Author Topic: Which Missal for the Resistance: (Read 10037 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** November 18, 2012, 03:57:01 PM »

It being clear to most that the SSPX has lost it's way, the mobilization of local resistence chapels is now occurring in many locales.

One of the questions I have for Fr Pfeiffer is:

"It being well known that Archbishop Lefebvre only opted for the use of the 1962 Missal because it was the last version which retained minimal doctrinal orthodoxy, and not because he thought it the culmination and highest development of liturgical achievement...

And that his motive in choosing the 1962 Missal despite this knowledge was merely a conciliatory gesture to Rome to show good will while he was continually negotiating throughout the 1970s and early 1980s (as if to say, "I will come this far in an attempt to meet you, but no further.")..,

And that this version of the Missal was only cemented because of the controversy of the 9, for whom identification with the 1954 missal became to a certain degree synonymous with sedevacantism....

Will we once again have the opportunity (or at least the option) to revert to the fully traditional liturgy as expressed in the 1954 Missal (complete with the old Holy Week, octaves, vigils, rankings of feast days, etc), there being no pretension to sedevacantism among us?"

This is our chance to move away from modernism, not closer to it, and recover much that was lost between 1954 and 1962!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2012, 04:33:49 PM »

Just heard from someone who raised this issue w Fr Chazal, and unfortunately, despite the fact that all the reasons ABL decided upon the 1962 Missal (above) no longer apply, they are sticking with it for no other reason than it is what ABL did.

Another golden opportunity missed.

Domitilla · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2012, 05:14:09 PM »

Fr. Bolduc celebrated Mass according to the 1948-50 Missal, as does Fr. Perez and his confreres. I can only hope that will be the future Missal of Tradition.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2012, 05:25:21 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

Fr. Bolduc celebrated Mass according to the 1948-50 Missal, as does Fr. Perez and his confreres. I can only hope that will be the future Missal of Tradition.

That would have been even better I.e., Bignini started tinkering in 1948, I think).

I would have been plenty happy with the 1954, since the differences between 1948 a 1954 are not significant, in my opinion.

But it seems like the issue will be moot, unless someone else comes to the rescue besides Fr Pfeiffer's group.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2012, 07:45:34 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

It being clear to most that the SSPX has lost it's way, the mobilization of local resistence chapels is now occurring in many locales.

One of the questions I have for Fr Pfeiffer is:

"It being well known that Archbishop Lefebvre only opted for the use of the 1962 Missal because it was the last version which retained minimal doctrinal orthodoxy, and not because he thought it the culmination and highest development of liturgical achievement...

And that his motive in choosing the 1962 Missal despite this knowledge was merely a conciliatory gesture to Rome to show good will while he was continually negotiating throughout the 1970s and early 1980s (as if to say, "I will come this far in an attempt to meet you, but no further.")..,

And that this version of the Missal was only cemented because of the controversy of the 9, for whom identification with the 1954 missal became to a certain degree synonymous with sedevacantism....

Will we once again have the opportunity (or at least the option) to revert to the fully traditional liturgy as expressed in the 1954 Missal (complete with the old Holy Week, octaves, vigils, rankings of feast days, etc), there being no pretension to sedevacantism among us?"

This is our chance to move away from modernism, not closer to it, and recover much that was lost between 1954 and 1962!

Seventy times seven thumbs Up!!!

I bring Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year to Mass and follow it throughout the year for devotion's sake and to keep me in a state of disgust regarding the Liturgical Revolution.

Bugnini's 62 transitional Missal and Breviary was a huge milestone in the Liturgical Revolution (as was the new Holy Week). It is time to toss it back from whence it came.

We no longer need to play politics. When Rome again becomes Catholic, it will most certainly go back to the Traditional Missal and Holy Week.

In Dom Gueranger's humble opinion (IDGHO)

magdalena · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2012, 08:25:12 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

Fr. Bolduc celebrated Mass according to the 1948-50 Missal, as does Fr. Perez and his confreres. I can only hope that will be the future Missal of Tradition.

I totally agree. It would be best to use the 1948-50 Missal--pre-Bugnini.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2012, 09:02:00 PM »

I agree, the 1948-1950 Missal should be used.

Francisco · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2012, 09:32:43 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Just heard from someone who raised this issue w Fr Chazal, and unfortunately, despite the fact that all the reasons ABL decided upon the 1962 Missal (above) no longer apply, they are sticking with it for no other reason than it is what ABL did.

Another golden opportunity missed.

Yes, another a golden opportunity missed! Well said Seraphim! There have been posts on the net that Archbishop Lefebvre nearer the time of his death, wanted to revert to the St Pius X Missal. But, of course, Fr Schmidberger was the boss then. This extract is taken from the Anonymous Posts Section of this Forum. Hopefully, Frs Chazal and Pfeiffer will get to read it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snatched from another forum!
Emphasis added

The following is the last thing the Archbishop wrote for publication - three weeks before he passed to his reward.
Quote
Introduction
_____________
Father Giulio Tam, a member of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X of Italian origin, who receives daily the “Osservatore Romano”, the official journal of the Roman Curia, has thought good, for the information of his confreres, to gather together the most significant passages from the discourses of the Pope and the Roman authorities about the most topical subjects.

The collection sheds such brilliant light on the doctrinal Revolution officially inaugurated in the Church during the Council and continued up to our days that one cannot help thinking of the “seat of iniquity” foretold by Leo XIII, or of Rome losing the faith foretold by Our Lady at La Salette.

The diffusion and adherence of the Roman authorities to the Masonic errors many times condemned by their predecessors is a great mystery of iniquity which ruins the Catholic faith in its foundations.

This harsh and painful reality obliges us in conscience to organise on our own the defence of our Catholic Faith. The fact of sitting in the seats of authority is no longer, alas, a guarantee of the orthodoxy of the faith of those who occupy them. The Pope himself now ceaselessly spreads the principles of a false religion, the result of which is a general apostasy.

We therefore give herewith the texts, without commentary, for the year 1990. Readers will be able to judge for themselves and by the texts of the Popes of before the Council.

Reading them amply justifies our conduct for the maintenance and restoration of the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Holy Mother on earth as in Heaven.

The rer of Christianity is the priest, by offering the true sacrifice, by conferring true sacraments, by teaching the true catechism, by his role of vigilant shepherd for the salvation of souls.

It is around true and faithful priests that Christians must group themselves and organise the whole Christian life. All spirit of distrust towards the priests who merit confidence diminishes the solidity and the firmness of the resistance against the destroyers of the faith.

Saint John closes his Apocalypse by this appeal : “Veni Domine Jesu,” Come Lord Jesus, appear at length upon the clouds of Heaven, manifest Thine omnipotence. May Thy reign be universal and everlasting.

Écône, 4th March 1991
+ Marcel Lefebvre

Incredulous · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2012, 09:49:44 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Just heard from someone who raised this issue w Fr Chazal, and unfortunately, despite the fact that all the reasons ABL decided upon the 1962 Missal (above) no longer apply, they are sticking with it for no other reason than it is what ABL did.

Another golden opportunity missed.

Since the SSPX-J has already labeled the SSPX-Resistance as "sedes",
dropping the 1962 Missal would be good propaganda for them.

Soon, with newRome at their side, they will enlist the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic media and
campaign against us.

We will be banned from their ѕуηαgσgυєs, branded as sedes, schismatics,
domestic terrorists, nαzιs... whatever they can imagine to call us.

Francisco · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2012, 09:57:24 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Seraphim
Just heard from someone who raised this issue w Fr Chazal, and unfortunately, despite the fact that all the reasons ABL decided upon the 1962 Missal (above) no longer apply, they are sticking with it for no other reason than it is what ABL did.

Another golden opportunity missed.

Since the SSPX-J has already labeled the SSPX-Resistance as "sedes",
dropping the 1962 Missal would be good propaganda for them.

Soon, with newRome at their side, they will enlist the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic media and
campaign against us.

We will be banned from their ѕуηαgσgυєs, branded as sedes, schismatics,
domestic terrorists, nαzιs... whatever they can imagine to call us.

Good point! But if they are so pro-Pope the SSPX-J should adopt all the changes that are made to 1962 Missal, and to the rubrics as well, which means Altar Girls and Lay readers.

Catechist99 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:39:15 AM »

Maybe this will help:

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:41:58 AM »

Let's just return to the pre-1962 missal.

I had a chance to buy a 1937 missal on ebay and let it pass. I regret that now.

My son has a Baronius Press missal, the St. Joseph Missal, 1953 edition, with an imprimatur of 1950 and I think it's superior to the 1962 version I occasionally use. The version I use was purchased on ebay and has a death card in it. Even the original owners name and some personal writings in the margins and on blank pages. The original owner is commemorating someone in her life who passed away back in 1953.

Side by side, the missal my son uses is superior.

The SSPX should use the earlier missals. The 1962 missal was a gateway for what followed, or could be seen in that light.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:54:59 AM »

Quote from: Catechist99

Maybe this will help:

:roll-laugh2:

Disobeying Bishop Fellay is a mortal sin, daddy, Father told me so!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2012, 07:10:38 AM »

Well, despite the unanimity of all here being in favor of returning to an uncompromised Missal, the question seems to be moot with Frs Chazal/Pfeiffer.

They are going to stick with the 1962, unfortunately.

Francisco · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2012, 08:46:11 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Well, despite the unanimity of all here being in favor of returning to an uncompromised Missal, the question seems to be moot with Frs Chazal/Pfeiffer.

They are going to stick with the 1962, unfortunately.

It would be interesting to know where other members of the Resistance - Frs Ceriani, Meramo, Abrahamowicz, Cardozo et al - stand on this important issue.