FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Summorum Pontificum & new prefaces
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
In the letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI says that new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.
I understand the need to add saints (e.g., Pio), but why new Prefaces?  The 19 Prefaces in the 1962 Missal cover a wide range.  Why is there a need for more prefaces?  What's lacking?

Also, the 1945 Saint Andrew Daily Missal has 15 Prefaces, so 4 were added in 1962: Advent, Most Holy Sacrament, All Saints and the Most Holy Patrons, Dedication of a Church.  Why were those added?  If they weren't needed for the previous few centuries, why did they need to be added? 
I think some of these are ancient prefaces that were dropped in 1570 with the publication of the new Roman Missal.
In the United States aren't there something like 84 prefaces?
It's good that the new saints will be added. I have a Traditional Calendar and it has many of the new saints in there too. This shows that we are of the same Church as the pope, and not something else.
It's important to remember that Pope Benedict does not anticipate a parallel development of two forms of the Mass. What he wants to happen is a synthesis of the two forms that will create a third form, a New Mass that is less of a rupture with the past than the present Novus Ordo. He has said as much in his writings.

I personally think that he underestimates the attachment the we have to the Mass as it was handed down, and that these changes will be a long time coming, if ever.
I think for now, the NO should be reformed slowly till it resembles the TLM so much that we will once again have one mass of the Roman Rite.

I think this is the way it will go. Benedict can't have many years to live and a 'third' hybrid mass will upset people on both sides. No one likes a centrist.
So the Traditional Calendar will add in the Feast of St. Josemaria?

Will the SSPX obey?
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/cathol...%20escriva

MORE FROM FR. PETER SCOTT ON THIS TOPIC
THE "SAINTHOOD" OF JOSEMARIA ESCRIVA

...Numerous other issues presently demonstrate the rapid progression of the "auto-destruction" foreseen even by the liberal Pope Paul VI thirty years ago. The worst is that it is becoming increasingly more obvious that this destruction is coming from the top down, from the pope himself. A typical example of this was the shameful and highly questionable canonization of Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer last October 6. For due process was not followed. Not only was there no devil’s advocate, but the former members of Opus Dei who personally knew Msgr. Escriva and who attempt to register their objections, were not allowed to express their opinion. As a last resort, last September they were forced to write an open letter to the pope, stating their position before the Truth Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ:

Quote:

...It is because we believe that the truth has been in large part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonizing soon..." They went on to explain that they include "people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion and to his idolatrous devotion towards Opus Dei. (DICI, No. 61)

After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: "It (the canonization) will offend God. It will stain the Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the papacy". They were not traditionalists, and they were former members of his organization, but their supplication was not heard, and the ceremony took place as arranged on October 6. Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva as well as concerning Opus Dei that they so aptly compare to the liberal Sillon movement, rightly condemned by St. Pius X in 1910. This kind of last minute objection is unheard of in the history of the Church. How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue, as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be? For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this "canonization" as a valid, infallible papal pronouncement. We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a saint this herald of Vatican II, who preached naturalism and indifferentism as early as 1928... .  [Obtained from the Southern Sentinel, the newsletter of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia, where Fr. Peter Scott is currently the rector]


The Society should stuff it. Canonizations are infallible pronoucements of the Magisterium. It doesn't truly matter whether or not they followed the traditional steps of the process. The Church says he's in heaven, then believe it.

Willimson wrote something similar when he said Bl. John XXIII wasn't really beatified because he opened Vatican II. I didn't know His Excellenecy was infallible now.
didishroom Wrote:The Society should stuff it. Canonizations are infallible pronoucements of the Magisterium. It doesn't truly matter whether or not they followed the traditional steps of the process. The Church says he's in heaven, then believe it.

Willimson wrote something similar when he said Bl. John XXIII wasn't really beatified because he opened Vatican II. I didn't know His Excellenecy was infallible now.

As far as I can tell, one does not have to believe a beatified person is in Heaven. Beatifications are essentially indults, whereas canonizations are definitive and prescriptive (and thus, infallible). From the Congregation for the Causes of Saints:

Quote:
Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

This is expressed unequivocally in the formula: "Ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trnitatis... auctoritate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra... Beatum N. N. Sanctum esse decernimus ac definimus, ac Sanctorum Catalogo adscribimus, statuentes eum in universa Ecclesia inter Sanctos pia devotione recoli debere".

Beatification, on the other hand, consists in the concession of a public cult in the form of an indult and limited to a Servant of God whose virtues to a heroic degree, or Martyrdom, have been duly recognized, as is pointed out by the respective formula: "...facultatem facimus ut Venerabilis Servus Dei N. N. Beati nomine in posterum appelletur, eiusque festum... in locis ac modis iure statutis quotannis celebrari possit".
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...if_en.html
Quote:
One does not have to believe a beatified person is in Heaven. Beatifications are essentiall indults, whereas canonizations are definitive and prescriptive (and thus, infallible). From the Congregation for the Causes of Saints:
Oh I'm aware of the difference between a Blessed and a Saint(one priest pointed out to me that there are Blesseds who have stayed that way for centuries, never progressing to sainthood. It makes you wonder if that person ever got to heaven). But the Society has no right to challange the Church on this issue, simply for abandoining some of the older steps of the process.
Pages: 1 2 3