Pope John XXIII's minor reform on the Roman Canon seems laudable but it was executed by a controversial pontiff and at the wrong time because the modification of the Liturgy's Eucharistic Prayer occurred prior to the Second Vatican Council's opening.
If two Popes (one of whom is canonized saint) were not against adding St. Joseph to the Canon, then I think there should be no problem.
Actually the change took place during the V2 Robber Council.
This gives a short account of what happened, as well as some interesting history that is relevant...
On December 8, 1962, through the influence of the then nascent Robber Church,
the Canon of the Mass, the ancient Roman Canon, was officially destroyed. With
the insertion of the name of St. Joseph into it, a change which went into effect on
that day, the "Canon" of the Mass ceased to be a canon. Derived from a Greek
word meaning a rigid rod or rule, kanon, it is a thing, inflexible and unchangeable.
By definition, therefore, the Canon of the Mass is unchangeable. Due to the
emphasis many of us have recently placed upon the decree Quo Primum (1570)
of Pope St. Pius V, which decree forbade in perpetuity any additions or changes
whatsoever in the Roman Missal, under the penalty of incurring "the wrath of
Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul," there are some who
now harbor the incorrect notion that the Roman Canon dates only from the year
of Quo Primum, 1570. In truth this Canon, which St. Pius V took the formidable
measures of Quo Primum to protect from change, actually is substantially the
same as that used by the Roman (or Western) Church from the very beginning;
that is to say, it quite probably dates from apostolic times. It is believed that St.
Gregory the Great (died A.D. 604) perhaps rearranged the order of certain
prayers in the Canon; and this much is an absolute certainty: "Since the seventh
century our Canon has remained unchanged." (Cath. Encyc., v.III, p.256). In
The Question of Anglican Ordinations Discussed (London, Burns & Oates, 1873),
the esteemed author E. E. Estcourt, then the canon of St. Chad's Cathedral,
Birmingham, gives the following account:
"What, then, is the Canon of the Mass? and what claims has it on our respect?
Let us hear Sir William Palmer, as a writer whose testimony is beyond suspicion.
After stating various facts and arguments on the subject, he says: 'Combining
these circuмstances together, there seems nothing unreasonable in thinking that
the Roman liturgy, as used in the time of Gregory the Great, may have existed
from a period of the most remote antiquity; and perhaps there are nearly as good
reasons for referring its original composition to the Apostolic age, as there are in
the case of the great Oriental liturgy.'
"The care taken to preserve the Canon in its original authentic form we learn from
other writers. 'In ancient times,' says Muratori, 'although the liturgy of the Roman
Mass was observed generally in the churches of Italy, France, Germany, Britain,
and other countries, yet there was no small variety in their Missals; but this did
not affect the substance of the mystery, or the chief and essential rites of the
Mass. The difference ran in adding collects, sequences, and special feasts,
which each Bishop might insert in his own missal. But to change the sacred
words of the Canon was a crime.' By the laws of Charlemagne it was ordered
that only men of full age should be employed to transcribe it; and the Councils of
York and Oxford in the twelfth century decreed that the Archdeacon should
examine in every church whether there were errors or defects in the Canon,
either by the faults of transcribers or the books being old. Always too the Canon
was written in different and larger characters than the rest, and sometimes in
gold letters throughout, as an offering of reverence." (End of the quotation from
Estcourt, pp. 279-280, emphasis added.)
Since the apostolic origin of the Roman Canon is not a proven fact, let us
consider only that period of history during which we are absolutely certain that it
underwent no change whatever, not even a rearrangement of the prayers,
namely, from the year 604 until the year 1962. From the time of Pope St.
Gregory I up to the time of John XXIII there were one hundred ninety-seven (197)
validly chosen sovereign pontiffs. Of these, twenty-three are venerated as saints
and at least another five have been beatified. Neglecting the possible exceptions
of some very few of these 197 popes who might possibly have been a little less
than devout, we can safely claim that they all had a genuine devotion to St.
Joseph, the chaste spouse of the Mother of God. Some of these popes
bestowed signal honors upon St. Joseph. For example: Pope Gregory XV
extended his feast to the universal Church; Pius IX in 1870 proclaimed him
Protector of the universal Church; in 1937 the encyclical Divini Redemptoris,
explaining and condemning Communism, was issued by Pope Pius XI on March
l9th, the feastday of St. Joseph, and in its concluding paragraphs the Pontiff said:
"We place the vast campaign of the Church against world Communism under the
standard of St. Joseph, her mighty Protector." As a spiritual counter-move
against the hallowed May Day of the Communists, a "feastday" they inherited
directly from the conspiratorial illuminati (see Encyc. Britannica, vol.xiv, p.320, llth
ed.), Pope Pius XII instituted on May Ist the feast of St. Joseph the Workman.
As devoted to St. Joseph as were these 197 popes of this period spanning 1358
years (fully 70% of the total lifetime of the Church thus far!), not one of them ever
so much as dreamed of "honoring" him by laying hands on the sacred immutable
Canon of the Mass. In point of fact -- and this is history -- in the year 1815 there
was indeed a short-lived movement afoot which attempted to get the name of St.
Joseph inserted into the Canon. This attempt (the first ancestor of the same
identical movement circa 1962, which turned out to be successful), needless to
say, was doomed to failure under the vigilant eyes of Pope Pius VII. In an 'Urbis
et Orbis' decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, dated Sept. 16, 1815, the
request was tersely and officially denied: "Negative quoad additionem nominis S.
Josephi Sponsi B.M.V. in Canone.'' (See p.66, V.III, of Gardellini's compilation,
1857, #4520.) On the eve of the Vatican Council (1870) the same campaign was
once again renewed, and once again the vigilant Shepherd of Rome (this time it
was Pius IX) turned thumbs down on it. Apparently these earlier popes
understood not only the meaning of the word canon, but also the awful warning
of Quo Primum. And they also doubtlessly were not ignorant of how the
conspiring enemies of he Church will often utilize seemingly "good" causes as
opening wedges to attain, ultimately, nefarious ends.
What happened very early during Vatican II is only too well known. In a nutshell:
what no one of his 197 immediate predecessors had done, and two very astute
ones had outright rejected, John XXIII carried out. An account is given on pp.
44-6 of The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, by Rev. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D.,
Hawthorn Books, 1967. In mid-March 1962, Pope John received six volumes of
signed petitions, including signatures of cardinals, patriarchs, bishops and
archbishops, asking for the name of St. Joseph to be inserted into the Canon of
the Mass. "While examining these signatures, Pope John said, 'Something will
be done for St.Joseph."' (p.46). On Oct. 30, Auxiliary Bishop Ildefonso Sansierra
of San Juan de Cuyo, Argentina, released the first trial balloon when, from the
Council floor, expressed the hope that the inclusion of the name of St. Joseph in
the Canon of the Mass "would not be forgotten.'' (p.45).
There was not a bit of
noticeable resistance to this first trial balloon. And so, on Nov. 5, "the same
request was made at great length by Bishop Albert Cousineau of Cap Haitien,
Haiti, ... who asked that 'the name of Blessed Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, be introduced into the mass wherever the name of the Blessed
Virgin Mary is mentioned.'"(pp. 44-5). Still no opposition. Eight days later, on
Nov. 13, the Cardinal Secretary of State made a special announcement that the
Holy Father had decided to insert the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the
Mass, immediately after the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that the
change would go into effect almost immediately, that is, on Dec. 8th. "Cardinal
Montini later described this unexpected (??!) move as 'a surprise for the Council
from the Pope.''' (p.45).
As stated earlier, the Roman Canon was destroyed on December 8, 1962; but
only "officially," for there will always be some loyal priests who will adhere to it in
its integrity. What the Robber Church has is no 'canon' at all. In fact it eschews
the very word canon; since 1968 it has had four so-called "Eucharistic Prayers,"
none of which is a true canon. Once the inflexible, unchangeable rigid rule, the
Roman Canon, was changed -- in the Robber Church version of it --, it ceased,
by definition, to be a canon for them. And the foot was in the door. But little time
elapsed before the avalanche of changes came in the "canon," including an
"aggiornamentoed" and spurious "consecration formula" in most of the various
vernacular versions of it.
One cannot impugn the motives of all of those persons who petitioned for this
innovation, for many of them undoubtedly acted from motives of sincere devotion
to St. Joseph. Neither can one judge the intentions of Pope John, especially
since his aged brain was probably then being fed many an idea pre-programmed
by his trusted advisors. But all these devotees of St. Joseph were woefully
ignorant of history, and of the true designs of those working behind the scenes.
Where, by the way, are these pious devotees of St. Joseph today? Why do we
hear no outcries from them? The only purpose of the sinister parties of influence,
who secretly steered this project to success, was to launch the destruction of the
Mass. What they needed was the opening wedge to get to the sacred and
immutable Canon, a feat never before accomplished. They had no interest in St.
Joseph then, and they still have none! Now, how can such an "outlandish"
charge be proved? Quite easily; and here is the tell-tale evidence. If their
devotion to St. Joseph is so conspicuous then why is it that in three out of four -
75%- of their new Eucharistic Prayers the name of St. Joseph is conspicuously
absent??? Have you heard any outcries about this from these "devotees" of St.
Joseph?? No indeed; paying honor to St. Joseph wasn't it at all! And there are
some who, in eternity, will more than likely pay dearly for their mockery of him.
Excerpted from: Robber Church" (Part 2) Patrick Henry Omlor, Interdum. Issue No. 7, May 31, 1971
Topic: 1962 Roman Missal (Read 9897 times)