Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
From CW News
Vatican liturgical official seeks recovery of the sacred
Vatican, Jun. 23 (CWNews.com) - The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has conceded some "negative results" of liturgical changes since Vatican II, and voiced his support for reform of the post-conciliar liturgy, in an interview with the I Media news agency.
Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don told I Media that the Council fathers had hoped to reinvigorate the sense of an active encounter with God through the liturgy. "But unfortunately," he said, "after the Council, certain changes were made rapidly, without reflection, in a burst of enthusiasm, in a rejection of some exaggerations of the past." The result, the archbishop said, was quite different from the Council's intent.
Asked to provide some examples of the negative results, the Sri Lankan prelate listed "the abandonment of the sacred and the mystical," the confusion between the common priesthood of all the faithful and the ordained ministry, and the concept of the Eucharist as a common banquet rather than a representation of Christ's Sacrifice.
These changes, Archbishop Patabendige Don said, have produced negative consequences for the Church even beyond the liturgy. In the face of a growing secular trend in society, he said, the Church urgently needs to cultivate a deeper sense of the sacred and a more active interior life. Fortunately, the archbishop said, there is a growing sense among Catholics of the need to recover the sense of the sacred. He said that the work of the Congregation for Divine Worship entails helping bishops and episcopal conferences to refine the liturgy by incorporating the strengths of the past.
Asked whether he was hinting at approval of the use of the old Missal of St. Pius V, the Sri Lankan archbishop said that the requests for the use of the pre-conciliar liturgy have become more common. But the question is in the hands of Pope Benedict XVI, he said. "The Pope knows all this," he said; "he knows the questions, he is very conscious of the situation, he is reflecting, and we are waiting for his indications."
Archbishop Patabendige Don adds that the use of the Tridentine rite "has never been abolished or banned." However, he said, because of the split in the Church caused by the traditionalist followers of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, the old Mass "has taken a certain identity that is not right."
Whether Pope Benedict will now encourage the use of the Missal of St. Pius V, or call for a reform of the 1962 Missal-- "what some people call 'the reform of the reform'"-- is not yet known, the archbishop said. What is established, he said, is the need for a liturgy that is "more beautiful, more transcendent." The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship cautioned that it is imprudent to press for quick decisions, running the risk of falling into new errors because of haste. "We have to reflect a great deal," he said; "and above all, we have to pray for the Holy Father and the Church, and listen to what the Lord wants of us."
"We have to reflect a great deal," he said; "and above all, we have to pray for the Holy Father and the Church, and listen to what the Lord wants of us."
And the Lord will say "Gimme back my Church!"; and yes I do think he will have to shout.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 408 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:46 am Post subject:
I think what he said was very good. You hardly ever hear things like that out of anyone else in the Vatican.
Has anyone else heard the rumor that this Archbishop is friends with Bishop Fellay? I think remember hear that once, as well as a report that he says the Traditional Mass. The story sounded a little out there though.
I think what he said was very good. You hardly ever hear things like that out of anyone else in the Vatican.
Doesn't sound good to me. He couldn't resist knocking Archbishop Lefebvre who practically single-handedly rescued the traditional Mass from the scrap heap of history. The claim Rome is making now that we need to get back to a sense of the sacred, the Archbishop was making thirty years ago, along with the charge that the New Liturgy was destroying the Church. Instead of admitting this obvious truth, these officials now want to suggest the Church's own auto-destruction was the fault of those too overzealous in "correcting" the "exaggerations" of the Old Liturgy. In Novus Ordo parlance this is another way of saying the Old Mass was too busy transmitting the Catholic faith instead of sucking up to Protestants in the new ecumenical spirit. The bottom line is Rome got it wrong back then and Archbishop Lefebvre got it right. Rome is just starting to find its way back--but it won't get it right until it admits its own mistakes and restores the patrimony which was stolen from the faithful.
Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 4820 Location: Vatican City
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject:
Light in the Darkness
August 2002 Volume XXV, Number 8
Excerpts from the remarks given by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, First Assistant to the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X to the faithful at Immaculate Conception Priory, Post Falls Idaho, April 19, 2002.
...Another tiny light of hope is the appointment of a bishop from Sri Lanka to the Roman Curia. His name is Bishop Malcolm Ranjith [say: Ran'-jit]. I had the opportunity to meet him last year in March (2001) in his diocese in the bishop's house in Ratnapura, located in the middle of Sri Lanka. We had a very good discussion for two hours. He told me, there is no doubt that there is a profound link between the crisis of the priesthood, the crisis of the identity of the priest, on the one side, and all that is going on in the liturgy on the other side. He said if we want to restore the Church, if we want to bring a true renewal to the Church, we must begin there, in the very center. We understood each other very well.
At the very beginning of the month of October, we suddenly heard that Bishop Ranjith was nominated an Archbishop, and that he was appointed Joint Secretary to the Congregations for the Propaganda of the Faith and the Evangelization of the People in Rome. Some days later, I again had the opportunity to meet him, because he has a married sister in Germany. Once again, we had a very deep and very healthy conversation, and he said, "I agree 200% with you that there really is a problem in the Church with the liturgy and the priesthood, and both go together. We must work on this, and there is no doubt that the Pope has to set free the true Catholic Mass for everyoneβI am going now to Rome where I will have my private chapel. I have just taken care to get a Missal of St. Pius V to celebrate Mass as it should be."
The New Secretary of the CDW: A Friend of the Traditional Mass?
I will cut to the chase: while one prefers not to rely upon the SSPX for news, they are indisputably a well-connected and acute group. Now, in 2002, while our late Holy Father was still presiding from Peter's chair, a Society priest had this to say about the man who is now No. 2 at the Congregation for Divine Worship (see above comments)....
...And while this alone is exciting enough for friends of the old Mass -- the CDW has not been a friend, even under Cdl. Arinze -- there is other evidence, albeit uncertain, that this Bishop Ranjith Don has been a long-known friend of the Tridentine Mass.
Msgr. Bernard Fellay, in a Nov. 2004 letter to the supporters of the Society, says, We have an archbishop in Rome -- well, now he is no longer in Rome, he has been kicked out -- who says the Church is not going out of the crisis without going back to the Tridentine Mass (click here for the rest). Note that Archbishop Ranjith had been appointed to Sri Lanka as Apostolic Nuncio in April, 2004.
Alone, this is vague. But in the SSPX Great Britain newsletter, Christendom, (see p. 8) Msgr. Fellay spoke of a Prelate who had been proposed to Pope John Paul II by then-Cardinal Ratzinger as -- yes, you guessed it -- Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship who "is convinced that the Church will not come out of this crisis without a return to the old Mass, a bishop who says that the priest cannot find his identity in the new Mass." At the time, the bishop "was not appointed, because the secretary of the pope [JP II, ed.] had already promised the office to someone else." (note that the former Secretary, Arbp. Sorrentino, was appointed Secretary in Aug. 2003).
So ... while it seems almost too wild to speculate, could Arbp. Ranjith Don be this promised friend of Tradition -- the Pope's man at the CDW, saying the Tridentine Mass privately by night and fighting for a traditional "reform of the reform" by day? Only time can tell, but this is indeed hopeful news!
On a final, related note: Arbp. Ranjith's very positive Commentary on the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is available here, from EWTN.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
CW News wrote:
Whether Pope Benedict will now encourage the use of the Missal of St. Pius V, or call for a reform of the 1962 Missal-- "what some people call 'the reform of the reform'"-- is not yet known, the archbishop said.
Since when did "the reform of the reform" become associated with a reform of the modernized 1962 Missal? I was under the impression that "the reform of the reform" was an attempt to make a manure sandwich look better than it tastes. That is to say, make the Novus Ordo service appear Catholic by including Latin and Sacred Music and improving translations. When will they learn that they can add all the garnishes they want to the Novus Ordo, but in the end it is still manure? _________________ St. Robert, increase love for the truth in the erring.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
Since when did "the reform of the reform" become associated with a reform of the modernized 1962 Missal?
A reform of the 1962 Missal along the lines originally proposed at the Council is already being worked on by the CDW as a possible replacement for the Novus Ordo. Whether this will ever see the light of day is a big question as I am sure you can imagine what the reaction of most of the bishops would be.
Whether this was a slip of the tongue by the Archbishop or a deliberately planted hint I wouldn't like to guess as the existence of this text is supposed to be kept under wraps.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Deacon Augustine wrote:
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
Since when did "the reform of the reform" become associated with a reform of the modernized 1962 Missal?
A reform of the 1962 Missal along the lines originally proposed at the Council is already being worked on by the CDW as a possible replacement for the Novus Ordo. Whether this will ever see the light of day is a big question as I am sure you can imagine what the reaction of most of the bishops would be.
Whether this was a slip of the tongue by the Archbishop or a deliberately planted hint I wouldn't like to guess as the existence of this text is supposed to be kept under wraps.
Truthfully, I don't trust Rome to reform anything. The whole reform of the reform is simply an attempt by Rome to get traditional Catholics to abandon the fight. I wouldn't be surprised if the "reform of the reform" is a duplicate of the 1965 Mass, which was hideous. The best reform is to dump the 1962 books and go back to the pre-1956 (?) rubrics, before the Holy Week changes. _________________ St. Robert, increase love for the truth in the erring.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the "reform of the reform" is a duplicate of the 1965 Mass, which was hideous.
As far as I'm concerned, debates about which pre-conciliar rite was best are little more than rubricism when any are compared to the current mess.
Why do you find the 1965 Mass so hideous considering that it was simply the Tridentine Rite without the prayers at the foot of the altar and final Gospel? If the Church had this rite with worthy translations into the vernacular as the N.O. and the 1962 rite was freed up as well, surely this would be a massive improvement on the current situation?
Proper attention could then be paid to restoring faith and true doctrine in the Church.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Deacon Augustine wrote:
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the "reform of the reform" is a duplicate of the 1965 Mass, which was hideous.
As far as I'm concerned, debates about which pre-conciliar rite was best are little more than rubricism when any are compared to the current mess.
Why do you find the 1965 Mass so hideous considering that it was simply the Tridentine Rite without the prayers at the foot of the altar and final Gospel? If the Church had this rite with worthy translations into the vernacular as the N.O. and the 1962 rite was freed up as well, surely this would be a massive improvement on the current situation?
Proper attention could then be paid to restoring faith and true doctrine in the Church.
I have serious reservations about the changes to Holy Week by Pope Pius XII, because these changes were the workings of Annibale Bugnini, and nothing more than his own desire of what he wanted the Holy Week liturgy to be. So, Bugnini helped to destroy one of oldest parts of the Traditional Roman Rite - the Holy Week liturgy. So, for me it is not a matter of preferring older rubrics simply. I also have problems with the liturgical ground ceded by Pope John XXIII when he promulgated the Missale Romanum of 1962. He did away with the second Confiteor prior to the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful, and all octaves of major feasts, with the exception of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. He also removed the use of second and third Collects, Secrets, and Postcommunions. All of these changes foreshadowed the coming disaster of the Novus Ordo.
I think that it is admirable that you are able to trust Rome in matters of the liturgy. For me, they have not shown that they can be trusted. After all, it was the modernists who gave us the Novus Ordo, and these modernists are still in control of the Vatican. I do not trust modernists to do anything worthwhile in regards to the liturgy.
Sadly, I do not trust Rome to free up the Traditional Latin Mass, while giving modernist Catholics (the vast majority of Catholics in the world) a better translation of the Novus Ordo or this "reform of the reform." Moreover, I do not believe Rome will free the Traditional Latin Mass or even wants to free the Traditional Latin Mass. It is more likely that they will give Catholics this "reform of the reform" and continue to suppress the TLM. Personally, I don't care how good any translation of the Novus Ordo or "reform of the reform" is, because I believe that it is all being done in an attempt to marginalize the SSPX and the traditional movement that has been growing over the decades.
The answer is to restore Catholic tradition without any of the modernist revolutions that spawned the Holy Week revisions, the changes embraced by John XXIII, or the 1965 experimentation, because each of these dreadful "reforms" gave us the Novus Ordo.
But we both hope for the restoration of true doctrine, which is most perfectly expressed in the TLM - and this is something on which we can both agree. _________________ St. Robert, increase love for the truth in the erring.
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Deacon Augustine wrote:
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the "reform of the reform" is a duplicate of the 1965 Mass, which was hideous.
As far as I'm concerned, debates about which pre-conciliar rite was best are little more than rubricism when any are compared to the current mess.
Why do you find the 1965 Mass so hideous considering that it was simply the Tridentine Rite without the prayers at the foot of the altar and final Gospel? If the Church had this rite with worthy translations into the vernacular as the N.O. and the 1962 rite was freed up as well, surely this would be a massive improvement on the current situation?
Proper attention could then be paid to restoring faith and true doctrine in the Church.
"We have to reflect a great deal," he said; "and above all, we have to pray for the Holy Father and the Church, and listen to what the Lord wants of us."
And the Lord will say "Gimme back my Church!"; and yes I do think he will have to shout.
Where is my Pope? Where is my Church? Don't mind me we as trads make up our own rules. Even if Martin Luther himself would come back to life and take the tiara, and call himself catholic, we must be following the right path....gimmie a break. The next time they destroy your grandparents church, just do it, call to a sick and forlorn Rome and see if you get help, obedience does not for go truth....gimmie a break. YAYY... we make bishops and mention the Pope in our canon "if you even call it that today" , so therefore we are Catholics...what makes you different ?from Call To Action?
. The next time they destroy your grandparents church
And, your children's church, and, your grandchildren's church, and, your great grandchildren's church...... _________________ I have dipt my wings in Truths' emerald spray....
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Deacon Augustine wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, debates about which pre-conciliar rite was best are little more than rubricism when any are compared to the current mess.
Why do you find the 1965 Mass so hideous considering that it was simply the Tridentine Rite without the prayers at the foot of the altar and final Gospel? If the Church had this rite with worthy translations into the vernacular as the N.O. and the 1962 rite was freed up as well, surely this would be a massive improvement on the current situation?
Proper attention could then be paid to restoring faith and true doctrine in the Church.
This attitude is extremely dangerous. The 1955, 1960 and 1962 changes where not "little more than rubricism". The unimportant "rubricism" of which you speak of govern how the ceremonies are performed. Do you honestly think Rome will have the Novus Ordo, the translated 1965 rite and the 1962 Mass all at once?. They are going to replace the 1962 missal with the 1965. All traditionalists should vehemently defend the 1962 Missal and try to get the pre-55 Holy Week and Calendar included. The only way is to cling to 1962 and look for earlier usages to be incorporated (pre-55 missal). To accept anything after 1962 inevitably places us in the path for the N.O... 1962 is already modernized and is the absolute last acceptable missal. Please do not have this type of indifferent attitude towards the liturgy. It is because of this kind of indifferent-ism of Catholics in the 50's when the first radical changes took place, that we now have the NO. Most of us have 1962. Let's try and defend that as best we can. _________________ Pray for all SSPX Bishops to become Cardinals
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I think that it is admirable that you are able to trust Rome in matters of the liturgy. For me, they have not shown that they can be trusted. After all, it was the modernists who gave us the Novus Ordo, and these modernists are still in control of the Vatican. I do not trust modernists to do anything worthwhile in regards to the liturgy.
To be honest, I don't really trust Rome either - I just keep believing that our Lord will get us out of this mess one way or another, but I don't know how. There is a battle of competing belief systems going on in Rome and I hope and pray that the tide is starting to turn in favour of orthodoxy, but no doubt there will be many setbacks still ahead.
I certainly understand what you say about the changes in the Mass being preludes to the advent of the N.O., but I just don't see the likelihood of it all being reversed in one fell swoop. I think it more likely that it will be a series of gradual incremental steps which will bring about the restoration rather than an instantaneous, decisive act. These new translations of the N.O., together with potential more radical changes in the pipeleine, I see as being first steps on a long journey towards a return to tradition.
I know that the imposition of the N.O. was fairly instantaneous, but it is always much easier to demolish something good than it is to build it up in the first place.
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
But we both hope for the restoration of true doctrine, which is most perfectly expressed in the TLM - and this is something on which we can both agree.
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:39 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
spikepaga wrote:
This attitude is extremely dangerous. The 1955, 1960 and 1962 changes where not "little more than rubricism". The unimportant "rubricism" of which you speak of govern how the ceremonies are performed. Do you honestly think Rome will have the Novus Ordo, the translated 1965 rite and the 1962 Mass all at once?.
Lest I be misunderstood, what I was trying to say was that the differences between the pre-conciliar missals are relatively minor compared to the difference between all of them and the N.O. Based on the fact that a war is won by winning a series of smaller battles, I think it is more important that the problem of the N.O. is overcome before issues of the 1955, 1960 and 1962 take centre stage.
I do not think that Rome will have the N.O., the 1965 and 1962 Masses all at once. It is my hope and prayer that the N.O. will be replaced by something like the translated 1965 rite on the way to a genuine restoration. Rome cannot really do much about the 1962 rite while the SSPX is in the current situation (whatever that may be) that it is in.
Thus while I am in favour of the "excommunications" being nullified, I don't think that the time is yet right for a full canonical settlement between Rome and Econe. We may need another couple of Popes or so before the time is right.
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 3062 Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:16 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I have serious reservations about the changes to Holy Week by Pope Pius XII, because these changes were the workings of Annibale Bugnini, and nothing more than his own desire of what he wanted the Holy Week liturgy to be. So, Bugnini helped to destroy one of oldest parts of the Traditional Roman Rite - the Holy Week liturgy. So, for me it is not a matter of preferring older rubrics simply. I also have problems with the liturgical ground ceded by Pope John XXIII when he promulgated the Missale Romanum of 1962. He did away with the second Confiteor prior to the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful, and all octaves of major feasts, with the exception of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. He also removed the use of second and third Collects, Secrets, and Postcommunions. All of these changes foreshadowed the coming disaster of the Novus Ordo.
It was Pius XII who abolished the Octaves of the traditional Missal (except for Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost), not Bl. John XXIII.
I think that John XXIII, whatever his other faults might have been, was much less of a liturgical innovator than Pius XII. It was under John XXIII that then-Fr. Bugnini was dismissed from his post. It was John XXIII who restored the Papal Mass to its full splendor.
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
dcs wrote:
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I have serious reservations about the changes to Holy Week by Pope Pius XII, because these changes were the workings of Annibale Bugnini, and nothing more than his own desire of what he wanted the Holy Week liturgy to be. So, Bugnini helped to destroy one of oldest parts of the Traditional Roman Rite - the Holy Week liturgy. So, for me it is not a matter of preferring older rubrics simply. I also have problems with the liturgical ground ceded by Pope John XXIII when he promulgated the Missale Romanum of 1962. He did away with the second Confiteor prior to the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful, and all octaves of major feasts, with the exception of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. He also removed the use of second and third Collects, Secrets, and Postcommunions. All of these changes foreshadowed the coming disaster of the Novus Ordo.
It was Pius XII who abolished the Octaves of the traditional Missal (except for Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost), not Bl. John XXIII.
I think that John XXIII, whatever his other faults might have been, was much less of a liturgical innovator than Pius XII. It was under John XXIII that then-Fr. Bugnini was dismissed from his post. It was John XXIII who restored the Papal Mass to its full splendor.
Thank you for the correction. I agree that the beginning of the liturgical destruction of the Church began under Pius XII's regime. I do not deny, as some do, the holiness of Pope Pius XII; rather, I believe (or hope) he was simply duped by men he thought that he could trust. Whatever the case may be, may God restore our liturgical tradition to its original form, before all the tampering by the experts and may He purge modernism from the human element of His Holy Church. _________________ St. Robert, increase love for the truth in the erring.
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 3062 Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
Thank you for the correction. I agree that the beginning of the liturgical destruction of the Church began under Pius XII's regime. I do not deny, as some do, the holiness of Pope Pius XII; rather, I believe (or hope) he was simply duped by men he thought that he could trust. Whatever the case may be, may God restore our liturgical tradition to its original form, before all the tampering by the experts and may He purge modernism from the human element of His Holy Church.
Frankly, I think the liturgical destruction began under Pope St. Pius X with his reform of the Breviary.
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 489 Location: London, United Kingdom
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:39 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I also have problems with the liturgical ground ceded by Pope John XXIII when he promulgated the Missale Romanum of 1962. He did away with the second Confiteor prior to the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful, and all octaves of major feasts, with the exception of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost
The answer is to restore Catholic tradition without any of the modernist revolutions that spawned the Holy Week revisions, the changes embraced by John XXIII, or the 1965 experimentation, because each of these dreadful "reforms" gave us the Novus Ordo.
OK...
You do realise that the second Confiteor was not originally in the Missal of Pius V OF 1570 but developed gradually in various countries and then only became mandatory later on?
And even though I have reservations about the Holy Week changes and the Rubricam Novam changes of 1960, saints like St. Pio and St. Josemaria Escriva accepted them so don't you think we ought to do the same? The 1962 Missal is still the Tridentine Mass - it was even good enough for Lefebrve and the SSPX - why should take it upon ourselves to be be "more Roman" than the these people?
Just my thoughts... _________________ Dominus Meus et Deus Meus!
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Ottaviani wrote:
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I also have problems with the liturgical ground ceded by Pope John XXIII when he promulgated the Missale Romanum of 1962. He did away with the second Confiteor prior to the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful, and all octaves of major feasts, with the exception of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost
The answer is to restore Catholic tradition without any of the modernist revolutions that spawned the Holy Week revisions, the changes embraced by John XXIII, or the 1965 experimentation, because each of these dreadful "reforms" gave us the Novus Ordo.
OK...
You do realise that the second Confiteor was not originally in the Missal of Pius V OF 1570 but developed gradually in various countries and then only became mandatory later on?
And even though I have reservations about the Holy Week changes and the Rubricam Novam changes of 1960, saints like St. Pio and St. Josemaria Escriva accepted them so don't you think we ought to do the same? The 1962 Missal is still the Tridentine Mass - it was even good enough for Lefebrve and the SSPX - why should take it upon ourselves to be be "more Roman" than the these people?
Just my thoughts...
Thank you, I didn't know that the second Confiteor of the people was not originally in the Missal of Pope St. Pius V, but a gradual organic development. I appreciate this, as I am always pleased to learn more about the Traditional Mass. My biggest complaint is in regards to the Holy Week changes, as they were the oldest parts of the Traditional Roman Rite.
St. Padre Pio, whom I admire and have as a patron saint, was not infallible. Saints have followed anti-popes. Saints are human and are only able to make decisions based on the information they have at the time. Now, we know, through scholarly efforts, that what Bugnini told Pope Pius XII was a lie. So, the fact that a holy man like St. Padre Pio accepted the changes, doesn't make the changes good or desirable or even correct.
Where I go to Mass the 1962 Missal is used. My concern for the changes is not an attempt to be more "Roman" than the SSPX or St. Padre Pio, but rather, to express an opinion based on what limited research I have been able to do. I forgive you for this accusation, and if I have misread this part of the message to me, then I ask for your forgiveness, as I try to practice charity, but being a sinner, I am not always successful.
Moreover, I have read that the Venerable Archbishop Lefebvre was considering adopting the pre-1955 rubrics, but perhaps based his decision to go with the 1962 Missal on political reasons; i.e., so as not to appear to be asking Rome for too much. Others have written that this holy archbishop, toward the end of his life, wanted to make the move to the pre-1955 Missal. I don't recall the references, but perhaps those who are more knowledgeable about this venerable archbishop than I will be able to shed some light on this matter. _________________ St. Robert, increase love for the truth in the erring.
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: Liturgical changes
Good day,
This is my first time posting to AQ, but I have followed this discussion with interest.
Someone mentioned earlier that Pope Bl John XXIII restored the solemnity of the Papal Mass - had it been curtailed earlier? If so, how, when and why?
I am interested in the issue of the Confiteor: the SSPX retains it, even though they use the 1962 Missal. I have tried in vain to get a clear answer as to why they mix the rubrics of Missals, and on what authority. (Please don't misunderstand me - I am very supportive of the SSPX, and am GLAD the Confiteor is retained, only I cannot understand how they do it).
Personally, I wish the SSPX would revert to the pre-1955 rites, though I do not see that happening soon. I believe there was some variation in their early years as to which rubrics were followed. The decision to fix it as the 1962 Missal was part of the reason for the split of the SSPV, from what I believe. Incidentally, does this group follow the unreformed Holy Week too, or just the 1956 Missal?
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 688 Location: London, UK
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:05 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Ottaviani wrote:
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
I also have problems with the liturgical ground ceded by Pope John XXIII when he promulgated the Missale Romanum of 1962. He did away with the second Confiteor prior to the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful, and all octaves of major feasts, with the exception of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost
The answer is to restore Catholic tradition without any of the modernist revolutions that spawned the Holy Week revisions, the changes embraced by John XXIII, or the 1965 experimentation, because each of these dreadful "reforms" gave us the Novus Ordo.
OK...
You do realise that the second Confiteor was not originally in the Missal of Pius V OF 1570 but developed gradually in various countries and then only became mandatory later on?
And even though I have reservations about the Holy Week changes and the Rubricam Novam changes of 1960, saints like St. Pio and St. Josemaria Escriva accepted them so don't you think we ought to do the same? The 1962 Missal is still the Tridentine Mass - it was even good enough for Lefebrve and the SSPX - why should take it upon ourselves to be be "more Roman" than the these people?
Just my thoughts...
On what basis are you arguing the Confiteor before Communion was not in the 1570 missal? _________________ 'Lighten our darkness we beseech Thee O Lord'
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 489 Location: London, United Kingdom
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:07 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
St. Padre Pio, whom I admire and have as a patron saint, was not infallible. Saints have followed anti-popes. Saints are human and are only able to make decisions based on the information they have at the time. Now, we know, through scholarly efforts, that what Bugnini told Pope Pius XII was a lie. So, the fact that a holy man like St. Padre Pio accepted the changes, doesn't make the changes good or desirable or even correct.
Are you saying that Pius XII and John XXIII were anti-popes?
I too lament the Holy Week changes but thank God the integrity of the Tridentine Missal is still preserved and it is still a valid mass.
This is the complete illogic of the BLEEP! argument - if St. Pio is a saint to them, then if he used John XXIII/Paul VI name is the canon, his masses after 1958 by theory must have been invalid - as they accuse the all indult masses of being.
I hear the Diamond "brothers" have rejected Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerich as a saint because her writings said that there were non-Catholics in Purgatory. _________________ Dominus Meus et Deus Meus!
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 688 Location: London, UK
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: Re: Liturgical changes
mitch wrote:
Personally, I wish the SSPX would revert to the pre-1955 rites, though I do not see that happening soon. I believe there was some variation in their early years as to which rubrics were followed. The decision to fix it as the 1962 Missal was part of the reason for the split of the SSPV, from what I believe. Incidentally, does this group follow the unreformed Holy Week too, or just the 1956 Missal?
God bless.
The Districts of the USA, UK and Germany used what was popularly known as 'Pius X rubrics' until 1983. The universal adoption of 1962 was part of the failed negotiations with Rome, a consequence of which was the 1984 indult. A minority of SSPX continued to use the older rubrics and an even smaller number do so to this day. _________________ 'Lighten our darkness we beseech Thee O Lord'
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:05 am Post subject: Rubrics
Rubrician, you refer to the "Pius X rubrics" (I take it you mean the 1908 Missal...not sure of the date)...that would mean the unreformed Holy Week, of course. What a pity the SSPX has lost that.
I am South African - the SSPX itself became established here in 1984, after the switchover to the 1962 Missal, and I have no idea what the old traditional priests who predated the SSPX here did in terms of rubrics. In any event, I came to Tradition in 1997 only.
The Pius X rubrics...were these in force until the mid-1950's? What had Pope St Pius X altered? I know amendments were made to the breviary, but beyond that I don't know.
It's interesting that some SSPX priests apparently still hold to the old rubrics. Any idea where they are? What did priests outside the US, the UK, and Germany use...the 1962 rites?
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 688 Location: London, UK
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:29 am Post subject:
Mitch
By 'Pius X rubrics' this was a generic term for what is probably more accurately described as pre-1955 rubrics, including the traditional Holy Week rites.
At Econe, at the beginning, something that approximated to the 1967 rite was used for the grande Messe. Generally 1962 (or thereabouts) was used by the French in their missions.
One SSPX priest in England certainly used pre-Pius X Compline for a while with its four psalms when he was first sent here as superior. He certainly used the pre-Pius XII rubrics for Mass (but not for Holy Week) right up until 1991.
BLEEP! got mixed in with it all but many priests, like the one to whom I refer above, were never SV.
Please bear in mind that in England where the 1971 indult had been around (specifying the 1967 rite of Mass) this had largely been ignored and the majority of priests who offered the traditional liturgy followed the pre-Pius X rubrics too, although a few adopted the changes of Pius XII but not those of John XXIII. _________________ 'Lighten our darkness we beseech Thee O Lord'
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 489 Location: London, United Kingdom
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:45 am Post subject:
Rubrician wrote:
Please bear in mind that in England where the 1971 indult had been around (specifying the 1967 rite of Mass) this had largely been ignored and the majority of priests who offered the traditional liturgy followed the pre-Pius X rubrics too, although a few adopted the changes of Pius XII but not those of John XXIII.
I thought it was the 1965 Missal that was specified? I don't there was a 1967 Missal unless I am grossly mistaken? _________________ Dominus Meus et Deus Meus!
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 688 Location: London, UK
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:14 am Post subject:
I referred to the 1967 rite of Mass not missal.
The 'Heenan Indult' specified the the 1962 missal as reformed by the 1965 (Inter oecumenici) and 1967 (Tres abhinc annos) decrees. _________________ 'Lighten our darkness we beseech Thee O Lord'
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: Re: VATICAN SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE SACRED
Ottaviani wrote:
Bellarmine2005 wrote:
St. Padre Pio, whom I admire and have as a patron saint, was not infallible. Saints have followed anti-popes. Saints are human and are only able to make decisions based on the information they have at the time. Now, we know, through scholarly efforts, that what Bugnini told Pope Pius XII was a lie. So, the fact that a holy man like St. Padre Pio accepted the changes, doesn't make the changes good or desirable or even correct.
Are you saying that Pius XII and John XXIII were anti-popes?
I too lament the Holy Week changes but thank God the integrity of the Tridentine Missal is still preserved and it is still a valid mass.
This is the complete illogic of the BLEEP! argument - if St. Pio is a saint to them, then if he used John XXIII/Paul VI name is the canon, his masses after 1958 by theory must have been invalid - as they accuse the all indult masses of being.
I hear the Diamond "brothers" have rejected Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerich as a saint because her writings said that there were non-Catholics in Purgatory.
Greetings, it was with sadness that I read your post, for you have taken something from my words that was not stated or even implied. Forgive me for writing in a way that was not clear to you. I will try to answer your implications as charitably as I am able. Hopefully, if you read my post again, you will see that I never once implied that Pope Pius XII or John XXIII were anti-popes, nor did I say that St. Padre Pio followed anti-popes. My point was to say that men like St. Padre Pio were not infallible. That is, they could hold a wrong opinion about something, while remaining saintly. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was referring to past saints who have followed anti-popes. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. For example, Saint Vincent followed an anti-pope for a time during the Great Western Schism. Again, the fact that St. Padre Pio accepted the changes to the Traditional Missal does not make these changes good. This says nothing of validity, but the quality of the changes. I hope that this post clarifies what I had written. Also, I lamented that you didn't read further, because then it would have been known that where I assist at Mass uses the 1962 Missal. In fact, when I serve at Mass, I serve the priest who uses the 1962 Missal. Please accept my sincerest apologies, for not writing more clearly. I didn't intend to cause confusion or speculation as to what philosophy I hold regarding post-conciliar popes and, strangely, Pope Pius XII. _________________ St. Robert, increase love for the truth in the erring.
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 am Post subject: Recovery?
How about recovery of the Faith as it has been taught and believed throughout its over 2,000 year history until the modernists decided to water it down and dissipate it in favor of the cult of man? You cannot recover what has been lost by partial steps and nice sounding phrases. Anyone with half-a- brain can tell that the Church since Vatican II has been going downhill at a fairly rapid pace. What about it, modernists? Are you not ready to admit your failures and go back to Tradition? Of course, I could adopt the "psychology" of the day and pat you on the head and say that's allright, you meant well and its not your fault the cesspool we live in today -- but I won't! _________________ Pre-Vatican II Catholic-16 yrs Catholic schooling.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
