FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Coming Soon: The 2012 Missal?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(09-20-2011, 06:18 AM)Adelbrecht Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. I guess I have another reason to find the ICRSS interesting. But I don't think FSSP and FSSPX will ever do this.

Yes indeed. The Clerical Oblates: http://www.institute-christ-king.org/vocations/oblates/

I mention them so often, they should probably cut me a check every month.

Since the FSSP has "priestly fraternity" right there in the name, it makes sense that they wouldn't ordain permanent deacons. I know, however, that they have no problem with having diocesan deacons assist in their Masses.

The SSPX curiously has a harsh anti-permanent deacon policy, despite the fact that the good Archbishop himself said, "I quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate". He was probably thinking of unmarried deacons, but the SSPX currently refuses to send TLM materials to permanent deacons of any sort.

Still, both of those societies could do well with auxiliary oblate societies with deacons, subdeacons and minor orders, just as the ICRSS has.
(09-20-2011, 06:28 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Yes indeed. The Clerical Oblates: http://www.institute-christ-king.org/vocations/oblates/

I mention them so often, they should probably cut me a check every month.
Haha, yes. I've seen you mentioning minor orders. It's just because FSSPX and FSSP are so dominating in the traditional catholic world that it seems so unreal.

I hope they will poerate in my language in the future. They have a school and a church here, but it's for the French speaking part of Belgium.

Quote:The SSPX curiously has a harsh anti-permanent deacon policy, despite the fact that the good Archbishop himself said, "I quite like the new idea of a permanent diaconate". He was probably thinking of unmarried deacons, but the SSPX currently refuses to send TLM materials to permanent deacons of any sort.
Oh, it's worse than that. I've seen them mentioning that all married deacons are invalidly ordained, and some of their more radical members say that an ordination to the permanent diaconate means excommunication.

(09-20-2011, 06:28 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Still, both of those societies could do well with auxiliary oblate societies with deacons, subdeacons and minor orders, just as the ICRSS has.
Certainly, although I fear that FSSPX is so focussed on their position against Vatican II and everything decided after it that they won't accept the good changes.
(09-20-2011, 06:38 AM)Adelbrecht Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, it's worse than that. I've seen them mentioning that all married deacons are invalidly ordained, and some of their more radical members say that an ordination to the permanent diaconate means excommunication.

To be fair to the SSPX'ers, I think that at worst, they would say a married deacon (not an unmarried deacon) is excommunicated. Though to be honest, I haven't actually heard or read many SSPX'ers argue that. I know about that infamous article on their website arguing that married deacons are automatically excommunicated, but I've also seen knowledgeable SSPX'ers dispute it point by point here on the forum.

Quote:Certainly, although I fear that FSSPX is so focussed on their position against Vatican II and everything decided after it that they won't accept the good changes.

The thing is, it's not even really a change (in the sense of a novelty), it's a restoration. The Council of Trent wanted to restore the degrees below priesthood permanently, but never got around to it. The married/unmarried bit is up for debate as far as deacons and subdeacons go (as you see below, Trent explicitly says the minor orders may be conferred on married men), but the permanency itself is not.

Council of Trent, Session 23, Chapter 17 Wrote:That the functions of holy orders, from the deacon to the janitor,-which functions have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the apostles, and which have been for some time interrupted in very many places,-may be again brought into use in accordance with the sacred canons; and that they may not be traduced by heretics as useless; the holy Synod, burning with the desire of restoring the pristine usage, ordains that, for the future, such functions shall not be exercised but by those who are actually in the said orders; and It exhorts in the Lord all and each of the prelates of the churches, and commands them, that it be their care to restore the said functions, as far as it can be conveniently done, in the cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches of their dioceses, where the number of the people and the revenues of the church can support it; and, to those who exercise those functions, they shall assign salaries out of some part of the revenues of any simple benefices, or those of the fabric of the church,-if the funds allow of it,-or out of the revenues of both together, of which stipends they may, if negligent, be mulcted in a part, or be wholly deprived thereof, according to the judgment of the Ordinary. And if there should not be unmarried clerics at hand to exercise the functions of the four minor orders, their place may be supplied by married clerics of approved life; provided they have not been twice married, be competent to discharge the said duties, and wear the tonsure and the clerical dress in church.


I would go so far as to say that anyone who says restoring the permanent diaconate, subdiaconate or minor orders is pointless, would be running afoul of Trent.
(09-19-2011, 11:33 PM)Josué Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-19-2011, 08:39 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Restore the Sequence of Christmas, Laetabundus.

agreed!  I wish the Dies Irae was restored too!

I'm here  :laughing:
(09-20-2011, 02:00 PM)DiesIrae Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-19-2011, 11:33 PM)Josué Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-19-2011, 08:39 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Restore the Sequence of Christmas, Laetabundus.

agreed!  I wish the Dies Irae was restored too!

I'm here  :laughing:


[Image: tumblr_lgfls5XzMH1qg3p22o1_4001.gif]

We love you, Dies Irae!
(09-20-2011, 04:44 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]I think, whether we like it or not, Bl. Pope John Paul II is going into the calendar.  However that's not to say that his feast is going to be universal or anything.  For some strange reason I really do not want Divine Mercy Sunday.. something just seems odd about a private devotion taking precedence over so-and-so Sunday after Pentecost.

I doubt they'd add his feast to the universal calendar until (unless?) he's canonized - even in the NO calendar, there aren't any. Even someone as popular as Mother Teresa didn't get on the universal calendar, but only allowed to be venerated locally.

Divine Mercy Sunday is on Low Sunday (or, in NO-land, the II Second Sunday of Easter). None of the readings or other prayers change - you still hear about St. Thomas.

I'd like to see the entire pre-1955 Missal come back, although the main thing I prefer about it is the calendar and commemorations, including proper Last Gospels. And Holy Week - keep the new times, but use the older forms, especially on Good Friday with the ancient Mass of the Presanctified, and the 12 readings on Holy Saturday. Yes, it's long, but it's also the most solemn Mass of the entire year.

Adding Laetabundus to Christmas would be good; requiring Dies Irae at all Masses of the Dead should also be done.

Commemorations should also be restored to the pre-1954 rubrics, including commemorating the Sunday on Feasts of the Lord.

I'm not sure what I think of feasts during Lent - I like the ferial Mass and Office, but the 1962 rubrics permanently reduce several saints to Commemorations, including St. Patrick, St. Benedict, and St. Gabriel - and the Seven Sorrows.
The 1960 Breviary, though, is particularly bad. There's absolutely no reason to give into laziness a few times a year and shave a couple minutes off the Office by cutting a big chunk of Psalm 88 on Christmas and the Transfiguration - or the Canticle of Moses at Lauds II on Saturday. And why are Sundays Offices of three Lessons? There are quite a few Sundays where the Gospel Homily poses a question in Lesson vii and then answers it in Lessons viii and ix. By omitting those last two Lessons, you lose the whole point of the Homily. You also lose the commentary on the I Nocturn's Scripture Lessons.

I'm not sure all feasts need to have nine Lessons - a big reason for so many Doubles was to avoid the much lengthier Sunday and ferial Offices, which the 1911 Rubrics changed - but a lot of material was cut out of the 1960 Breviary.
I've just noticed a proposed change to the Prefaces.. that I don't want to see.  However thinking about all this, it would do the Extraordinary Form great publicity, it will remind people that this is a living liturgy and not an antique relic of interest only to the fringe-men of society.

(09-20-2011, 05:35 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt they'd add his feast to the universal calendar until (unless?) he's canonized - even in the NO calendar, there aren't any. Even someone as popular as Mother Teresa didn't get on the universal calendar, but only allowed to be venerated locally.

Of course, but lets be honest, it's very likely that he will be canonised.

Quote:Divine Mercy Sunday is on Low Sunday (or, in NO-land, the II Second Sunday of Easter). None of the readings or other prayers change - you still hear about St. Thomas.

There's just something I don't like about it.  It's an innate knee-jerk reaction is all.
I like the prefaces in the 1962 Missal just as they are now.
I wish they had 12 readings for the Easter vigil even for the NO Mass.
(09-20-2011, 07:58 PM)NOtard Wrote: [ -> ]I wish they had 12 readings for the Easter vigil even for the NO Mass.

It's a bit lame that the NO Easter Vigil has more readings than the the revised TLM Easter Vigil...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9