Author Topic: 1956 v. 1962 Missal (Read 5847 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 12, 2009, 03:11:04 PM »

Belloc said:

Quote

Addition was organic development, as would for instance space travel if we lived in universe of Star Trek for instance....

Addiing the prayer for Joseph might have been organic as well...I am not expert, but this could be reason.......

Oath Against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X

Quote

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

You do not change the Canon. And this is just one of numerous examples of bad faith shown by the SSPX, who have made up their own religion just like Novus Ordo, though with a more traditional veneer.

Sometimes there are disagreements about what exactly the dogma IS, as in the case of baptism of desire. I found a quote from St. Augustine last night, however, that clearly shows baptism of desire has been taught from the beginning, and that it is indeed a dogma, and this ends my wranglings with CM.

But dogmas do not evolve or change. That is a defined heresy. I know you're making an honest mistake, as have I. I'd thought that the Immaculate Conception of Mary and papal infallibility were only recent dogmas. Actually, they were only recently made into official dogmas, but they were always there, believed by many or most in the Church. They are not new teachings.

Another dogma of the Church is that Revelation ended with the Apostles. NOTHING new has been added. The Church has always been the same. When it seems like the Church has changed, look more closely into the matter, and you will discover that it has not.

For instance, we now have communion in one species, not two, while the early Church had both. But the bread has ALWAYS contained both body and blood and been sufficient in itself. The body cannot exist without the blood. Obligatory communion in one species is a change in custom but not of truth. The truth does not change or evolve -- this is a key concept to remember as you navigate the treacherous waters of our age.

Jehanne · « **Reply #16 on:** September 12, 2009, 06:38:04 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Belloc said:
Quote
Addition was organic development, as would for instance space travel if we lived in universe of Star Trek for instance....

Addiing the prayer for Joseph might have been organic as well...I am not expert, but this could be reason.......

Oath Against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X

Quote
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

You do not change the Canon. And this is just one of numerous examples of bad faith shown by the SSPX, who have made up their own religion just like Novus Ordo, though with a more traditional veneer.

Sometimes there are disagreements about what exactly the dogma IS, as in the case of baptism of desire. I found a quote from St. Augustine last night, however, that clearly shows baptism of desire has been taught from the beginning, and that it is indeed a dogma, and this ends my wranglings with CM.

But dogmas do not evolve or change. That is a defined heresy. I know you're making an honest mistake, as have I. I'd thought that the Immaculate Conception of Mary and papal infallibility were only recent dogmas. Actually, they were only recently made into official dogmas, but they were always there, believed by many or most in the Church. They are not new teachings.

Another dogma of the Church is that Revelation ended with the Apostles. NOTHING new has been added. The Church has always been the same. When it seems like the Church has changed, look more closely into the matter, and you will discover that it has not.

For instance, we now have communion in one species, not two, while the early Church had both. But the bread has ALWAYS contained both body and blood and been sufficient in itself. The body cannot exist without the blood. Obligatory communion in one species is a change in custom but not of truth. The truth does not change or evolve -- this is a key concept to remember as you navigate the treacherous waters of our age.

Did not Pius X, as bishop, suggest the change to the Canon that was made in 1962? Having said that, I think that the 1956 Missal and those that came before are more reverent, more Catholic.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 12, 2009, 08:04:27 PM »

Quote

"Did not Pius X, as bishop, suggest the change to the Canon that was made in 1962? Having said that, I think that the 1956 Missal and those that came before are more reverent, more Catholic."

Do you have a source for that?

One that isn't SSPX?

Jehanne · « **Reply #18 on:** September 12, 2009, 09:01:32 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Quote
"Did not Pius X, as bishop, suggest the change to the Canon that was made in 1962? Having said that, I think that the 1956 Missal and those that came before are more reverent, more Catholic."

Do you have a source for that?

One that isn't SSPX?

No. The one that I have is from the SSPX.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 12, 2009, 10:20:44 PM »

Heh heh.

I found that exchange amusing anyway.

Jehanne · « **Reply #20 on:** September 13, 2009, 09:07:02 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Heh heh.

I found that exchange amusing anyway.

Okay? Is the information on the SSPX website accurate? I have read where the Canon had not been changed in something like 1,300+ years, and no one really seemed concerned when Pope John XXIII made the change. It was kind of passé. As for the SSPX, I wish that they would use a pre-1962 Missal, but they have kind of committed to it, haven't they, with Summorum Pontificuм, Ecclesia Dei, etc.?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 13, 2009, 11:31:23 AM »

Jehanne, obviously you haven't read my postings about the SSPX. When you said the only source you have is from them, it's like saying "The 9/11 commission report said it was Muslims who hijacked planes and flew them into the buildings with no outside help."

Quote

"I have read where the Canon had not been changed in something like 1,300+ years, and no one really seemed concerned when Pope John XXIII made the change."

No one except a handful seemed much concerned when the priest began facing the people either, or they got rid of the tabernacle. Many even liked it. The de-Catholicizing process had been in effect long before the Freemason Roncalli took the Throne. The majority were also pleased that no longer were the Jews treated as an alien, threatening race but were now our elder brothers in the faith.

The insertion of St. Joseph's name in the Canon hardly seems an incentive to impiety. What it does seem like is bad faith. Like they are telling you "There is NOTHING we can't touch, NOTHING is sacred." It also strikes me as an act of bad faith on the part of SSPX to use John XXIII's Missal considering the questions surrounding him, and Abp. Lefebvre was INSISTENT on it -- why? The imposition of the 1962 Missal was the breaking point, most likely, for the "Nine" who split from SSPX.

From Wikipedia entry on SSPV:

Quote

The SSPV developed out of the much larger Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), the traditionalist organization founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In 1983, Lefebvre expelled four priests (Fr. Kelly, Fr. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, and Fr. Berry) of the SSPX's Northeast USA District from the society, partly because they were opposed to his instructions that Mass be celebrated according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal issued by John XXIII

.

Notice that the man often hailed as the champion of tradition, Abp. Lefebvre, would send you packing if you didn't accept the 1962 Missal. Didn't they change something about the Jews in that Missal also?

Jehanne · « **Reply #22 on:** September 13, 2009, 11:42:33 AM »

I have read all your posts in this thread but not elsewhere, obviously. So, the SSPV is our best choice, then? For me, the nearest is 300 miles away.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 13, 2009, 12:11:38 PM »

Well, I'm a pretty hard-line sedevacantist. I attend a CMRI chapel but I think they are too soft on una cuм. A guy in my chapel is engaged to an SSPX girl and to me this is a mixed marriage, ha ha. I incline towards Bp. Dolan's position on the una cuм. I also like to expose the contradictions of SSPX, who I've long suspected are part of the plot.

I have an article I'm preparing on Malachi Martin and Bishop Williamson and how it seems like they use each other to lead people away from the sedevacantist position. You have to ask yourself, why are they so afraid of it?

I had one meeting with the SSPX when I was trying to decide where to go to be baptized. At the time I was so green that I pronounced the word "seh-dee-va-can-tist" with the can pronounced as "can" not as "cahn." The priest told me "You cannot be a sedevacantist and come to this chapel."
He said this while perched under two pictures on the wall of Ratzinger and Wojtyla. It took me no time at all to figure out something stank and when he called me a week later to make an appointment for instruction, I told him I was inclining towards sedevacantism.

By the way, this priest was trained in Vatican II seminary and ordained in the New Rite -- he may have been re-ordained by SSPX but I'm not sure, and here is another problem with SSPX. They say that priests can be ordained and bishops consecrated with the New Rites.

Here is an article from SSPX entitled "Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid."

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

If people understood how significant this was, it could be the nail in the coffin for SSPX. They are now defending an entire structure of non-priests and non-bishops and helping to keep it alive. They are helping Vatican II far more than they hurt it, just as I feel they always have.

I wonder why more people don't bring this up. Why haven't I been bringing this up? I certainly will be doing so in the future. Just another consequence of their position that the Modernist behemoth is the true Church when it is not.