Can someone explain traditionalism to me?

[numealinesimpet]

I am offended by the term 'Novo-Catholic" It should simply be “Catholic” These are the Catholics who realized the true Spirit of Vatican II, do not tolerate legitimate abuses, and realize when Traditionalists are just being arrogant fools.

The Novo-Catholic would feel duty bound to defend the Interfaith Prayer-meetings at Assisi (organised by Pope John Paul II); the vast open-air Youth & Other Masses at which the Holy Eucharist was regularly trampled into the ground in the general confusion, and the public kissing of the Koran by the same pope. Their principle is: to be a faithful Catholic is to defend the pope.

The truth is that this approach is too simplistic. This attitude only serves to confirm the sedevacs in their conviction that the Catholic church has lost its senses.

Yet, if a Catholic is to draw the line at these manifest abuses, on what principle does he or she draw that line?

Those who invoke

the true Spirit of Vatican II

never seem able to give a clear answer what it actually is. Yet they are often able to read the interior of souls and to know, for example,

when Traditionalists are just being arrogant fools.

There has been too much imputing of motives and identification of personal vices in this debate over the past decades, despite Our Lord’s injunctions to the contrary.

In the 50s & early 60s I lived for a while in a Neighbouring Country, English-speaking with a small Catholic minority. Catholics were regularly castigated for pride and arrogance when they insisted they were the One True Church. In vain did the Catholics reply that they were making an assertion of fact, not simply indulging in pride and arrogance. Naturally, the opponents had never even heard the Catholic side, let alone judged it fairly. Yet there was a steady flow into the Church of those who were impressed, who studied, and were converted. The number was climbing year by year. Along came Vatican II and the Catholics suddenly allowed themselves to be cowed by these tactics. The result? Plummeting conversions. The statistics are in the public forum.

Now I find the same charge being levelled against the trads, and Mgr Lefebvre and the SSPX in particular. In the Ireland of the 80s & 90s, it was the very same atmosphere, but this time, from mainstream Catholics against the trads (if I may be allowed the labels for the sake of argument). Déja vu.

In fairness, the opposite charge is often levelled, of cowardice or even deliberate intent to destroy, against those who have ‘gone along with the changes’ – even the most disastrous. Neither charge is fair. The present crisis is unprecedented – even granted that every century throws up a different Cross for the Mystical Body to shoulder. The arguments pro and con are plausible enough that it ill behooves any of us to impute malice, pride, or cowardice to those whose judgment has differed from our own. Yet our eternal destiny might hinge on our decision. Those who are in either camp for the wrong reasons will be judged severely by Our Lord. The trad viewpoint was excluded from the public forurm until the advent of the internet. Now at least it is no longer possible to plead ignorance. Meanwhile, dwelling on personal characteristics is a red herring.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Is TLM of 1962 the most traditionalist mass of all times?

The SSPX would say yes, since this was the last Mass approved by papal authorty, others, like SSPV, are critical of the 1962 Missal and prefer the pre-1956 missal(Pius XII changes) which preceded 1962. Although I enjoy the pre-1956 missals and feasts, the 1962 one is just fine it seems, and I think the SSPX is right to support it.

 

[shuzo1189]

In my 30 years away from the Church I spent most of it in a Protestant congregation, and the rest with a group of solitary pagans (some Wiccan, some Druid) and read and studied other religions as well. One thing I learned in all of those experiences was that God often touches our souls in quiet ways.

When I first came back to the Church I spent a lot of time just taking in the Mass. After a series of meetings with our pastor, discussing both the issues that drove me away in the first place and whether it was possible for me to return to the Church.

Is it possible to just kind of take it all in and not be sure what’s going on at a Latin Mass? Will people look at me like I’m not doing what I should be at any given time?

I doubt it, the EF i Attend I would say roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd of the Congregation has a hard time keeping up with the movements/what they are supposed to do. For alot of people its there first exposure, and yet oddly enough I see these same people at the same EF Mass at 8AM on a Saturday (There is also a Jesuit Seminarian but shhh ) If your worried about feeling lost I know that Santca Missa (sanctamissa.org/) by the S.J.C. is dedicated to teaching laypersons and clergy the Tridentine Rite.

The Mass of the Ages is still waiting for you

 

[mullenpm]

I also am old enough to remember the Church before V2.

I dislike many of the things that happened after V2; and they happened because people went crazy with their own interpretations of what the Council said.

I do not object to the Pauline Mass; I do object to so-called “folk Masses” - I don’t want any music at Mass except for an organ; I love the Mass as celebrated on EWTN; I also keep my hands folded during the Lord’s Prayer (I am usually saying it to myself in Latin); I dislike the hand shakes during the Sign of Peace and wish it would stop; I dislike receiving Holy Communion from a lay person and wish that would stop also.

I wear a head covering to church (chapel cap) and carry one with me at all times just in case; I also arrive at Mass early so I have time to pray the Rosary before Mass; I stay to offer Thanksgiving after Mass; I strike my chest during the Agnus Dei and have not seen anyone looking at me; and most importantly, I believe in frequent Confession (not sprinkling Holy Water about as some on this Forum suggest is all that is necessary to have sins forgiven).

I would never say “John Paul the Great (what)” - how disrespectful. And, I don’t like Bishop Williamson at all.

I might not meet the strict description shown in a previous post (I have no sons with a middle name of Mary) but I do offer my obedience to our Holy Father in Rome.

That is Traditional enough for me. Oh! Forgot! I am not keen on the Charismatic Movement.

:knight2::knight1:

 

[numealinesimpet]

In my 30 years away from the Church I spent most of it in a Protestant congregation, and the rest with a group of solitary pagans (some Wiccan, some Druid) and read and studied other religions as well. One thing I learned in all of those experiences was that God often touches our souls in quiet ways.

As in those beautiful words of the psalm:* Vacáte, vacáte et vidéte: ut Dóminus sum. * Be still, be still and know: that I am the Lord.

When I first came back to the Church I spent a lot of time just taking in the Mass. After a series of meetings with our pastor, discussing both the issues that drove me away in the first place and whether it was possible for me to return to the Church.

Is it possible to just kind of take it all in and not be sure what’s going on at a Latin Mass?

Yes, ntenaglia, that is exactly what I would advise. Do not rush to judgment, but go to at least three Masses, to gain a representative sample. For some people, it simply doesn’t touch them. For others, it is a revelation: they say: This is what I have been waiting for all my life. I have the great pleasure of knowing one young man who reacted this way. At the age of about 18 he attended his first TLM. Within less than a year he had taken First Vows as a Religious Brother, in an order that follows the Traditional spiritual Life, abandoning a promising career in the world.

Will people look at me like I’m not doing what I should be at any given time?

When you go to your first TLM, I would strongly advise against staying right at the back! You might miss what’s going on at the altar, and you may well be surrounded by toddlers and harassed mums (bless their hearts) – but highly distracting. Just stand, kneel & sit when the others do. You will find there are fewer changes in posture than in the Novus Ordo. I think you will find that one strong feature of the TLM is that the individual worshipper is left alone. There will be no compulsory handshakes with total strangers!

I must warn you that not everybody who attend will be saints! I hope you do not meet anybody that will try to harngue you about “The Whole Thing” after Mass. Remember why you have gone: to be with Our Lord at Calvary. Catholic teaching is that Our Lord, being perfect Man, truly suffered in Gethsemane and at Calvary, but being Truly God he could see down the Ages and can see each and every Catholic who comes to console Him – and is thereby consoled, right there on Calvary. This is a privilege not granted to others. I encourage people to come to the TLM because it is the most perfect statement of the Catholic Faith, and I personally believe it is the most pleasing to God.

 

[mullenpm]

Palmas, I have never seen it stated so accurately anywhere as in your post. It was wonderful.

Thanks.:harp:

 

[mullenpm]

What in the world is a Novo-Catholic? I have never heard that term and I have been a Catholic my whole life – a long time.

I believe there are people on these threads who make up terms just to cause problems and arguments.

We are all Catholics.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Is TLM of 1962 the most traditionalist mass of all times?

Not a very easy question to answer, though I would say ‘Yes’ (Granted that nobody really ranks how ‘traditionalist’ they are). The 1962 Missal followed in the tradition of cautious reform and refinement. The main changes from the previous (1958) edition were the addition of S. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass, and the simplification of the Liturgical Year and the Divine Office (the set of prescribed prayers & psalms recited or sung each day by Religious).

Feasts directly connected with the Mystery of the Passion and Resurrection are tied to Easter, which was we know varies in its date from year to year. E.g. Pentecost is 40 days after the Resurrection; Corpus Christi is the Second Thursday after Easter, and so forth. Feasts of the Saints are on a fixed date. Thus it happens that two feasts will clash on a particular year. The Church has a ranking order, with precise rules for what is celebrated when. Normally only priests have to worry about these things. Each diocese and Religious Order will publish a yearly calendar, drawn up by liturgical experts. Also, feasts are ranked according to importance; this affects the details of the liturgical celebration. Over the years this had become more and more intricate. To take a random sample: in a 1924 Missal I have, the Immaculate Conception is ranked as ‘Double of the First Class with Octave’; S. Barnabas was “Greater Double”; Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost were “Double”; Ss. Cyriacus, Largus and Smaragdus (Aug 8th) was “Simple”. What was happening was that more and more Feasts were being awarded an Octave (the prolongation of the feast, either by a commemoration on the eighth day, or every day for eight days). Then there would be Vigils the day before. Thus every day would have perhaps a series of overlapping octaves. Also, the Cycle of Saints was threatening to overwhelm the Liturgical Year. Pope Pius XII raised the ranking of the Sundays of the Year so that they were much less liable to be “outranked” by another Feast.

In the 1962 Missal, the ranking itself was greatly streamlined. The Immaculate Conception is ranked as ‘First Class’; Sunday Masses are generally “Second Class”; S. Barnabas is “Third Class”; Aug 8th is [the newly-canonised] S. John Mary Vianney [the Curé of Ars] “ Third Class” with Ss. Cyriacus, Largus and Smaragdus as “Commemoration”. This means that if the priest says only one Mass, it is of S. John Mary Vianney, with the ‘Collects’ for S. Cyriacus et al. added to that Mass. If a second Mass is offered in the same church, it may be the full Mass of Ss. Cyriacus et al.

In the Divine Office, the psalms are said with an “antiphon”: e.g. for Sunday Vespers, the fifth psalm, Ps. 113: ‘When Israel came out of Egypt’ is assigned the antiphon “But our God is in Heaven: he hath done all things whatsoever he would”. But in the Middle Ages the curious practice had developed of saying or singing only the first phrase of the antiphon before the psalm, except on high-ranking feasts:–
Ant. But our God.
Ps. When Israel came out of Egypt (etc).

In the 1962 Missal the complete antiphon was restored:–
Ant. But our God is in Heaven: he hath done all things whatsoever he would.
Ps. When Israel came out of Egypt (etc).

The SSPX follow the 1962 Missal, saying that the changes were made by valid authority and were not detrimental to The Faith.

From 1965 the chipping-away began. There were ever-accelerating changes in 1965, 1967, and then the Novus Ordo in 1969. To write it in cold print in 2009 is to skip over how harrowing all this was at the time; but that may perhaps be discussed by us all in later postings. I for one remember the process clearly.

Sedevacs tend to follow either the 1958 Missal or some earlier version, depending which pope they have decided was the first “invalid” pope. They castigate the SSPX for ‘compromise’ in following the 1962 Missal. In fact, the SSPX are faithfully following very clear and very ancient guidelines, whereas the sedevacs have no coherent principles they can be seen to follow.

The SSPX adamantly refuse to judge the Novus Ordo Missae as invalid, if offered in Latin according to the rubrics, but they advise against attending on the grounds that it compromises the Faith. They can back this up with a closely-reasoned case, based on immemorial Catholic principles. They have expelled priests who publicly state that the papal elections, or the Novus Ordo, are invalid. Mgr Lefebvre stated that the question of the validity of the Novus Ordo can be settled only by the Pope or an Ecumenical council meeting under his authority.

 

[numealinesimpet]

What in the world is a Novo-Catholic? I have never heard that term and I have been a Catholic my whole life – a long time.

In this time of relative anarchy in the regulation of the Church, there are what I will call the ‘Mainstream’ Catholics, who go along to their local Catholic church, and try to keep the Faith and pass it on to their children. Too often they are bemused at the scandalous goings-on, but they are trying to be faithful.

Then there are those who aggressively justify each and every innovation, so long as it appears to emanate from the Vatican. These people generally take it upon themselves to criticise heavily what we are here calling Traditionalists. Ferrara and Woods in “The Great Facade” (see previous post) coined the word ‘Neo-Catholic’ to characterise this position, because the word ‘Conservative’ does not cover the case. I would discourage this word because it does violence to the English language; the prefix ‘Neo-’ does have a definite meaning, which is not covered by ‘Neo-Catholic’. I proposed the alternative term .Novo-Catholic’, for those holding the position described by Ferrara and Woods.

The words are unfamiliar because, before the advent of the internet, open discussion of the Post Vatican II situation was rigidly controlled, with no forum allowed to what we will call the trads. Now it is changing, and at last it can be openly discussed. To think clearly we must have accurately-defined words.

I believe there are people on these threads who make up terms just to cause problems and arguments.

Well, in my case I am trying to clarify the issues by using words that are clearly defined. If there is another, more accurate, more established, term, let us use it: but I have not heard it.

We are all Catholics.

But not all have agreed with that. I cannot allow that the Sedevacs are Catholic, for example. And I have been accused of being ‘not Catholic’ for attending the only TLM within reach, run by the SSPX, despite the explicit statements in Canon law permitting it.

 

[CWBetts]

Come on Carl. You’ve been a Catholic for only two years. Almost every trad argument is echoed in the halls of the Vatican by some who walk them.

Trads have solid ground to stand on. Some can be exrtreme, yes. But not all. It’s foolish to lump all trads together.

So I have only been Catholic for two years. And this means what? That I don’t know anything? I know that when Traditionalists start crowing about things they see as abuses which are not, it annoys me. I still fail to see where VII really changed anything. The vernacular started creeping into the Mass before the first session of VII ever met. Archbishop Fulton Sheen espoused openess to other faiths as early as 1953. The council was pastoral. No new Dogmas, just clarification on practices. Yet Traditionalists hearken back to some nostolgic era that probably never was. Nostolgia is funny that way.

 

[numealinesimpet]

So I have only been Catholic for two years. And this means what? That I don’t know anything? I know that when Traditionalists start crowing about things they see as abuses which are not, it annoys me. I still fail to see where VII really changed anything. The vernacular started creeping into the Mass before the first session of VII ever met. Archbishop Fulton Sheen espoused openess to other faiths as early as 1953. The council was pastoral. No new Dogmas, just clarification on practices. Yet Traditionalists hearken back to some nostolgic era that probably never was. Nostolgia is funny that way.

Well, this is a debating forum. We must all swallow feelings of annoyance at others whose perceptions differ from ours. I for one don’t mind debating things point by point. What abuses are claimed by trads, but are not really?

Now my answer to one of your points raised:

The vernacular started creeping into the Mass before the first session of VII ever met.

Correct. In German-speaking countries, Mass was being said in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people, in defiant disobedience to the then norms. All those attending these Masses were fully aware of this fact. During the Council, proponents of these things succeeded in getting the upper hand, and after the council, the Declaration on the Liturgy opened to doors to a new Mass that was entirely in the vernacular. Less perceptive readers of the document (and this probably included many of the bishops) thought that the Vatican II document had forbidden this. But as soon as the new vernacular Mass was (illegally) imposed, these people suddenly discovered the wonderful virtues of Obedience.

The relevant pasage in the Vatican II document is, "Other things being equal, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved". This is a thoroughly typical example of the way Vatican II operated. It was never explained what the ‘other things’ would have to be.

NB For the record, Mgr Lefebvre stated, “I would rather have the Old Mass in the vernacular than the New Mass in Latin”. Open your Mass book for the same feast day in both forms, and you will soon see what he was talking about. This conflict was never about nostalgia. It is about preserving the integrity of the Faith.

After the Preliminary Draft of the New Order of Mass was circulated, there was widespread dismay, and the following letter was sent to Pope Paul VI. It is generally known as ‘The Ottaviani Intervention’ and was signed by Cdls Ottaviani and Bacci. Originally, at least 11 cardinals had agreed to add their signatures, but the others dropped out after the text was leaked prior to its delivery to His Holiness. I give the Introduction, for the record. The complete text is now available on the web.

Rome
25 September 1969

Most Holy Father:

Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of

others the New Order of Mass prepared by the experts of the Committee
for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and
after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your
Holiness to set forth the following considerations:

1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of
   bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its
   brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo
   Missae–considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely
   different interpretations which are implied or taken for
   granted–represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking
   departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in
   Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite
   definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier
   against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even
   if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal
   considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus
   Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor
   place–if it subsists at all–could well turn into a certainty the
   suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which
   have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or
   ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which
   the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply
   demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without
   leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who
   already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their
   faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis
   of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear
   from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an
   echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for
   the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for
   whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to
   ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.
   
   At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity
   of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily
   and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most
   earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of
   continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St.
   Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by
   the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci

Pope Paul never replied to this letter.

 

[CWBetts]

Well, this is a debating forum. We must all swallow feelings of annoyance at others whose perceptions differ from ours. I for one don’t mind debating things point by point. What abuses are claimed by trads, but are not really?

Now my answer to one of your points raised: Correct. In German-speaking countries, Mass was being said in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people, in defiant disobedience to the then norms. All those attending these Masses were fully aware of this fact. During the Council, proponents of these things succeeded in getting the upper hand, and after the council, the Declaration on the Liturgy opened to doors to a new Mass that was entirely in the vernacular. Less perceptive readers of the document (and this probably included many of the bishops) thought that the Vatican II document had forbidden this. But as soon as the new vernacular Mass was (illegally) imposed, these people suddenly discovered the wonderful virtues of Obedience.

The relevant pasage in the Vatican II document is, "Other things being equal, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved". This is a thoroughly typical example of the way Vatican II operated. It was never explained what the ‘other things’ would have to be.

NB For the record, Mgr Lefebvre stated, “I would rather have the Old Mass in the vernacular than the New Mass in Latin”. Open your Mass book for the same feast day in both forms, and you will soon see what he was talking about. This conflict was never about nostalgia. It is about preserving the integrity of the Faith.

After the Preliminary Draft of the New Order of Mass was circulated, there was widespread dismay, and the following letter was sent to Pope Paul VI. It is generally known as ‘The Ottaviani Intervention’ and was signed by Cdls Ottaviani and Bacci. Originally, at least 11 cardinals had agreed to add their signatures, but the others dropped out after the text was leaked prior to its delivery to His Holiness. I give the Introduction, for the record. The complete text is now available on the web.

Rome
25 September 1969

Most Holy Father:

Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of

others the New Order of Mass prepared by the experts of the Committee
for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and
after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your
Holiness to set forth the following considerations:

1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of
   bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its
   brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo
   Missae–considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely
   different interpretations which are implied or taken for
   granted–represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking
   departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in
   Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite
   definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier
   against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even
   if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal
   considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus
   Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor
   place–if it subsists at all–could well turn into a certainty the
   suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which
   have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or
   ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which
   the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply
   demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without
   leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who
   already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their
   faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis
   of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear
   from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an
   echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for
   the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for
   whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to
   ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.
   
   At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity
   of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily
   and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most
   earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of
   continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St.
   Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by
   the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci

Pope Paul never replied to this letter.

Why should he have to reply. THese were the opinions of two people.

 

[ntenaglia]

Not a very easy question to answer, though I would say ‘Yes’ (Granted that nobody really ranks how ‘traditionalist’ they are). The 1962 Missal followed in the tradition of cautious reform and refinement. The main changes from the previous (1958) edition were the addition of S. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass, and the simplification of the Liturgical Year and the Divine Office (the set of prescribed prayers & psalms recited or sung each day by Religious).

Feasts directly connected with the Mystery of the Passion and Resurrection are tied to Easter, which was we know varies in its date from year to year. E.g. Pentecost is 40 days after the Resurrection; Corpus Christi is the Second Thursday after Easter, and so forth. Feasts of the Saints are on a fixed date. Thus it happens that two feasts will clash on a particular year. The Church has a ranking order, with precise rules for what is celebrated when. Normally only priests have to worry about these things. Each diocese and Religious Order will publish a yearly calendar, drawn up by liturgical experts. Also, feasts are ranked according to importance; this affects the details of the liturgical celebration. Over the years this had become more and more intricate. To take a random sample: in a 1924 Missal I have, the Immaculate Conception is ranked as ‘Double of the First Class with Octave’; S. Barnabas was “Greater Double”; Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost were “Double”; Ss. Cyriacus, Largus and Smaragdus (Aug 8th) was “Simple”. What was happening was that more and more Feasts were being awarded an Octave (the prolongation of the feast, either by a commemoration on the eighth day, or every day for eight days). Then there would be Vigils the day before. Thus every day would have perhaps a series of overlapping octaves. Also, the Cycle of Saints was threatening to overwhelm the Liturgical Year. Pope Pius XII raised the ranking of the Sundays of the Year so that they were much less liable to be “outranked” by another Feast.

In the 1962 Missal, the ranking itself was greatly streamlined. The Immaculate Conception is ranked as ‘First Class’; Sunday Masses are generally “Second Class”; S. Barnabas is “Third Class”; Aug 8th is [the newly-canonised] S. John Mary Vianney [the Curé of Ars] “ Third Class” with Ss. Cyriacus, Largus and Smaragdus as “Commemoration”. This means that if the priest says only one Mass, it is of S. John Mary Vianney, with the ‘Collects’ for S. Cyriacus et al. added to that Mass. If a second Mass is offered in the same church, it may be the full Mass of Ss. Cyriacus et al.

In the Divine Office, the psalms are said with an “antiphon”: e.g. for Sunday Vespers, the fifth psalm, Ps. 113: ‘When Israel came out of Egypt’ is assigned the antiphon “But our God is in Heaven: he hath done all things whatsoever he would”. But in the Middle Ages the curious practice had developed of saying or singing only the first phrase of the antiphon before the psalm, except on high-ranking feasts:–
Ant. But our God.
Ps. When Israel came out of Egypt (etc).

In the 1962 Missal the complete antiphon was restored:–
Ant. But our God is in Heaven: he hath done all things whatsoever he would.
Ps. When Israel came out of Egypt (etc).

The SSPX follow the 1962 Missal, saying that the changes were made by valid authority and were not detrimental to The Faith.

From 1965 the chipping-away began. There were ever-accelerating changes in 1965, 1967, and then the Novus Ordo in 1969. To write it in cold print in 2009 is to skip over how harrowing all this was at the time; but that may perhaps be discussed by us all in later postings. I for one remember the process clearly.

Sedevacs tend to follow either the 1958 Missal or some earlier version, depending which pope they have decided was the first “invalid” pope. They castigate the SSPX for ‘compromise’ in following the 1962 Missal. In fact, the SSPX are faithfully following very clear and very ancient guidelines, whereas the sedevacs have no coherent principles they can be seen to follow.

The SSPX adamantly refuse to judge the Novus Ordo Missae as invalid, if offered in Latin according to the rubrics, but they advise against attending on the grounds that it compromises the Faith. They can back this up with a closely-reasoned case, based on immemorial Catholic principles. They have expelled priests who publicly state that the papal elections, or the Novus Ordo, are invalid. Mgr Lefebvre stated that the question of the validity of the Novus Ordo can be settled only by the Pope or an Ecumenical council meeting under his authority.

I know this is going to sound odd, but could you please explain the “invalid pope”? Why would a pope be invalid? Haven’t popes all been elected by a College of Cardinals? I mean, there’s an element of politics in the process and throughout the ages, not all those elected pope were necessarily the best choice. Were they considered invalid also? Remember I’ve been away a long time and a lot has happened in that time.

 

[ntenaglia]

So I have only been Catholic for two years. And this means what? That I don’t know anything? I know that when Traditionalists start crowing about things they see as abuses which are not, it annoys me. I still fail to see where VII really changed anything. The vernacular started creeping into the Mass before the first session of VII ever met. Archbishop Fulton Sheen espoused openess to other faiths as early as 1953. The council was pastoral. No new Dogmas, just clarification on practices. Yet Traditionalists hearken back to some nostolgic era that probably never was. Nostolgia is funny that way.

I will say this about your nostalgia comment. As you’ve seen in my posts here, I’ve been away a long time. And while I haven’t been to a Latin Mass since the Mass went to English I will say that that nostalgic era **did **exist. So I’ll stay out of the Vatican II and most other debates, but know this, that era existed and it has always been a memory I cherished.

 

[CWBetts]

I will say this about your nostalgia comment. As you’ve seen in my posts here, I’ve been away a long time. And while I haven’t been to a Latin Mass since the Mass went to English I will say that that nostalgic era **did **exist. So I’ll stay out of the Vatican II and most other debates, but know this, that era existed and it has always been a memory I cherished.

Memory is selective. We tend to remeber the good more than the bad.

 

[ntenaglia]

Memory is selective. We tend to remeber the good more than the bad.

Not in my case. I remember all the bad from that time.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Why should he have to reply. THese were the opinions of two people.

They were not airing opinions but demonstrating facts. I hope you will actually read the document befre you comment further - or simply open a 1962 Missal alongside a 1969 one. As the old storytellers used to say around the hearth fire at the end of their tale, “Ní mé a chum nó a cheap é” – ‘I didn’t just make this up’.

To help you out, look at the Mass for All Souls Day. Can you quote for us where, in the Novus Ordo Mass, it mentions the word ‘soul?’
When you have done this, an intelligent discussion can ensue.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I know this is going to sound odd, but could you please explain the “invalid pope”? Why would a pope be invalid? Haven’t popes all been elected by a College of Cardinals? I mean, there’s an element of politics in the process and throughout the ages, not all those elected pope were necessarily the best choice. Were they considered invalid also? Remember I’ve been away a long time and a lot has happened in that time.

ntenaglia, There is a common misunderstanding current in the Church: that all one must do is follow the pope, and everything will be fine. This has never been the Catholic doctrine, and it is a simplification that has crept in on account of the generations of excellent popes that occupied the Chair of Peter since the 16th century. But people who talk like this are ignorant of history. I challenge them now to comment on the popes of the 10th century - a whole century. Not to mention Pope Liberius, Pope Honorius, and Pope John XXII.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, of which the pope is the representative on earth. The pope does not own the church. His authority is supreme on earth - but when he goes beyond the mandate of Christ, he is in error and must not be obeyed. The Holy Spirit by no means promised that each and every action or word of peter would be correct. It is a heresy to identify the Catholic Church with every wish of the current pope.

This heresy leads, with inevitability, into two grievous errors: one is to attempt to justify the pope even when he is in manifest error: the other is to react with horror to his errors and exclaim, "How horrible! He did this! He can’t be the pope!’ then when the arguments are presented (as you have done yourself, ntenaglia), that the pope was validly elected, but has made errors about which we must pray and advise him, they simply block it out and continue to insist that he was not the pope. They can produce literally hundreds of pages of documentation to support thier case, but it falls on a few very simple points of law.

Yet we can be sorry for these people. Before 1962 there was no conception of a movement denying that the pope was the pope. It is the equivocations, the bad example, the neglect of the office of pastor that has allowed innumerable destroyers to occupy key positions in the Church – on the pope’s watch –, that has spawned the reaction of sedevacantism.

Continued…

 

[numealinesimpet]

I can do no better than to quote from…
Bp Fellay’s Conference

Saturday 18 November 2007 in Corpus Christi Church, Athlone, Ireland

Bishop Fellay spoke about the implications of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

We see the organised dismantling of the Faith on every side, and we cannot but ask, “How can they do this? How could God possibly allow such a thing? Why doesn’t He stop it?” Remember the Calming of the Storm, which was not a parable but an historical incident. the apostles were on the Sea of Galilee with Jesus. they were professionals. They knew their boat and they knew the weather on the lake. the storm came and they worked their hardest to keep the boat afloat. and meanwhile – Jesus was asleep! But mark well - Jesus as Man was asleep, but Jesus as God was in total control. Of the wind; of the boat; of the exact amount of water that entered the boat. and so, after the apostles had done their utmost, then the called upon Him, and he arose and calmed the tuult with a single word.

We learn from this that, despite all appearences, God is in control of His Church. If things become difficult for a while, God in His Wisdom will draw a Greater Good out of this crisis.

We cannot see in every detail how these two - Faith and Reality - fit together, yet our mind must hold to the Truth. It would be too easy simply to say: ‘The Pope says it; it must be Good.’ And it would be too easy to say: “the Pope is supposed to be a saint – but he isn’t a saint! He can’t be the Pope!”

Cdl Castrillon Hoyos said two years ago: “Bp Fellay says the New Mass is Bad. It it is approved by the Pope! It is impossible that it be bad! it must be good!” Bp Fellay’s reply is: “Open your eyes! When Priests dress like clowns on the altar – it is Bad! When the Pope kisses the Koran – it is Bad! When the Pope organises an Interfaith Prayer Meeting at Assisi – it is Bad!

No, we cannot explain every part of all this. But consider Our Lord’s word about Jonah: He speaks of the Son of Man being three days and three nights in the tomb. But there is no way to get from Good Friday to first thing Easter Sunday morning, and get three days and three nights out of it. Some have tried to explain it by saying that the Darkness during the Crucifixion “counts” as one of the Nights. Yet this itself illustrates a danger. We must be very, very prudent in these things. Do not try to bend God to suit your own inclinations about what is fitting. We must not pretend that we have all the answers. Things are neither All Good nor All Bad.

One thing is incontrovertible. We are in a new situation. Now – we have a Motu Proprio. This means, a binding statement that comes directly from the Pope. Usually in the history of the Church, what happens is that the Faithful will ask the Pope to make some ruling. E.g. in the late 19th Century the Faithful asked Pope Leo XIII to introduce S. Joseph into the Canon of the Mass. One of the petitioners was the later Pope Pius X. But this time, it is the other way round. With Motu Proprio, the movement comes from the Pope down.

*ONE KEY PHRASE: “The Traditional Mass has never been abrogated”. In other words, this is still the Catholic Mass.

This, of course, is not new. It is not a new ruling, a new law, a new interpretation. It is a statement of what is.

In the whole history of the Church, such a thing has never, never happened. Normally, when a law is changed, the new fully replaces the old. But now the Pope has told us - it didn’t happen this time.

…

• The Traditional Latin Mass has not been suppressed. This gives a guarantee for the future. It is now almost impossible even to imagine the Traditional Latin Mass being suppressed in the future. That has now passed.
• What are the intentions of the Pope? This of course is much harder to answer. But we can deduce certain things.

In 2000 the SSPX said: “Before we begin serious talks, we want this:
(i) Give the Traditional Latin Mass to everybody;
(ii) Remove the Decree of Excommunication. And everybody said: “Bp Fellay is requesting the impossible!” Now the actual reply we got was, “We agree that the Traditional Latin Mass wasn’t suppressed: Cdl Sodano, Ratzinger, Castrillon Hoyos, Medina, and many others all agree”… we said, “So why don’t you do it?” and they replied, “But the Secretaries and the Under-secretaries don’t agree!”

Cdl Castrillon Hoyos said, “Some Faithful, and some Bps, think that if we do this, it will be a move against Paul VI, against the Novus Ordo, against the Second Vatican Council.” Bp Fellay’s response is, “I thought it was the Pope who is the Boss!” And now, seven years later, the “impossible” has happened – by personal intervention of the Pope.

We have now reached a very critical point in the course of events. The Novus ordo Bishops, those who lived through Vatican II, are getting old. For them Vatican II was their baby. They cannot entertain the idea that it was all a huge mistake. The younger bishops are more unformed in the Faith, but they do not have this attachment to Vatican II.

Therefore the duration and the details of this crisis are not our concern. Our concern is that the Church get back on its tracks.

The Vatican insists that it is we who are the problem.

I said recently to Cdl Castrillon Hoyos: “Please forget about the SSPX and deal with your own problems! When you have done that, you will discover that the SSPX is no longer a problem!

We are a thermometer of the state of the Church. A doctor ought not to get upset at his own thermometer! Cure the sickness and the thermometer will go down by itself!

We Catholics have a right to request Bishops – and the Pope – to act like Catholic Bishops, like a Catholic Pope.

 

[numealinesimpet]

p.s. to clarify, the above report is from my own handwritten notes taken down at the time :–

Notes Taken During a Conference given by Bp Fellay, SSPX,

On Saturday 18 November 2007 in Corpus Christi Church, Athlone, Co. Roscommon, Ireland.

Bishop Fellay spoke about the implications of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

These are notes jotted down by hand during His Lordship’s conference, and distributed with permission of the SSPX. Of necessity certain passages would have been my sense of his words rather than a complete transcription. Nevertheless, they adhere as faithfully as possible to his words.