P
ProVobis
Guest
I only took religion classes since secondary school in London. (in the 50’s) There was a lot of information on various rites back then, believe it or not.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’re welcome. It’s very nicely presented. However, I find it hard to believe the Mass was as nicely organized as the TLM is all the way back to Christ. Just my thoughts, though.
F
Frosty
Guest
I started secondary school in 1959. I do know there was a lot of material available on the liturgy back then. Liturgical matters was a major topic of conversation in my Catholic boarding school as well as in my home parish where the priests devoted many workshops to it during the 50’s and early 60’s. In fact, I still have two shelves on a bookcase full of the periodicals, magazine articles and books on the liturgy that we used during those years. I never throw a book away: one never knows when it might come in handy for reference.
E
edwest2
Guest
In 1962, Communism was very much on the mind of the Catholic Church. The Church was the most significant obstacle to global Communism:
"While in the early 1950s, Mrs Bella Dodd was also providing detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” - where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.”
Everyone is invited to look further.
God bless,
Ed
"While in the early 1950s, Mrs Bella Dodd was also providing detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” - where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.”
Everyone is invited to look further.
God bless,
Ed
L
Lazarette
Guest
bookmark
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes. It has been reported that Pius XII had warned Archbishop Montini (later Pope Paul VI) against dealing with the communists as much as he had. In fact, he declined to elevate the Archbishop to Cardinal because of his association with the communists.
However, he did get elevated by Pope John and later as Pope himself, Paul continued to invite the communists (and other wackos) to the council and still later, Paul became angry at LBJ for not allowing him to deal with the Vietnamese in order to bring on peace in that area. But enough with the conspiracy theories already, PV!
B
bkovacs
Guest
Because the liberal Catholic hierarchy and laity that was gaining in power and is still present to this day, wanted a Mass like the protestants. Plain and simple!. Pope Paul VI could have invalidated Bugnini’s decision. But he didn’t have the backbone to do it. Just like the current Catholic heirarchy doesn’t have the backbone to excommunicate heretics like , Joan Chittister, John Jenkins of Notre Dame, Hans Kung, etc…
L
ljubim
Guest
Isn’t it true that the original intent was to make the Mass more like it was in the early days? Not so long and less prayers, etc. My grandparents still are until the impression that the purpose was for the vernacular 
a lot of people were tricked.
One of the archived Catholic Answers shows talks about the Latin Mass, and the guest speaker said something to the effect of: In the age of modernism and technology, many thought that the Church would lose interest because of the complexity, length, and mystery of the Mass. So they sought to make it simpler and easier to understand.
Interesting that the same people who advocated “a return to the earlier liturgy” invented a load of new things to insert into the Mass. Don’t they realize that is totally against the point?!
Every second of the two hour plus TLM I soak up. Hopefully God leads more of us to realize that what the Church needs isn’t to open ourselves up to the world, but to present ourselves to the world deeply, and unabashedly Catholic. Nobody takes a poser seriously. We either act Catholic, or who will know?
a lot of people were tricked.One of the archived Catholic Answers shows talks about the Latin Mass, and the guest speaker said something to the effect of: In the age of modernism and technology, many thought that the Church would lose interest because of the complexity, length, and mystery of the Mass. So they sought to make it simpler and easier to understand.
Interesting that the same people who advocated “a return to the earlier liturgy” invented a load of new things to insert into the Mass. Don’t they realize that is totally against the point?!
Every second of the two hour plus TLM I soak up. Hopefully God leads more of us to realize that what the Church needs isn’t to open ourselves up to the world, but to present ourselves to the world deeply, and unabashedly Catholic. Nobody takes a poser seriously. We either act Catholic, or who will know?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yeh, like in big churches with plenty of microphones, loud speakers, and 1970 pop music.
Personally I think it came as an afterthought to rationalize the Mass dumbing down they had done. They needed to pack em in somehow.
B
bkovacs
Guest
If that were the case than the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are way off, with their 2 to 4 hour Divine Liturgies. Plain FALSE!!. They wanted it “protestantized”.Isn’t it true that the original intent was to make the Mass more like it was in the early days? Not so long and less prayers, etc. My grandparents still are until the impression that the purpose was for the vernacular
One of the archived Catholic Answers shows talks about the Latin Mass, and the guest speaker said something to the effect of: In the age of modernism and technology, many thought that the Church would lose interest because of the complexity, length, and mystery of the Mass. So they sought to make it simpler and easier to understand.
Interesting that the same people who advocated “a return to the earlier liturgy” invented a load of new things to insert into the Mass. Don’t they realize that is totally against the point?!
Every second of the two hour plus TLM I soak up. Hopefully God leads more of us to realize that what the Church needs isn’t to open ourselves up to the world, but to present ourselves to the world deeply, and unabashedly Catholic. Nobody takes a poser seriously. We either act Catholic, or who will know?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Perhaps, but the ultimate intent became turning the Mass away from prior teachings of the Church.Isn’t it true that the original intent was to make the Mass more like it was in the early days? Not so long and less prayers, etc. My grandparents still are until the impression that the purpose was for the vernacular
One of the archived Catholic Answers shows talks about the Latin Mass, and the guest speaker said something to the effect of: In the age of modernism and technology, many thought that the Church would lose interest because of the complexity, length, and mystery of the Mass. So they sought to make it simpler and easier to understand.
Interesting that the same people who advocated “a return to the earlier liturgy” invented a load of new things to insert into the Mass. Don’t they realize that is totally against the point?!
Every second of the two hour plus TLM I soak up. Hopefully God leads more of us to realize that what the Church needs isn’t to open ourselves up to the world, but to present ourselves to the world deeply, and unabashedly Catholic. Nobody takes a poser seriously. We either act Catholic, or who will know?
S
SGT_ROCK_33
Guest
"Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels…We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or, possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us…Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given at Saint Peter’s, Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate."
This is an exerpt from Pope Saint Pius V’s, Quo Primum…
Someone please explain to me how any member of the Church can overturn the decree by the Magesterium of the Church? How? The Pope is speaking ex cathedra, and his decree meets all the requirements for an infallible statement! How is it possible to go against this and change the Missal?
God Bless
Given at Saint Peter’s, Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate."
This is an exerpt from Pope Saint Pius V’s, Quo Primum…
Someone please explain to me how any member of the Church can overturn the decree by the Magesterium of the Church? How? The Pope is speaking ex cathedra, and his decree meets all the requirements for an infallible statement! How is it possible to go against this and change the Missal?
God Bless
T
Timothysis
Guest
I found these two excerpts to be most interesting:
"An example was the question of the liturgy, which represented a “profound crisis in the life of the Church.” Its roots lay back in the late Middle Ages, when “awareness of the real essence of Christian worship increasingly vanished.* Great importance was attached to externals, and these choked out the whole**.”*
*"On ordinary days, when such display was not possible, the Mass was frequently covered over with devotions more attractive to the popular mentality. Even Leo XIII recommended that the rosary be recited during Mass in the month of October. **In practice this meant that while the priest was busy with his archeologized liturgy, the people were busy with their devotions to Mary. **They were united with the priest only by being in the same church with him and by entrusting themselves to the sacred power of the eucharistic sacrifice.” *
I wonder how many of those who routinely pull out Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote of “*a banal fabrication…” * have ever read these assessments of the pre-Vatican II liturgy? It certainly puts a new perspective "*that the first real task of the Council was to overcome the indolent, euphoric feeling that all was well with the Church, and to bring into the open the problems smoldering within.” *
"An example was the question of the liturgy, which represented a “profound crisis in the life of the Church.” Its roots lay back in the late Middle Ages, when “awareness of the real essence of Christian worship increasingly vanished.* Great importance was attached to externals, and these choked out the whole**.”*
*"On ordinary days, when such display was not possible, the Mass was frequently covered over with devotions more attractive to the popular mentality. Even Leo XIII recommended that the rosary be recited during Mass in the month of October. **In practice this meant that while the priest was busy with his archeologized liturgy, the people were busy with their devotions to Mary. **They were united with the priest only by being in the same church with him and by entrusting themselves to the sacred power of the eucharistic sacrifice.” *
I wonder how many of those who routinely pull out Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote of “*a banal fabrication…” * have ever read these assessments of the pre-Vatican II liturgy? It certainly puts a new perspective "*that the first real task of the Council was to overcome the indolent, euphoric feeling that all was well with the Church, and to bring into the open the problems smoldering within.” *
T
Timothysis
Guest
"Did Pope Paul VI have the authority to repeal the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum? Technically, he did not abrogate the Roman Missal, but he did replace it by the new revised Roman Missal and derogated the use of the older Missal. Pope Paul VI possessed the same papal authority as Pope St. Pius V. The principle is explicitly recognized by the Code of Canon Law. Canon 22 states that “if the later law is equally general or equally particular with the former one” - and both Quo Primum and Missale Romanum are equally Apostolic Constitutions dealing with exactly the same subject matter of the former law, a later law repeals the former one, “if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause.” Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum did exactly that. It both mentions Quo Primum and says that what he is promulgating is promulgated “notwithstanding, as far as is necessary, Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances issued by our Predecessors and other prescriptions worthy of special mention and derogation.”
S
SGT_ROCK_33
Guest
All this statement says is that the Mass of Pius V, was and is, still the Mass that is to be said. So, the decree Quo Primum was not abolished, it was merely a prescripton of derogation. I get it now, there was a “loophole” in the law…makes sense. At least that’s what it looks like to me…
God Bless
S
SGT_ROCK_33
Guest
Actually what this is also saying is that Paul VI didn’t actually change anything in the Old Missal. So technically, they didn’t even derogate Quo Primum, they just instituted an entirely new Missal and an entirely new Mass while supressing the Latin Mass.
So, I stand corrected…
God Bless
L
ljubim
Guest
I’ve noticed that too… people peg things as Vatican II goals which never were goals. They’ve got to justify their actions somehow, or else they might actually feel bad about destroying the Church.Yeh, like in big churches with plenty of microphones, loud speakers, and 1970 pop music.
Personally I think it came as an afterthought to rationalize the Mass dumbing down they had done. They needed to pack em in somehow.
I agree.
The leaders of VII or the few like Bugnini? I know Bugnini wanted it Protestantized, but everybody did?
I really believe that the original intentions of Vatican II were legitimate (but definitely “hijacked” by modernists and by Satan). As faithful Catholics, how can we believe anything else… that seems a bit schismatic to completely illegitimize a Church council. Its effects, sure, its conspirators, sure, but not the whole thing.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Actually, I think it was regarded as a revision of the Roman Missal. Even today it is correctly titled the Roman Missal. The Tridentine Missal was first revised within the first 20 years or so of its promulgation and went through various other revisions up until 1962, Quo Primum not withstanding.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It didn’t quite happen this way. By the time the Novus Ordo was formally promulgated, the Latin Mass was pretty much vulgarized and terribly butchered. After the council, Catholic liturgy varied from parish to parish and one didn’t know what to expect next. The 1962 Missal and its tight rubrics were essentially laid aside. Everyone was interpreting the intentions of the council for himself. The Pope finally consolidated all the different canons created to three and preserved the Roman Canon (as EP1). As changes had become quite commonplace during the 60’s, it was a sort of relief to come to something that provided more stability and uniformity. The Novus Ordo was necessary at that time and if it broke the Trent anathemas or Quo Primum directives, the Vatican effectively said too bad. The NO stays.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The problem wasn’t really with the legitimacy of the council as much as the Church leaders appearing to want to displace the Council of Trent with Vatican II. But in time it was realized that the Church couldn’t displace the Council of Trent teachings any more than the Council of Nicea, for example. They’re all valid councils of the Church.
That said, traditionalists believe in the Magisterium of the centuries while progressives and many conservatives place most if not all their trust in the what the Pope says today. The question is whether this is a misplaced trust. Need some examples?
- Status