Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Oremus on January 08, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
-
I know many sede's have "problems" with the 1962 Roman Missal and I was just wondering what those disagreements are? Not trying to start an argument, just hoping to find something with a comparison or whatever. I have not been able to find out why some priests do not like the 1962 missal.
Thanks.
-
To sum it up:
- the implementation of St. Joseph in the Canon
- change of traditional classes of feasts (duplex and co) into four new classes
- reduction of orations (already in 1955) and commemorations
- abolishment of feasts (mainly 62), octaves and vigils (already 55)
- the reformation of Holy Week (mainly 55)
I think those are the biggest points of criticism by sede clergy.
-
And removal of the Confiteor before reception of Holy Communion.
-
- the implementation of St. Joseph in the Canon.
A biggie.
-
And removal of the Confiteor before reception of Holy Communion.
Indeed, but Ecclesia Dei stated that it can be added by custom, as the society does.
-
And removal of the Confiteor before reception of Holy Communion.
Indeed, but Ecclesia Dei stated that it can be added by custom, as the society does.
Indeed. but it is noteworthy that traditional clergy who used the 62 missal, like SSPX and independents kept saying the Confiteor long before Ecclesia Dei or any other Novus Ordite concessions.They ignored the change, due to their adherence to Tradition - they instinctively knew it was wrong. I remember, I have been a traditional Catholic from before way back then.
-
- the implementation of St. Joseph in the Canon.
A biggie.
Why is that?
-
- the implementation of St. Joseph in the Canon.
A biggie.
Why is that?
See this:
http://www.strc.org/March%202007.pdf
-
To sum it up:
- the implementation of St. Joseph in the Canon
- change of traditional classes of feasts (duplex and co) into four new classes
- reduction of orations (already in 1955) and commemorations
- abolishment of feasts (mainly 62), octaves and vigils (already 55)
- the reformation of Holy Week (mainly 55)
I think those are the biggest points of criticism by sede clergy.
This pretty well sums up the objections I've heard about the 1962 Missal. It also sums up the objections I've heard about the 1955 Missal. The clergy I've spoken to about this also have problems with the changes in the Breviary as well. Since the Breviary is really complementary to the Missal and its not appropriate to use one Breviary and another Missal, this is also a very big problem.
One change in the Breviary that was made (apparently for ecuмenical reasons) is that the Athanasius Creed is no longer (in the later Breviaries) said every Sunday, but instead, only once a year. The weekly recitation of this creed reminded priests that the heretical religions simply were not sufficient for salvation. Reducing its recitation to just once a year helped to ease the consciences of priests involved in so many ecuмenical activities.
Other than the change in the Canon, I, personally, have no problem with the 1962 Missal. But, then again, I don't say Mass either.
-
- the implementation of St. Joseph in the Canon.
A biggie.
I don't know why that is considered such a biggie, in itself. The canon mentions several Saints explicitly, and ends with, "and all Thy Saints". St. Joseph was always implied by that.
However, I do think it is a biggie because of its historical timing in connection with getting people more open and accustomed to change.
I do reject even some of the changes in the 50's, but only because I believe Pius XII would have wanted us to reject them had he foreseen Vatican II, as he only made those changes to desperately handle the modernist pressures of his day. He was a true pope who just previously went against a lot of pressure to canonize Pope Pius X as a Saint, so dreadful to the modernist cause.
It was a biggie for the reason you mention, and also because the Modernists managed to make a change to the very Canon of the Mass -- a change that had been specifically rejected more than once in the past with good reason.
Did you read the linked article?
-
Articles: Liturgy: John XXIII/Pius XII changes
The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared
Most Rev. Daniel L. Dolan
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=18&catname=6
Missal of St. Pius X
Missal of John XXIII
1.Promulgated by a canonized saint who condemned Modernism, and composed with the collaboration of absolutely orthodox priests both learned and pious.
1. Promulgated by a pope who admitted that he was suspect of Modernism, the same pope who called Vatican II to "consecrate ecuмenism" and open up the windows of the Church to "renewal". Composed under the direction of Ferdinando Antonelli, who signed the docuмent promulgating the New Mass, and under the direction of Annibale Bugnini, the "Great Architect" of the New Mass, notorious modernist and suspected Freemason.
2.Based upon sound traditional Catholic principles which were employed many times by the popes in the past. This missal was used by the Church from 1914 until the ascendancy of the Modernist "Liturgical Movement" in the 1950's.
2. Based upon the principles of the modernist "Liturgical Movement" often condemned in the past by the Roman Pontiffs, this missal was a transitional work. According to Father Bugnini it was a "compromise" until the liturgy could be made "a new city in which the man of our age can live and feel at ease." It was used for only four years.
3."Do not innovate anything; remain content with tradition." (Pope Benedict XIV)
3."it is a bridge which opens the way to a promising future." (Annibale Bugnini)
Prayers at the Foot of the Altar
4.Always said.
Prayers at the Foot of the Altar
4.Omitted on (1) The Purification after the Procession, (2) Ash Wednesday after the distribution of ashes, (3) Holy Saturday, (4) Palm Sunday after the Procession, (5) the four Rogation Days after the Procession, and (6) certain other Masses according the new rubrics of the Roman Pontifical.
The Collect
5. On days of lower rank, in addition to the collect of the day, the collects of Our Lady, Our Lady and All the Saints, Against the Persecutors of the Church, For the Pope, or For the Faithful Departed, etc. are recited.
The Collect
5.All these collects are abolished.
6. The commemorations of a lower ranking feast of a saint or a Sunday are made according to the rubrics.
6.The commemorations of a lower ranking feast of a saint or a Sunday are either abolished or strictly curtailed, so that on an ordinary Sunday most saints' feasts entirely disappear.
The Lessons on Ember Days
7.Always recited.
The Lessons on Ember Days
7.The bulk of the Lessons are optional.
The Epistle
8. Always read by the celebrant at Solemn Mass as specifically mandated by Pope St. Pius V.
The Epistle
8. The celebrant at Solemn Mass sits over on the side and listens instead, just as he does at the New Mass.
The Sequence
9. The Dies Irae must always be sung at a Requiem High Mass.
The Sequence
9.
The Dies Irae at a daily Requiem High Mass is optional.
The Gospel
10.Always read by the celebrant at Solemn Mass as specifically mandated by Pope St. Pius V.
The Gospel
10. The celebrant at Solemn Mass listens instead
The Creed
11.Recited on many feasts according to the rubrics.
The Creed
11.Suppressed on many feasts (Doctors of the Church, St. Mary Magdalene, the Angels, etc.)
The Canon of the Mass
12.Unchanged since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great.
The Canon of the Mass
12. The name of St. Joseph is inserted; thus the Canon is no longer the "unchanging rule" of worship.
The Communion of the People
13. The Confiteor, Misereatur, and Indulgentiam are always said before Holy Communion.
The Communion of the People
13. Abolished.
The Benedicamus Domino
14. Recited in place of Ite Missa Est on Sundays and Weekdays of Advent and Lent, Vigils, Votive Masses, etc.
The Benedicamus Domino
14.Abolished, except when there is a procession after Mass.
The Last Gospel
15. Either the beginning of St. John's Gospel or the proper Last Gospel of an occuring feast ends every Mass.
The Last Gospel
15.The proper Last Gospel is abolished with one exception. No Last Gospel at all is recited for: (1) the Third Mass of Christmas, (2) Palm Sunday, (3) Holy Thursday, (4) Holy Saturday, (5) any Mass followed by a procession, (6) Requiem Masses followed by the Absolution, and (7) certain other Masses according to the new rubrics of the Roman Pontifical.
Changes in Feasts
16.
St. Peter's Chair in Rome
Finding of the Holy Cross
St. John Before the Latin Gate
Apparition of St. Michael
St. Leo II
St. Anacletus
St. Peter in Chains
Finding of St. Stephen
Commem. of St. Vitalis
St. Philomena (by indult)
St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church
Circuмcision of Our Lord
St. Peter's Chair at Antioch
Most Holy Rosary of the BVM
St. George
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel
St. Alexius
Ss. Cyriacus, Largus & Smaragdus
Impression of Stigmata of St. Francis
Ss. Eustace and Companions
Our Lady of Ransom
St. Thomas a Becket
St. Sylvester
Seven Sorrows of Our Lady
Changes in Feasts
16.
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Changed to St. Joseph the Worker
Changed to Octave Day of Christmas
Changed to St. Peter's Chair
Changed to our Lady of the Rosary
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Downgraded
Octaves of Feasts
17.
Epiphany (7th Century)
Corpus Christi (1294)
Ascension (8th Century)
Sacred Heart (1928)
Immaculate Conception (1693)
Assumption (ca. 850)
St. John Baptist (8th Century)
Ss. Peter and Paul (7th Century)
All Saints (ca. 1480)
Nativity of Our Lady (1245)
St. Stephen (8th Century)
St. John the Evangelist (8th Century)
Holy Innocents (8th Century)
Dedication of a Church (8th Century)
Octaves of Feasts
17.
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Vigils of Feasts
18.
Epiphany
St. Matthias
St. James
St. Bartholomew
St. Matthew
All Saints
St. Andrew
Immaculate Conception
St. Thomas
Vigils of Feasts
18.
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Abolished
Miscellaneous Rubrics
19. Three tones of voice are used by the celebrant: audible, secret, and audible only to those at the altar.
Miscellaneous Rubrics
19.Third tone of voice is abolished.
20. When the celebrant is at the Epistle or Gospel side of the altar, he always bows to the cross at the center of the altar whenever he mentions the Holy Name.
20. Abolished.
The Holy Week Rites
21. Contains the Holy Week rites mandated by Pope St. Pius V.
The Holy Week Rites
21. Radically altered to such a degree that they are no longer the Holy Week rites of the Tridentine Missal. These rites, in fact, needed only cosmetic changes to fit the pattern of the New Mass in 1969.
FINAL NOTES :
(1) The Communion of the People: Some priests, who claim to adhere to the changes of John XXIII on the grounds of "papal authority" nevertheless refuse to suppress the Confiteor, Misereatur and Indulgentiam before the Communion of the people, as prescribed by John XXIII.
(2) The Last Gospel: Father Bugnini expressed the wish "of many" that the practice of reciting the Last Gospel be severely curtailed or suppressed altogether. He only had to wait for a few years.
(3) Changes in Feasts: Note the modernist prejudice against the cult of the saints and against feasts which refer to papal prerogatives or apparitions approved by the Church. During Lent, the John XXIII Missal suppresses most of the Masses of the saints.
Free Info Packet
We can send you a free packet containing information about the traditional Mass, the Vatican II changes and the traditionalist movement.
Contact: St. Gertrude the Great Church, 4900 Rialto Road, West Chester OH 45069, 513.645.4212 , www.sgg.org
-
One change in the Breviary that was made (apparently for ecuмenical reasons) is that the Athanasius Creed is no longer (in the later Breviaries) said every Sunday, but instead, only once a year. The weekly recitation of this creed reminded priests that the heretical religions simply were not sufficient for salvation. Reducing its recitation to just once a year helped to ease the consciences of priests involved in so many ecuмenical activities.
Although I can see why this would a good evaluation of the religious and psychological impact of the change, in light of the pseudo-œcuмenism that motivated the pseudo-liturgical deformities of Paul VI, this is simply not true as an etiological explanation.
As the renowned rubricist Rev. Fr. John O'Connell observed in his study (published at London by Burns & Oates in 1956) of the simplification of the rubrics mandated by the General Decree De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis promulgated by the Congregation of Sacred Rites by authority of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII (23 March 1955; A. A. S., vol. xlvii., pp. 218 sqq.), the reforms were heavily influenced by the manner in which the Benedictines adapted the General Rubrics of their Breviary to the Bull Divino afflatu of Pope St. Pius X.
According to the General Rubrics of the Monastic Breviary, adapted to the prescriptions of Divino afflatu, the Quicuмque was said only on Trinity Sunday: "Symbolum S. Athanasii dicitur ad Primam post Psalmum Adhæsit pavimento, in Dominica Trinitatis tantum. Et in fine illius dicitur Gloria Patri" (Tit. XXXVI, n. 2). Hitherto it was said on all Sundays as it was said in the Roman Breviary before the reforms of Pope Pius XII.
Other precedents in the Monastic Breviary that made their way into the Roman Breviary by the simplification of the rubrics made obligatory on all clerics and Religious of the Roman Rite include: the elimination of Semi-Doubles. Before the Benedictines adopted Pope Pius XII's simplification (when they did this, I do not know exactly), only days within Octaves and Sundays and privileged Ferias were given this rite. Those Sanctoral Feasts that existed before as Semi-Doubles, were either reduced to "Memorials" (which Offices, though they appeared in the Calendars and Ordines, were commemorated at First Vespers and at Lauds only, without a Lesson of their own at Matins) or eliminated completely from the Universal Calendar of the Monastic Breviary.
Another precedent is that of making Sanctoral Offices of Double Major or of inferior rank optional during Lent at the private recitation of the Roman Breviary. The Monastic Breviary as adapted to the reforms of Pope St. Pius X reduced all Saints' Offices as Commemorations during the Quadragesimal and Passiontide Seasons that were inferior to the rank of Double of the Second Class.
So, the preceding are examples of how the simplification as mandated by Pius XII really came about, at least in these instances.
Father Cekada's arguments (as also those of Bps. Dolan and Sanborn, and others) against the reforms of Pope Pius XII are not convincing to me because, among other things (the least serious of which is that), he does not seem to take into account the huge influence that the Benedictine liturgists and rubricists had upon the Committee responsible for proposing the reforms to the Apostolic See.
As one who has prayed the Roman Breviary using both "sets" of rubrics, I can see why they were necessary and welcomed by all the clerics of the Roman Church. As someone who as youngster prayed the Monastic Breviary, the reforms just make sense in many ways. I think the benefits outweigh the evil ascribed to Bungini. I would think the authority of Pope Pius XII would settle the debate, but these are confusing times, I guess...
-
I have read the article. Indeed, it is for the sake of prudence and for very strong extrinsic reasons that no more Saints be explicated in the Canon of the Mass. Intrinsically, however, it is something a (true) pope has the power to do because it is not divine law that forbids it. Prudential and extrinsic reasons can change to make it allowable, though it is not expected to.
The one thing I think is mistaken in the article is its reference to the Canon of the Mass being "unchangeable". It is unchangeable, but the article is mistakenly using the term in a sense that it was not meant to be used. The Canon of the Mass is called "unchangeable" in contradistinction to the other portions of the Mass that do change while it is being offered, depending upon the Feast Day and Liturgical season.
Hi Cupe,
It was more than prudence that prevented any changes to the Canon. It was Tradition.
Here are some excepts from a Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon.
Since the seventh century our Canon has remained unchanged. It is to St. Gregory I (590-604) the great organiser of all the Roman Liturgy, that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement. His reign then makes the best division in its history.
From the time of St. Gregory I (590-604)
Certainly when St. Gregory became pope our Canon was already fixed in its present order. There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then. "No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory" says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 162).
From the tenth century people took all manner of liberties with the text of the Missal. It was the time of farced Kyries and Glorias, of dramatic and even theatrical ritual, of endlessly varying and lengthy prefaces, into which interminable accounts of stories from Bible history and lives of saints were introduced. This tendency did not even spare the Canon; although the specially sacred character of this part tended to prevent people from tampering with it as recklessly as they did with other parts of the Missal. There were, however, additions made to the "Communicantes" so as to introduce special allusions on certain feasts; the two lists of saints, in the "Communicantes" and "Nobis quoque peccatoribus", were enlarged so as to include various local people, and even the "Hanc igitur" and the "Qui pridie" were modified on certain days. The Council of Trent (1545-63) restrained this tendency and ordered that "the holy Canon composed many centuries ago" should be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the "Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abolished" (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830). Pope Pius V (1566-72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it. This Missal is to be the only one used in the West and everyone is to conform to it, except that local uses which can be proved to have existed for more than 200 years are to be kept.http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4gz5Y-_3r_EJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm+canon+of+mass+catholic&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
-
Intrinsically, however, it is something a (true) pope has the power to do because it is not divine law that forbids it.
Any "pope" who makes a change to the Canon after Trent would have to be a formal despiser of Tradition, and therefore not even a true Catholic.
Tradition and ecclesiastical laws can and do forbid changes that divine laws don't forbid.
In the case of Roncalli j23 violating the Canon, there is evidence of the Modernists' scheme being an un-Catholic plot (more than just imprudent and reckless) because after they added St Joseph using their pious sounding pretences, what did they do a few short years later about their novelty when they foisted the Novus Ordo? Where was all the fuss then about the need and rightness of having St Joseph included?
-
One change in the Breviary that was made (apparently for ecuмenical reasons) is that the Athanasius Creed is no longer (in the later Breviaries) said every Sunday, but instead, only once a year. The weekly recitation of this creed reminded priests that the heretical religions simply were not sufficient for salvation. Reducing its recitation to just once a year helped to ease the consciences of priests involved in so many ecuмenical activities.
Although I can see why this would a good evaluation of the religious and psychological impact of the change, in light of the pseudo-œcuмenism that motivated the pseudo-liturgical deformities of Paul VI, this is simply not true as an etiological explanation.
As the renowned rubricist Rev. Fr. John O'Connell observed in his study (published at London by Burns & Oates in 1956) of the simplification of the rubrics mandated by the General Decree De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis promulgated by the Congregation of Sacred Rites by authority of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII (23 March 1955; A. A. S., vol. xlvii., pp. 218 sqq.), the reforms were heavily influenced by the manner in which the Benedictines adapted the General Rubrics of their Breviary to the Bull Divino afflatu of Pope St. Pius X.
According to the General Rubrics of the Monastic Breviary, adapted to the prescriptions of Divino afflatu, the Quicuмque was said only on Trinity Sunday: "Symbolum S. Athanasii dicitur ad Primam post Psalmum Adhæsit pavimento, in Dominica Trinitatis tantum. Et in fine illius dicitur Gloria Patri" (Tit. XXXVI, n. 2). Hitherto it was said on all Sundays as it was said in the Roman Breviary before the reforms of Pope Pius XII.
Other precedents in the Monastic Breviary that made their way into the Roman Breviary by the simplification of the rubrics made obligatory on all clerics and Religious of the Roman Rite include: the elimination of Semi-Doubles. Before the Benedictines adopted Pope Pius XII's simplification (when they did this, I do not know exactly), only days within Octaves and Sundays and privileged Ferias were given this rite. Those Sanctoral Feasts that existed before as Semi-Doubles, were either reduced to "Memorials" (which Offices, though they appeared in the Calendars and Ordines, were commemorated at First Vespers and at Lauds only, without a Lesson of their own at Matins) or eliminated completely from the Universal Calendar of the Monastic Breviary.
Another precedent is that of making Sanctoral Offices of Double Major or of inferior rank optional during Lent at the private recitation of the Roman Breviary. The Monastic Breviary as adapted to the reforms of Pope St. Pius X reduced all Saints' Offices as Commemorations during the Quadragesimal and Passiontide Seasons that were inferior to the rank of Double of the Second Class.
So, the preceding are examples of how the simplification as mandated by Pius XII really came about, at least in these instances.
Father Cekada's arguments (as also those of Bps. Dolan and Sanborn, and others) against the reforms of Pope Pius XII are not convincing to me because, among other things (the least serious of which is that), he does not seem to take into account the huge influence that the Benedictine liturgists and rubricists had upon the Committee responsible for proposing the reforms to the Apostolic See.
As one who has prayed the Roman Breviary using both "sets" of rubrics, I can see why they were necessary and welcomed by all the clerics of the Roman Church. As someone who as youngster prayed the Monastic Breviary, the reforms just make sense in many ways. I think the benefits outweigh the evil ascribed to Bungini. I would think the authority of Pope Pius XII would settle the debate, but these are confusing times, I guess...
Is there a reason you went through all this discussion to defend the deletion of the weekly recital of the Athanasius Creed? Though I am a little dense at times, I don't see what any of what you wrote refutes what I said above. Remember that this topic is about the 1962 Missal. Though the Breviary had been going through reforms earlier, it was never incompatable with the Missal. While I can't cite all the authorities you cite above (including Father Cekada or Bishops Dolan and Sanborn), I have been personally told by at least one priest (and a couple others have hinted at it) that the 1962 Missal is simply not compatible with the older Breviaries, so it also had to be completely reformed.
I've only noted one of the reforms that I was told is significant.
While I understand the "simplification" of the rubrics of the Breviary was already underway earlier in the century, I don't particularly see how simply deleting prayers is considered "simplification". I'm also not arguing that the "precident" of changing the Breviary is invalid.
The only thing I really know is that ecuмenists deplore the Athanasius Creed and that the very same ecuмenists who changed the Mass in the 1950s, in 1962, and created the Novus Ordo also had a hand in removing the weekly recitation of the Athansius Creed. I do not offer this as direct evidence of anything, only as part of the objections I've heard against the use of the 1962 Missal.
Ultimately, though you provided a very good explanation of the "Liturgical development" of the Breviary in the early XXth Century, it really has nothing to do with the criticisim of the developments that were ultimately realized.
-
Is there a reason you went through all this discussion to defend the deletion of the weekly recital of the Athanasius Creed?
Yes, because in numerous past instances some traditionalists have, in personal exchanges I have had with them, posited this change as if it were irrefutable proof that the reforms of Pope Pius XII are "harmful to the faithful." Though this is clearly not what you conveyed or attempted to convey, I gave my answer for the benefit of those individuals who have actually used similar arguments.
If Catholics, especially the clergy, are going to question what the Apostolic See has promulgated, they better do their homework.
Though I am a little dense at times, I don't see what any of what you wrote refutes what I said above.
That's because it was not meant as a refutation, but, rather, as a clarification.
Remember that this topic is about the 1962 Missal. Though the Breviary had been going through reforms earlier, it was never incompatable with the Missal. While I can't cite all the authorities you cite above (including Father Cekada or Bishops Dolan and Sanborn), I have been personally told by at least one priest (and a couple others have hinted at it) that the 1962 Missal is simply not compatible with the older Breviaries, so it also had to be completely reformed.
I should have prefaced my remarks by a clarification that they were tangential to the discussion, as is my custom.
You are right. The Breviary had to be reformed or deformed (however you wish to look at it) in order for the Missal to be reformed or deformed. In fact, it was the Breviary that was changed first.
-
Ultimately, though you provided a very good explanation of the "Liturgical development" of the Breviary in the early XXth Century, it really has nothing to do with the criticism of the developments that were ultimately realized.
Criticism of the impact upon souls and communities throughout the Catholic Church caused by the reforms promulgated by rightful authority must be differentiated from the docuмented events and facts that brought about such reforms, and they have to be viewed in light of the infallibility and primacy of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the Vatican Council.
Like the CMRI, I ultimately am compelled to reject in principle the Missal of 1962 on account of what I personally ascertain with moral certitude as the illegitimacy of the authority of John XXIII, and to accept the reforms of Pope Pius XII on account of the fact that he had the rightful authority to promulgate such reforms and to bind consciences thereto. Of course, because of the confusion of the times, I cannot be absolutist about such things: if I am to tolerate those Catholic clergy and laity that avail themselves of the pre-Pius XII rubrics, so I cannot damn those Catholic clergy and laity that observe the Roman Rite as found in John XXIII's books.
This is at least my personal opinion.
Tangent:
It is to be noted that certain people, such as the individuals at the St. Lawrence Press, have made disedifying criticisms regarding such things (that should not be objectionable to any Catholic) as the New Mass and Office of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and some have even come dangerously close in criticizing Divino afflatu. This neo-Jansenism I keep seeing in such hyper-critical lay commentators frightens me exceedingly.
The only ones of whom I can think who would use the Breviary and Missal as it existed before the reforms of Pope St. Pius X (or even those of Pope St. Pius V) are the so-called Anglo-Catholics. Even some of them at some point observed the reforms, as can be seen in the curious tome The Anglican Breviary: Containing the Divine Office According to the General Usages of the Western Church Put Into English in Accordance with the Book of Common Prayer (Long Island, NY: Frank Gavin Liturgical Foundation, 1955). This Breviary has the Psalter promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in Divino afflatu.
-
RC, you have some things wrong. Tradition is strictly what is handed down from the days of the Apostles. If something starts in a later century it is tradition of a custom, and therefore loosely called traditional. Customs can and have changed. The martyrs' names of Cosmas & Damian were added to the canon of the Mass later than 287 A.D. when they died.
RC, you show your slant when you avoid emphasizing a portion of what you quoted after the excerpt spoke of changes of the 7th century:
The Catholic Encyclopedia said, "There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then"
You didn't want to acknowledge any changes since the 7th century, but there were. If there were, there can be.
Lastly, you said to me:
"Tradition and ecclesiastical laws can and do forbid changes that divine laws don't forbid. "
I am fully aware of that. And, the point with that is, even though divine laws can have ecclesiastical laws that make things stricter than divine law, popes are not bound by those ecclesiastical laws of their predecessors, and can overturn those ecclesiastical law precisely because they are not divine laws. They cannot do it arbitrarily and without good reason, but they have the power to do so.
I know what Apostolic Tradition is and what tradition is.
This may be somewhat helpful:
"Doing Something" for St. Joseph
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
-
RC, why are you focusing on St. Joseph? I already said I agree he should not have been, nor should be, added to the canon of the Mass, and it is for extrinsic, not intrinsic reasons.
I am talking principle now. Do you agree with this or not:
The Catholic Encyclopedia said, "There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then"
Do you realize there were "changes" nevertheless, albeit small? That is what it said, and it was speaking of since the 7th century. I understand even a couple after 1570.
You misunderstand. The sentence that follows the one you quoted from the article states:
"No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory" says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 162).
Any changes or abuses that were made, were not made by the Church.
Further in the article it states:
From the tenth century people took all manner of liberties with the text of the Missal.
Then later in the article:
The Council of Trent (1545-63) restrained this tendency and ordered that "the holy Canon composed many centuries ago" should be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the "Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abolished" (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830).
Pope Pius V (1566-72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it. This Missal is to be the only one used in the West and everyone is to conform to it, except that local uses which can be proved to have existed for more than 200 years are to be kept.
-
Do you realize there were "changes" nevertheless, albeit small? That is what it said, and it was speaking of since the 7th century. I understand even a couple after 1570.
If you think there have been changes made to the Canon of the Mass by the Church since the 7th century and even after 1570, then show us them please!
-
Cupe, You wrote the following which is partly why I supplied the further information. I thought you might have been glad to see more information on the subject.
I didn't know that that specific change (of adding St. Joseph) was rejected multiple times before. I will have to read the article and see what the reasons given were (hopefully that article mentions the reasons).
-
Do you realize there were "changes" nevertheless, albeit small? That is what it said, and it was speaking of since the 7th century. I understand even a couple after 1570.
If you think there have been changes made to the Canon of the Mass by the Church since the 7th century and even after 1570, then show us them please!
I am largely going on a quote that you yourself provided here for us from the CE. What does "scarcely" mean to you, "not any"?
It would help you to read the whole article.
The changes that were scarcely made were not made by Popes.
-
Do you realize there were "changes" nevertheless, albeit small? That is what it said, and it was speaking of since the 7th century. I understand even a couple after 1570.
If you think there have been changes made to the Canon of the Mass by the Church since the 7th century and even after 1570, then show us them please!
I am largely going on a quote that you yourself provided here for us from the CE. What does "scarcely" mean to you, "not any"?
How does that support your claim that there were changes made after 1570?
You really don't know what you are talking about here, so I am going to drop any further discussion of it with you until and unless you read more about it first.
-
After studying in a sedevacantist seminary (refusing to disclose which one in order to keep my identity hidden), my sedevacantist priest professors taught us that the Pope has the authority to make changes in the Mass. For example, he can order the Kyrie Eleison to be recited in Hebrew and we have to shut up and go along with the change because as the saying goes, "When Rome has spoken, the matter is closed."
The Canon of the Mass can't be changed but "the rubrics of the Liturgy are malleable and can be changed". (Source: "My Catholic Faith" by Bishop Louis Morrow, STD). Please keep it in mind that Bishop Louis Morrow was a missionary prelate appointed by Pius XII to preach the True Faith in the Catholic missions of India. I don't really care if the rubrics changed provided they're not against the True Faith and they were promulgated by a true Catholic pope.
Prior to the ascension of Paul VI, the changes wrought by Pius XII and John XXIII were manifest examples of papal authority over the Liturgy. Let's keep it in mind that it was Pope Pius XII that allowed the Ruthenian Catholics in 1949 to celebrate the Eucharist in English as opposed to a dead language.
I think traditional Catholics who hold such a radical position on the Divine Liturgy in regards to the changes made by Pius XII and John XXIII are truly misled by their own interpretations of liturgical discipline.
Pope Pius XII taught in the Mediator Dei that the Roman Pontiff has the power to create New Rites in the Church since only the successor of St. Peter was allowed to do such a thing and not a mere metropolitan archbishop. Furthermore, the Pope could even make a New Mass (Source: Bishop Donald Sanborn). However, the Pope doesn't have the power to destroy the Mass by employing six Protestant ministers to do his bidding.
-
After studying in a sedevacantist seminary (refusing to disclose which one in order to keep my identity hidden), my sedevacantist priest professors taught us that the Pope has the authority to make changes in the Mass. For example, he can order the Kyrie Eleison to be recited in Hebrew and we have to shut up and go along with the change because as the saying goes, "When Rome has spoken, the matter is closed."
The Canon of the Mass can't be changed but "the rubrics of the Liturgy are malleable and can be changed". (Source: "My Catholic Faith" by Bishop Louis Morrow, STD). Please keep it in mind that Bishop Louis Morrow was a missionary prelate appointed by Pius XII to preach the True Faith in the Catholic missions of India. I don't really care if the rubrics changed provided they're not against the True Faith and they were promulgated by a true Catholic pope.
Prior to the ascension of Paul VI, the changes wrought by Pius XII and John XXIII were manifest examples of papal authority over the Liturgy. Let's keep it in mind that it was Pope Pius XII that allowed the Ruthenian Catholics in 1949 to celebrate the Eucharist in English as opposed to a dead language.
I think traditional Catholics who hold such a radical position on the Divine Liturgy in regards to the changes made by Pius XII and John XXIII are truly misled by their own interpretations of liturgical discipline.
Pope Pius XII taught in the Mediator Dei that the Roman Pontiff has the power to create New Rites in the Church since only the successor of St. Peter was allowed to do such a thing and not a mere metropolitan archbishop. Furthermore, the Pope could even make a New Mass (Source: Bishop Donald Sanborn). However, the Pope doesn't have the power to destroy the Mass by employing six Protestant ministers to do his bidding.
Is this "Ronald"? Was your confirmation Saint a St. Richard? Are you studying in the Pontifical University in the PI?
-
The Canon that we say is always the one finally restored by Pius V, that remains as it was in the days of Gregory I, and that goes back far behind his time till its origin is lost in the mists that hang over the first centuries when the Roman Christians met together to "do the things the Lord commanded at appointed times" (Epistle of Clement 40). Through all the modifications and additions that, in recent years especially, have caused our Missal to grow in size, among all the later collects, lessons and antiphons, the Canon stands out firm and unchanging in the midst of an ever-developing rite, the centre and nucleus of the whole liturgy, stretching back with its strange and archaic formulæ through all the centuries of church history, to the days when the great Roman Cæsar was lord of the world and the little community of Christians stood around their bishop while they "sang a hymn to Christ as to a God before day-break" (Pliny, Epp., X, xcvii). Then the bishop lifted up his hands over the bread and wine, "gave thanks and glory to the Father of all through his Son and the Holy Ghost, and made the Eucharist" (Just., Apol., III, lxv). So that of all liturgical prayers in the Christian world no one is more ancient nor more venerable than the Canon of the Roman Mass.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm
-
How does that support your claim that there were changes made after 1570?
You really don't know what you are talking about here, so I am going to drop any further discussion of it with you until and unless you read more about it first.
I said I was "largely going on" because I didn't want to mix up pre Quo Primum with post.
My comment on post Quo Primum changes was done from memory when I saw years ago Fr. Vaillancourt on a discussion list admit that there were a couple of insignificant changes. I may be mistaken, surely, and he even may have been talking about the Ordinary of the Mass instead of the Canon. I certainly can drop that since I have no more to say on that point.
Going back to a crucial point (which RonCal seems to touch on himself) I don't think you, RC, have a proper balance in dealing with divine law versus ecclesiastical law. Anything that was once done by a pope that didn't exist before him, can later be undone by himself or a subsequent pope. A pope is not subject to his own laws or those of his predecessors. He simply isn't. And RonCal is right about the power of any pope. A pope was able to add Cosmas & Damian to the Canon at one time around the 4th century, and this POWER is there for any pope. However, it is a power, not a necessarily a moral ability to do it. Anyway, since the Church is Holy, God would not allow a true pope to implement, or even tacitly approve, anything harmful in the liturgy....so, we have no fear on that point. The stark fact is, it CAN be done and is not divine law.
I never denied it CAN be done. But I don't think it can be done without being considered a major change and a revolutionary move that breaks with tradition.
This is why many traditional Catholic priests from the 1960's onwards adhered to what was traditional and kept the Canon the way it had been before j23 did what he did.
-
The Canon of the Mass can't be changed but "the rubrics of the Liturgy are malleable and can be changed".
I think traditional Catholics who hold such a radical position on the Divine Liturgy in regards to the changes made by Pius XII and John XXIII are truly misled by their own interpretations of liturgical discipline.
What exactly do you mean by "such a radical position on the Divine Liturgy in regards to the changes made by Pius XII and John XXIII are truly misled by their own interpretations of liturgical discipline".
-
Roman Catholic, I believe you know what I mean when I say those that hold "radical" stances with the Roman Liturgy. We should not oppose change because it is change; we should oppose change if it is contrary to Faith or right reasoning.
In regards to Mediator Dei, it would be rash and against Faith to say that the Holy Father has no power to make a New Mass, to change parts of the Mass, or the revised ceremonies used within the Divine Liturgy.
Rubrics are malleable and can be changed any time by any Pope as long as the reform is not contrary to Sacred Tradition and to Our True Faith. For example, Pius XII modified the midnight fast to 3 hours plus allowing communicants to drink water any time before receiving the Holy Eucharist. For my grandma's generation (because she was born in 1910), such a reform would've been considered "revolutionary" if not unacceptable to her since she was familiar with the Midnight Fast all her life.
I think as traditional Catholic we need to focus on the essential matters of our True Faith and not the things that can be changed. We must remember the Modernists destroyed the very edifice of Our Faith by changing the essentials of what make us Catholic.
-
Roman Catholic, I believe you know what I mean when I say those that hold "radical" stances with the Roman Liturgy. We should not oppose change because it is change; we should oppose change if it is contrary to Faith or right reasoning.
In regards to Mediator Dei, it would be rash and against Faith to say that the Holy Father has no power to make a New Mass, to change parts of the Mass, or the revised ceremonies used within the Divine Liturgy.
Rubrics are malleable and can be changed any time by any Pope as long as the reform is not contrary to Sacred Tradition and to Our True Faith. For example, Pius XII modified the midnight fast to 3 hours plus allowing communicants to drink water any time before receiving the Holy Eucharist. For my grandma's generation (because she was born in 1910), such a reform would've been considered "revolutionary" if not unacceptable to her since she was familiar with the Midnight Fast all her life.
I think as traditional Catholic we need to focus on the essential matters of our True Faith and not the things that can be changed. We must remember the Modernists destroyed the very edifice of Our Faith by changing the essentials of what make us Catholic.
I am still confused about what you mean by "radical stances" because you talked about rubrics but also put this quote pertaining to the Canon in your original post:
"The Canon of the Mass can't be changed but "the rubrics of the Liturgy are malleable and can be changed".
Do you think the Canon can be changed or can't be changed?
-
The Canon can't be changed, I agree but remember that St. Pius X was one of the cardinals who wanted St. Joseph's name to be added in the Canon of the Mass (Source: the SSPX website).
Because there are radical trads who think we should stick to the pre-1955 missal which I view as schismatic behavior. I mean if Pius XII made changes, whether we like it or not... we have to follow it if those changes were made in official capacity as Bishop of Rome.
I see nothing wrong with the 62 missal or the changes of 55. To remove the 2nd Confiteor before the Communion of the Faithful is the prerogative of the Holy Father. He has his say what non-essential things are to be removed from the Liturgy. He can remove feasts that he feels has no place in the Liturgical calendar. The Pope, in a political sense, is a dictator. He needs no amendment from his inferiors to oppose his changes. If he's in error, correct him but it would be improper for one to say the Holy Father cannot execute his Executive power as Supreme Governor of the Church.
Sad to say, Msgr. Annibale Bugnini was appointed by this great pope to change parts of the Mass but not to worry----he was fired for being destructive by Pope John XXIII. John XXIII wasn't fond of some of Pius XII's changes. He restored the Latin Vulgate in place of the Pius XII Psalter.
Sadly Paul VI re-appointed Bugnini...
-
The Canon can't be changed, I agree but remember that St. Pius X was one of the cardinals who wanted St. Joseph's name to be added in the Canon of the Mass (Source: the SSPX website).
Because there are radical trads who think we should stick to the pre-1955 missal which I view as schismatic behavior. I mean if Pius XII made changes, whether we like it or not... we have to follow it if those changes were made in official capacity as Bishop of Rome.
I see nothing wrong with the 62 missal or the changes of 55. To remove the 2nd Confiteor before the Communion of the Faithful is the prerogative of the Holy Father. He has his say what non-essential things are to be removed from the Liturgy. He can remove feasts that he feels has no place in the Liturgical calendar. The Pope, in a political sense, is a dictator. He needs no amendment from his inferiors to oppose his changes. If he's in error, correct him but it would be improper for one to say the Holy Father cannot execute his Executive power as Supreme Governor of the Church.
Sad to say, Msgr. Annibale Bugnini was appointed by this great pope to change parts of the Mass but not to worry----he was fired for being destructive by Pope John XXIII. John XXIII wasn't fond of some of Pius XII's changes. He restored the Latin Vulgate in place of the Pius XII Psalter.
Sadly Paul VI re-appointed Bugnini...
:confused1:
You start off saying the Canon can't be changed, but then it is clear from what follows that you believe it can be changed.
-
For me the Canon of the Mass is debatable. Trad priests and laity opposed putting St. Joseph in the Canon but St. Pius X and John XXIII weren't opposed to it.
Sorry for my Mitt Romney position lol
-
For me the Canon of the Mass is debatable. Trad priests and laity opposed putting St. Joseph in the Canon but St. Pius X and John XXIII weren't opposed to it.
Sorry for my Mitt Romney position lol
Ok, at least you can see why I found your posts to be contradictory and confusing in parts. :cheers:
-
What is your name Roman Catholic? I'm Ron by the way =)
-
With St. Pacian I say:
"My name is Christian, my surname is Catholic."
:cheers:
-
I found the infantile thumbing up and down respectively of the last 2 posts to be humorous in some ways.
I wonder if the brave individual/s who did that would like to come on here, reveal their identity, and give us their reasoning. :smirk:
I love quoting the Saints.
Here is St Pacian with the inclusion of a variation on the quote I gave earlier:
But during the time of the apostles, you will say, no one used to be called "Catholic." So be it. It may have been so. I allow you even that. But when, after the apostles, heresies had appeared and were striving under various names to tear to pieces and split apart the Dove and the Queen of God, did not the apostolic people require a name of their own, by which they would mark the unity of an uncorrupted people, lest the error of some should tear limb from limb the undefiled virgin of God? Was it not right that the original [ecclesial] source be designated by its own particular appellation?
(3) Suppose that this very day I entered a populous city. When I had found Marcionites, Apollinarians, Cataphrygians, Novatianists, and the rest of that kind who call themselves Christians, by what name should I recognize the congregation of my own people, unless it were called "Catholic"? Come now! Who has conferred so many names on these other groups? Why do so many cities, so many nations, each have their own defining designation? The same man who asks about the name "Catholic" will not himself be ignorant of the origin of his own name if I shall inquire about such. From where was the name "Catholic" bequeathed to me? Certainly that which has not fallen for so many ages was not borrowed from a man. This name "Catholic" does not ring of Marcion, nor of Apelles, nor of Montanus; nor does it take heretics as its originators.
(4) Many things the Holy Spirit, whom God sent from heaven to the apostles as their comforter and guide, has taught us; many things reason teaches us, as Paul declares; and honesty, too, and, as he says, nature itself. And what now? Does the authority of the disciples of the apostles, of the earliest priests, of the most blessed martyr and teacher Cyprian, carry so little weight with us? Do we wish to teach the teacher? Are we wiser than he was, and are we roused by the spirit of the flesh against this man, whom the noble shedding of his own blood and the crown of his most glorious suffering have presented as a witness of the eternal God? What about the great number of priests on this, our side, who throughout the entire world were united in a single ecclesial community with this very same Cyprian? What about the great number of venerable bishops, of martyrs, of confessors? Come now, even if these were not adequate authorities for the use of this name, are we then adequate for its rejection? And shall the Fathers, instead, follow our authority; and the antiquity of the saints give way to our "corrections"; and our own times, which are already decaying through sin, scrape away the [wise] gray hair of apostolic antiquity?
4. And yet, my brother, do not be troubled. "Christian" is my first name, and "Catholic" is my surname. The former term designates me; the latter distinguishes me from others. By one I am given sanction; by the other I am signified. And if, lastly, we must give an explanation of the word "Catholic" and extract it from the Greek by a Latin interpretation, "Catholic" means "one in every place" or perhaps, as our learned men think, it is said to mean "obedience in all things"-that is, in all the commandments of God. Whence the Apostle states, "If you are obedient in all things." And again, "For just as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so, I declare, by the attention of one many will be made righteous." Therefore the person who is a Catholic, this same one is obedient. And the person who is obedient, this same one is a Christian. Thus, the Catholic is a Christian. Wherefore, our people, when they are designated as Catholic, are separated by this appellation from any heretical name.
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/org.oclc.lac.ui.DialABookServlet?oclcnum=38936613
-
Do you realize there were "changes" nevertheless, albeit small? That is what it said, and it was speaking of since the 7th century. I understand even a couple after 1570.
If you think there have been changes made to the Canon of the Mass by the Church since the 7th century and even after 1570, then show us them please!
I am largely going on a quote that you yourself provided here for us from the CE. What does "scarcely" mean to you, "not any"?
It would help you to read the whole article.
The changes that were scarcely made were not made by Popes.
Yes, I see the Popes (after the 7th century & before 1570) didn't make those small changes. However, they did approve of some, though not making the changes themselves. Tacit approval is a very real thing for Holy Mother Church, so you can see my mind-frame in including popes in the changes, though they didn't make them themselves:
Allatae Sunt, (1755):
"It has also been confirmed either expressly or tacitly by the Apostolic See."
Omnem Sollicitudinem (1874):
"the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See."
Apostolicae Curae, (1896):
"it was accordingly quite impossible that the Apostolic See should tacitly allow or tolerate such a custom."
When the Church tolerates something that is not the same as giving tacit approval.
I can't recall having read anything that says the Church ever gave tacit approval to any changes to the Canon after the time of Pope Gregory.
Can you point us to some texts about this supposed tacit approval of changes to the Canon?
-
Do you realize there were "changes" nevertheless, albeit small? That is what it said, and it was speaking of since the 7th century. I understand even a couple after 1570.
If you think there have been changes made to the Canon of the Mass by the Church since the 7th century and even after 1570, then show us them please!
I am largely going on a quote that you yourself provided here for us from the CE. What does "scarcely" mean to you, "not any"?
It would help you to read the whole article.
The changes that were scarcely made were not made by Popes.
Yes, I see the Popes (after the 7th century & before 1570) didn't make those small changes. However, they did approve of some, though not making the changes themselves. Tacit approval is a very real thing for Holy Mother Church, so you can see my mind-frame in including popes in the changes, though they didn't make them themselves:
Allatae Sunt, (1755):
"It has also been confirmed either expressly or tacitly by the Apostolic See."
Omnem Sollicitudinem (1874):
"the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See."
Apostolicae Curae, (1896):
"it was accordingly quite impossible that the Apostolic See should tacitly allow or tolerate such a custom."
When the Church tolerates something that is not the same as giving tacit approval.
I can't recall having read anything that says the Church ever gave tacit approval to any changes to the Canon after the time of Pope Gregory.
Can you point us to some texts about this supposed tacit approval of changes to the Canon?
I don't need to. The point about a pope's power to change has already been mutually acknowledged. I will easily just concede there has been none. It doesn't really matter in view of the principles and the quotes given. It is too difficult for what it is worth to try to determine acknowledgements of change in the Mass to see whether the references are to the Canon or another part of the Mass.
Toleration by silence by Holy Mother Church, when it comes to the liturgy, is called tacit approval, because the Church is holy and cannot allow anything harmful in the liturgies. If the Church knows of something in a liturgy, and says nothing, it is considered approval, though not necessarily preferential, it is still recognized by the Church as "a good" and not condemned. Or else the Church will condemn it. She will not tolerate something bad and harmful in the liturgies.
To clarify, I never said that the name of St Joseph in the Canon is intrinsically evil or that the change is intrinsically evil. I was not arguing such. In fact I think it is obviouis that were either of those propositions correct, the earlier moves to add St Joseph would not have gotten anywhere; and also when it did happen in 1962 Catholics would have recognized the manifest evil and denounced it and John23.
-
The Canon can't be changed, I agree but remember that St. Pius X was one of the cardinals who wanted St. Joseph's name to be added in the Canon of the Mass (Source: the SSPX website).
I think that if St. Pius X was for it, it was his recognition that the Canon can be touched by a pope. That he didn't actually go through with it shows he realized God didn't want it.
Because there are radical trads who think we should stick to the pre-1955 missal which I view as schismatic behavior. I mean if Pius XII made changes, whether we like it or not... we have to follow it if those changes were made in official capacity as Bishop of Rome.
Not radical at all, at least for the act itself. I find it in perfect conformance with the will of Pius XII to not follow any changes from 1955 to 1958. It is virtuous to believe he only made those changes for the emergency situation he was facing, and pious to believe his changes actually delayed Vatican II and mitigated it for us.
What I don't like is any wrong reasoning behind rejecting those changes, such as if the claim is that the 50's changes were intrinsically bad. I think it may be fair to say they could be extrinsically harmful because extrinsic harm doesn't necessarily occur immediately, but over time. Explaining such a thing takes some care.
While we are talking about taking care in explaining things, I will reiterate something else that RonCAl wrote.
In 1897 Cardinal Sarto was one of the petitioners, but the thought process you applied to him applies Pius 1X who was reigning at the time of the petition.
There have also been considerations about the rupture of a time honored tradition with regard to St Joseph being added to the Canon, even though he was not a martyr, but no need to go into all that now.
-
Doctrinally, nothing is wrong with it.
But place it in a spectrum, with the 1954 (and earlier) missals on the left, and the 1969 Novus Ordo on the right, and you can see that by the time we get to 1962, much that once was has been lost.
-
Doctrinally, nothing is wrong with it.
But place it in a spectrum, with the 1954 (and earlier) missals on the left, and the 1969 Novus Ordo on the right, and you can see that by the time we get to 1962, much that once was has been lost.
Deliberately.
-
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.
-
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
-
I find the controversy on the Eucharistic Prayer for our Divine Liturgy to be complicated when you have Popes St. Pius X & John XXIII who wanted to make this small addition.
-
I find the controversy on the Eucharistic Prayer for our Divine Liturgy to be complicated when you have Popes St. Pius X & John XXIII who wanted to make this small addition.
Indeed. It is a matter to be settled by Holy Church in the future when Tradition reigns again. Then all these issues can be settled by Authority. Meantime all sane Catholics agree that the inclusion of St Joseph in the Canon does not affect validity of the rite.
-
The 1962 missal was the result of Annibale Montini, the notorious Freemason most directly responsible for this liturgical circus.
Already, the first changes occured at HIS HAND in 1952, with a revision of the easter Vigil.
THEN he had his hands all over Holy week in 55.
He repeatedly stated he was working toward a wider liturgical "renewal."
It's sort of like someone who embezzles thousands of Dollars.
He starts slowly with a little here and there to see what advantage he has. THen he embezzles vast sums. Wanting to stick to the 1962 Missal is like having 10,000 dollars stolen, but only wanting 9,500 of it back.
I want all $10,000!
Gimme a 1945 missal!
:geezer: