Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic: Fr Hesse on the Mass of Pius V vs 1962  (Read 2123 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr Hesse on the Mass of Pius V vs 1962
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2026, 11:13:51 AM »
Quote from: Incredulous on June 22, 2026, 10:45:53 AM

I can't escape the inconvenient word. "Perpetuity". 

"Updates" on the Holiest week of the Liturgy sounds like a Jєωιѕн marketing term.

Now, instead of analyzing Pacelli' pontificate, there are a few notorious items to consider:

1. He was of Jєωιѕн lineage.

2. In the US intelligence agency memorandum on the 1958 Conclave, the agent writing it stated that Montini had advised him that John XXIII would be chosen outside the conclave process, as was the same with Pope Pius XII.

3. That Pacelli approved of Bugnini's liturgical modifications.

4. That Pacelli approved of Josemaria Escriva's (crypto-jew) apostolate.

Now to the Pope's defense. it is often cited that he was ill and that his judgement may have been compromised.
1.  Perpetuity is a legal term.  It doesn't mean revisions aren't allowed; it means substantial changes can't be made.
2.  St Pope Pius V revised his own missal, so clearly the missal is allowed to be non-essentially changed.
2b.  Pope St Pius X revised the missal, which was finished by his successor, Benedict XV  (similar to Pius XII's revision being finished by John 23).
3.  The number of revisions to the Quo Primum missal from the 1570s til prior to 1962 is more than a handful.
4.  If one ignores the Holy Week changes, there is nothing wrong with the 62 missal.
5.  You can use the pre-55 Holy Week and still use the 62 missal for the rest of the 362 days of the year.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring the 62 missal completely, when the only problem is Holy Week.  It shows a lack of understanding of what changed in the 62 missal, which is 98% mainly calendar/feast changes.
Logged

Offline Boomerang

  • Supporter
Re: Fr Hesse on the Mass of Pius V vs 1962
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2026, 05:49:27 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 22, 2026, 07:27:16 AM
Totally agree.  The sspx failed here, because of bad logic.  They were trying to avoid the Sede argument “Well, if the new rites are all doubtful, then there’s no pope.”  Or something similar.  No, sorry Sedes, life isn’t that simple. 

But hindsight being 20/20, I’m darn sure that the sspx’s approach to the new rites was/is in some way affecter by their avoidance of sedeism.  Which is also very stupid. 

If +ABL and the sspx had taken an approach based on principles (ie new rite words and historical condemnations) instead of an emotional approach (avoiding Sedeism), all Trads would be in a better spot today.

The sspx would have zero doubtful priests.  The sspx would’ve drawn a clear line in the sand vs the Indult.  And the sspx would be closer to the (correct) Sede view in the matter (ie conditional sacraments).  Tradition would be stronger for it.
Though I hold the Sede position, I concede you could make an argument for the doubtfulness of the new rites, provided it doesn't imply they came from the Church.
As an example, Bp Williamson went through a line of argument from a Canonist on why the Mass of Pope Pius V was not abrogated by the NOM, and not obrogated correctly (if I'm recalling correctly).
Source:
Lecture 38 of 63 — Matthew 16 Indefectibility & NOM — Wednesday, February 14, 1996
https://open.substack.com/pub/vladsarto/p/bishop-williamson-teaches-the-gospel
Back on the topic of the thread, assuming John XXIII was a valid Pope (or even that these changes were made by Pope Pius XII, I'm not very familiar with it), a Pope would have the right to make the changes to the Mass. Pope Pius XII teaches this in Mediator Dei, para 58
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
Logged

Offline Michaelknoxville

Re: Fr Hesse on the Mass of Pius V vs 1962
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2026, 07:30:46 PM »
If fr. Hesse is not a legitimate catholic just send us all to hell already. :facepalm: Perhaps we are already there. 
Logged

Offline Incredulous

Re: Fr Hesse on the Mass of Pius V vs 1962
« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2026, 08:49:35 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 22, 2026, 11:13:51 AM
1.  Perpetuity is a legal term.  It doesn't mean revisions aren't allowed; it means substantial changes can't be made.
2.  St Pope Pius V revised his own missal, so clearly the missal is allowed to be non-essentially changed.
2b.  Pope St Pius X revised the missal, which was finished by his successor, Benedict XV  (similar to Pius XII's revision being finished by John 23).
3.  The number of revisions to the Quo Primum missal from the 1570s til prior to 1962 is more than a handful.
4.  If one ignores the Holy Week changes, there is nothing wrong with the 62 missal.
5.  You can use the pre-55 Holy Week and still use the 62 missal for the rest of the 362 days of the year.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring the 62 missal completely, when the only problem is Holy Week.  It shows a lack of understanding of what changed in the 62 missal, which is 98% mainly calendar/feast changes.

I liked the way you shifted gears

 :laugh1:
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr Hesse on the Mass of Pius V vs 1962
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2026, 09:21:03 PM »
Quote from: Incredulous on June 22, 2026, 10:45:53 AM

I can't escape the inconvenient word. "Perpetuity". 

"Updates" on the Holiest week of the Liturgy sounds like a Jєωιѕн marketing term.

Now, instead of analyzing Pacelli' pontificate, there are a few notorious items to consider:

1. He was of Jєωιѕн lineage.

2. In the US intelligence agency memorandum on the 1958 Conclave, the agent writing it stated that Montini had advised him that John XXIII would be chosen outside the conclave process, as was the same with Pope Pius XII.

3. That Pacelli approved of Bugnini's liturgical modifications.

4. That Pacelli approved of Josemaria Escriva's (crypto-jew) apostolate.

Now to the Pope's defense. it is often cited that he was ill and that his judgement may have been compromised.
So, you're saying Pius XII was not a true pope?  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7
« previous next »