1962 not traditional enough?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thursday1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thursday1

Guest
Wow, just when you thought Tradition in Action couldn’t get any crazier. . .

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm

The gist of the article is that the reason only the 1962 missal is permitted for the extraordinary rite is that it was modified by Archbishop Bugnini, (who they keep on insisting was a freemason, but give no proof) and therefor will convince people to go to the Novus Ordo. The article also has the usual “Quo Primum is still in affect” lines, but steps it up by declaring it was violated when the name of St. Joseph was added to the Canon.

I think it’s articles like these that give Traditionalists a bad name. I know not everyone who prefers the extraordinary Rite is as crazy as these people, but not everyone does.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
Thursday1 said:
Wow, just when you thought Tradition in Action couldn’t get any crazier. . .

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm

The gist of the article is that the reason only the 1962 missal is permitted for the extraordinary rite is that it was modified by Archbishop Bugnini, (who they keep on insisting was a freemason, but give no proof) and therefor will convince people to go to the Novus Ordo. The article also has the usual “Quo Primum is still in affect” lines, but steps it up by declaring it was violated when the name of St. Joseph was added to the Canon.

I think it’s articles like these that give Traditionalists a bad name. I know not everyone who prefers the extraordinary Rite is as crazy as these people, but not everyone does.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Click to expand...
We should go back to the earlier missal. Everyone knows that the 1962 missal was secretly changed by Bugnini who was working for the Pentavirate. And as we all know the Pentavirate is a secret group seeking world domination made up of the Queen, the Vatican, The Getty’s, the Rothschild’s, and Colonel Sanders.
 
The do have a point in a sense about some of the facets of the Holy Week that were lost- and they do foreshadow the principles that would later characteristic the NO. That is right, at least. Pity they had to cloud it up with nonsense

However, the really funny bit for me was the theorizing on how they “fooled” Pius XII and somehow duped him into believing that it was an earlier form. Say whatever you want, but that really puts down Pius XII who was a highly intelligent and one of the best read Popes of the century. Are we supposed to believe that Pius XII was *so *stupid that he didn’t know about Quo Primum, if he was violating it or not, and somehow the Commission managed to convince him he was not?

Interestingly they make a reference to Benedict Xv being “under duress” when he allowed the dialogue Mass. Under duress? From whom? Followed by a completely invented idea of he dialogue Mass.

As to St. Joseph, names of saints have always been added to the Canon before Quo Primum (and in certain places even after with permission), so it wasn’t the first time. And the early Church did have insufficient devotion to St. Joseph whose cultus only grew up in the Middle Ages. Interestingly enough, the petition presented to Pope Leo XIII, when devotion to St. Joseph was making a headway includes the name of Bishop Sarto, later St. Pius X

The merits o the argument on the Second Confiteor are very good. But I was thinking, at the same time, while the Confiteor was originally only for the ministers, in modern usage, can’t it be that it has become almost extended, as it were to the congregation? What does everybody do when the priest pronounces the first absolution? What do all the prayerbooks recommend during that point? as Gihr says:
The priest has publicly acknowledged, and in a most humble posture, his guiltiness not merely before God, but also before the angels, the saints and the faithful, to move them to intercede with God for him, and thus by means of joint supplication the more readily to obtain his forgive-
ness.
Click to expand...
Those present accede to his desires and they beg for him by the mouth of the server mercy and favor (Misereatur). Then the server also in the name of the faithful recites the Confiteor, that they, too, by the intercession of the saints and of the priest may obtain favor, that is, be cleansed from the guilt of sin in order to have a share in the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice.
Click to expand...
After the Confiteor of the server, the priest likewise intercedes for the faithful, in pronouncing the formula known as the Absolution… The priest accordingly prays, that God would deign by virtue of His almighty power (omnipotens) to impart to the faithful the fulness of His mercy (misereatur), forgive all their sins (dismissis peccatis)and thus raise them up from spiritual death to the life of grace, and conduct them to the eternal life hereafter (perducat nos ad vitam aeternam) .
Click to expand...
 
Sure said:
We should go back to the earlier missal. Everyone knows that the 1962 missal was secretly changed by Bugnini who was working for the Pentavirate. And as we all know the Pentavirate is a secret group seeking world domination made up of the Queen, the Vatican, The Getty’s, the Rothschild’s, and Colonel Sanders.
Click to expand...
hahaha! what a great movie.

“you know what this place needs? an oversized poster of atlantic city … oh you have one.”
 
Thursday1 said:
Wow, just when you thought Tradition in Action couldn’t get any crazier. . .

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm

The gist of the article is that the reason only the 1962 missal is permitted for the extraordinary rite is that it was modified by Archbishop Bugnini, (who they keep on insisting was a freemason, but give no proof) and therefor will convince people to go to the Novus Ordo. The article also has the usual “Quo Primum is still in affect” lines, but steps it up by declaring it was violated when the name of St. Joseph was added to the Canon.

I think it’s articles like these that give Traditionalists a bad name. I know not everyone who prefers the extraordinary Rite is as crazy as these people, but not everyone does.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Click to expand...
When you read something that just doesn’t sound right, I check them out using this link.
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3026&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=57698
 
The earlier version ot TLM (pre-1962) is said to be more accurate and traditional.

Pax
 
Sure said:
We should go back to the earlier missal. Everyone knows that the 1962 missal was secretly changed by Bugnini who was working for the Pentavirate. And as we all know the Pentavirate is a secret group seeking world domination made up of the Queen, the Vatican, The Getty’s, the Rothschild’s, and Colonel Sanders.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you got it all wrong. Here is the truth:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
When Archbishop Lefebrve ordered the SSPX to uniformly adopt the 1962 missal, nine priests refused on the grounds that it wasn’t traditional enough. They were “excommunicated” (for lack of a better term) from the SSPX after writing a letter to Lefebrve accusing him of compromise on this issue and other alleged wrongs against Tradition (accepting annulments from the insitutional Church, making definitive judgments on open theological questions and making them binding like a Pope, not re-ordaining priests, etc.) and formed the sedevacantist SSPV.
 
Just because they really are out to get you and control the world and destroy the Church doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.
 
There is a hint in a post somewhere on this thread that the 1962 Missal does not have the “second” Confiteor.

Is this really true? The SSPX have it at their High Masses sung by the deacon.

Or are there more than one versions of the 1962 Missal?

A sad thing to note about the Easter Changes of about 1958 was that some beautiful things were lost, but then, I accept the 1962 Missal version accepted by SSPX, for no other reason than that Archbishop Lefebvre accepted it. His reasons I do not know, but seing he was sound in all other respects, I have accepted it also. Even to the point of suffering losses to his Society, he accepted it, so he must have had his reasons.

Does anyone know what his thinking was on this matter? Also any answer to my more than one version question above?
 
This is ridiculous! Will these people ever be satisfied? Traditionalists have spent years fighting for the use of the TLM and when the Holy Father makes this possible, people are splitting hairs and complaining about something else. They should be happy that they’re now allowed to attend TLM without problem.

I love the Latin Mass but I think some people need to get a grip. All of the Masses are valid anyway so what’s the problem? I really don’t understand.
 
Just because they really are out to get you and control the world and destroy the Church doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.
Click to expand...
:clapping:

❤️
 
Incredible stuff:
You see, the Communion of the Faithful is neither necessary, nor, properly speaking, a part of the Mass at all.
Click to expand...
That bizarre and utterly heretical statement is almost enough to justify the Reformation. If this is really what the Church taught before Vatican II, then it’s hard to see how any claim of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium can possibly hold up. I hope that this author is simply off his rocker and not really reflecting the view traditionally taught by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Edwin
Click to expand...
 
Contarini said:
Incredible stuff:

That bizarre and utterly heretical statement is almost enough to justify the Reformation. If this is really what the Church taught before Vatican II, then it’s hard to see how any claim of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium can possibly hold up. I hope that this author is simply off his rocker and not really reflecting the view traditionally taught by the Catholic Church.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, a Mass where no one is present but the priest alone is still a valid Mass–even today. In that sense, the faithful communicating is not necessary. I’m not sure, however, whether that part of the liturgy would be ommitted in such a situation. It does seem odd that he says it is not “part of the Mass.” That is confusing at best.
 
Genesis315 said:
Technically speaking, a Mass where no one is present but the priest alone is still a valid Mass–even today. In that sense, the faithful communicating is not necessary. I’m not sure, however, whether that part of the liturgy would be ommitted in such a situation. It does seem odd that he says it is not “part of the Mass.” That is confusing at best.
Click to expand...
But isn’t the priest faithful? Yes, I know that the term is used to refer to the laity as distinct from the priest, but my understanding always was that a Mass with only the priest is OK because there is at least one Christian there receiving the Eucharist. In other words, it’s not as if the laity are extra add-ons, but simply that if more people are there besides the priest, well then there’s just a bigger congregation! (A bigger congregation present in that place and time, that is–the other rationale I’ve heard, and one that I really love, is that even if there is only one priest present at that place and time, every Mass is really the same sacrifice and so the whole Church, Militant and Triumphant alike, is present at every Mass.)

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
But isn’t the priest faithful? Yes, I know that the term is used to refer to the laity as distinct from the priest, but my understanding always was that a Mass with only the priest is OK because there is at least one Christian there receiving the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Contarini, surely you are acquainted with the Scholastic idea on the Mass and the necessity of the consumption of the Body and Blood by the priest?
 
AJV said:
Contarini, surely you are acquainted with the Scholastic idea on the Mass and the necessity of the consumption of the Body and Blood by the priest?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think so. What is the point? You mean that the priest is acting in persona Christi and not as a member of the faithful? Why is it an either/or?

Edwin
 
Please do not take the thread off topic, people. Start new threads or go to existing ones to discuss side issues. Thank you.
 
Just because they really are out to get you and control the world and destroy the Church doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.
Click to expand...
Or, as my da always said, “even the paranoid have enemies.” 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top