Author Topic: The end for the 1962 Missal  (Read 2510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DZ PLEASE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
  • Reputation: +736/-775
  • Gender: Male
  • "Lord, have mercy."
Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2017, 11:18:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    It was not his first choice. He had been reverting to the pre-1955 rubrics and propers consistently until a controversy erupted with "the Eight" which eventually morphed into sedevacantism. Fr. Gregory Hesse put the questions to rest when he explained in detail how it all panned out. ABL was put into a position of being marginalized more severely, OR, if he were to accept the 1962 Missal then Rome would be less severe with the SSPX, so ABL chose the latter to make life less problematic, as he didn't think there was enough difference to fight over. Fr. Hesse said, You see, that's how Rome does things, by intrigue and manipulation.
    .
    One of the minor changes attached to the '62 Missal is the non-use of the maniple (no relation to "manipulation"). You won't find any mention of the maniple in the '62 Missal itself, but it was quietly set aside in practice at the time, and it seems to me this was part of the overall plan to introduce the Newmass. Even today, sometimes SSPX priests use one and sometimes they don't. It's no big deal, but it's one drop in the bucket, so to speak, for when you add up enough drops you get a bucketful, whereas keeping all the longstanding traditions in place anchors your Mass in Tradition. If you go around making lots of little changes eventually Anglicans look more "traditional." Before Vat.II the maniple was universally used by all priests; after the Gospel in Latin at the altar (left side) the priest would remove the maniple and place it over the open Gospel pages, then turn to leave the altar and go to the pulpit where he would give the sermon, etc. The significance of the maniple is to show that the sermon is not part of Mass, and that Mass is momentarily interrupted for the time it takes to give the sermon and announcements, or perhaps to read the Epistle and Gospel in vernacular from the pulpit. One independent priest told me that he feels somehow incompletely vested without a maniple at Mass, like it's one step in the wrong direction.
    .
    Today, you will see +Williamson using the maniple and placing it over the Gospels while he gives his sermon, then returning to Mass and putting the maniple back on. I have noticed +Tissier de Mallarais do so as well. I don't know about +Fellay or the others (incl. 3 new ones consec. by +W).  I have noticed various independent priests in various parts of the world using the maniple in the same traditional way. But occasionally they don't take it off when they give the sermon, and I don't know why, perhaps they just forgot to remove it. Some SSPX priests apparently never use a maniple. I have seen CMRI priests who use it, some who don't, others who consistently take it off and hand it to an altar boy while giving the sermon instead of placing it over the Gospels. From what I have seen in videos, ABL always used the maniple in the traditional way, placing it over the Gospels during the sermon and replacing it on his left arm after returning to the altar for Mass.
    .
    If a Catholic doesn't know any better, he might get the impression that a maniple is a liturgical ornament that only bishops use. But that would be incorrect -- however, it's not an unreasonable deduction to make when one sees a bishop using it and his priests not using it. Then there's other bishops not using it, and some using it sometimes and not other times while priests under the same bishop do not use it, while others do.
    .
    One thing is clear: Novus Ordo priests do not use a maniple. I suppose there could be exceptions, though.
    .
    FSSP "priests", and presumably the other NO "Societies of Clerical Anachronisms", do.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 892
    • Reputation: +707/-138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #16 on: October 09, 2017, 11:23:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Today, you will see +Williamson using the maniple and placing it over the Gospels while he gives his sermon, then returning to Mass and putting the maniple back on. 
    Every priest I knew that was formed and ordained by +W, have continued this practice. 


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16606
    • Reputation: +7921/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #17 on: October 09, 2017, 12:04:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was referring to Neil Obstat's post where it was stated:

    I wonder if anyone bothered to inform +W he was the leader of the formerly known SSPX-SO? Or, is the writer of this screed merely following what he's read on Traditio.com? Hey, maybe the author of this screed is the source that Traditio has been using! That would explain a lot.
    .
    The point is, Traditio.com makes stuff up and pretends it's real. They do this all the time.
    .
    There is no SSPX-SO, there never was, and there never will be. But Traditio.com keeps saying there is (or was), which is a lie.
    .
    The only SSPX-SO that ever existed is the fable in the minds of Traditio.com and its readers.
    .
    The same lie, repeated over and over and over, creates its own reality, and gullible people believe it.
    .
    The fact that this website would have the words, "the so-called Resistance (formerly known as SSPX-SO) under Bishop Richard Williamson" on its web page, has to be due to the author having been a gullible reader of Traditio.com or a gullible reader of something written by another gullible reader of Traditio.com.
    .
    The Resistance -- 
    A) has never been "under Bishop Williamson," 
    B) has never been "known as SSPX-SO" (except in the minds of Traditio readers), and 
    C) is only referred to as "the so-called Resistance" by those who are not part of it, especially Indultarians. 
    .
    Do Indultarians like to be called by that name? Do Una Voce laymen appreciate being accused of Indultery?
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Tradplorable

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 616
    • Reputation: +110/-464
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #18 on: October 09, 2017, 12:25:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    It was not his first choice. He had been reverting to the pre-1955 rubrics and propers consistently until a controversy erupted with "the Eight" which eventually morphed into sedevacantism. 
    I thought it was "the Nine?"

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16606
    • Reputation: +7921/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #19 on: October 09, 2017, 12:40:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The topic of Quo Primum is very important.

    Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 07:20:21 AM
    Quote
    As far as the coming 'hybrid' missal; this has been a long time coming.  It's the logical next step for new-rome.  But it will mean nothing.  Unless they revise Quo Primum, then legally the 1962 missal will still exist, it will still ALWAYS be legal, and nothing will change that. is

    Thanks Pax Vobis... I've been trying to wrap my mind around the importance of this issue... you seem to have confirmed what I suspected...
    .
    Pax Vovis says, "Unless they revise Quo Primum..." But there's a glaring problem with that. Quo Primum is not something that can be revised.
    .
    The Constitution of the United States can be revised, but the Magna Carta cannot be revised.
    .
    The Encyclopedia Britannica can be revised, but the Gettysburg Address cannot be revised.
    .
    The documents of Vatican II can be revised, but the Opening Speech of Vatican II given by Pope John XXIII on Oct. 11th, 1962 cannot be revised.
    .
    For many centuries, the Canon of the Mass was said to be untouchable, but along came the Newmass and the Canon was touched.
    .
    Modern day Newrome would like very much to revise Quo Primum, and if there was any way they could do that, they would. 
    .
    But it cannot be done.
    .
    In fact, Quo Primum has been said to be "infallible." 
    .
    Now, I don't claim to be an expert on what is and what is not infallible, but I have heard experts say that Quo Primum is infallible.
    .
    But even if it's not strictly speaking infallible, it is still non-reformable, non-revisable, and unalterable. 
    .
    That's because it is a fact of history.
    .
    From the time it was issued in 1572 (or thereabouts) until right around 1962, Quo Primum was printed right inside the front cover of every altar Missal produced for the Roman Rite. It became such a fixture that any priest going to acquire a Missal or use one for Mass would always open the front cover first, and check to see that Quo Primumi was there where it belongs. If there was no Quo Primum there, the priest would most likely close the book and put it back, having nothing to do with it, because that one omission was not forgivable, because the presence of Quo Primum was considered an essential element of reliability for an altar Missal. 
    .
    It has been said that the death-knell of Newchurch was when the first altar Missals were issued missing Quo Primum inside the front cover.
    .
    In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln said, "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here." He was mistaken. The world noted at once what he said and will never cease to remember it. One may wonder if perhaps Pope Pius V could have known how important his Quo Primum would one day become or how longstanding its memory would be.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16606
    • Reputation: +7921/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #20 on: October 09, 2017, 01:05:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Today, you will see +Williamson using the maniple and placing it over the Gospels while he gives his sermon, then returning to Mass and putting the maniple back on. 

    Every priest I knew that was formed and ordained by +W, have continued this practice.
    .
    That's interesting to see. I'd like to know about other traditional rite priests, too. This question of maniple use is easily overlooked as priests practically never have anything to say about it, unless someone asks them a question.
    .
    I have seen Mass videos where the cameraman has either stopped filming so as to omit the part that would have shown the priest taking off the maniple and placing it over the Gospels, or picking it up and putting it back on, or else there has been some obstacle between the priest and the camera at that moment, as though the cameraman was oblivious to the objective of showing what the priest is doing at that moment. Since the TIME it takes the priest to leave the altar and walk to the pulpit might seem like wasted time or "dead time" a video editor is likely to cut that part out, without regard for what a viewer might want to see in the cut portion.
    .
    Some may think this talk about the maniple is useless or over-concern about insignificant details, but in my own experience, those who have an abiding love for Sacred Tradition generally take some degree of comfort in seeing the maniple used properly, and it gives them an abiding sense of peace to see this one little tradition kept intact as it has been since Apostolic times. Not many parts of the Mass go back that far, you know, not even the elevation of the host goes back to Apostolic times! It was introduced in the 12th century in answer to heresies that denied the Real Presence.
    .

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2649
    • Reputation: +1619/-882
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #21 on: October 09, 2017, 01:54:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Pax Vovis says, "Unless they revise Quo Primum..." But there's a glaring problem with that. Quo Primum is not something that can be revised.
    Yes, Quo Primum can be revised, and has been about 8 times since the 1570s.  John XXIII's 1962 missal is a revision of Pius V's missal.  Am I missing your point?
    If you are saying it can't be ESSENTIALLY changed, then yes, I agree totally.  The 1962 missal is a revision of St Pius V's missal, which was a unifying of all the previous missals since Christ.  The 1962 missal = the same as Christ said the first mass, in all the ESSENTIALS.

    Quote
    In fact, Quo Primum has been said to be "infallible." 
    Quo Primum covered the Breviary, the Missal and the Liturgy.  Some of these Church matters are of Divine origin (which can NEVER be changed) and some are of human origin (which the pope can change, much like when Pope St Pius X overhauled the Breviary in the 1900s).  I'm not an expert either, but I would think Quo Primum being described as 'infallible' would be a confusion of terms, but I get the point, which is that the mass is unchangeable because Christ created it.


    Quote
    From the time it was issued in 1572 (or thereabouts) until right around 1962, Quo Primum was printed right inside the front cover of every altar Missal produced for the Roman Rite. It became such a fixture that any priest going to acquire a Missal or use one for Mass would always open the front cover first, and check to see that Quo Primumi was there where it belongs. If there was no Quo Primum there, the priest would most likely close the book and put it back, having nothing to do with it, because that one omission was not forgivable, because the presence of Quo Primum was considered an essential element of reliability for an altar Missal. 
    This is a GREAT point and one which many of the younger generations don't know about or have forgotten.  There was a reason it was printed in every missal - so that people would know it's importance.  If you don't study history...

    Quote
    It has been said that the death-knell of Newchurch was when the first altar Missals were issued missing Quo Primum inside the front cover.

    In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln said, "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here." He was mistaken. The world noted at once what he said and will never cease to remember it. One may wonder if perhaps Pope Pius V could have known how important his Quo Primum would one day become or how longstanding its memory would be.
    Exactly.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16606
    • Reputation: +7921/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #22 on: October 09, 2017, 02:38:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Sorry I just noticed I made a typo with "Pax Vovis" should have been Pax Vobis. The v and b are right next to each other.  :facepalm:
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4352
    • Reputation: +3750/-228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #23 on: October 09, 2017, 03:59:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pax Vovis says, "Unless they revise Quo Primum..." But there's a glaring problem with that. Quo Primum is not something that can be revised.
    Modernist Vatican could just do to Quo Primum what they did to Saint Philomena....   They could just make it a non-document.  They could just eliminate it from the Vatican website, remove it from the the Acts of the Apostolic See, pretend it never exited.  It doesn't really matter to them whether it can be found in countless Missals still in existence.  Then they can go about punishing any priest who doesn't get with the program.  They already did most of this when they imposed the Novus Ordo.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3755
    • Reputation: +3663/-252
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #24 on: October 09, 2017, 06:50:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Modernist Vatican could just do to Quo Primum what they did to Saint Philomena....   They could just make it a non-document.  They could just eliminate it from the Vatican website, remove it from the the Acts of the Apostolic See, pretend it never exited.  It doesn't really matter to them whether it can be found in countless Missals still in existence.  Then they can go about punishing any priest who doesn't get with the program.  They already did most of this when they imposed the Novus Ordo.
    Quite true, the Modernists care not for dogma, objective truth, or any belief in anything which binds one to a fixed law, doctrine, or moral truth.
    The Regime rules by force and has the power to do so, but it does not have the right. Its govenance is not from God but from man.

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2929
    • Reputation: +736/-775
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #25 on: October 09, 2017, 07:40:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Modernist Vatican could just do to Quo Primum what they did to Saint Philomena....   They could just make it a non-document.  They could just eliminate it from the Vatican website, remove it from the the Acts of the Apostolic See, pretend it never exited.  It doesn't really matter to them whether it can be found in countless Missals still in existence.  Then they can go about punishing any priest who doesn't get with the program.  They already did most of this when they imposed the Novus Ordo.

    "Lord, have mercy".


    Offline Tridentine MT

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 240
    • Reputation: +34/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #26 on: October 10, 2017, 04:51:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Going back to the Traditio website, it seems that Traditio copied the article from the original poster because the original post is dated 8 October, whereas Traditio refers to it on 9 October.

    What I found worrying is that there seems to be some sort of narcissistic fighting between the Blog in question and Rorate Caeli as this post seems to suggest.
    "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful" Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani

    "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop

    Online josefamenendez

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 387
    • Reputation: +243/-14
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #27 on: October 10, 2017, 08:17:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • i saw it first on Dr Chjornowski's (sp) Radtradthomist.com, and he got the info off of the Una Voce Malta site.
    There does seem to be a disagreement with Rorate Caeli- they don't believe it. Una Voce Malta is insistent, however.

    Offline Tridentine MT

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 240
    • Reputation: +34/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #28 on: October 10, 2017, 08:36:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • i saw it first on Dr Chjornowski's (sp) Radtradthomist.com, and he got the info off of the Una Voce Malta site.
    There does seem to be a disagreement with Rorate Caeli- they don't believe it. Una Voce Malta is insistent, however.
    At this stage, I don't know which side to believe. But best be cautious. The Modernists' intentions are clear.
    "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful" Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani

    "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13551
    • Reputation: +474/-920
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The end for the 1962 Missal
    « Reply #29 on: October 11, 2017, 04:55:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • What about masses for the saints like Padre Pio?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16