Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: TKGS on July 05, 2012, 04:06:17 PM
-
This coming Advent, the "new 1962 missal" (updated according to SP & UE) will be in use. it is already in print to celebrate the "Year of the (loss of) Faith. If the SSPX continues using the 1962 Missal, they will look very foolish. As I mention already on another thread, the lat time we had a "year of the Faith" was the very year that the "Oath Against Modernism" was done away with. Read John Vennaris article:"The Oath Against Modernism Betrayed" again.
Emphasis added.
I don't often hear about big changes in the Conciliar church, so this comment on another topic was rather surprising to me.
What is the "new 1962 missal". The only change I've ever heard of made by the Conciliar church was a new Good Friday Prayer to placate the perfidious Jews. Are there more changes? Does anyone have further information? I'm just curious.
Another thing... Will the SSPX be using the "new 1962 missal"?
One last thing... If this is a "new 1962 missal", and it becomes official the first Sunday of Advent, shouldn't it now be the 2012 missal? And shouldn't all the "traditional" communities in "full communion" with rome be using it?
-
Good point.
It should be a 2012 "Extraordinary Form" Missal.
Why rename the 1962 Missal? Other than deception, I can't think of a valid reason.
-
This coming Advent, the "new 1962 missal" (updated according to SP & UE) will be in use. it is already in print to celebrate the "Year of the (loss of) Faith. If the SSPX continues using the 1962 Missal, they will look very foolish. As I mention already on another thread, the lat time we had a "year of the Faith" was the very year that the "Oath Against Modernism" was done away with. Read John Vennaris article:"The Oath Against Modernism Betrayed" again.
Emphasis added.
I don't often hear about big changes in the Conciliar church, so this comment on another topic was rather surprising to me.
What is the "new 1962 missal". The only change I've ever heard of made by the Conciliar church was a new Good Friday Prayer to placate the perfidious Jews. Are there more changes? Does anyone have further information? I'm just curious.
Another thing... Will the SSPX be using the "new 1962 missal"?
One last thing... If this is a "new 1962 missal", and it becomes official the first Sunday of Advent, shouldn't it now be the 2012 missal? And shouldn't all the "traditional" communities in "full communion" with rome be using it?
If they did, this would be the thing which would cause me to leave the Society. I doubt +Williamson and +Tisser would stand for this though. I'm fortunate to live around many trad chapels including CMRI and independents. Actually the CMRI chapel near my work is less than 10 miles away. But its further from my house than the SSPX chapel is.
-
Good point.
It should be a 2012 "Extraordinary Form" Missal.
Why rename the 1962 Missal? Other than deception, I can't think of a valid reason.
Excellent observations, thanks.
-
As to whats "new" about it.
As I understand it, it is being changed to include
1. the new Novus Ordo saints and blesseds (Fr. Escriva, John XXIII, John Paul II, Mother Teresa, et al.)
2. New prefaces
I am not sure if there are also other changes involved.
-
This coming Advent, the "new 1962 missal" (updated according to SP & UE) will be in use. it is already in print to celebrate the "Year of the (loss of) Faith. If the SSPX continues using the 1962 Missal, they will look very foolish. As I mention already on another thread, the lat time we had a "year of the Faith" was the very year that the "Oath Against Modernism" was done away with. Read John Vennaris article:"The Oath Against Modernism Betrayed" again.
Emphasis added.
I don't often hear about big changes in the Conciliar church, so this comment on another topic was rather surprising to me.
What is the "new 1962 missal". The only change I've ever heard of made by the Conciliar church was a new Good Friday Prayer to placate the perfidious Jews. Are there more changes? Does anyone have further information? I'm just curious.
Another thing... Will the SSPX be using the "new 1962 missal"?
One last thing... If this is a "new 1962 missal", and it becomes official the first Sunday of Advent, shouldn't it now be the 2012 missal? And shouldn't all the "traditional" communities in "full communion" with rome be using it?
TKGS,
Summorum Pontificuм (SP) http://www.zenit.org/article-20071?l=english was the answer from Rome to the SSPX when they asked for the freeing of the 1962 Missal. Most people have read about this "wonderful" Motu Proprio but never bothered to read it. This docuмent is in fact more restrictive than the previous indults because it declared the Novus Ordo and the 1962 Missal two expressions of the same rite and we have to accept the N.O to benefit from it.
Then, also on 07/07/07, BXVI sent an Explanatory Letter to all the bishops http://www.zenit.org/article-20070?l=english in which he said:
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.
Next came the Vatican Instruction "Universae Ecclesiae" on 05/13/11 http://www.zenit.org/article-32564?l=english which says:
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.
On the same day, May 13, 2011, Cardinal koch makes a public statement (at a Summorum Pontificuм conference in Rome) that Summorum Pontificuм was the begining of the "reform of the reform".
On Rorate Caeli September 19, 2011 article http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-1962-missal-coming-soon.html just a few days after Bishop Fellay is given the "Doctrinal Preamble",we read:
- that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission "Ecclesia Dei" and of the congregation for divine worship, for the "updating" of the commemorations of the saints and the "possible insertion of new prefaces" into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.
After reading this article we called Baronius Press and confirmed that the "new 1962 Missal" was in the process of being printed and that it would be released sometime in 2012. Later articles which I still have to find if you will, talked about this missal coming this Advent (2012) to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II.
In conclusion: this "new 1962 missal" will be the "reform of the reform" that Bishop Fellay has denied knowing anything about, but we know through Fr. Pffeifer that Fr. Celier (SSPX) wrote a book on the hybrid missal in 2007 and tried to sell the idea to the French who rejected it and + Fellay "put him on the back burner". Now that bishop Fellay was ready to sign an agreement with Rome,has brought him back to the USA.
If the deal with + Fellay is really over the pope may just forget his "reform of the reform" because without + Fellay heading it, will not get too far. In my opinion, the new appointments to the CDF indicate that the pope is just going to do his plain liberal stuff without any pretence.
I said that if the SSPX continues using the 1962 missal will look very foolish because when the new comes into effect, the actual 1962 will be obsolete.
Why not call it the 2012 Missal? Because the 1962 Missal is and has always been just that: "An Indult" and Indults are subject to its legislator, Benedict XVI. Traditionalist don't need permission for the pre-1962 (Pre- Bugnini) but for anyone else who signs the "1989 Profession of Faith" have to dance to the pope's tune. It would be impossible for +Fellay to be "reintegrated" and not use this new missal.
Anyone who wants to learn more about the "reform of the reform", go to http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/ , search for that term, and be ready to get sick. I can also provide many quotes.
-
Thank you, Marie Auxiliadora, for your great post. I have never understood why the SSPX continued the use of the 1962 Missal (yeah, yeah, I've heard the reasons ...) Now is the time to revert to the use of the 1950 Missal and avoid the offensive "reform of the reform".
-
This coming Advent, the "new 1962 missal" (updated according to SP & UE) will be in use. it is already in print to celebrate the "Year of the (loss of) Faith. If the SSPX continues using the 1962 Missal, they will look very foolish. As I mention already on another thread, the lat time we had a "year of the Faith" was the very year that the "Oath Against Modernism" was done away with. Read John Vennaris article:"The Oath Against Modernism Betrayed" again.
Emphasis added.
I don't often hear about big changes in the Conciliar church, so this comment on another topic was rather surprising to me.
What is the "new 1962 missal". The only change I've ever heard of made by the Conciliar church was a new Good Friday Prayer to placate the perfidious Jews. Are there more changes? Does anyone have further information? I'm just curious.
Another thing... Will the SSPX be using the "new 1962 missal"?
One last thing... If this is a "new 1962 missal", and it becomes official the first Sunday of Advent, shouldn't it now be the 2012 missal? And shouldn't all the "traditional" communities in "full communion" with rome be using it?
TKGS,
Summorum Pontificuм (SP) http://www.zenit.org/article-20071?l=english was the answer from Rome to the SSPX when they asked for the freeing of the 1962 Missal. Most people have read about this "wonderful" Motu Proprio but never bothered to read it. This docuмent is in fact more restrictive than the previous indults because it declared the Novus Ordo and the 1962 Missal two expressions of the same rite and we have to accept the N.O to benefit from it.
Then, also on 07/07/07, BXVI sent an Explanatory Letter to all the bishops http://www.zenit.org/article-20070?l=english in which he said:
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.
Next came the Vatican Instruction "Universae Ecclesiae" on 05/13/11 http://www.zenit.org/article-32564?l=english which says:
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.
On the same day, May 13, 2011, Cardinal koch makes a public statement (at a Summorum Pontificuм conference in Rome) that Summorum Pontificuм was the begining of the "reform of the reform".
On Rorate Caeli September 19, 2011 article http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-1962-missal-coming-soon.html just a few days after Bishop Fellay is given the "Doctrinal Preamble",we read:
- that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission "Ecclesia Dei" and of the congregation for divine worship, for the "updating" of the commemorations of the saints and the "possible insertion of new prefaces" into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.
After reading this article we called Baronius Press and confirmed that the "new 1962 Missal" was in the process of being printed and that it would be released sometime in 2012. Later articles which I still have to find if you will, talked about this missal coming this Advent (2012) to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II.
In conclusion: this "new 1962 missal" will be the "reform of the reform" that Bishop Fellay has denied knowing anything about, but we know through Fr. Pffeifer that Fr. Celier (SSPX) wrote a book on the hybrid missal in 2007 and tried to sell the idea to the French who rejected it and + Fellay "put him on the back burner". Now that bishop Fellay was ready to sign an agreement with Rome,has brought him back to the USA.
If the deal with + Fellay is really over the pope may just forget his "reform of the reform" because without + Fellay heading it, will not get too far. In my opinion, the new appointments to the CDF indicate that the pope is just going to do his plain liberal stuff without any pretence.
I said that if the SSPX continues using the 1962 missal will look very foolish because when the new comes into effect, the actual 1962 will be obsolete.
Why not call it the 2012 Missal? Because the 1962 Missal is and has always been just that: "An Indult" and Indults are subject to its legislator, Benedict XVI. Traditionalist don't need permission for the pre-1962 (Pre- Bugnini) but for anyone else who signs the "1989 Profession of Faith" have to dance to the pope's tune. It would be impossible for +Fellay to be "reintegrated" and not use this new missal.
Anyone who wants to learn more about the "reform of the reform", go to http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/ , search for that term, and be ready to get sick. I can also provide many quotes.
Thank you MA!
-
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0415-dupuy-ides-of-april-sspx-rome.htm
What Does Rome Want?
Catholics on the right and on the left have often asked why this Pope wants the Society regularized to such a great degree. After all, most conciliar bishops were content with leaving the Society to their leper status “outside” the Church and to continue ignoring them as irrelevant, while pushing the Vatican II revolution forward.
The narrative we hear in mainstream Catholic circles is that, although the Pope was more liberal in his Vatican II days, he has developed into a staunch conservative. It is said that he wants the Traditional Mass back into the Church and hates liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo. Therefore, the Society could help further these goals by spreading the Traditional Mass and acting as a conduit towards more rubrical orthodoxy in both forms of the Roman Rite. Indeed there is evidence this is very true. However, isn’t it fair to ask if the Pope’s reasons in achieving these goals are the same as the Society’s? Is the Pope a traditionalist in the mold of Archbishop Lefebvre? Or could the Pontiff’s vision for the future of the Church be at odds with the Society’s vision?
A clue to the answer might be found in the Pope’s vision for the Mass. On May 14, 2011 CNS News reported the following regarding statements of Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:
Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecuмenist said.
The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms...10
This statement came as a shock to many traditionalists. Why would the Pope want to combine the Traditional Mass into a new “hybrid Mass” with the Novus Ordo? Wasn’t one “New Mass” enough? A possible answer may be found in the candid words of Cardinal Ratzinger himself back in 1999.
In September of 2010, “Fr. Matias Auge CMF, a veteran professor of liturgy in Rome, former consultant to the Congregation for Divine Worship and disciple of the reformers of the 1960's, published an exchange of letters that he had with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of the reform of the sacred liturgy.”11 In his February 18, 1999 letter to Fr. Auge, Cardinal Ratzinger states:
…a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.
Here two very important points are admitted. First, that the imposition of the Novus Ordo Mass on the Church touched, “in a vital way the heart of the Faith.” This confirms the traditionalist claim that the changes in the Mass did not represent a superficial or external change, as Paul VI tried to argue many times as the New Mass was first being implemented. Rather, these changes affect the Faith itself.
The second admission is that the imposition of the Novus Ordo upon the faithful in a mere six months was a great mistake. Cardinal Ratzinger believed it should have taken at least ten years. Why? Cardinal Ratzinger knew that a fundamental change on the scale of introducing a new Mass must be gradually revealed to the faithful over a long period of time if they were to eventually accept it. The New Mass being imposed practically all at once over six months was not enough time. This rapid implementation led to many leaving the Church and the formation of resistance groups such as the SSPX. Presumably, if Paul VI had listened to the Liturgical Institute in Trier and slowly and methodically transitioned from the Traditional Mass to the New Mass over a period of ten years, Catholic faithful as a whole would have remained in the Church and would have gradually accepted the changes. As a side-effect, Rome would not have faced as great of a traditionalist resistance as it faces today.
In the same letter, the Cardinal states, “The citation from Cardinal Newman means that the authority of the Church has never in its history abolished with a legal mandate an orthodox liturgy.” The Cardinal here re-asserts what he considers to be an egregious error on behalf of the reformers. In attempting to abolish the Traditional Mass by promulgating a new one, Paul VI had performed an unprecedented act that would not stand the test of time. The Cardinal knew, quite rightly, that to do such a thing might have the effect of imposing a new Rite by force, but this new Rite could never truly replace the Old one. Opponents to the suppression of the Traditional Mass could argue effectively that replacing an ancient Rite of the Church could never be legitimately done by a legislative fiat of the Pope. The Cardinal himself, in his 2007 Motu Proprio confirmed this by admitting the Traditional Mass was never abrogated.
In the very next sentence of the letter, the Cardinal states a key point, “However, a liturgy that vanishes belongs to historical times, not the present.” When this statement is read in light of the statements by Cardinal Koch in 2011, they may together provide a clue as to what the Pope believes the original liturgical reform should have accomplished. We know the introduction of the Novus Ordo was meant by conciliar reformers to replace or abrogate the Traditional Mass. Yet, because the New Mass was imposed upon the people in such a short time frame, the Traditional Mass did not vanish, but instead survived underground as a distinctly different Mass than that of Paul VI. The New Mass was never really accepted by a certain contingent of Catholics. This contingent then began to grow steadily over time, as further liturgical innovations of the Novus Ordo continued to pile up throughout the 1970’s and 80’s.
To understand how a Mass can “vanish”, we must take a look at one that has. For example, the typical edition of the 1884 Roman Rite under Leo XIII has “vanished”. It is now consigned to its historical time in history, having been replaced with a later revision of the same Roman Rite. This revisionary process has been ongoing in the Roman Rite since the time of Pius V. Popes since then have, from time to time, made very minor adjustments to the Rite. Each revision was not seen as a “New Mass” replacing the old. It was instead seen as a minor organically developed change not altering the character of the Mass in any way. Thus the Society uses the 1962 edition of the Roman Rite, yet it is recognized as the same “Roman Rite” as that of Pius V.
This being the case, the most effective approach to make a Mass “vanish” would be to slowly and gradually, over the course of time, alter it through a series of small revisions. The least objectionable changes could presumably be offered first, and once those were digested, further changes could be offered. Thus, by this process the Traditional Mass we know today could conceivably be transformed, after many years, into a future Missal representing a more “conciliar” Faith. It would, in a sense, be a simulation of natural organic liturgical development. It would mimic the gradual evolution of the Traditional Mass over centuries, except, this time, the process could be carefully orchestrated and guided towards the goals of Vatican II under more direct supervision of future popes.
If we combine the Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter from 1999 with Cardinal Koch’s revealing the Pope’s goal of a hybrid Mass, we can come to the following conclusion: that although the Traditional Mass could not be successfully replaced at once by a “New Mass”, it can be slowly transformed into a different Mass over time. Thus, in the future, the Roman Missal of 1962 may very well “vanish” and belong to history as the Roman Missal of 1884 under Leo XIII has vanished.
The aversion to the swift implementation of the Novus Ordo in 1970 may explain, in part, the current Pope’s intense dislike for liturgical novelties. In the same letter the Cardinal states:
…the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called ”creative” applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation, the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform.
Thus, the Cardinal is opposed to liturgical innovations of the Novus Ordo because they thwart the aims of the more gradual “authentic reform” over time. Liturgical innovations or “abuses” serve to continually present the faithful with a radical stark departure from even the Mass of Paul VI, much less the Traditional Mass. In other words, these innovators have been hurting the cause of the “authentic reform” (slow and gradual assimilation of changes) by instituting their novelties far too rapidly to be digested by the faithful.
In order for the Cardinal’s “authentic reform” to work, these “abuses” must stop and the Mass of Paul VI must move closer to the Mass of Pius V. As Cardinal Koch revealed, the eventual goal of the Pope is to blend these two Masses into one hybrid Mass of the Roman Rite. In Rome’s view, factions of the faithful have, in a sense, splintered off from the reform movement, like the Society. As long as the Society is outside of this process, they cannot be a part of the “authentic reform”. If the Society stays separated, they will continue to keep the Traditional Mass alive in its current form. Therefore, Rome would be back to the situation it faced in the 1970’s.
To remedy this, the Society must be participating in the “authentic reform”. The reform could ostensibly take the least objectionable elements of the Mass of Paul VI and try to slowly assimilate them into the Traditional Mass. Once the envisioned “hybrid Mass” is accomplished, the reform would once again have one Mass of the Roman Rite to work with as it did before 1969. Future reforms to this “new” Missal could then be introduced very slowly and gradually over the course of years. By this method, at some point in the future, the Traditional Mass, as it was known in 1962 and said in 2012, will once and for all “vanish” and be confined forever to its proper “historical time”.
Lest one think these ideas are purely theoretical, concrete steps to implement the “authentic reform” have already taken place. Less than one year after issuing the Motu Proprio freeing the Traditional Mass, the Pope altered the Good Friday prayer of the 1962 Missal.12 Then, on April 30, 2011, the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei stated in an official instruction, “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.”13
NOTES
[10] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101922.htm
[11] http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/09/1999-letter-by-cardinal-ratzinger-on.html
[12] http://newcatholic.googlepages.com/OR_20080206_prima.pdf
[13]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html#_ftnref9
-
Thank you everyone for your responses, especially Marie Auxiliadora and stevusmagnus.
I had been aware of only a little of what was posted. It appears that the Conciliar vatican is even more insidious than I had imagined. Frankly, this information makes the Bishop Fellay initiative even more disturbing. Clearly, the vatican wishes to use the SSPX to develop the "reform of the reform".
The only thing, I think, that will thwart such efforts will ultimately be the lesser known organizations, such as the CMRI, and the many independent priests who will reject these initiatives.
-
Thank you everyone for your responses, especially Marie Auxiliadora and stevusmagnus.
I had been aware of only a little of what was posted. It appears that the Conciliar vatican is even more insidious than I had imagined. Frankly, this information makes the Bishop Fellay initiative even more disturbing. Clearly, the vatican wishes to use the SSPX to develop the "reform of the reform".
The only thing, I think, that will thwart such efforts will ultimately be the lesser known organizations, such as the CMRI, and the many independent priests who will reject these initiatives.
This only applies to indult communities that have taken the "1989 Profession of Faith"
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/cdfoath.htm read it for yourself. See who has to take this oath, you'll find it at the bottom at the link given.:
NOTE: Canon 833, Nos. 5-8 obliges the following to make the profession of faith: vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars; "at the beginning of their term of office, pastors, the rector of a seminary and the professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the diaconate"; "the rectors of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector's term of office"; and, "at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals"; and "superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life in accord with the norm of the constitutions."
Using the pre-Bugnini Missal will avoid any confrontations with Rome because we have the claim of Inmemorial Tradition and is reinforced by Quo Primum http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
-
The "reform of the reform." The hybrid mass. The novus, novus ordo. Whatever you call it, the opus fellay-bxvi is bringing it on. So I hope you are ready to hop on board a sinking dinghy attached to an even greater sinking titanic. :shocked:
Better to return to the 1950 missal of Pope St. Pius X.
-
Yes, it is unfortunate, but we should have seen it all coming. Lackadaisical, lots and lots of MONEY, prosperous and spoiled....."OH...is it time to get up already for 11:30 am low mass? oh, what a drag....I don't know if I can bear the heat; haven't they yet put AC into that Church?"....
Rest assured: If this kind shows up at a True Trad Chapel to substitute....on their can they will land!
I'm certain the True Trads will not tolerate that attitude!
-
The "reform of the reform." The hybrid mass. The novus, novus ordo. Whatever you call it, the opus fellay-bxvi is bringing it on. So I hope you are ready to hop on board a sinking dinghy attached to an even greater sinking titanic. :shocked:
Better to return to the 1950 missal of Pope St. Pius X.
This post sets out the facts.
It also shows a good way that the Church could be saved:
We need the Traditonal Latin Mass without any changes.
-
Thank you, Marie Auxiliadora, for your great post. I have never understood why the SSPX continued the use of the 1962 Missal (yeah, yeah, I've heard the reasons ...) Now is the time to revert to the use of the 1950 Missal and avoid the offensive "reform of the reform".
Yep.
Them putting a heretic in charge of the CDF presents a nice opportunity for us to take a step back too, and go back to the 1954/1948 Missal.
-
Thank you, Marie Auxiliadora, for your great post. I have never understood why the SSPX continued the use of the 1962 Missal (yeah, yeah, I've heard the reasons ...) Now is the time to revert to the use of the 1950 Missal and avoid the offensive "reform of the reform".
Yep.
Them putting a heretic in charge of the CDF presents a nice opportunity for us to take a step back too, and go back to the 1954/1948 Missal.
It's all smoke and mirrors!
If they can pull this off, and convince good Catholics that a "new 1962 Missal" is the
same thing as the "old 1962 Missal," they've really pulled a fast one.
I'm wondering if Angelus Press is going to print it??
(Angelus Press re-printed the old 1962 Missal, quite obediently!)
Therefore:
If this comes to pass, there could be a next phase...
When chapels revert to the 1945 editions and 1950 editions, as you suggest, the
ever-diligent Vatican could come out with "new" Missals, like the "new 1950 Missal."
I'm using The New Roman Missal, ed. 1945, by Father F. X. Lasance.
What will they call the new edition of that? The New New 1945 Roman Missal?
But that's not all. Why stop there?
We'll know we're really in trouble when they come out with the New 1570 Missal.
Because if they can do that, then there's a lot of work to do. They can have, for
example:
~ the New Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX;
~ the New Docuмents of Vatican I
~ the New Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis
~ the New Oath Against Modernism
Why not?
They already have:
~ the New Calendar
~ the New Mass
~ the New Code of Canon Law
~ the New Breviary
~ the New Psalms
and last, but not least (drum roll, please...................)
THE NEW LATIN VULGATE BIBLE!!!
-
I don't mean to shock anyone, but facts is facts, Señor.
The New Vulgate has been in use for something like 15 years already.
These worms that never die actually re-wrote the entire Bible with updated,
Vatican II-speak Latin language revisions.
Latin is the most indestructible language in the history of the world, but that
doesn't stop the Modernists, the slaves of satan.
-
Thank you, Marie Auxiliadora, for your great post. I have never understood why the SSPX continued the use of the 1962 Missal (yeah, yeah, I've heard the reasons ...) Now is the time to revert to the use of the 1950 Missal and avoid the offensive "reform of the reform".
Yep.
Them putting a heretic in charge of the CDF presents a nice opportunity for us to take a step back too, and go back to the 1954/1948 Missal.
It's all smoke and mirrors!
If they can pull this off, and convince good Catholics that a "new 1962 Missal" is the
same thing as the "old 1962 Missal," they've really pulled a fast one.
I'm wondering if Angelus Press is going to print it??
(Angelus Press re-printed the old 1962 Missal, quite obediently!)
Therefore:
If this comes to pass, there could be a next phase...
When chapels revert to the 1945 editions and 1950 editions, as you suggest, the
ever-diligent Vatican could come out with "new" Missals, like the "new 1950 Missal."
I'm using The New Roman Missal, ed. 1945, by Father F. X. Lasance.
What will they call the new edition of that? The New New 1945 Roman Missal?
But that's not all. Why stop there?
We'll know we're really in trouble when they come out with the New 1570 Missal.
Because if they can do that, then there's a lot of work to do. They can have, for
example:
~ the New Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX;
~ the New Docuмents of Vatican I
~ the New Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis
~ the New Oath Against Modernism
Why not?
They already have:
~ the New Calendar
~ the New Mass
~ the New Code of Canon Law
~ the New Breviary
~ the New Psalms
and last, but not least (drum roll, please...................)
THE NEW LATIN VULGATE BIBLE!!!
The question was, "Will the Angelus Press print the new 1962 Missal."
I think the answer will be no.
For one thing, any change to the 1962 Missal makes it something other than the 1962 Missal.
It makes it a 2012 Missal
And we do not use the 2012 Missal.
Now, if there is a deal with Rome.......
-
A "new" 1962 Missal?
That's like being "kind of pregnant."
Either you are, or you are not.
Either the Missal is 1962, or it is 2012.
Clever though, how the Roman's marketed it.
The indultarian dummies are in overdrive right now with their "Crime-Think" technique, trying to preclude the inconvenient thought from arising in their minds as to how there can be such a thing as a "new" 1962 Missal.
I'm sure after a week of confusion, and a couple sermons on obedience, the present confusion will give way to a zeal for the new Missal.
It will once again all just be a matter of interpretation to them.
Just semantics, they will say.
And like a frog in heated water, they will succeed in making themselves oblivious that they are defending their own loss of faith under the pretext of zeal for the same.
-
The article below may help you understand Summorum Pontificuм better. The author of the book "The Old Mass and The New", Fr. Marc Marie Max Aillet was appointed bishop of the diocese of Bayonne in France by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 after publishing this book. He also heads the Communaute Saint-Martin in France whose particular focus is on the project of the reform of the reform. http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/03/reform-of-reform-communities-communaute.html There are others.
Monday, June 07, 2010Book Notice: "The Old Mass and the New" by Bishop Marc Aillet
by Shawn Tribe
Ignatius Press has an interesting looking offering in the liturgical sphere which is due to be published in September of this year.
The book is by Bishop Marc Aillet -- whom many might recall for his recent address on the topic of the wounded liturgy -- and is titled, The Old Mass and the New: Explaining the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм of Pope Benedict XVI
The book also includes a foreword by Bishop Dominique Rey, the Ordinary of Frejus-Toulon.
From Ignatius Press:
In July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI released his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, allowing for unprecedented freedom for priests to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass, now referred to as the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass, as opposed to the Mass of Paul VI, or the "Ordinary Form". In this new book by French bishop Marc Aillet, the historical and cultural impetus for the motu proprio as well as the rich tradition of liturgical reform are explored.
As a priest of the Community of Saint Martin, which celebrates the Mass of Paul VI in Latin, Bishop Aillet has been committed to the promotion of liturgical reform that is rooted in tradition for many years. As bishop of the diocese of Bayonne in France, he has been instrumental in reintroducing the Extraordinary Form in his diocese.
A work that is both easy to understand and deeply rich, The Old Mass and the New gives an overview of the history and theology of the liturgy. At the same time, Bishop Aillet beckons us to look ahead to move beyond the crisis in the liturgy to a reconciliation of these two forms of the Latin rite. An excellent introduction for those interested in the theological foundations of the liturgy.
[...]
"This motu proprio is by no means a step backward. The gesture of reconciliation it expresses calls with prophetic voice for a liturgical renewal based on an increased theological and spiritual appreciation of the principles of the liturgical reform of Vatican II."
—From the foreword by Bishop Dominique Rey
-
A "new" 1962 Missal?
That's like being "kind of pregnant."
Either you are, or you are not.
Either the Missal is 1962, or it is 2012.
Clever though, how the Roman's marketed it.
The indultarian dummies are in overdrive right now with their "Crime-Think" technique, trying to preclude the inconvenient thought from arising in their minds as to how there can be such a thing as a "new" 1962 Missal.
I'm sure after a week of confusion, and a couple sermons on obedience, the present confusion will give way to a zeal for the new Missal.
It will once again all just be a matter of interpretation to them.
Just semantics, they will say.
And like a frog in heated water, they will succeed in making themselves oblivious that they are defending their own loss of faith under the pretext of zeal for the same.
So glad you are posting! Happy!
Someone must have been reading my mind.
Can anyone tell me if this is true? Thank You.
Pope Benedict XVI Missal of 2012
Will Replace the 1962 Missal for traditional Communities on December 2, 2012
Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)
Institute of Christ the King (ICR)
Institute of the Good Shepherd (IBP)
Fraternity of St. John Vianney (FSJV)
-
The Vatican II / transitional "1962" missal is problematic enough. I can't wait for the 2012 missal of BXVI :facepalm:
I was thinking of an analogy of the Traditional Pius X Missal compared to that of "Blessed John XXIII (the second)"...
Imagine you ordered a medium-rare Chateaubriand a la Bouquetiere, with the mandatory Bordelaise, Béarnaise, and a bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
The waiter indeed brought the essence of the Chateaubriand (beef tenderloin)... but it was medium-well and the Bouquetiere was replace by frozen mixed vegetables and french fries. Ketchup replaced the Bordelaise and Béarnaise and it was served with a 24oz Budweiser.
Some might respond: "Stop your complaining Ferdinand, it is still tenderloin! Pass me the Ketchup".
An aside: If the chef's qualifications are dubious, the tenderloin just might be textured vegetable protein (TVP).
-
The Vatican II / transitional "1962" missal is problematic enough. I can't wait for the 2012 missal of BXVI :facepalm:
I was thinking of an analogy of the Traditional Pius X Missal compared to that of "Blessed John XXIII (the second)"...
Imagine you ordered a medium-rare Chateaubriand a la Bouquetiere, with the mandatory Bordelaise, Béarnaise, and a bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
The waiter indeed brought the essence of the Chateaubriand (beef tenderloin)... but it was medium-well and the Bouquetiere was replace by frozen mixed vegetables and french fries. Ketchup replaced the Bordelaise and Béarnaise and it was served with a 24oz Budweiser.
Some might respond: "Stop your complaining Ferdinand, it is still tenderloin! Pass me the Ketchup".
An aside: If the chef's qualifications are dubious, the tenderloin just might be textured vegetable protein (TVP).
:ready-to-eat:
-
The Vatican II / transitional "1962" missal is problematic enough. I can't wait for the 2012 missal of BXVI :facepalm:
I was thinking of an analogy of the Traditional Pius X Missal compared to that of "Blessed John XXIII (the second)"...
Imagine you ordered a medium-rare Chateaubriand a la Bouquetiere, with the mandatory Bordelaise, Béarnaise, and a bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
The waiter indeed brought the essence of the Chateaubriand (beef tenderloin)... but it was medium-well and the Bouquetiere was replace by frozen mixed vegetables and french fries. Ketchup replaced the Bordelaise and Béarnaise and it was served with a 24oz Budweiser.
Some might respond: "Stop your complaining Ferdinand, it is still tenderloin! Pass me the Ketchup".
An aside: If the chef's qualifications are dubious, the tenderloin just might be textured vegetable protein (TVP).
:ready-to-eat:
:cheers:
-
I'm not the most internet saavy person around, so perhaps someone can help me.
I have been looking for some docuмent or some official announcement from the Conciliar vatican or a publishing company or news service or something confirming that indult communities will be required to use a "new 1962 missal" beginning with the First Sunday of Advent, 2012. I have been completely unable to locate anything in English.
Before I start telling people I know about this, I would like something official on the internet that I could point people to. I was also looking for a website that described the changes that are coming with the new missal. The only place I could find is this topic on CathInfo.
Can anyone else locate something? Thanks.
-
All I can find are that changes may be coming. Anyone else?
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/01/revisions-of-1962-missal-coming-soon.html
Now we can assist at the TLM while also celebrating the feast of Blessed JPI!! :rolleyes:
-
I'm not the most internet saavy person around, so perhaps someone can help me.
I have been looking for some docuмent or some official announcement from the Conciliar vatican or a publishing company or news service or something confirming that indult communities will be required to use a "new 1962 missal" beginning with the First Sunday of Advent, 2012. I have been completely unable to locate anything in English.
Before I start telling people I know about this, I would like something official on the internet that I could point people to. I was also looking for a website that described the changes that are coming with the new missal. The only place I could find is this topic on CathInfo.
Can anyone else locate something? Thanks.
TKGS,
After reading this article (below), we personally called Baronius Press who publishes for the Vatican and they confirmed that the "new 1962 Missal" was in the process of being printed and would be out "sometime next year" I saw recently an advertisement and ordered the booklet but they sent the wrong thing. Now, the advertisement is gone from their webpage. I have sent them an email this morning to see what they have to say. They may want to keep it quiet for now waiting for +Fellay to sign? I can't understand why I'm not finding much either. I'll keep looking and post if I find.
The tel. for Baronius Press are: USA 814-414-0245
and for UK 44 (0)870 112 3865 maybe someone in the UK can call them for you and post their reply.
By the way, this new 1962 missal is only the initial missal for the reform of the reform. Not to be confused with the 2007 edition from Baronius Press after Summorum Pontificuм.
____________________
Vatican Diary / The pope's alms and other curiosities
Almost a million euro obtained in 2010 from the sale of pontifical blessings has been given to seven thousand needy families. Another 135 million has been distributed by Propaganda Fide in assistance to mission territories. And it has also been learned...
by ***
VATICAN CITY, September 19, 2011 – "The activity of the Holy See" is a hefty volume that gives a year-by-year account of the actions of the pope and the Roman curia. It is an "unofficial publication," as specified on the frontispiece, but in spite of this it contains not a little information, sometimes rather unusual, that cannot be found in other Vatican sources.
To verify this it is enough to leaf through the latest edition, on the activities of 2010, which has just been printed by Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1343 pp., 80.00 euro).
In it we learn, for example:
- that last year the disciplinary office of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith opened 643 procedures, 82 percent of which concern "delicta graviora" (which include the sɛҳuąƖ abuse of minors by clergy), 8 percent "offenses against the faith," 3 percent "cases of apparitions," and 7 percent other matters of various kinds.
- that during the same period, the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments dealt with several hundred cases regarding requests for papal dispensations in order to remarry after a marriage "ratified but not consummated." A dispensation that was granted in 301 cases, and withheld in 2.
- that the congregation for the evangelization of peoples gave, through the pontifical society for the propagation of the faith (whose charitable fund, however, has been "significantly" reduced because of the economic recession), more than 85 million dollars in assistance to dioceses in mission territory. More than 30 million was distributed through the pontifical society of St. Peter the Apostle. And more than 19 million through the pontifical society of missionary childhood.
- that the Roman Rota, whose jurisprudence is a model for all the ecclesiastical tribunals in the world, during the judicial year of 2010 issued 175 definitive verdicts on the nullity of marriage, the majority of them (93 versus 82) in favor of nullity.
- that the pontifical council for legislative texts, at the direction of the pope, set up four study groups in view of a possible revision of parts of the code of canon law, on questions of penal law, procedural law, marriage and family law, and the relationships between the code of the Latin Church and that of the Eastern Churches.
- that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission "Ecclesia Dei" and of the congregation for divine worship, for the "updating" of the commemorations of the saints and the "possible insertion of new prefaces" into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.
- that the office of papal charities, in response to almost seven thousand letters from individuals and families requesting help, provided "with discretion" and "on a day-by-day basis," in the name of the pope, a sum "close to one million euro." A sum entirely covered by the contributions received for parchments with apostolic blessings requested by the faithful: 115,500 parchments issued directly by the office of papal charities, and 112,00 distributed through almost eighty partner organizations.
__________
-
I hope this will help.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/john-lamont-on-liturgical-pluralism-and.html
From the above link:
... One can discern a good intention behind this positive answer. It is to fend off the possibility of an attempt at creating a hybrid between the TLM and the NO, which would be presented as the real fruit of the liturgical 'reform' called for by the Second Vatican Council, and then used to replace the 1962 missal currently in use by traditionalists. (The word 'reform' is in scare quotes here because the Latin word actually used by the Council is not 'reformare', but 'instaurare', which means to restore rather than to reform; the English word 'reform' is an interpolation of the English translators of the conciliar text.) The plan of imposing such a hybrid as the sole liturgy of the Latin church is unrealistic, but the plan of replacing the 1962 missal with a hybrid (perhaps closely modelled on the 1965 missal), while leaving the Novus Ordo in place, is a real one that is promoted in some liturgical circles.
_____________________________________________________________________
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/hoping-for-hybrid-missal.html
... "It seems to me that is 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." Quote from Cardinal Burke on the above link.
I'll continue my search for the release date of the new 1962 missal and call Baronius Press if you can.
-
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/01/revisions-of-1962-missal-coming-soon.html
The Revision of the Missal of 1962.
The Concerns of the International Federation Una Voce,
Preamble:
It is known that work has commenced in Rome on the revision of the Missal of 1962. As has been the norm in recent years, these matters are being conducted discreetly and only made public when the relevant docuмent is promulgated, viz: Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae. The very narrow remit given by the Holy Father to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in his Letter to Accompany Summorum Pontificuм [7 July, 2007] was that: “..new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.” No other changes were sanctioned. Pope Benedict also stated that “The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the possibilities in this regard.”
Those who are “devoted to the usus antiquior” must continually and carefully ensure that this specific and narrow remit is not exceeded by those in Rome and elsewhere who desire to undermine the integrity of the Missal of 1962 by demanding the inclusion of some of the novelties which were introduced into the liturgy post-1962. The International Federation Una Voce was founded in early 1965, even before the Second Vatican Council had ended, and is by far the oldest organisation, lay or clerical, which is devoted to the usus antiquior. While other organisations and societies, clerical and lay, may also be devoted to the ‘usus antiquior’, none can match the 46 year history of the Una Voce Federation in its unswerving devotion to this cause. The Federation has played a unique role in being the first, and the continuous voice of the lay faithful in seeking adherence to the expressed wishes of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council as declared in Sacrosanctum Concilium n.4:
“Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”
The members of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, being ever mindful of this decree of the Council Fathers, have been faithfully obedient to tradition, have consistently upheld the equal right and dignity of the Mass of Antiquity, and have striven since 1965 to preserve and foster this lawfully recognised rite. In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, confirmed what the International Federation has always claimed, that the Missal of 1962 ‘was never juridically abrogated’. The Holy Father also confirmed in his letter that his decision was to bring about “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the church.”
Liturgical innovation and creativity is unwanted by the faithful and has consistently disturbed, angered and alienated them in the years following the Second Vatican Council. This must not happen again with the adulteration of the Missal of 1962. The International Federation accepts organic development but emphatically rejects liturgical innovation which is alien to the character, spirit, and integrity of the usus antiquior. The inestimable treasure of the ancient liturgy must not be undermined by novelty, reductionism, and destructive modernisation. Nothing describes the attraction of the usus antiquior more powerfully than the growing number of young Catholics world-wide, including many seminarians and young priests, who are discovering this ancient and deeply spiritual liturgy and are being captivated by it.
We are now entering a critical period in the life of the liturgy of Holy Mother Church. Decisions that are being taken in Rome today will have a lasting impact on the spiritual welfare of the faithful for generations. The need to implement the will of the Holy Father for a limited and organic change in harmony with the character of the Missal of 1962 must not be the excuse for the introduction into the traditional Roman liturgy of alien concepts that created so much disunity and disharmony in the years immediately following the Second Vatican Council.
Following the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, the President of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce presented a docuмent to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in June 2008. Now that work on amending the Missal of 1962 has commenced, it may be timely to republish this docuмent, in an updated form, to make clear, once again, the desires and aspirations of the members of the Una Voce Federation.
-
Is Baronius Press trustworthy? This whole business sounds shady.
-
Is Baronius Press trustworthy? This whole business sounds shady.
They published the last edition of the 1962 Missal for the Vatican as soon as the MP Summorum Pontificuм was released. I think maybe the Vatican wants to keep it quiet for now. I know I have made many comments on Rorate Caeli about this Missal and they will not post them.
They also published the new N.O. missal that came out last Advent.
-
Baronius Press Ltd info@baroniuspress.com
12:39 PM (3 hours ago)
to me
Dear Mrs.
Many thanks for your email. The publication date of our latest edition of
the 1962 Missal was 2011.
God bless,
Tom Healy
I sent another email just now to confirm that he is talking about "the" new 1962 Missal, because there is also a new N.O. Missal that came out last Advent and looks like a regular missal. I'll share the response.
-
XXXXXXX
4:32 PM (15 hours ago)
to Baronius
I thank you for your reply but I'm confused. Are you talking about the new 1962 Missal as approved last year by the pope, according to SP and UE or the new Novus Ordo missal (3rd edition) that came out last Advent. Thanks again.
Mrs. XXX
Carlos Palad - Baronius Press carlos@baroniuspress.com
12:58 AM (6 hours ago)
to me
Dear Mrs. XXX,
We are talking about the 1962 Missal approved according to Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae.
Kind Regards
Carlos Palad
Baronius Press ltd
-
Baronius Press Ltd info@baroniuspress.com
Many thanks for your email. The publication date of our latest edition of
the 1962 Missal was 2011.
Rather confusing, does it mean only the fiddled Good Friday prayer revision, or is 2011 edition the "hermeneutic of 1962" Missal? SP/UE would have been a 2007ish edition.
For a bunch of people in the "book" business, they could have been a bit more precise.
-
Baronius Press Ltd info@baroniuspress.com
Many thanks for your email. The publication date of our latest edition of
the 1962 Missal was 2011.
Rather confusing, does it mean only the fiddled Good Friday prayer revision, or is 2011 edition the "hermeneutic of 1962" Missal? SP/UE would have been a 2007ish edition.
For a bunch of people in the "book" business, they could have been a bit more precise.
It is no longer the 1962 Missal since 2007, as the Good Friday Prayer has been changed.
The first step in many attacks and adaptations to come and be enforced.
I would just seek out a 1962 Missal from Angelus Press or buy an old missal yourself.
Universae Ecclesiae changed the Good Friday prayer of the 1962 Missal.
In fact, the 1962 Missal itself had been tampered with too, but was and is still entirely orthodox Roman Catholic of course. But the removal of the 'perfidis' and 'perfidem' by John XXIII's order was already a political compromise which was false. In fact, the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews is older than many other Roman Rite prayers and formulae. It can be dated back to 244 AD text fragments, right in the Catacomb times.
The 2007 UE/SP revision of the 1962 Missal's Good Friday prayers is false and doctrinally doubtful (possibly heterodox formally, as it blurs the traditional teaching on the incredulity of the Jews).
-
Baronius Press Ltd info@baroniuspress.com
Many thanks for your email. The publication date of our latest edition of
the 1962 Missal was 2011.
Rather confusing, does it mean only the fiddled Good Friday prayer revision, or is 2011 edition the "hermeneutic of 1962" Missal? SP/UE would have been a 2007ish edition.
For a bunch of people in the "book" business, they could have been a bit more precise.
It is no longer the 1962 Missal since 2007, as the Good Friday Prayer has been changed.
The first step in many attacks and adaptations to come and be enforced.
I would just seek out a 1962 Missal from Angelus Press or buy an old missal yourself.
Universae Ecclesiae changed the Good Friday prayer of the 1962 Missal.
In fact, the 1962 Missal itself had been tampered with too, but was and is still entirely orthodox Roman Catholic of course. But the removal of the 'perfidis' and 'perfidem' by John XXIII's order was already a political compromise which was false. In fact, the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews is older than many other Roman Rite prayers and formulae. It can be dated back to 244 AD text fragments, right in the Catacomb times.
The 2007 UE/SP revision of the 1962 Missal's Good Friday prayers is false and doctrinally doubtful (possibly heterodox formally, as it blurs the traditional teaching on the incredulity of the Jews).
Thank you! for the statement above which I put in bold letters. The New Good Friday prayer was changed in 1962 which means to me that the brake happened then. The SSPX has kept the pre-1962 Good Friday prayer in their own version of the 1962 Missal along with the second Confiteor, etc. to make it more traditional. Many people in the SSPX did not know in 2007 that the prayer had been already changed in 1962.
In 2007, the SSPX (Angelus Press) printed a large quantity of the actual 1962 Missal because they thought they would be selling to the Indult communities but Rome was one step ahead of them and had the Missal published by Baronius Press.
Why do you think the 1962 Missal has always been regulated by an Indult. First JPII, Then, Summorum Pontificuм which ties it to the N.O as two expressions of the same rite. This indult was in reality more restrictive than JPII's because now, to have the "1962" missal you have to accept the N.O. as valid.
Also, why do you think Rome is now changing their agreement with IGS, they now want them regulated by "Summorum Pontificuм" which was released after their initial agreement. Rome wants them regulated by SP because the trap (leash) is in SP. Absolutely every indult community must be regulated by it because the 1962 missal is what the pope tells them it is. They have signed the 1989 Profession of Faith and they must obey. Now is common knowledge why that is so. This is the missal that will lead to the "reform of the reform".
This topic begun because someone wanted to have proof that a "new 1962 Missal" is coming.
-
This newcomer to the site is particularly struck by the fact that the letter from Baronius Press was signed by Carlos Palad, till recently a moderator at Rorate Caeli. I wouldn't go so far as to speak of a wolf in sheep's clothing, but there is ample food for thought here, especially concerning what RC's agenda truly is. Every habitué of this site certainly knows what the agenda of Baronius Press is: making a few bucks off the regularization of the ghettoization of Tradition within the conciliar church.
-
This newcomer to the site is particularly struck by the fact that the letter from Baronius Press was signed by Carlos Palad, till recently a moderator at Rorate Caeli. I wouldn't go so far as to speak of a wolf in sheep's clothing, but there is ample food for thought here, especially concerning what RC's agenda truly is. Every habitué of this site certainly knows what the agenda of Baronius Press is: making a few bucks off the regularization of the ghettoization of Tradition within the conciliar church.
Thank you Claudel, infomation like this is most useful.
-
This newcomer to the site is particularly struck by the fact that the letter from Baronius Press was signed by Carlos Palad, till recently a moderator at Rorate Caeli. I wouldn't go so far as to speak of a wolf in sheep's clothing, but there is ample food for thought here, especially concerning what RC's agenda truly is. Every habitué of this site certainly knows what the agenda of Baronius Press is: making a few bucks off the regularization of the ghettoization of Tradition within the conciliar church.
Thank you Claudel, infomation like this is mo st useful.
You are both being judgemental. Please read the other posts on this thread. Thank you for bringing up Mr. Palad. I had no idea RC was connected to Baronius Press. It all makes sense now.
I'm trying to prove the "new 1962 missal" is coming. I was posting the reply for TKGS benefit. I totally agree with "newcomer" claudel about RC as anyone can see from my previous posts.
-
This article appeared on the Traditio website a few days ago. I consider Traditio reliable. If some of you dont believe what they say.......do your research!
The New "Hybrid Missal of 2012"
Which Will Replace the "1962 Missal" for Pseudo-traditional Communities on December 2, 2012
This New Missal Will Incorporate Several Features of the Novus Ordo Service
All the Indult/Motu Communities in "Communion" with Benedict-Ratzinger's New Order Sect
After just Five Years, Will Be Forced to Use the New "Hybrid Missal"
Once again we TRADITIO Fathers called it. We said that the "Motu" Mess of 2007, sometimes falsely termed the "Extraordinary" Mess, a Ratzingerian term never before used in the history of the Catholic Church, was a complete hoax to deceive traditional Catholics. Like the Protestantized transitional Missals of 1964-1967 after Vatican II, the use of the half Novus Ordo Vatican II 1962 Missal was just a stopgap measure until Benedict-Ratzinger's Modernistic "Hybrid Missal of 2012" could be published. And now that pseudo-traditional missal is on Newvatican's printing presses, to supersede the 1962 Missal on its 50th anniversary. You Motarians, you were had -- just as we warned you in 2007. Now you will have to use the Modernistic "Hybrid Missal of 2012." The 1962 "Extrordinary Mess" is dead!
In accordance with Benedict-Ratzinger's Modernistic Motu Summorum pontificuм of July 7, 2007, the new "Hybrid Missal of 2012" will replace the "1962 Missal" on December 2, 2012, the First Sunday of Advent. This Modernized "1962 Missal" will incorporate:
The new "Good Friday" prayer, composed by Benedict-Ratzinger to placate the secular Jews. It contradicts the ancient Good Friday prayer, as well as Catholic theology.
The new "Prefaces" from the Novus Ordo Protestant-Masonic-Pagan service of 1969.
Feastdays of phony Novus Ordo "saints"
Other accommodations to the Novus Ordo service
All pseudo-traditional communities in "communion" with the New Order sect will be forced to use the new "Hybrid Missal of 2012." These communities include:
Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)
Institute of Christ the King (ICR)
Institute of the Good Shepherd (IBP)
Fraternity of St. John Vianney (FSJV)
Truly traditional Catholic priests will, of course, pay no attention to this phony "Hybrid Missal of 2012." They will continue to use the fully-traditional 1954 Missal or earlier. These courageous priests -- independents, SSPV, CMRI, and the rest -- do not have to dance to the Modernist Newpope's tune. But, for Fellay, it will be impossible to achieve his life's goal of being accepted into the New Order sect if he does not accept Ratzinger's "Hybrid Missal of 2012."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
You are both being judgemental.
To speak for myself, no, I am not. I pointed out what seemed to me a striking fact, a fact that I thought might interest others (I appear to have been right in this conjecture). Whatever assessments or judgments other readers may make, my statement that the connection between Mr. Palad and Baronius Press provides food for thought might be considered mistaken or uninformative or any one of a number of other things, but it can hardly, in and of itself, be called judgmental.
-
It is no longer the 1962 Missal since 2007, as the Good Friday Prayer has been changed.
The first step in many attacks and adaptations to come and be enforced.
One can only wonder what manner of assaults on the Faith are in the works!
I would just seek out a 1962 Missal from Angelus Press or buy an old missal yourself.
The problem with handmissals that are 60 years old is they tend to fall apart.
They used high quality paper, usually, so the pages are okay, but the cover and
the binding doesn't hold up well.
One should not overlook the 1945 Fr. Lasance New Roman Missal. They were
reprinted this century and cost around $60. It's an excellent daily missal, with
supplements for several feast days that were added post '45 and before Vat. II.
You just need to get a Movable Feasts table, as the one in the missal only goes
up to 1975 or so. Why they don't improve that is anyone's guess. It has just
about everything needed for the Canonized Latin Mass (the Novus Ordo
can never be canonized!). Also, the St. Andrew Daily Missal, issue 1950 or
thereabouts. Both of these have none of the corruptions that began in 1954
with Bugnini's innovations, starting with Holy Week, the most ancient rites in
the Church, arguably from Apostolic times.
Universae Ecclesiae changed the Good Friday prayer of the 1962 Missal.
In fact, the 1962 Missal itself had been tampered with too, but was and is still entirely orthodox Roman Catholic of course. But the removal of the 'perfidis' and 'perfidem' by John XXIII's order was already a political compromise which was false. In fact, the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews is older than many other Roman Rite prayers and formulae. It can be dated back to 244 AD text fragments, right in the Catacomb times.
The 2007 UE/SP revision of the 1962 Missal's Good Friday prayers is false and doctrinally doubtful (possibly heterodox formally, as it blurs the traditional teaching on the incredulity of the Jews).
Thank you! for the statement above which I put in bold letters. The New Good Friday prayer was changed in 1962 which means to me that the [break] happened then. The SSPX has kept the pre-1962 Good Friday prayer in their own version of the 1962 Missal along with the second Confiteor, etc. to make it more traditional. Many people in the SSPX did not know in 2007 that the prayer had been already changed in 1962.
They should have put some kind of footnote on the pages where such
acommodations were made, so that readers could see if they were interested in
knowing what that was. If no explanation is provided, I would really wonder why.
It seems to be a gross oversight, or at worst, a deliberate intention to deceive.
In 2007, the SSPX (Angelus Press) printed a large quantity of the actual 1962 Missal because they thought they would be selling to the Indult communities but Rome was one step ahead of them and had the Missal published by Baronius Press.
Thanks for the clue. I'd like to know who the owners of Baronius are.
Why do you think the 1962 Missal has always been regulated by an Indult[?] First JPII, Then, Summorum Pontificuм which ties it to the N.O as two expressions of the same rite. This indult was in reality more restrictive than JPII's because now, to have the "1962" missal you have to accept the N.O. as valid.
Not if you reject this stupid rule as "invalid," based on the fact that we're in a
state of emergency and the wires are crossed somewhere: possibly in the
Holy Father's own HEAD.
Also, why do you think Rome is now changing their agreement with IGS, they now want them regulated by "Summorum Pontificuм" which was released after their initial agreement. Rome wants them regulated by SP because the trap (leash) is in SP.
When a wild animal walks around in his homeland, he has no idea that a "trap"
has been laid for him, and walking normally, and stepping on the trap, it is
sprung and he is caught. Fortunately for us, we have the capacity to identify
the trap in advance and thereby avoid it. We do not have to obey illegitimate
orders. And this is why the SSPX should never sign any "deal" until Rome is
willing to sit down and openly discuss DOCTRINE.
Obedience to an order that is deceptive or opposed to the teachings of the
Church is not a good obedience. We have had time to learn by painful experience
what kinds of tricks these miscreants use to deceive the faithful and to render
their orders illegitimate.
Absolutely every indult community must be regulated by it because the 1962 missal is what the pope tells them it is. They have signed the 1989 Profession of Faith and they must obey.
That 1989 Profession of Faith isn't the first of its ilk. I asked a Modernist priest one
time to recite with me the Oath Against Modernism and he refused. He said that
it had been replaced by Paul VI. Now, I had known that the Oath was abandoned
sometime in 1965, right near the end of Vatican II (which in itself is rather telling)
but I did not know that it had a "replacement." I then asked this miscreant how I
could find a copy of the replacement, and he told me that it was some kind of
docuмent that I could find on the Vatican website. This was in 1999. I had just
started learning how to use an Internet computer. So I found a machine and did
my research. Long story short, it turned out to be a "Vatican Statement," not an
encyclical or a Bull or whatever. The Vatican Statements were located in a
separate part of the site. When I showed it to the priest, he said that yes, this was
the thing that replaced the Oath. It was an oath of fidelity to the Roman Pontiff.
So, no longer would clerics be answerable to God for faithfulness to Him, they
were to be answerable to the Pope instead, for faithfulness to the pope!
That says a lot.
Now is common knowledge why that is so. This is the missal that will lead to the "reform of the reform".
This topic begun because someone wanted to have proof that a "new 1962 Missal" is coming.
Like I said before, we'll know we're really in trouble when they start coming out
with revised Vatican I docuмents. They have already done some little revisions
on the Vat. II docs. Why not Vat. I as well? They rewrote the Latin Vulgate Bible
to use the Unclean Spirit of Vatican II language. They re-wrote the Psalter in the
1950's. They fabricated a new mass. They changed the Creed, using "I believe
... one in being with the Father ..., they rewrote the form of the sacraments -- all
except the essential form of Baptism (they deleted all the preparatory ritual that
had traditionally been used) and they changed the Exorcism form, such that the
exorcist was then using a ritual that did not expel the demons.
-
You are both being judgemental.
To speak for myself, no, I am not. I pointed out what seemed to me a striking fact, a fact that I thought might interest others (I appear to have been right in this conjecture). Whatever assessments or judgments other readers may make, my statement that the connection between Mr. Palad and Baronius Press provides food for thought might be considered mistaken or uninformative or any one of a number of other things, but it can hardly, in and of itself, be called judgmental.
claudel,
Please accept my apology. I thought you were referring to me as a newcomer instead of yourself. English is my second language and sometimes misunderstand things. I appreciate your comment much more now that is clear. Thank you.
-
Thank you for your very gracious comment, Marie. Any day wherein a misunderstanding is cleared up is a good day.
-
Well that was eye opening. I think one could argue that Benedict is even more dangerous to the Faith then JP2. JP2 was a gregarious actor who revelled in the applaus of his audience. Benedict is smart and knows exactly what he is doing. He has also done a wonderful job of duping many well meaning "conservatives" and "traditionalists."
Brick by brick indeed. I can't help but think of the Cask of Amontillado. Problem is that Tradition is Fortunato in this case.
-
"The 1989 Profession of Faith." You mean for juror-priests? :tinfoil:
-
Well that was eye opening. I think one could argue that Benedict is even more dangerous to the Faith then JP2. JP2 was a gregarious actor who revelled in the applause of his audience. Benedict is smart and knows exactly what he is doing. He has also done a wonderful job of duping many well meaning "conservatives" and "traditionalists."
Brick by brick indeed. I can't help but think of the Cask of Amontillado. Problem is that Tradition is Fortunato in this case.
Fortunato: a name of poignant irony, no?
Don't forget that Ratzinger was the old pro, and Wojtyla was the new kid on the
block, literally! The latter looked up to the former, and some say that JPII went
to him like a mentor when he had challenges. Ratzinger kept him on the program.
Whose idea do you suppose Assisi I was? Guess. Think of B16 as the brains and
JPII as a puppet -- on stage (always "acting"). And who was the puppeteer? Then
it all makes sense. JPII was the warm-up act. Now we're getting down to business!
-
Very accurate observations. Today, they are puppets of every scene, the church also.
-
Regarding the 1962 missal (or any bastard version of it).
An exercise: Start using Dom Guerange's 15 volume Liturgical Year at Mass as opposed to the Vatican II/transitional missal of "Blessed John XXIII (the second)/Archbishop Annibale Bugnini" (likely roomates in the hereafter).
Firstly, the beauty of liturgy will come alive, then sorrow... that so much has been lost, and gradually as your sensus fidelium starts to kick in, a Holy Anger will certainly overcome you.
-
Regarding the 1962 missal (or any bastard version of it).
An exercise: Start using Dom Guerange's 15 volume Liturgical Year at Mass as opposed to the Vatican II/transitional missal of "Blessed John XXIII (the second)/Archbishop Annibale Bugnini" (likely roomates in the hereafter).
Firstly, the beauty of liturgy will come alive, then sorrow... that so much has been lost, and gradually as your sensus fidelium starts to kick in, a Holy Anger will certainly overcome you.
Excellent suggestion! I think I'm going to try that out. I know several people who
use their Liturgical year books as a daily missal. Mine set on the shelf most
of the time, and I don't think I've ever read one of them all the way through.
In the mean time, I think it would be great for each one of us to call Angelus Press
tomorrow, or this week sometime, and ask them when the half-price sale starts on
their obsolete 1962 missals. That should give them something to think about.
-
Has anyone yet found any hard evidence that a 2012 Missal is coming out for 2 December? So far it just seems to be a rumour on Traditio.
For a new version of a missal there would have to be a standard text (editio typica) published by the Vatican and docuмents saying when it can start being used, etc. There seems to be nothing like this at all.
-
After reading this article (below), we personally called Baronius Press who publishes for the Vatican and they confirmed that the "new 1962 Missal" was in the process of being printed and would be out "sometime next year" I saw recently an advertisement and ordered the booklet but they sent the wrong thing. Now, the advertisement is gone from their webpage.
MarieAuxiliadora, Do you remember what the Baronius Press advertisement said and what was the booklet you ordered? ("Sometime next year" contradicts the "2 December" of Traditio.) Many thanks.
-
Remember their history.
It is in December, during Advent, that major changes to the liturgy are announced
and implemented. They might be announced before that time, but the preparations
are made, the printing is done and the training is complete by December so it can
go into effect. That's when the Novus Ordo was started, it's when the various
stages of the "transitional rite" were trucked in, it's when Mahony made all his
ridiculous and dopey changes like having everyone start from the rear of the
church coming forward to communion. He said, "the last shall be first and the
first shall be last." It's when they demanded that we stand for the Our Father and
remain standing after communion. It's when they said we should stand during
the consecration. It's when they said we should wave our arms and shout when
we sing the Our Father. It's even when they said we should now return to saying
"Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault," in the
thing they refer to as the "Confeteor," but it isn't. This is all Novus Ordo.
So if they're going to have a new edition of the 1962 missal, it would be coming
out in December. No brainer.
I guess I could be wrong, but I think it would be a first for a change like this to
happen in January.
They make liturgical changes in December, when they can get away with it because
everyone's getting ready for Christmas.
They do the baptism rituals for adults during Easter season, as well as confirmations,
one of the few traditions that are still kept.
Then they ordain new priests and consecrate bishops in June and July.
-
After reading this article (below), we personally called Baronius Press who publishes for the Vatican and they confirmed that the "new 1962 Missal" was in the process of being printed and would be out "sometime next year" I saw recently an advertisement and ordered the booklet but they sent the wrong thing. Now, the advertisement is gone from their webpage.
MarieAuxiliadora, Do you remember what the Baronius Press advertisement said and what was the booklet you ordered? ("Sometime next year" contradicts the "2 December" of Traditio.) Many thanks.
Their website now has this announcement under Forthcoming Titles:
FORTHCOMING TITLES
In the past, we listed information on this page about our forthcoming titles and approximate release dates. Despite our request not to be emailed for additional information, we continued to be inundated with emails asking for updates, progress, prices etc.
We appreciate the interest customers take in our work. We also understand that customers wish to get updates and are often very eager to order titles that we are working on. In the past we have discovered that progress on titles is not always as fast as we hoped for and customers then understandably became frustrated.
As we are a very small company with limited resources, we hope that our customers understand that we wish to focus our efforts entirely on producing titles. We have therefore decided not to list any information on our forthcoming titles. We will only release information about new titles when they are physically in stock and available to be ordered.
Please subscribe to our Mailing List and you will receive e-mail updates on new titles, 'back in stock' titles and seasonal offers.
P.S. The Knox Bible is currently being printed. Further information will be posted when available.
-
Baronius does have a very attractive 1962 missal in stock, already. It's been there
since 2007:
Baronius Press 1962 Daily Missal (http://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=4) -- Available in Black, White or Burgundy flexible leather, $59.95
One feature that's noteworthy is this:
Table of Moveable Feasts up to AD 2066
Another is this:
Kyriale, in traditional Gregorian chant notation, including:
Tones for the most common Ordinaries: I (Lux et Origo), IV (Cunctipotens Genitor Deus), VIII (De Angelis), IX (cuм Jubilo), XI (Orbis Factor), XXVII (Sundays of Advent & Lent), XVIII (Deus Genitor Alme)
Tones for the Asperges and the Vidi Aquam
Tones for the Credo: I, II, III and IV
So, all you'd need to fix it would be an insert for the traditional Holy Week prayers
and a post-it on the Canon page that omits the name of St. Joseph! :rolleyes:
But if you wait until December, you might need inserts for every Mass because the
Prayers (Collects) might be all different!
What are they going to do with their old copies in stock??
-
Baronius does have a very attractive 1962 missal in stock, already. It's been there
since 2007:
Baronius Press 1962 Daily Missal (http://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=4) -- Available in Black, White or Burgundy flexible leather, $59.95
So, all you'd need to fix it would be an insert for the traditional Holy Week prayers
and a post-it on the Canon page that omits the name of St. Joseph! :rolleyes:
But if you wait until December, you might need inserts for every Mass because the
Prayers (Collects) might be all different!
What are they going to do with their old copies in stock??
:idea: :dwarf: :jumping2: :alcohol:
-
So if they're going to have a new edition of the 1962 missal, it would be coming out in December. No brainer.
But fortunately it doesn't work like that. Baronius Press can't just print a "new 1962 missal". The Vatican has to publish an official text, the "editio typica", with docuмents saying they are promulgating it and from what date it can be printed and used. These are then printed in the Acts of the Apostolic See. None of these has happened, so until then it has to be regarded as non-existant, until proved otherwise.
With the original 1962 liturgy, the docuмent promulgating it came out in July 1960, permission for use was given as 1 January 1961, but permission to print was not given until June 1962. And it never appeared in the AAS. So does it even exist? :laugh1:
-
So if they're going to have a new edition of the 1962 missal, it would be coming out in December. No brainer.
But fortunately it doesn't work like that. Baronius Press can't just print a "new 1962 missal". The Vatican has to publish an official text, the "editio typica", with docuмents saying they are promulgating it and from what date it can be printed and used. These are then printed in the Acts of the Apostolic See. None of these has happened, so until then it has to be regarded as non-existant, until proved otherwise.
With the original 1962 liturgy, the docuмent promulgating it came out in July 1960, permission for use was given as 1 January 1961, but permission to print was not given until June 1962. And it never appeared in the AAS. So does it even exist? :laugh1:
If you have read the posts and are not convinced, then, wait until Advent and see what happens.
-
After reading this article (below), we personally called Baronius Press who publishes for the Vatican and they confirmed that the "new 1962 Missal" was in the process of being printed and would be out "sometime next year" I saw recently an advertisement and ordered the booklet but they sent the wrong thing. Now, the advertisement is gone from their webpage.
MarieAuxiliadora, Do you remember what the Baronius Press advertisement said and what was the booklet you ordered? ("Sometime next year" contradicts the "2 December" of Traditio.) Many thanks.
I'm sorry, I had not seen this post. We called Baronius press around November or so of 2011.
-
The article I'm going to post below is for the benefit of anyone who still gives Summorum Pontificuм any benefit of the doubt. It has been from it's very planning, a tool to bring the SSPX into the Reform of the Reform by cashing in on their position on the 1962 Missal. I have been looking for this article for weeks and just found it.
Shawn Tribe is the fouder and editor of the web page New Liturgical Movement. I would like to encourage you all to read it entirely and pass it along to priests in the SSPX. Regardless of the "new 1962 missal" coming or not coming this Advent, this is the way the 1962 Missal is going: The Reform of the Reform. The red highlights are my own.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/10/possible-future-of-tridentine-liturgy.html
Friday, October 13, 2006
The Possible Future of the Tridentine Liturgy: An Analysis
by Shawn Tribe
There is a great deal of speculative journalism going on with regards to the Tridentine docuмent forthcoming, which is perhaps mixing up what we presently know about this docuмent as it may stand, and what are perhaps some of the lobbying and/or debates that are behind the scenes in regard to it.
I should like to break down the matter by looking at the possible end results that might forthcome from all this, if we base it upon what some journalists are suggesting they are hearing, and then analyze these in the light of the liturgical considerations of Benedict.
Let me note, this is not a prediction. It's an attempt to dissect all the stories that are out there that we might think about the issue critically and responsibly.
Possible Liturgical Ends of the Tridentine Docuмent:
1) The Ordinary/Normative Model: Total liberalization of the 1962 Missale Romanum within an ordinary model -- no restrictions at all.
2) The Extraordinary/Normative Model: Near total liberalization within an "extra-ordinary" model. Normative in that sense of full allowance and full membership in the Roman rite, but not the ordinary rite. No permission is required, but with possible guidelines in terms of how much it might be used in a typical diocesan parish setting in relation to the ordinary rite.
3) The Inversed-Indult Model: Permission is a granted norm, excepting at the intervention of the local Ordinary who may choose, within certain defined criterions, to not allow.
4) The Free-upon-local-Conditions Model: Permission is granted, but the local Ordinary may choose to lay down the local diocesan conditions whereby that permission can be exercised in public masses -- e.g. perhaps a numerical matter of 30 or more faithful requesting, etc. -- but where, theoretically at least, if those criterion are filled, the Ordinary is not to deny.
Benedict's Liturgical and Pastoral Thought:
1) Leaven is needed for the reform of the reform, but it must occur in a way which is not an adminstrative tinkering with the Pauline books, as happened at the Council, and which Benedict is steadfast in resisting as an approach. He has long seen the 1962 Missale Romanum as having an answer to this. It's wider celebration, and permeation into the greater parish life of the Roman rite might thereby help kickstart the reform of the reform.
2) Benedict was dismayed at the abolishment of this rite which had grown up through the centuries, something he saw as very damaging and unprecedented.
3) Benedict desires to reach out to groups like the SSPX, for whom the free celebration of this rite, and its non-indult status is an important point.
4) Aware of the crisis in the Church, liturgically, theologically, etc. and the hermeneutic of rupture, there is a need to draw traditional liturgics, theology, formation and so on very clearly in the heart and centre, and no longer be written off as somehow "fringe" that the voice of the tradition may again be more clearly heard and that a hermeneutic of continuity may be more clearly seen.
5) Pastorally, Benedict is aware that despite the problems with the Pauline reforms, this is also a liturgy that has been around for decades and which many are now used to, or have only known. A radical shift will be harmful in his view just as it was following the Council. He will want to pastorally protect those faithful from this.
6) He will want to respond to the concerns of the bishops and will want to somehow give them some assurance so as not to provoke new schisms, and to help secure their tacit cooperation in the matter so that points 1 and 3 might also be accomplished still.
7) He will want to make clear that this is not a rejection of the Council or the principle of the Conciliar liturgical reform, while balancing this with point 1 and the need for a reform of the reform.
Analysis of these Possible Ends in the light of these Benedictine Considerations:
Model #1: (the ordinary/normative model that sees absolutely no restrictions) seems unlikely as there would be too much opposition from members of the episcopate and parts of the Curia. While it might work out fine, many would critique this, rightly or wrongly, as a rejection of the Council. Benedict, I think, cannot afford the docuмent to be too utterly controversial as it could then backfire and not have the effects desired for the reform of the reform, for groups like the SSPX, etc. As well, he will want to protect consideration #5 in regard to the faithful accustomed to the Pauline rite.
Model #3: (the inversed indult; whereby permission is granted unless explicitly denied by the bishop) seems possible but a little less likely in regards to the SSPX issue on the one hand, and secondarily, perhaps, in Benedict's awareness that there have been trials in applying the existing indult of 1988. The SSPX will likely see this as not being a real shift, since ultimately an arbitrary judgement on the part of the Ordinary could still occur. Moreover, it also has the greater potential to not allow the same leavening effect for the reform of the reform. After model #2, this model does seem to be a very strong contender as a possibiilty with the caveat that it depends upon the nature and conditions of the Bishop's authority to disallow, which could thus also lessen the SSPX's concern about arbitrary disallowance.
Model #4: faces very similiar issues as #3, but seems even less likely than #3.
Model #2: would seem to meet all the considerations of Benedict the best. The denotation of ordinary vs. extraordinary, and any numerical stipulation about what may or may not happen in non-personal parishes protects the status of the FSSP, etc. while also addressing the pastoral concerns of the typical diocesan parish, and potentially can assauge the concerns of those bishops who simply are concerned with the matter from a pastoral perspective, rather than an ideological opposition to the 1962 Missal. Such a denotation and "caveat" also protects the idea that this is not a rejection of the Council, while allowing for the greatest overall freedom (which the SSPX will want to see) for the 1962 Missal. This in turns bodes the best for it kickstarting a reform of the reform.
Further considerations that could influence the model chosen:
The wildcard in all these considerations comes down to the bishops and the level of their opposition. How will Benedict manage this? Will he be able to do so without compromising his own liturgical vision to date? This is a key question that we cannot answer.
-
From Rorate Caeli 8/1/12
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
On the Feast of All Saints (1st November), an international 'Summorum Pontificuм' pilgrimage to Rome
The Coetus Internationalis pro Summorum Pontificuм has just been constituted in Rome by representatives of several associations of faithful, including the International Federation Una Voce and the Italian Coordinamento Summorum Pontificuм in order to organize an international pilgrimage of associations, groups and movements supporting 'Summorum Pontificuм' and His Holiness Benedict XVI to mark the Year of Faith. The pilgrimage will conclude on Saturday, November 3, 2012, with a Mass in St. Peter' Basilica. An official presentation of the event will take place on September 10 in Rome.
_____________________________________________________
Will this be the Inauguration of the "New 1962 Missal"? Remember that BXVI has never publicly celebrated the 1962 Missal.
-
These are some of the comments on Rorate Caeli on the above article, I'll put the link again because the one above does not go through: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/08/international-summorum-pontificuм.html
I'm posting again because I neglected to mention last night about the petitions to BXVI to do the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. I put the same comment on RC as I did on CathInfo in my previous post (above) and as you can see, it has been removed. They are terrified of the "new 1962 Missal" cat getting out of the bag before the SSPX comes "back into the church" because they know it's going to backfire on them and +Fellay's plans to bring the SSPX into the "reform of the reform". These "conservatives" know that if the SSPX under +Fellay joins them, their reform will be more successful.
Demasi said...
The Holy Father could celebrate a TLM. Here is the petition with 488 signatures, being more than 350 in the last 3 days.
02 August, 2012 01:07
Marie Auxiliadora said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
02 August, 2012 01:40
Jeanne d'Arc said...
I'm so glad that someone started this petition to the Holy Father! It would be such a blessing!
02 August, 2012 01:56
Alan Aversa said...
Deo volente the Holy Father will celebrate a 1962 Rite Mass then.
02 August, 2012 02:01
-
These are some of the comments on Rorate Caeli on the above article, I'll put the link again because the one above does not go through: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/08/international-summorum-pontificuм.html
I'm posting again because I neglected to mention last night about the petitions to BXVI to do the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. I put the same comment on RC as I did on CathInfo in my previous post (above) and as you can see, it has been removed. They are terrified of the "new 1962 Missal" cat getting out of the bag before the SSPX comes "back into the church" because they know it's going to backfire on them and +Fellay's plans to bring the SSPX into the "reform of the reform". These "conservatives" know that if the SSPX under +Fellay joins them, their reform will be more successful.
Demasi said...
The Holy Father could celebrate a TLM. Here is the petition with 488 signatures, being more than 350 in the last 3 days.
02 August, 2012 01:07
Marie Auxiliadora said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
02 August, 2012 01:40
Jeanne d'Arc said...
I'm so glad that someone started this petition to the Holy Father! It would be such a blessing!
02 August, 2012 01:56
Alan Aversa said...
Deo volente the Holy Father will celebrate a 1962 Rite Mass then.
02 August, 2012 02:01
Gets better!
I just noticed this comment on the same article:
Augustinus said...
Maria Auxiliadora:
Accusations without any proof against the Holy Father will not be tolerated here. I suggest you go back to the "Cathinfo" hole where you came from. Don't ever return to Rorate!
02 August, 2012 06:32
My "accusation against the Holy Father" was this:
"Will this be the Inauguration of the 'New 1962 Missal'? Remember that BXVI has never publicly celebrated the 1962 Missal". Get my point?
-
Maria Auxiliadora:
Accusations without any proof against the Holy Father will not be tolerated here. I suggest you go back to the "Cathinfo" hole where you came from. Don't ever return to Rorate!
02 August, 2012 06:32
My "accusation against the Holy Father" was this:
"Will this be the Inauguration of the 'New 1962 Missal'? Remember that BXVI has never publicly celebrated the 1962 Missal". Get my point?
Marie, I think you've gotten them to admit their plot. Thanks for re-posting all this here.
It's amusing that some uncensored Rorate commentators have handles like "OnEaglesWings" - ugh!
-
Maria Auxiliadora:
Accusations without any proof against the Holy Father will not be tolerated here. I suggest you go back to the "Cathinfo" hole where you came from. Don't ever return to Rorate!
02 August, 2012 06:32
My "accusation against the Holy Father" was this:
"Will this be the Inauguration of the 'New 1962 Missal'? Remember that BXVI has never publicly celebrated the 1962 Missal". Get my point?
Marie, I think you've gotten them to admit their plot. Thanks for re-posting all this here.
It's amusing that some uncensored Rorate commentators have handles like "OnEaglesWings" - ugh!
He might use a goofy handle but he asks the best question on the page, so far
(second place, that is to "Will this be the Inauguration of the 'New 1962 Missal'?"):
OnEaglesWings said...
What a fabulous idea, this petition is!
What would be also grand, since both NO and TLM are supposed to be on the same footing (per the Vatican), is if all the priests were required to say the TLM at least once a year. This would sure take care of the "liberal left" and see if they are truly loyal to the Vicar of Christ and the Church. If this is unreasonable, then why are TLM priests mandated to say the NO at least once a year? That, to me, is not being on the same footing.
It's no longer a question of loyalty with TLM side, is it? Why not raise the bar a bit from the rest out there?
If the two are equal, why not apply it as such?
02 August, 2012 05:18
If "the two are equal," they don't apply it as such because the two are not equal.
This is what happens when you deny the principle of non-contradiction, as B16
does.
I think he's touching on a sore spot. The rules are announced for all kinds of
things, but the only rules that are enforced are the ones that penalize Trads.
So,
even if there is a new rule that the TLM ("EF") has to be celebrated once a year
by all priests, there would be no penalty or adverse consequence for those who
ignore the rule. That is, no consequence would be APPLIED. They might SAY
there will be a consequence, but it would be only talk, and no action. This is how
all issues are handled in the past, so why would it be different now?
And no, this would not be allowed on Rorate, where censorship squelches anything
that takes the topic to its logical conclusion. I'm surprised they allowed
OnEaglesWings to say as much as he did say. Maybe it's because his handle
is so mushy, they can't help themselves but to be nice to him?? HAHAHAHA
-
Thank you everyone for your responses, especially Marie Auxiliadora and stevusmagnus.
I had been aware of only a little of what was posted. It appears that the Conciliar vatican is even more insidious than I had imagined. Frankly, this information makes the Bishop Fellay initiative even more disturbing. Clearly, the vatican wishes to use the SSPX to develop the "reform of the reform".
The only thing, I think, that will thwart such efforts will ultimately be the lesser known organizations, such as the CMRI, and the many independent priests who will reject these initiatives.
It's interesting you mention CMRI in this 1962 missal discussion.
Has anyone noticed that CMRI priests follow the rubrics of the 1962 missal including
the innovations that ultimately led up to the Novus Ordo liturgy?
All of the CMRI Masses I have been to have used John 1 for the "Last Gospel,"
regardless of the Feast Day or the traditional class distinctions.
-
I'm aware of this article already being posted but thought it would be good to continue the discussion on this thread. Thank you Kelley for posting it.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-missal-planned-for-next-summer.html
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Revised Traditional Missal Planned for Next Summer in Rome?
This is a translation from the usually well-informed German summorumpontificuм.de, who says that their own well-informed source has some information about the new Missal, which was coupled with their announcement of the good news of the formal recognition of Papa Stronsay at the Diocese of Aberdeen in Scottland.
The less good news is that the work on "a new edition of the Old Missal" has so far progressed enough that it will be published next summer so that it can be used in 2013. The key points of alteration:
- Allowance of the usage of new prefaces for all feasts, which correspond to the Novus Ordo prefaces;
- General allowance of the Traditional Mass to be celebrated "versus populum";
- Permission to say the Liturgy of the Word in the language of the people [which facilitates the use of the Cramner table];
The desire for "liturgical engineering" in the appropriate Vatican authorities therefore seems unchanged -- at least in so far as it relates to a direction "away from Tradition".
Link to summorum-pontificuм.de....
___________________________________________________________
The article below, posted in part (link provided) is from September 2011, within days from the Vatican giving + Fellay the "Doctrinal Preamble"
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-1962-missal-coming-soon.html
The 'updated' 1962 Missal: Coming soon?
Universae Ecclesiae, citing Benedict XVI's letter to the bishops on the occasion of the publication of Summorum Pontificuм, mentioned that "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." However, UE didn't mention that a commission to effect this was already established last year.
From Sandro Magister's latest article on Chiesa:
VATICAN CITY, September 19, 2011 – "The activity of the Holy See" is a hefty volume that gives a year-by-year account of the actions of the pope and the Roman curia. It is an "unofficial publication," as specified on the frontispiece, but in spite of this it contains not a little information, sometimes rather unusual, that cannot be found in other Vatican sources.
To verify this it is enough to leaf through the latest edition, on the activities of 2010, which has just been printed by Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1343 pp., 80.00 euro).
In it we learn, for example:
- that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission "Ecclesia Dei" and of the congregation for divine worship, for the "updating" of the commemorations of the saints and the "possible insertion of new prefaces" into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.
-
Regarding the 1962 missal (or any bastard version of it).
An exercise: Start using Dom Guerange's 15 volume Liturgical Year at Mass as opposed to the Vatican II/transitional missal of "Blessed John XXIII (the second)/Archbishop Annibale Bugnini" (likely roomates in the hereafter).
Firstly, the beauty of liturgy will come alive, then sorrow... that so much has been lost, and gradually as your sensus fidelium starts to kick in, a Holy Anger will certainly overcome you.
Excellent suggestion! I think I'm going to try that out. I know several people who
use their Liturgical year books as a daily missal. Mine set on the shelf most
of the time, and I don't think I've ever read one of them all the way through.
In the mean time, I think it would be great for each one of us to call Angelus Press
tomorrow, or this week sometime, and ask them when the half-price sale starts on
their obsolete 1962 missals. That should give them something to think about.
[/color]
:laugh1: :roll-laugh2: :applause: :laugh2:
-
An update to this thread. At last! from CFN for those who have not read it.
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page59/hybridtridentinemass.html
trid-mass-facing
Pope Benedict’s “long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist,
but to move toward a ‘common rite’ that is shaped by the mutual enrichment
of the two Mass forms...” – Cardinal Koch
Revised Traditional Missal Planned
for Next Summer in Rome?
The Principle of Gradualism • Toward A Hybrid Mass
By John Vennari
The Eponymous Flower posted a translation from the “usually well-informed” German Summorum Pontificuм website (summorumpontificuм.de) about possible changes in the Tridentine Mass that are proposed by the Vatican for next summer.
According to the August 16 report, “a new edition of the Old Missal has so far progressed enough that it will be published next summer so that it can be used in 2013.” The key points of alteration:
• Allowance of the usage of new prefaces for all feasts, which correspond to the Novus Ordo prefaces;
• General allowance of the Traditional Mass to be celebrated "versus populum" [Mass facing the people];
• Permission to say the 'Liturgy of the Word' [the Mass up to and including the Creed] in the language of the people [which facilitates the use of the Cramner table];[1]
We already saw one of these proposals last year. The Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei stated in a formal instruction of April 30, 2011: “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.”[2]
We appear to be entering a 1965-styled “transitional Mass” all over again; the principle of gradualism is at work once more. Yet no well-informed Catholic should find this surprising.
The proposed changes in liturgy go hand-in-glove with Pope Benedict’s “reform of the reform” as explained by Cardinal Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Catholic News Service reported on May 14, 2011:
“Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a ‘reform of the reform’ in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecuмenist said.
“The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a ‘common rite’ that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms...”[3]
Pope Benedict’s “reform of the reform” that seeks to save Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is consistent with his approach to the Council in general, as we will demonstrate.
Yet the whole purpose of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy – as is clear from its true draftsmen – was to usher in a ecuмenical Liturgical Revolution that had been in the works for decades.[4]
In 1966, Father Annibale Bugnini, a central architect of the New Mass, boasted that the purpose of Vatican II’s Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy was to usher in “the boldest and most fundamental liturgical reform of all times.”[5]
Benedict’s Claim: No Rupture, but Continuity
Throughout the years since Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI has been constant in his claim that the “correct” position for the Catholic is neither clinging to the Church prior to the Council that would dismiss all or part of Vatican II, nor the extreme liberal approach that sees Vatican II as a new “starting from zero”, but the Church of today. This is the Church in light of the Council that avoids these two “extremes”. For him, Sacred Tradition is not the center of gravity that must interpret all things, but Vatican II. For him, Vatican II represents no rupture with the past, but continuity.
By contrast the Traditional Catholic position holds the Catholic Faith taught “in the same meaning and in the same explanation”[6] throughout the centuries as the absolute criteria for Catholic Truth. Anything from Vatican II that fits this criterion may be regarded as true.[7] Anything that does not fit may be questioned. This was what we learned from Council Secretary Archbishop Felici.
At the end of Vatican II, the Council Fathers asked Archbishop (later-Cardinal) Felici for what theologians call the theological note of the Council. In other words, what is the status of the Vatican II docuмents?
Cardinal Felici replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which already have been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”[8]
Thus, Cardinal Felici recognized that Vatican II contained novelties no Catholic is bound to accept. These novelties, such as ecuмenism, religious liberty, and its new approach to Judaism (that implies Jews need not convert to Catholicism for salvation), are contrary to what the Church always taught, and have proved disastrous for the Church and for souls.
Pope Benedict, however, has always claimed, and continues to claim, that the Vatican II docuмents must be the center of gravity. Pope Benedict’s position about the centrality of Vatican II is consistent over the decades. He repeats this same point again and again. Yet too many well-meaning Catholics read into his words what they want to read, and falsely view him as a Pope of Tradition, or that he has now suddenly changed to a more traditionalist position. Sadly, this is not the case.
We will take a quick look at Joseph Ratzinger’s statements over a thirty year span, from 1975 to 2005. His approach to the Council is consistent, it does not change.
1975-2005
In 1975, then Father Ratzinger wrote, “It is impossible (for the Catholic) to take a position for Vatican II and against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it is clearly expressed and understood itself, accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous Councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism’, at least in its extreme form.”
Second, said Father Ratzinger, “It is impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”[9]
Ten years later, in the 1985 Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori explains that Cardinal Ratzinger repeatedly insists “it is not Vatican II and it’s docuмents that are problematic,” but these problems “lie in the manifold [bad] interpretation” of the docuмents.”[10] The Ratzinger Report’s chapter on the Council carries the subheading “Not Rupture, but Continuity”.[11]
We see here in 1985 the exact same theme Pope Benedict returns to in his famous December 22, 2005 speech against the “hermeneutic of rupture” in favor of a “hermeneutic of reform” and continuity. For now we repeat his words of 1985.
Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1985, “To defend the true tradition of the Church means to defend the Council.” Against any notion of rupture, “there is instead a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward… We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the docuмents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without aberrations that distort them.”[12]
He places Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX among those who would “amputate” parts of the Council by reservation, and rejects this as unacceptable. [In fact, this is the crux of the present SSPX/Rome discussions.] Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to explain in 1985 that he must defend the “true” Council in an effort to undermine the SSPX position: “This places the further obligation upon us to show the true face of the Council; thus one will be able to cut the ground from under these false protests.”[13]
Cardinal Ratzinger also said in 1985 there can be “no restoration” in the sense of turning back prior to Vatican II. Rather, “by restoration” we must mean “the search for a new balance…”[14]
We can at least give credit to Cardinal Ratzinger for never changing his position. It is consistent throughout the years up to the present.
In October 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a docuмent that contained thirty-nine doubts (dubia) concerning incongruities between Vatican II’s new doctrine on Religious Liberty and the consistent teaching of the Church from the past.
Rome replied to Archbishop Lefebvre’s Dubia with a fifty-page docuмent that considered none of the doubts in particular. Cardinal Ratzinger’s office admitted that Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty was “incontestably a novelty”, but claimed it was the outcome of “doctrinal development of continuity.”[15]
Archbishop Lefebvre considered this response even more scandalous than the pan-religious prayer meeting at Assisi. “For it is one thing to perform a serious and scandalous act,” said the Archbishop, “but quite another thing to affirm false principles that in practice have disastrous consequences,” which is the practical overturning of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the “pantheon of all religions”.[16]
Fast forward to 2005, we see the same theme of “no rupture, but continuity” in Pope Benedict’ now-famous Christmas speech of December 22, 2005. Here he lays out the program of his pontificate. Here he once again insists there has been a “hermeneutic [interpretation] of discontinuity and rupture” that has distorted the true Council. What we must have instead is the “hermeneutic of reform”, or “renewal in continuity” so that the Council is not “misunderstood.” Yet Pope Benedict spends a good part of this December speech praising the Council’s new approach to the world, its new approach to Religious Liberty, and its new approach to Judaism, which are rightly regarded as some of the most revolutionary aspects of Vatican II.[17 ]
Thus we see Pope Benedict’s consistent claim that there is no turning back regarding Vatican II, and that we must “search for a new balance” to establish a “renewal in continuity”. It is fair to deduce this as the thinking behind Benedict’s plan to create a “‘common rite’ that is shaped by the “mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms,” a new balance of the old and the new.
A Ten-Year Program of Gradualism?
As noted, Cardinal Koch revealed Pope Benedict’s “long-term plan” to “move toward a common rite.”
Another piece of evidence shows that Pope Benedict would favor a long period of gradualism to this Hybrid Mass. It comes from a letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1999, in which the Cardinal agrees it would have been smarter for the period of liturgical change from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo to have been a gradual process over ten years.
Fr. Matias Auge CMF, a veteran professor of liturgy in Rome, former consultant to the Congregation for Divine Worship and disciple of the reformers of the 1960's, published an exchange of letters that he had with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of the reform of the sacred liturgy.” In his February 18, 1999 letter to Fr. Auge, Cardinal Ratzinger said the following:
“…a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.”[18]
It is fair to surmise that Pope Benedict’s “move toward a ‘common rite’ that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms” may be rolled out within the framework of gradualism that could last ten years; getting traditional Catholics used to it little by little, so that the full alleged intention of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy can be realized.
Yet if we are to “return to the authentic texts of Vatican II,”[19] it is useful to ask: what is the true nature of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? We already have Archbishop Bugnini’s statement that it’s purpose was to usher in “the boldest and most fundamental liturgical reform of all times.”
Likewise, the following Protestant testimony is instructive, as it demonstrates the Schema itself as tinged with Protestant-friendly propositions. This should be no surprise, since Father Ratzinger in 1966 lauded the fact that the Council texts were drawn up to be open to the ecuмenical orientation.[20]
Protestant Testimony
John Moorman, an Anglican “Bishop” from Yorkshire, England, was a Protestant Observer at the Second Vatican Council.
In 1963, he wrote a revealing article for The Thomist entitled “An Observer Looks at the Schema on the Liturgy.” This article, and others like it, help to explain the true nature of Vatican II’s liturgical reform from the beginning.
Moorman opens by expressing satisfaction that the Catholic Church is finally getting involved with the Ecuмenical Movement. This is significant, notes Moorman, as Rome had remained aloof from the Ecuмenical Movement since its inception.
He also expresses a certain satisfaction that he is well aware that his presence – that is, the presence of Protestant Observers at the Council — is having a silent influence on the speeches of the Council Fathers. This is one of the reasons why Protestant Observers should not have been there. The bishops should have been able to speak freely without any external intimidation.
Anglican John Moorman says in praise of Vatican II’s Schema on the Liturgy:
“The Schema on the Liturgy is a remarkable docuмent. As a student of history, and to some extent, a traveler in Europe, I know something about Roman Catholic worship, and I was delighted to see how far the Schema was prepared to go in reforms which, to an Anglican like myself, seem so much to be desired.”[21]
“When I read the Schema on the Liturgy, I realized that many of the proposals which were put before the Council were in fact points which we ourselves accepted four hundred years ago. These would include greater simplicity, the use of the vernacular, more readings of Scriptures, more preaching and catechizing, the part assigned to the faithful in the Mass, [and] the possibility of administering the Sacrament under both kinds.”
Moorman goes on to say:
“In reading the Schema on the Liturgy, I could not help but thinking that if the Church of Rome were to carry out all the reforms proposed they would one day find they had triumphantly invented the Book of Common Prayer.”[22]
We see from the very beginning that Vatican II’s Schema on the Liturgy had a Protestant influence. In the rest of his 1963 article John Moorman focuses on five of those Protestant-friendly principles prominent in the Schema, that he hopes will become major factors in Vatican II’s Liturgical Reform:
1) The plan for more and varied use of Scripture in the Liturgy;
2) The place of the laity in the worship of the Church;
3) The use of the vernacular;
4) The need for more preaching;
5) Communion under both kinds.
These propositions are more or less evident (embedded) in the original Schema. We need to keep this in mind when we hear today those in high place who say there is nothing wrong with the docuмents of Vatican II, they have merely been misinterpreted; we have to return to the true Council. Yet, this is the true Council: Protestant-friendly propositions that are present in the docuмent itself.
We will look at Moorman’s five points one-by-one:
1) The plan for more and varied use of Scripture in the Liturgy
A Protestant would favor such a development because in the Protestant liturgy, there is no sacrifice. There is no re-presentation of the same Sacrifice of Calvary offered through the hands of the priest, who takes the place of Christ. In the Protestant system, there is the rejection of Sacred Tradition as a source of Revelation. Their system rests on “the Bible Alone”. This is why the Protestant wants more Scripture in Liturgy. For the Catholic, however, it is by no means necessary. It is crucial to understand that the Protestant emphasis on Scripture is a weakness of the Protestant position, not a strength. The Protestant is weakened because he rejects the truth that Sacred Tradition is an older and ampler source of Divine Revelation than is Scripture (particularly the New Testament). Thus, the Catholic Church, which recognizes the truth that there are two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, does not really need more Scripture reading in Liturgy for the sake of giving God the worship that is His due. As much as we revere the Bible, we do not need more use of Scripture in the Mass that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself established as primarily a Sacrifice.
2) The Place of the Laity in the Worship of the Church
Anglican Moorman correctly explains that the centrality of the Priest is based on the Sacrifice of the Mass. This centrality makes no sense in Protestant worship, as the Protestant Minister does not offer sacrifice for the living and the dead, does not change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord as does the Catholic priest. The Protestant Minister does not have an indelible mark on his soul given through the Sacrament of Holy Orders that makes him different in essence from a layman.
Thus the Protestant wants to make liturgy a “more corporate act” (Moorman’s words). This is why Moorman was in favor of the Dialogue Mass, of Offertory processions by laypeople, and anything that would give the laity a greater a role in the liturgy itself.
But again, the need for introducing more active corporal involvement with the laity is a weakness in the Protestant system, not a strength. The active corporal participation of laity in Protestantism underscores the basic error of Protestant theology that there is no such thing as a sacramental priesthood. The Protestant minister is nothing more than a layman who is given certain liturgical duties. He is no different in essence from other laypeople in the congregation. Thus laypeople can have a greater part in the actions of liturgy: which translates into the various lay-ministries. This is a weakness in the Protestant system, based on its rejection of the sacramental priesthood established by Our Lord, that Catholics need not imitate.
3) The Use of the Vernacular
This follows from the desire of Common Worship between Catholics and Protestants. Yet even the Anglican Moorman thought that the vernacular would only be applied to the didactic parts of the Catholic Mass. He said he doubted it would be applied to the Offertory and the Canon. The all-vernacular new rite (Novus Ordo) has gone way beyond even what this Protestant envisioned.
4) The Need for More Preaching
Anglican Moorman wants more preaching so that, as he says, he wants you to “bear witness to your faith in a world that has largely forgotten God.”
Again we note that the Protestant’s call for more preaching reflects the weakness in the Protestant system, not a strength. This is not to devalue Catholic preaching, which is an essential element of the priest’s duty, and part of the specific mandate he receives at ordination. Rather, we merely point out that preaching is central in the Protestant system because Protestants are deprived of the true sacrifice of Calvary re-presented on the altar, and are deprived of the Sacraments. They do not go to church to receive an increase in sanctifying grace, or to have their sins forgiven (for even the absolution after Confitier remits venial sin). Rather, Protestants go to church for “fellowship” in worship, to sing together, and to hear a long, inspiring sermon that will help them live their beliefs with conviction.
5) Communion Under Both Kinds
Again, without belaboring the point: the insistence of the Protestant administering both bread and wine to their congregation is a weakness in their system, not a strength. The Protestant rejects the Catholic Church’s teaching, solemnly defined by the Council of Trent, that Christ is present entirely, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the consecrated Host and in the consecrated Wine. Thus receiving under one species is all that is necessary for the Catholic. (Moorman says flat-out in his article that “we Anglicans reject the Council of Trent’s theory of concomitance”).
Hence, Catholics should understand that there is no real need to adopt any of the five elements enunciated by the Anglican Moorman. These practices are, in fact, manifestations of weaknesses in the Protestant system, and are based upon a rejection of bedrock, infallible truths taught by the Catholic Church. None of these practices need be imitated by the Catholic. Yet the Protestant-friendly principles spotlighted by Moorman are constitutive elements in Vatican II’s Schema on the liturgy.
It remains to be seen how many of these Conciliar principles will be incorporated in Pope Benedict’s final “common liturgy” revealed by Cardinal Koch
.
Pope Benedict “freed” the Tridentine Mass in 2007, yet in 2008 he had already changed a piece of it by promoting a new Good Friday prayer that is more in line with the spirit of Vatican II.
The New Good Friday Prayer
In Light of the World, released in late 2010, Pope Benedict explains that he purposely changed the Old Liturgy's Good Friday Prayer because Jews found it offensive. He also invokes the fact, as he does in his other writings,[23] that the Jews are destined to convert after the "Time of the Gentiles". When the interviewer asks Benedict why in February 2008 he changed the Old Good Friday prayer, he answers:
“...in the old liturgy this point seemed to me to require a modification. The old formulation really was offensive to Jews and failed to express the positively overall intrinsic unity between the Old and New Testament. I believed that a modification of this passage of the old liturgy was necessary, especially, as I have already said, out of consideration for our relation with our Jєωιѕн friends. I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all, that there are not two channels of salvation, so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles. But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense to a plea that the Lord might bring about the hour in history when we may all be united.”[24]
Here we see the major points in Benedict's thinking:
1) The ancient prayer of the Church for the conversion of Jews was not theologically correct and needed modification, as it failed to consider the "positive intrinsic unity" of the Old and New Testaments;
2) The prayer should be changed because it is "offensive to Jews";
3) The focus of the Good Friday prayer is shifted from praying for the conversion "in a missionary sense" here and now, to "hasten the day" when the time of the Gentiles will be complete, "the hour in history" for the conversion of the Jews "when all may be united..” But the Conciliar Church does not formally pray for their conversion today.
4) There are not two channels of salvation, but one: Christ, who is ultimately the redeemer of Jew and Gentile alike
.
This last point on the centrality of Christ should not be viewed as some sort of reestablishment of traditional teaching, since it is more in line with the new approach to interreligious dialogue that even the Modernist Father Jacques Dupuis propounded. In 2003, at the interreligious conference in Fatima that I attended, I heard Jacques Dupuis state that the purpose of interreligious dialogue is to "make a Buddhist a better Buddhist, a Hindu a better Hindu". Dupuis denounced the Council of Florence's infallible statement on "outside the Church there is no salvation" as a "horrible text".[25]
But even Dupuis insisted that the salvation of the "others" (non-Catholics) ultimately comes through Christ and not by means of their own religion. Thus, when we look at the complete package of Benedict's teaching on the centrality of Christ regarding Jews (whom he never says need to convert for salvation),[26] we see it is more in line with the modernist Jacques Dupuis than with the Catholic magisterium of the centuries. Christ is their Savior, but there is no immediate need for these non-Catholics to convert to Christ's one true Church to be saved.
Conclusion
We thus see the following:
1) A “Hybrid” Mass appears to be in the works that “is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms,” the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo.
2) There are now reports that a new Missal will be published in 2013 that makes it optional (for now) to have Mass Facing the People, an all-vernacular liturgy up to and including the Creed; and saints and readings incorporated from the new calendar;
3) Cardinal Koch speaks of this “common-rite” project as Benedict’s long-term plan; and Benedict himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1999, said he favored a gradualism in liturgical change to last as long as ten years;
4) The new common rite reflects Pope Benedict’s unswerving insistence over the years that there can be no turning back to a pre-Vatican II model, and that we must “search for a new balance” between the old and the new;
5) Pope Benedict insists that we must return to the true texts of the Council. Yet the true text of The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is written to be open to the ecuмenical orientation, a fact that is recognized and celebrated by the Protestant John Moorman;
6) We have already seen a change in the Tridentine Mass with the 2008 introduction of the new Good Friday Prayer that is more in line with the Vatican II approach;
7) Benedict’s “Reform of the Reform” in liturgy goes hand-in-glove with his “Reform in Continuity” that seeks a balance between tradition and some of the most revolutionary aspects of Vatican II.
Will the Vatican expect a “regularized” SSPX to eventually publish a new missal that includes these changes; as well as Mass readings for the June 3 Feast Day of “Blessed John XXIII,” and the October 22 Feast Day of “Blessed John Paul II”? I don’t think the SSPX will comply, but will they be under continual pressure to do so?
Pope Saint Pius X warned in Pascendi that for the Modernist, everything in the Church is subject to change and must change. This includes both dogma and liturgy. We see this Modernist lust for change once again rearing its head in the latest proposal for a “revised” Tridentine Mass.
- end -
Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1985 that he must present what he called the “true Council” in order to “cut the ground” from under objections against the Council from Archbishop Lefebvre and traditional Catholics. Yet the “true Council” texts, as Archbishop Lefebvre rightly warned in 1964, “have a spirit of rupture and ѕυιcιdє.”
Notes:
1. Eponymous Flower Blogspot, August 16, 2012
2. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html#_ftnref9
3. “Pope's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says,” Catholic News Service, May 16, 2011. (quoted by Stephen Dupuy, “The Ides of April,” The Remnant, April 10, 2012).
4. This was also covered in “The Deviated Liturgical Movement,” John Vennari, Catholic Family News, July 2012.
5. A. Bugnini, “President of the Consilium, Miscellna liturgica in onore di Sua Eminenza Cardinal Giacomo Larcaro, I (Tourmai: Desclée, 1966), p. 11. Quoted from Archbishop Piero Marini, A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007], pp. 15-16.
6.As defined in Vatican I and set out in the Oath Against Modernism.
7. Even here, the problems with Vatican II are more profound than whether a given statement conforms to traditional doctrine or not. The drafters of Vatican II employed an entirely new approach that makes the docuмents problematic in themselves. The drafters deliberately refused to employ the precision of scholastic language; they utilized ambiguity so the texts could contain two opposing interpretations; the texts were often deficient by remaining silent on key points that should have been reiterated. Part I of the Si Si No No series on “The Errors of the Council” spotlights Vatican II’s ambiguous juridical nature, the contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic “modern thinking,” and relevant omissions. A detailed exposition of these and other points would take us too far afield from the central discussion of this article, which is the proposal for the “revised” Tridentine Mass and how it fits Pope Benedict’s overall “reform of the reform” wherein Vatican II is the center of gravity for all things Catholic. For the Si Si No No series on the Council, go to www.cfnews.org/sisi-nono.htm
8.Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1992), p. 107. [emphasis added]
9. Thesen zum Thema Zehn Jahre Vaticanum II, Typewritten manuscript. Quoted by Vittorio Messori in The Ratzinger Report [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985], pp. 28-29.
10. The Ratzinger Report, Ibid., p. 29.
11. Ibid., p. 35.
12. Ibid., p. 30-31.
13. Ibid., p. 33.
14. Ibid., p. 37.
15. The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Tissier de Mallarais [Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2004], p. 548.
16. Ibid., p. 546.
17. “Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia Offering Them His Christmas Greetings,” December 22, 2005. From Vatican webpage.
18. “A 1999 letter by Cardinal Ratzinger on the reform of the liturgy," Rorate Caeli, September 29, 2010. (quoted by Stephen Dupuy, “The Ides of April,” The Remnant, April 10, 2012) [Emphasis added].
19. The Ratzinger Report, p. 31.
20. Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Father Joseph Ratzinger [New York: Paulist Press, 1966], p. 23.
21. It should be noted that Moorman’s article was written prior to the Council officially adopted the Schema as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. At the time of writing this, he is not sure how much of these “desired reforms” will be accepted by the Council. In a short amount of time, the “reform” went well beyond these measures lauded by Moorman.
22. “An Observer Looks at the Schema on the Liturgy”, John Moorman, DD., Bishop or Ripon, (Ripon, Yorkshire, England), from the Special Issue of The Thomist (Volume XXVII complete, April, July, October, 1963) published in book form as Vatican II: The Theological Dimension, Edited by Anthony D. Lee, O.P. [Thomist Press, 1963], p. 442-443.
23. This is demonstrated in detail in “Common Witness and Significant Silence”, J. Vennari, Catholic Family News, April 2011. On line at: www.cfnews.org/b16-significantsilence.htm
24. Light of the World, Benedict XVI, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010] pp. 106-107.
25. See “Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine: An Account from One who was There”, John Vennari, Catholic Family News, December 2003. [Reprint #890 available from CFN for $3.00 postpaid This report and a number of reports about the interfaith activity at Fatima are on line at: www.cfnews.org/Fatima.htm
26. This is demonstrated in detail in “Common Witness and Significant Silence”. See note 23 above.
From the September 2012 edition of Catholic Family News
Click here to subscribe
-
Thank you Marie Auxiliadora and stevusmagnus for your very informative posts. What a treasure you both are, truth bearers informing all of us. I did not know of any of this until now.
I was recently in Rome, Italy and went to many churches and sites. I have found, not surprisingly, much of our faith as 'watered down'.
This got me to thinking. It may be wise for us to collect copies of older books. I have been looking up books published by Benzinger Brothers and am thinking of starting a collection.
One has to be careful with any of the newer publications on the lives of the saints or any other topic concerning our Catholic religion as much is watered down.
Thank you again Marie A and stevusmagnus.
By the way, is there a copy of the Roman Rite during Pope Leo the XIII? -- By the way I visited his tomb and prayed for his intercession for our poor church. I also visited Pope Pius X's and invoked his intercession.
-
The reason +ABL agreed to the 1962 Missal was because it was validly promulgated by the Pope and did not compromise the faith, in his opinion.
However, a new Missal is not necessary to merely add saints. My 1945 Breviary and Missal have inserts that were printed for the newly canonized Saint Pius X. So if that happens with JPII, the SSPX chapels could just misplace the new inserts.
If the new missal contains the feasts of JPII and other dubiously voted-in saints and blesseds, I would hope that SSPX would either continue using original '62 Missal or revert to the 1945 book and Breviary.
I suspect that the latter will not happen. If the 1962 book were reformed and the Society is not recognized by the Vatican, there is no means to demand compliance. If the Vatican and the SSPX were to negotiate a recognition, I would hope the Society does what most Bishops are allowed to do - vote on it and refuse to use it.
-
This is the post I meant to bring up from the link above. Some of the emphasis are mine.
Original link:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/10/possible-future-of-tridentine-liturgy.html
Friday, October 13, 2006
The Possible Future of the Tridentine Liturgy: An Analysis
by Shawn Tribe
There is a great deal of speculative journalism going on with regards to the Tridentine docuмent forthcoming, which is perhaps mixing up what we presently know about this docuмent as it may stand, and what are perhaps some of the lobbying and/or debates that are behind the scenes in regard to it.
I should like to break down the matter by looking at the possible end results that might forthcome from all this, if we base it upon what some journalists are suggesting they are hearing, and then analyze these in the light of the liturgical considerations of Benedict.
Let me note, this is not a prediction. It's an attempt to dissect all the stories that are out there that we might think about the issue critically and responsibly.
Possible Liturgical Ends of the Tridentine Docuмent:
1) The Ordinary/Normative Model: Total liberalization of the 1962 Missale Romanum within an ordinary model -- no restrictions at all.
2) The Extraordinary/Normative Model: Near total liberalization within an "extra-ordinary" model. Normative in that sense of full allowance and full membership in the Roman rite, but not the ordinary rite. No permission is required, but with possible guidelines in terms of how much it might be used in a typical diocesan parish setting in relation to the ordinary rite.
3) The Inversed-Indult Model: Permission is a granted norm, excepting at the intervention of the local Ordinary who may choose, within certain defined criterions, to not allow.
4) The Free-upon-local-Conditions Model: Permission is granted, but the local Ordinary may choose to lay down the local diocesan conditions whereby that permission can be exercised in public masses -- e.g. perhaps a numerical matter of 30 or more faithful requesting, etc. -- but where, theoretically at least, if those criterion are filled, the Ordinary is not to deny.
Benedict's Liturgical and Pastoral Thought:
1) Leaven is needed for the reform of the reform, but it must occur in a way which is not an adminstrative tinkering with the Pauline books, as happened at the Council, and which Benedict is steadfast in resisting as an approach. He has long seen the 1962 Missale Romanum as having an answer to this. It's wider celebration, and permeation into the greater parish life of the Roman rite might thereby help kickstart the reform of the reform.
2) Benedict was dismayed at the abolishment of this rite which had grown up through the centuries, something he saw as very damaging and unprecedented.
3) Benedict desires to reach out to groups like the SSPX, for whom the free celebration of this rite, and its non-indult status is an important point.
4) Aware of the crisis in the Church, liturgically, theologically, etc. and the hermeneutic of rupture, there is a need to draw traditional liturgics, theology, formation and so on very clearly in the heart and centre, and no longer be written off as somehow "fringe" that the voice of the tradition may again be more clearly heard and that a hermeneutic of continuity may be more clearly seen.
5) Pastorally, Benedict is aware that despite the problems with the Pauline reforms, this is also a liturgy that has been around for decades and which many are now used to, or have only known. A radical shift will be harmful in his view just as it was following the Council. He will want to pastorally protect those faithful from this.
6) He will want to respond to the concerns of the bishops and will want to somehow give them some assurance so as not to provoke new schisms, and to help secure their tacit cooperation in the matter so that points 1 and 3 might also be accomplished still.
7) He will want to make clear that this is not a rejection of the Council or the principle of the Conciliar liturgical reform, while balancing this with point 1 and the need for a reform of the reform.
Analysis of these Possible Ends in the light of these Benedictine Considerations:
Model #1: (the ordinary/normative model that sees absolutely no restrictions) seems unlikely as there would be too much opposition from members of the episcopate and parts of the Curia. While it might work out fine, many would critique this, rightly or wrongly, as a rejection of the Council. Benedict, I think, cannot afford the docuмent to be too utterly controversial as it could then backfire and not have the effects desired for the reform of the reform, for groups like the SSPX, etc. As well, he will want to protect consideration #5 in regard to the faithful accustomed to the Pauline rite.
Model #3: (the inversed indult; whereby permission is granted unless explicitly denied by the bishop) seems possible but a little less likely in regards to the SSPX issue on the one hand, and secondarily, perhaps, in Benedict's awareness that there have been trials in applying the existing indult of 1988. The SSPX will likely see this as not being a real shift, since ultimately an arbitrary judgement on the part of the Ordinary could still occur. Moreover, it also has the greater potential to not allow the same leavening effect for the reform of the reform. After model #2, this model does seem to be a very strong contender as a possibiilty with the caveat that it depends upon the nature and conditions of the Bishop's authority to disallow, which could thus also lessen the SSPX's concern about arbitrary disallowance.
Model #4: faces very similiar issues as #3, but seems even less likely than #3.
Model #2: would seem to meet all the considerations of Benedict the best. The denotation of ordinary vs. extraordinary, and any numerical stipulation about what may or may not happen in non-personal parishes protects the status of the FSSP, etc. while also addressing the pastoral concerns of the typical diocesan parish, and potentially can assauge the concerns of those bishops who simply are concerned with the matter from a pastoral perspective, rather than an ideological opposition to the 1962 Missal. Such a denotation and "caveat" also protects the idea that this is not a rejection of the Council, while allowing for the greatest overall freedom (which the SSPX will want to see) for the 1962 Missal. This in turns bodes the best for it kickstarting a reform of the reform.
Further considerations that could influence the model chosen:
The wildcard in all these considerations comes down to the bishops and the level of their opposition. How will Benedict manage this? Will he be able to do so without compromising his own liturgical vision to date? This is a key question that we cannot answer.
-
(Emphasis mine)
Announcements
http://sacraliturgia2013.com/
Sacra Liturgia 2013
An international conference to study, promote and renew the appreciation of liturgical formation and celebration and its foundation for the mission of the Church, particularly in the light of the teaching and example of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, falling within the Year of Faith called for by the Holy Father to commemorate 50 years since the start of the Second Vatican Council, in accordance with the pastoral recommendations for the Year of Faith issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Toulon, France, 2nd October 2012: The Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, France, Monsignor Dominique Rey, has announced a major international conference on the Sacred Liturgy to take place in Rome from June 25-28, 2013.
The conference brings together a wide range of renowned international speakers including Cardinals Ranjith and Burke, Archbishop Di Noia, Bishop Mark Aillet and Monsignors Guido Marini and Andrew Burnham.
“The Sacred Liturgy is at the centre of the new evangelisation,” Bishop Rey said. “The liturgy is the source and summit of the life and the mission of the Church,” he emphasised, “which is why, for the Year of Faith, we are following up on the success of our conference on Eucharistic Adoration (Adoratio 2011) with a conference specifically focussing on the liturgy and liturgical formation as the point of departure for the new evangelisation. In this we are following the example of the Holy Father, whose teaching and example continue to underline the fundamental and unique role of the Sacred Liturgy in all aspects of the life of the Church and its mission.”
Sacra Liturgia 2013 will take place at the central Roman location of the Pontifical University of Santa Croce and will include more than sixteen conferences as well as the solemn celebration of Mass in the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite. It will open and close with the solemn celebration of Vespers. Approximately 300 participants are expected.
Registrations for the whole conference will open in January and part-time registrations will be possible from Easter. Simultaneous translation of the presentations will be provided in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish.
Bishop Rey thanked the sponsors, Ignatius Press, the Knights of Columbus, CIEL UK and Human Life International: “Their generous and ready support of this initiative has enabled the conference planning to proceed on a sound financial footing. Further support is needed, especially with a view to subsidising the participation of students in this important event.”
Conference participants plan to join with Pope Benedict in his celebration of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul at the Vatican Basilica on the morning of Saturday, June 29th.
____________________________________________________________
SO, Who are Monsignor Dominique Rey and Bishop Mark Aillet?
Bishop Mark Aillet is the bishop for the "reform of the reform" community of St. Martin, France http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/03/reform-of-reform-communities-communaute.html and former vicar General of Msgr. Dominique Rey, bishop of Frejus- Toulon. He begun as a priest in the Community of St. Martin and promoted for to bishop in a few years for his R.R work.
Bishop Mark Aillet wrote the book "The Old Mass and the New": Explaining the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм of Pope Benedict XVI. http://www.amazon.com/Old-Mass-New-Explaining-Pontificuм/dp/1586173626#reader_1586173626 forwarded by Msgr. Dominique Rey who claims the hybrid "reform of the reform" missal coming is 'the renewal desired by St. Pius X, initiated by Pius XII...'
This conference June 25-28, 2013 will end with the joining "with Pope Benedict in his celebration of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul at the Vatican Basilica on the morning of Saturday, June 29th" no doubt to celebrate the NEW HYBRID which has already been announced for next summer. STAY TUNED!