attempt of competition with our Mass, there is a diocesan Mass in a historic church. This is the crowd that loves phrases like "I have to obey my Church" or "full-communion with Rome" and "with permission from the bishop of the diocese". They are some of the same who attend with the Campos priests I believe and they are a really nauseous, annoying crowd. They fall into the legalism with obedience, but violate all rubrics of the Mass. They use electric light bulb candles and who knows what else. It is essentially a Paul VI- Bugnini Mass in Latin Ad Orientem with hardly any genuflections and a wide variety of other novelties. So, as you can see, you have the Traditional Mass in the Vernacular, the New Mass in Latin, or those notoriously disobedient resistors. The hybrid Mass is old news. That Bishop Fellay supports it is more clear evidence that he has sold out the Archbishop, but of course, we cannot prove it. Bah!
I am going to avoid responding to JPM, because I think he is harmless. But I want to repost this because it says some interesting things about a hybrid. Let me also repeat that I am open to the idea that putting the offertory in the bastardized rite is not necessarily a hybrid, this point is arguable, from both points of view. But I don't think that to title it with the name "hybrid" is a grave sin. Note that the link I provided does not use the name "hybrid", and this is my link. I intentionally used the word hybrid because in a round about way that's what I think it is, much like a Paul VI Mass in Latin Ad Orientem or a Tridentine Rite in the vernacular is something of a hybrid. On this topic there is no standard and established hybrid for us to compare the differences. I would say that a Tridentine Mass with altar girls, eucharistic ministers, and communion in the hand is a hybrid (and sacrilege); maybe others wouldn't. I think that to waste time on this issue is secondary, especially since I have now admitted twice that maybe, technically, it would not be a hybrid. I don't really see why any of this would make me want to get frustrated and start my own forum. Ain't nobody got no time for that. :rolleyes:
We don't have to be reminded of the Cardnial Cañizares incident, if the Archbishop would've seen the New Mass as it is celebrated here, he wouldn't have taken the steps that he took. Bishop Fellay also claimed that the New Mass was legitimate. The list goes on and on, so to infer that he is in favor of something that appears to be a hybrid, or a mixture, or anything that can possibly be described as such, even if he is not necessarily planning on bringing it to the SSPX seminaries, could not be considered rash. We have enough statements regarding the Mass and his support to believe that this is possible. Anyways, the literal argument is the article, so let's focus on the text of the article, which I translated and stand by as credible.
-
Bishop Fellay is trying to please Rome by compromising in ways that will allow for this so-called "reconciliation". We will see more and more of these points of agreement as we have already seen less and less of any meaningful criticism.
-
The problem is that the SSPX has treated the Liturgy as a matter of discipline subject to the will of the legislator (the pope). We have heard them say: “The pope is the master of the Liturgy”.
ABL promised to always do the 1962 missal because he did not understand this (see quotes below). He wanted to obey the pope and chose to keep the last missal that he considered “not harmful to the faith” because he did not want to be the judge of what traditions belong in the missal or not.
I suspect it was after his death (but for at least 20 yrs.) the SSPX, in violation of the stated reasons by ABL, printed their own (unauthorized) version of a hybrid (1962 and erlier) missal. Among the many traditions they kept in their own hybrid missal was the ancient Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs.
When BXVI changed the GFP prayer shortly after Summorum Pontificuм, + Fellay rejected it as harmful to the faith and that caused the division with the Transalpine Redemptorists choosing obedience to the pope rather than to +Fellay.
(And what is he doing now?)
ABL could not have possibly known where the 1962 missal was going and chose it because he equated the earlier missal with Sedevacantism (because of the "nine"?). I have been asking: “Would ABL accepted the “hermeneutics of continuity”/ Summorum Pontificuм? Or would he have gone to the earlier. I don’t know the answer. +Fellay seems to think he would have by the statement to Cardinal Canizares Llovera and by claiming to be the true follower of ABL.
But is it about ABL or the faith? Msgr. Gamber's said: "Liturgy and faith are interdependent." ABL accomplished much by preserving the priesthood. It is now the resistance’s chance of preserving tradition by going to the earlier missal protected by Quo Primum and by our right as baptized Catholics and thus, honoring ABL.
The new (1962) hybrid was and remains the will of BXVI. He has spoken about it since around 1997 (?) in his book the Spirit of the Liturgy. He accomplished that goal through SP/UE. It has been made possible through human law which now regulates it.
But is the pope the “Master of the Liturgy”?
Tridentine profession of faith says:
We dogmatically declare as an article of Divine and Catholic Faith that we “most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church.”
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” (emphasis mine). Pascendi Dominid Gregis
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
The Bugnini quote provided on my previous post was meant to show that the 1962 missal was only transitional according to Msgr. Bugnini who gave us the now "Ordinary Form".
-
Marie,
But is it about ABL or the faith? ABL accomplished much by preserving the priesthood. It is now the resistance’s chance of preserving tradition by going to the earlier missal protected by Quo Primum and by our right as baptized Catholics and thus, honoring ABL.
Therein is the center of this issue. Simply because the Archbishop chose to compromise and use this Missal as a prudent act of diplomacy, is not relevant to today's situation. There is no diplomacy which can be usefully employed today as the Romans are not an honest good willed entity. The honorable old ways have been swept out of the conciliar church, replaced by dissembling intriguers with an agenda.
For the Church's sake the resistance, so called should take refuge in principles of purity and soundness, adopting an earlier untainted liturgical book.
Build the house upon solid ground and not upon the shifting sand of the 1962 book, as it was when it was accepted by the Archbishop many decades ago, in a different time, before the whole ugly reality of the revolution was upon us.
-
This "new mass" or whatever you want to call it can only be "improved" by its demise.
To suggest that the Offertory of the Old Mass can be rolled into the New Mass is a de facto legitimating of the NO Missae, isn't it? JPM says that +Fellay did not tinker with the Extraordinary form. He is innocent of any accusation to that effect. He is being maligned unjustly, and misrepresented by anyone who who says that he's pushing for a "hybrid" Mass. The man is innocent. :laugh1:
I can only speculate at this point. But I do not think that the Fellay-led sspx will raise too much of a fuss once a "hybrid" has been fully developed and is operational throughout the world. He'll simply give a two hour speech after the fact. He'll not fully endorse the amended rite, nor will he completely reject it. Fellay will do what he does best: He'll equivocate, while seeming not to do so. This has been his MO to date. I don't see how it will change in the future.
Aside from your speculation and your emoticon I only found one point for discussion in your two paragraphs which was your first sentence (excellent use of bandwidth, if not debate skills).
If you want to have a discussion on the legitimacy of the new Mass, great. Bishop Williamson says what I believe better than I can. His answer begins at the 1:02:00 mark.
And (gasp!) he isn't even talking about the new Mass with a traditional Offertory. I can only "speculate" but I bet he would be for the traditional Offertory in the new Mass too. But, hey: Ready, fire, aim. It's what we do best.
Bishop Williamson CT Conference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9_10iVBik)
-
If someone cannot understand the difference between validity and legitimacy, they should not be able to post here on CI. I have never seen so many people who didn't understand the simple difference between valid and legitimate. It is preposterous.
-
If someone cannot understand the difference between validity and legitimacy, they should not be able to post here on CI. I have never seen so many people who didn't understand the simple difference between valid and legitimate. It is preposterous.
I agree. I don't know why Hollingsworth brought up legitimacy in the context of this thread.
-
If someone cannot understand the difference between validity and legitimacy, they should not be able to post here on CI. I have never seen so many people who didn't understand the simple difference between valid and legitimate. It is preposterous.
I agree. I don't know why Hollingsworth brought up legitimacy in the context of this thread.
You think you are a clever troll don't you.
-
If you want to have a discussion on the legitimacy of the new Mass, great.
Gosh, I never said anything about wanting to discuss the legitimacy of the new Mass. JpM, you're too deep. I shrink at the thought of having such a discussion with you. :shocked:
-
The Novus Ordo prayer service is not Catholic, it is not a work of the Church, and it is always a sacrilege.
Draw your conclusions from that.
-
Frankly, I think the Novus Odor taking on the traditional Offertory is like Marlyn Manson putting on a cassock for a performance. No sensible person would be interpreting that as a positive development in his spiritual life gradually progressing towards his eventual full conversion.
-
It's a foolish attempt to appease those who call themselves traditionalists because they attend a traditional liturgy but don't really understand the fight. If Bishop Fellay is on board than they count on nailing it to tradition and solving the problem of the necessary reconciliation. That's really all I see it as.
-
It's nothing of the sort, at least not for Bishop Fellay. The far better translation of the relevant passage at Rorate Caeli and in the SSPX newsletter reads as follows:
What do you think of Cardinal Sarah's suggestion of introducing the traditional offertory into the New Mass?
It is not a new idea; it has been around in Rome for ten years. I am glad it has been taken up again. Some criticize the idea, saying it is a way of mixing the profane with the sacred. On the contrary, in the perspective of bringing health back to the Church, I think it would be a great step forward, because the Offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass, of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Blessed Trinity, offered by the priest to God in reparation for sins, and accompanied by the faithful. And that would gradually bring the faithful back to the traditional Mass they have lost.
I happen to be using this text for another translation and came back to this link. I noticed that Claudel tried to throw in some sort of slick diss like my translation wasn't great, and Rorate Caeli's was far better, to use his words.
That's when I just happened to notice that they incorrectly added the word again from the Spanish "retomado". The "re" led them to believe that they should use the word "again", which I underlined above. This is an incorrect translation of the word "retomado". It would be the past participle phrasal verb "taken up" without the word "again". This is because the word "again" signifies that they had already taken up the idea of the offertory mixture etc. Whether or not this has ever been taken up, I sincerely doubt. Even if it had, by no means is this the context. My translations might be able to use some work here or there, but it would be dishonest to say that Roarte calei's translations are "far better". This is an error in their translation, technically.
-
The New Mass is a sort of hybrid Mass, which is no longer hierarchical; it is democratic, where the assembly takes the place of the priest, and so it is no longer a veritable Mass that affirms the royalty of Our Lord. (A Bishop Speaks, p.271)
-
The New Mass is a sort of hybrid Mass, which is no longer hierarchical; it is democratic, where the assembly takes the place of the priest, and so it is no longer a veritable Mass that affirms the royalty of Our Lord. (A Bishop Speaks, p.271)
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass, hybrid or otherwise.
-
The New Mass is a sort of hybrid Mass, which is no longer hierarchical; it is democratic, where the assembly takes the place of the priest, and so it is no longer a veritable Mass that affirms the royalty of Our Lord. (A Bishop Speaks, p.271)
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass, hybrid or otherwise.
Well, where did the Archbishop say that it was a Catholic Mass?
-
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass, hybrid or otherwise.
Bishop Williamson seems to think otherwise. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7816&v=Ma9_10iVBik at the 1:01:45 mark, a lady says that she attends the new mass during the week.
Bp. Williamson answer: "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith".
He speaks about Novus Ordo priests nourishing the faith of their congregations, of Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass, and that "there are cases when the Novus Ordo Mass can be used, and is still being used, to build the faith". 1:08:50
And btw, if Bishop Fellay had said that, the resisters would be all over the internet blasting him as a liberal. But since Bishop Williamson said it, they ignore it completely.
Is not this a double standard?
-
I am waiting to see the Mass in Latin without the words of consecration. No, I am not looking forward to an invalid Mass, BUT this was mentioned by Pius X group. May 2002 "The Angelus".
This is off, the subject, but talk is FSSP will have 2 new priest at the Mission in PHX. Fr. Terra, I guess, is leaving? He was almost murdered along with Kenneth Walker.
-
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass, hybrid or otherwise.
Bishop Williamson seems to think otherwise. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7816&v=Ma9_10iVBik at the 1:01:45 mark, a lady says that she attends the new mass during the week.
Bp. Williamson answer: "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith".
He speaks about Novus Ordo priests nourishing the faith of their congregations, of Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass, and that "there are cases when the Novus Ordo Mass can be used, and is still being used, to build the faith". 1:08:50
And btw, if Bishop Fellay had said that, the resisters would be all over the internet blasting him as a liberal. But since Bishop Williamson said it, they ignore it completely.
Is not this a double standard?
And I repeat, the Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass.
It makes no difference what the Menzinistas or any others claim.
It is not a mass but merely a sacrilegious and false ritual.
-
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass, hybrid or otherwise.
Bishop Williamson seems to think otherwise. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7816&v=Ma9_10iVBik at the 1:01:45 mark, a lady says that she attends the new mass during the week.
Bp. Williamson answer: "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith".
He speaks about Novus Ordo priests nourishing the faith of their congregations, of Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass, and that "there are cases when the Novus Ordo Mass can be used, and is still being used, to build the faith". 1:08:50
And btw, if Bishop Fellay had said that, the resisters would be all over the internet blasting him as a liberal. But since Bishop Williamson said it, they ignore it completely.
Is not this a double standard?
And I repeat, the Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass. It makes no difference what the Menzinistas or any others claims.
It wasn't the "Menzinistas" who claimed it. It was Bishop Williamson, and no one (resisters) are decrying it. Definitely, a double standard exists.
-
The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass, hybrid or otherwise.
Bishop Williamson seems to think otherwise. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7816&v=Ma9_10iVBik at the 1:01:45 mark, a lady says that she attends the new mass during the week.
Bp. Williamson answer: "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith".
He speaks about Novus Ordo priests nourishing the faith of their congregations, of Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass, and that "there are cases when the Novus Ordo Mass can be used, and is still being used, to build the faith". 1:08:50
And btw, if Bishop Fellay had said that, the resisters would be all over the internet blasting him as a liberal. But since Bishop Williamson said it, they ignore it completely.
Is not this a double standard?
And I repeat, the Novus Ordo is not a Catholic Mass.
It makes no difference what the Menzinistas or any others claim.
It is not a mass but merely a sacrilegious and false ritual.
I stand by Bishop Williamson that it is a valid Mass but not licit and in some cases doubtfully valid.
The Catholicity of the Novus Ordo is an entirely separate issue, but obviously if it is not licit than it is not Catholic. Bishop Williamson states that it is not a licit Catholic rite of Mass. This is the point.
-
Something can be quite Catholic and yet be conducted illicitly. The Novus Ordo prayer service is neither. The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Church, it therefore cannot be a valid Catholic Mass in the true sense, and it is always a sacrilege.
The Catholic Church cannot validate sacrilege upon Her altars, nor a mockery of the Sacrifice of Christ.
A benign attitude toward the Novus Ordo and the false council does not alter those realities.
Giving the faithful the idea that a false ritual might be valid or somehow legitimate might lead them to erroneously attend such a sacrilege, believing that it is Catholic or allowed.
-
Something can be quite Catholic and yet be conducted illicitly. The Novus Ordo prayer service is neither. The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Church, it therefore cannot be a valid Catholic Mass in the true sense, and it is always a sacrilege.
The Catholic Church cannot validate sacrilege upon Her altars, nor a mockery of the Sacrifice of Christ.
A benign attitude toward the Novus Ordo and the false council does not alter those realities.
Giving the faithful the idea that a false ritual might be valid or somehow legitimate might lead them to erroneously attend such a sacrilege, believing that it is Catholic or allowed.
That's your opinion. Bishop Williamson believes and speaks otherwise.
-
Something can be quite Catholic and yet be conducted illicitly. The Novus Ordo prayer service is neither. The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Church, it therefore cannot be a valid Catholic Mass in the true sense, and it is always a sacrilege.
The Catholic Church cannot validate sacrilege upon Her altars, nor a mockery of the Sacrifice of Christ.
A benign attitude toward the Novus Ordo and the false council does not alter those realities.
Giving the faithful the idea that a false ritual might be valid or somehow legitimate might lead them to erroneously attend such a sacrilege, believing that it is Catholic or allowed.
That's your opinion. Bishop Williamson believes and speaks otherwise.
That is beside the point, and that is his business.
He follows the SSPX position on these issues, which were its founder's as well, as does Bishop Fellay generally, so that is not unusual.
-
Something can be quite Catholic and yet be conducted illicitly. The Novus Ordo prayer service is neither. The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Church, it therefore cannot be a valid Catholic Mass in the true sense, and it is always a sacrilege.
The Catholic Church cannot validate sacrilege upon Her altars, nor a mockery of the Sacrifice of Christ.
A benign attitude toward the Novus Ordo and the false council does not alter those realities.
Giving the faithful the idea that a false ritual might be valid or somehow legitimate might lead them to erroneously attend such a sacrilege, believing that it is Catholic or allowed.
That's your opinion. Bishop Williamson believes and speaks otherwise.
No FF, +Williamson does not believe or speak otherwise.
He starts out saying her attendance at the new mass could be scandalous and that it is his personal opinion that he doesn't think the new mass is always invalid - and he gave his reason - because there is nothing in the texts of the new mass that makes it always inevitably invalid if; a) it is a priest, b) who says the words worthily.
This is true - validity / invalidity is impossible to prove and to see a trad go to a new mass could be scandalous.
He then proceeds to talk about how the new mass is clearly sacrilegious, bad, to be avoided and etc. ad nausem.
He then explained his opinion on the subject as; "Do whatever you need to nourish your faith".
I know of many - and even many (most?) here and on other trad forums today who would have never found tradition if they never went to the new mass. How many people left the NO and came to the true faith because after "X" years - even decades, they were *finally* disgusted, suspicious, fed up, sick of the bs, etc. or were in some way prompted to look into tradition and find out for themselves that they needed to leave the new faith for the true faith?
Certainly he could have spent much more time further elaborating and speaking against and condemning the new mass - and I wish he would have - but I do not see that 15 minute snip demonstrating that "Bishop Williamson believes and speaks otherwise" in regards to the new mass.