Bishop Dolan bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the infamous Bishop-in-waiting Fr. Pfeiffer of Boston, Kentucky. Neither of them are reliable sources and both of them are surrounded by the overripe stench of the Jansenist heresy that serves their greed and false pride all too well. Best not to follow them there and leave them alone to croak like abandoned frogs in their tiny little sectarian mud puddles.
The Missal of 1962 and Breviary of 1961 embody the liturgical ideal of the saintly Pope Pius XII. He in turn was the true heir and disciple of the saintly Pope Pius IX and St. Pope Pius X. We should therefore expect that the liturgy as it stood in 1963 and 1964 had its own very high excellence and the most powerful religious reasons for being exactly as it was and still is. The underlying logic of our contemporary approved Latin liturgy is that the gaps between the Catholic Second and Third Estates (our military nobles and civilian commoners) had practically ceased to exist and the social and personal differences between the Catholic clergy (our First Estate) and the Catholic laity (our practically merged Second and Third Estates) had greatly lessened in comparison with the generations of Catholics from before the Twentieth Century. And in consequence the religious and moral gap between the Catholics and non-Catholics had dramatically increased in corresponding measure.
Therefore the Roman liturgy that would conform with the high ideals of Cardinal Pie and St. Pope Pius X would be easily usable by the Catholic laity and not require such advanced liturgical knowledge that only monasteries and secular clergy would be reasonably able to follow the Roman liturgy with propriety as had been the situation before the liturgy of Pope Pius XII was promulgated by Pope Pius XII's successor, Pope John XXIII.
When we reject the legitimate authority of the Popes before Paul VI we lack any objective basis for our Roman discipline and obedience and quickly fall into Jansenist errors or worse. In general, at present the sedevacantists are Jansenists and the Novus Ordo proper are Neo-Liberal Marxist Anabaptists. Neither are often anything like faithful historic Roman Catholics; those who actually do have the normal mainstream Catholic sense from before Vatican Two (something that this writer is old enough to remember clearly) are characterised by nothing so much as precisely the celebration together of the liturgy (both Missal and Breviary) of Pope Pius XII as finally proclaimed by his successor Pope John XXIII in 1961 and 1962.
In this history the hapless Italian Futurist and Ultra-Fascist fanatic Archbishop Bugnini is relatively insignificant, merely one more empty cipher in the Roman bureaucracy among countless others. He simply did whatever he was told to do and did it exceedingly well. His later heroic diplomatic service in Iran was nothing less than sterling. Bugnini always did as he was told like some unstoppable sorcerer's apprentice straight from the turbulent heart of the old Italian Fascist Party. For good and ill, he was a man of his time with a vengeance. Paul VI is personally responsible for the Novus Ordo, and no one else.
Also, passing judgement on the liturgy of Pope Pius XII presupposes some considerable knowledge of the civilisational trends of the actual historic Roman Catholicism of the past two and more centuries. Readers who have no clue why Novalis and the Congress of Vienna, Wagner and the reign of Napoleon III or the fervent Wagnerianism of the Catholic elite during the first three-quarters of the Twentieth Century would be relevant to this topic should have the sober good sense to leave well enough alone. The belief that we know better concerning the Roman Catholic liturgy than legitimate Catholic Popes such as Pius XII and John XXIII is terribly likely to be little more than pompous Jansenist presumption that leads us directly into the everlasting bitter freezing cold of the Outer Darkness.
The horrible examples of Bishop Dolan and Bishop-in-waiting Fr. Pfeiffer should tell us this with deafening horns blaring and lurid neon signs flashing.
We Catholics who have been privileged to share in the celebration of the approved Roman liturgy first established by the saintly Pope Pius XII and then quickly promulgated by his Papal successor are the last best hope of the surviving human race, such as we are. We have been given much and much is expected from us. Archbishop Lefebvre knew what he was doing and we had best follow his saintly example, because the legitimate liturgy of Popes Pius XII and John XXIII is the greatest fruit that the Archbishop's innumerable holy deeds have miraculously secured for us.
The inconceivably heroic dry martyrdom of Archbishop Lefebvre has won the legitimate Latin Mass of 1962 for the ferociously persecuted faithful Roman Catholics. We cast aspersions against the approved liturgy of the infallible Church of Rome using heretical Jansenist false pride and narrow-minded rationalism at our own risk.
Best not to go there!
Very interesting argument "Franciscan Solitary". I've forwarded your argument to
Fr.Paul Kramer. I have his permission to post in this forum his comments on your arguments. Below are his comments:
There are many generalities that are simply asserted gratuitously in the arguments, but no attempt to properly demonstrate his conclusions is made:1) ?We should therefore expect that the liturgy as it stood in 1963 and 1964 had its own very high excellence and the most powerful religious reasons for being exactly as it was and still is.?
He's telling us that we should blindly assume this uncritically. In fact, anyone who has used the 1963 - '64 liturgy after having used the liturgy of the 1920s and '30s (as I have) is struck by the notable corruption of the liturgy that took place already in the 1961 Missal.2) ?The underlying logic of our contemporary approved Latin liturgy is that the gaps between the Catholic Second and Third Estates (our military nobles and civilian commoners) had practically ceased to exist and the social and personal differences between the Catholic clergy (our First Estate) and the Catholic laity (our practically merged Second and Third Estates) had greatly lessened in comparison with the generations of Catholics from before the Twentieth Century. And in consequence the religious and moral gap between the Catholics and non-Catholics had dramatically increased in corresponding measure. ?
The assertions made in the above passage are gratuitously pontificated -- no attempt is made to demonstrate the point; and absolutely none of this addresses the problem of the Pacellian corruption of the liturgy in general, and particularly Bugnini's vandalizing of the Holy Week liturgy received and approved by the Church of Rome, and customarily used for centuries.3) ? Therefore the Roman liturgy that would conform with the high ideals of Cardinal Pie and St. Pope Pius X would be easily usable by the Catholic laity and not require such advanced liturgical knowledge that only monasteries and secular clergy would be reasonably able to follow the Roman liturgy with propriety as had been the situation before the liturgy of Pope Pius XII was promulgated by Pope Pius XII's successor, Pope John XXIII. ?
To the third point my reply is the same as to the second.4) ? When we reject the legitimate authority of the Popes before Paul VI we lack any objective basis for our Roman discipline and obedience and quickly fall into Jansenist errors or worse. In general, at present the sedevacantists are Jansenists and the Novus Ordo proper are Neo-Liberal Marxist Anabaptists. ?
More baseless twaddle -- again our expert deigns to pontificate a profusion of gratuitous assertions that he simply expets us to accept on the basis of his non-existent authority. No attempt is made to prove what he says.
Rejecting an illicit reform that violates the Church's teaching on the preservation of the liturgy from corruption and adulteration does not involve a rejection of the "legitimate authority of the popes before Paul VI", as our expert fallaciously claims, but is simply a refusal to accept an abusive reform that corrupts and alters the substance of the received and approved rite, which must not be altered; and which should not be followed, because it departs from the immemorial and universal liturgical custom of the Church of Rome. Such a refusal does not oppose legitimate authority, but is simply a refusal to accept an abusive reform that corrupts and alters the substance of the received and approved rite, (which must not be altered); and which should therefore not be followed.5) ?In this history the hapless Italian Futurist and Ultra-Fascist fanatic Archbishop Bugnini is relatively insignificant, merely one more empty cipher in the Roman bureaucracy among countless others. He simply did whatever he was told to do and did it exceedingly well. His later heroic diplomatic service in Iran was nothing less than sterling. Bugnini always did as he was told like some unstoppable sorcerer's apprentice straight from the turbulent heart of the old Italian Fascist Party. For good and ill, he was a man of his time with a vengeance. Paul VI is personally responsible for the Novus Ordo, and no one else. ?
A load of gratuitous Codswallop. Our expert is strongly opinionated, but his attempt to whitewash Bugnini's intriguing and manipulative knavery flies in the face of the historical facts, as have been reported by various authors, notably Michael Davies.
Our expert installs a halo on Pacelli's head, and says that we shohld simply on that basis alone, switch off our faculty of critical judgment, and blindly accept Pacalli's corruped liturgy, otherwise we will become Jansenists!6) ?Also, passing judgement on the liturgy of Pope Pius XII presupposes some considerable knowledge of the civilisational trends of the actual historic Roman Catholicism of the past two and more centuries. Readers who have no clue why Novalis and the Congress of Vienna, Wagner and the reign of Napoleon III or the fervent Wagnerianism of the Catholic elite during the first three-quarters of the Twentieth Century would be relevant to this topic should have the sober good sense to leave well enough alone. The belief that we know better concerning the Roman Catholic liturgy than legitimate Catholic Popes such as Pius XII and John XXIII is terribly likely to be little more than pompous Jansenist presumption that leads us directly into the everlasting bitter freezing cold of the Outer Darkness.
The horrible examples of Bishop Dolan and Bishop-in-waiting Fr. Pfeiffer should tell us this with deafening horns blaring and lurid neon signs flashing.
We Catholics who have been privileged to share in the celebration of the approved Roman liturgy first established by the saintly Pope Pius XII and then quickly promulgated by his Papal successor are the last best hope of the surviving human race, such as we are. We have been given much and much is expected from us. Archbishop Lefebvre knew what he was doing and we had best follow his saintly example, because the legitimate liturgy of Popes Pius XII and John XXIII is the greatest fruit that the Archbishop's innumerable holy deeds have miraculously secured for us.
The inconceivably heroic dry martyrdom of Archbishop Lefebvre has won the legitimate Latin Mass of 1962 for the ferociously persecuted faithful Roman Catholics. We cast aspersions against the approved liturgy of the infallible Church of Rome using heretical Jansenist false pride and narrow-minded rationalism at our own risk. ?
Our experts opinionated diatribe has now degenerated into the feverish blabberings of a loose cannon that has lost sight of his target, and wildly fires his shells at anything that does not march in lock step with his fear driven legalism, which is so poignantly manifested in his final errant shot: ?Best not to go there.?
Topic: SSPX and Resistance - What Missal ? - Pre and Post 1962 (Read 6560 times)