This would be the inevitable result of having compromised with the Revolution early on, instead of resting the Traditional movement unmovably upon Quo Primum and the Missal of Pius V, and having led Traditionalists directly into the maw of the conciliar monster..
The latest tactic to divide us traditional Catholics further?.
It seems that next year, the Conciliar Church will throw away the 1962 Missal. (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently. (emphasis ours)
No. Traditio was not the source. Click on the link. It is the "Pro Tridentina (Malta) (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)" website. I explored the website and it appears to contain a lot of general news that has been elsewhere widely reported.I was referring to Neil Obstat's post where it was stated:
The 1962 Missal was a seductive trap from the very start.Indeed it was and look how most of the major Traditional clerics and leaders fell for it, dragging the faithful behind them. All to please a conciliar Rome which was already on its way out of the Catholic Religion.
Neil Obstat,Indeed it was and look how most of the major Traditional clerics and leaders fell for it, dragging the faithful behind them. All to please a conciliar Rome which was already on its way out of the Catholic Religion."Lex orandi..."
Now, when this next monument to the Revolution and milestone of it, is put into place, let us see if the "so called" independents have the principles and Catholic sensus, to return to the Missal of Pius V, where they should have been all along, or whether they will remain with the conciliar book and continue to attest to the Catholicity of the entity.
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.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...
Even Abp. LeFebvre used the 1962 missal..
.FSSP "priests", and presumably the other NO "Societies of Clerical Anachronisms", do.
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.
.
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.
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.
.I thought it was "the Nine?"
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.
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 07:20:21 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/the-end-for-the-1962-missal/msg571488/#msg571488).QuoteAs 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...
.QuoteToday, 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.
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?
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.
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...
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.Exactly.
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.
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-docuмent. 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.
Modernist Vatican could just do to Quo Primum what they did to Saint Philomena.... They could just make it a non-docuмent. 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.
Modernist Vatican could just do to Quo Primum what they did to Saint Philomena.... They could just make it a non-docuмent. 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.https://youtu.be/oe9I0QhV08w
i saw it first on Dr Chjornowski's (sp) Radtradthomist.com, and he got the info off of the Una Voce Malta site.At this stage, I don't know which side to believe. But best be cautious. The Modernists' intentions are clear.
There does seem to be a disagreement with Rorate Caeli- they don't believe it. Una Voce Malta is insistent, however.
What about masses for the saints like Padre Pio?I think that is not the main issue. At least the original article seems to point towards many more changes. And that is something that I guess everyone here would be against.
Yes, this is but a rumor, but it is a well-founded one. What lends serious credibility to it is the fact that this report does not simply appear on “Joe’s Blog” on the blog of Una Voce in Malta, citing “reliable sources close to the Holy See.”
Una Voce is a Vatican-recognized international organization that promotes the use of the Indult Mass, now also called the “Mass in the Extraordinary Form”, i.e. the 1962 (John XXIII) version of the Traditional Latin Mass. Formerly, the president of Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce was the famous Michael Davies (1936-2004) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Davies_(Catholic_writer)), whose poor scholarship and half-baked theology (http://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/michael-davies-an-evaluation-john-daly/) was masked by the prolificacy of his writings, his pleasant style, and the overall traditionalist appeal of the positions he defended.
Meanwhile, Mr. John Zuhlsdorf — “Father Z” — has chimed in to quell people’s concerns: “Piffle. Even, bull piffle! No. Won’t happen. In addition, I checked with my various peeps. No. Won’t happen. Can’t happen”, he asserts dogmatically (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/10/concerning-rumors-of-dramatic-changes-to-the-extraordinary-form/), before informing his readers that he has turned the comment moderation queue ON. Precisely why anyone should think that Mr. Z’s mere say-s0 and “checking with various peeps [people]” should trump Una Voce‘s “reliable sources close to the Holy See” is anyone’s guess — especially in light of what has transpired in the Vatican in the last four-and-a-half years, which a mere five years ago the likes of Zuhlsdorf & Co. would have assured us all could “never” happen!
How do the changes to the '62 missal compare to the '37 missal?1937 Missal? You mean (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=46759.msg572419#msg572419)this one? (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1937-roman-missal-fr-lasance-latin-430365244)