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, 08:56 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]NOtard, I feel the same way.

I'd say the Easter Vigil ought to be celebrated at the full length and solemnity, all the time. It should be expected that only the most hardcore will attend, along with the catechumens. I don't know why one would bring unruly kids to it rather than one of the much shorter Masses on Easter Sunday morning.

Nobody brings unruly kids to an Easter vigil. For one thing, as you point out, it is much longer than the Easter morning Masses, so if one's kid is difficult to control, one would choose the shorter service. Secondly, it involves a special privilege of being allowed to stay up WAY past normal bedtime, so the kid is already realizing that this is something special, a privilege easily lost. thirdly, the ceremony itself is quite dramatic, starting with the entire church in darkness.

I'm referring to bringing a child who does appreciate it, but who may not be able to stay awake for the whole thing.
(09-20-2011, 10:27 PM)NOtard Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody brings unruly kids to an Easter vigil. For one thing, as you point out, it is much longer than the Easter morning Masses, so if one's kid is difficult to control, one would choose the shorter service. Secondly, it involves a special privilege of being allowed to stay up WAY past normal bedtime, so the kid is already realizing that this is something special, a privilege easily lost. thirdly, the ceremony itself is quite dramatic, starting with the entire church in darkness.

Ah, I see. Agreed.

Heh, I've always been a night owl, even as a kid. Sleep during the night just does not come naturally for me.
(09-20-2011, 09:24 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]I've been to the pre-1955 Easter Vigil - but done in the evening, so the whole thing was probably doubly illicit. Lasted four hours, and

it
was
glorious.

To my understanding, even groups who celebrate the pre-1955 rites (such as the ICRSS) will typically do so during the post-1955 times of day. I attended a pre-1955 Good Friday liturgy at an ICRSS church at 3pm.
(09-20-2011, 08:57 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]OK, let's sort the men from the boys: who wants the Easter Vigil back on the Saturday morning?

I remember lots of Easter Vigils on Holy Saturday morning. 

Also, the Lenten Fast ended at 12:00 noon on Holy Saturday.

Count me in!

Thanks for Reading!  :)

God Bless You!  :pray:

A Catholic Catholic
(09-19-2011, 09:20 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-19-2011, 09:17 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-19-2011, 09:12 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]According to their website they're okay with the 1955 Holy Week, but admit the pre-1955 Holy Week is better. 

Still I'll feel more confident about the pre-1955 Holy Week making a comeback if this commission included ICKSP people.

The words "commission," "missal," and "experts" all in the same sentence makes me shudder.

It's Ecclesia Dei. The commission is most likely made up of FSSP and ICKSP priests.  Given the negotiations with the SSPX I wouldn't be surprised if they've already talked to them too. 

I recall reading that there's actually only one traditional priest in Ecclesia Dei. The rest of them offer both the True Mass and the new liturgy.
(09-20-2011, 09:12 PM)StevusMagnus Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-20-2011, 09:10 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: [ -> ]Tradition and the Roman Missal haven't been "annihilated". More anti-Roman hyperbole.

Paul VI and JPII didn't annihilate Tradition and the TLM?

Could have fooled me. They did their level best.

AMEN!  :)

Historically, when the future Pope Paul VI was still the Archbishop of Milan, he proposed the Novus Ordo Missae with all of its radical changes in his Lenten Pastoral of 1958.  

This was two years after his 1956 meeting of:


Quote:a delegation of four Anglican priests and a layman who stayed with him [Cardinal Montini] some ten days... the meetings were clandestine in the extreme...

(Bernard C. Pawley [Archdeacon of Canterbury], and Margaret Pawley [his Wife], Rome and Canterbury Through Four Centuries: A Study of the Relations Between the Church of Rome and the Anglican Churches 1530-1981, London & Oxford, 1974, ISBN: 9780264661230).

The New York Daily News quoted Pope Paul VI saying that Catholics:

Quote:should prepare themselves to be disturbed

about the changes to the Mass and added:

We note that pious people will be those most greatly disturbed

(New York Daily News, Thursday, November 27, 1969).

Furthermore - The Novus Ordo Missae:

Quote:was written under the Holy Father's [Pope Paul 6’s] personal supervision

(Cardinal Heenan, Forward to the English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae, November, 1969 A.D.)

One of the personal friends of the Pope has publicly stated that:

Quote:the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass

(Jean Guitton [b. at Saint-Étienne, Loire, in East-Central France on Sunday, August 18, 1901 - d. at Paris, France on Sunday, March 21, 1999], Apropos, Number 17, December 19, 1993, (17), p. 8ff.  

Also, Christian Order, October,1994.

N.B.:  Jean Guitton was a confidant and an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI who had 116 of his books and had made marginal study notes in 17 of these books.)

Within this context, especially of what Jean Guitton wrote above, it is no surprise that his Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in public, formal speeches, etc., called the new mass the mass of Luther.

Likewise, it should be no surprise, then, to learn that others followed his example, followed his lead, back in those days, by further explaining what it means to say that the new mass is the mass of Luther by saying that the new mass is Protestant because Luther was a Protestant.

But others were also saying more than just that the new mass is Protestant, e.g. as Jean Guitton observes:

Quote:the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass

(Jean Guitton [b. at Saint-Étienne, Loire, in East-Central France on Sunday, August 18, 1901 - d. at Paris, France on Sunday, March 21, 1999], Apropos, Number 17, December 19, 1993, (17), p. 8ff.)

They were saying, at least in private conversations, in so many words, that:

Quote:The new mass is only an updated, modernized, synthesized 16th Century Protestant Memorial Supper Meal which, because it is NOT a sacrifice, it does NOT have Transubstantiation, and thus it is not even a Sacrament.

Such statements were simply consistent with what his Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said, with what Jean Guitton said, not to mention others who were even much more blunt! 

For example:

Quote:The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists.  It has been DESTROYED! 

(Father Joseph Gelineau S.J. [b. at Champ-sur-Layon, Maine-et-Loire, West-Central France, on Sunday, October 31, 1920 - d. at Sallanches, a commune in the Haute-Savoie  department in the Rhône-Alps, South-Eastern France, on Friday, August 8, 2008],  Demain La Liturgk, Paris, 1976, pp. 9-10; emphasis added.

N.B.  Father Joseph Gelineau was a Synod Vatican 2 peritus - expert - who helped to make up the new mass.)

Thanks for Reading!  :)

God Bless You!  :pray:

A Catholic Catholic
(09-20-2011, 09:08 PM)StevusMagnus Wrote: [ -> ]I can see this being a big problem. As more VCII saints are canonized, how are you going to, on the one hand revere them, who annihilated Tradition and the Mass you attend, and also be Traditional and pray the Traditional Mass? More conciliar schizophrenia.

Certainly there are a number of problems with any changes, whether in the Eastern or Western Rites.  Ultimately, the bottom line is this:  What did Christ actually do when He perfectly instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ???

In other words, Christ instituted the unchangeable integrity of the expression (verbally and rubrically) as the nature of the Mass itself requires.

To simplify:  In theological terms, this means that Christ perfectly instituted the unchangeable ontological essence of the Mass and the unchangeable metaphysical essence of the Mass.

This is something I have yet to see any of the NEW Theology Theologians write about! Actually, offhand, I am even unable to think of any Theologians who have written about this in any real depth over the last almost 2,000 years ???

Therefore, it seems to me that this void, this lack of theological precision, this ignoring of the beautiful, and yet profound, Mystery of the Altar, has helped to create the present crises in the Church  ???

The bottom line is that it is both the unchangeable ontological essence, and the unchangeable metaphysical essence, of the Mass, that makes the Mass the Mass because herein is found the sine qua non of the Mass.

For example:  There are certain things that make a red rose a red rose; that make a cumulus cloud a cumulus cloud; that make a # 2 lead pencil a # 2 lead pencil, just as there are certain laws that make; 2 + 2 = 4 and not 22; that give gravity its pull on everyone and everything on earth; etc.

Yet mankind, especially scientists, are unable to make a simple blade of grass from only materia prima (prime matter), just as they are unable to make anything else from the nothingness of nothing, or even from materia prima (prime matter).

Therefore, in the same manner, in the same way, no one is able to make a real, valid, lawful liturgical rite of Mass which does not contain both the essential and required unchangeable ontological essence of the Mass and the unchangeable metaphysical essence of the Mass [/b][/u] which are necessary to have a a real, valid, lawful liturgical rite of Mass.

Luther, Cranmer, etc. tried doing this in the 16th Century.   These finite men, hampered by the darkness of their finite minds, failed to make a different Mass, whether from nothing, or from some pre-existing matter, which was yet, somehow, by some accident, a real, valid, lawful liturgical rite of Mass, but yet which did not also contain both the essential and required unchangeable ontological essence of the Mass and the unchangeable metaphysical essence of the Mass!

All they did was to effect a contradiction of terms called a memorial supper meal to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The mystery of the Mass was partially mitigated by the Angelic Doctor, insofar as the actual institution, per se, of the Mass itself is concerned:

Quote:“Since, therefore, the sanctification of man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what things should be used for his sanctification, but this should be determined by Divine Institution.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 60, Article 5, Body; emphasis added).

Precluding Divine Intervention on the subject of the Divine Institution, it seems to me that it will be some centuries yet into the future before Catholic Traditional Theologians will begin to realize how important this is and to prayerfully and respectfully study this subject in the depth necessary to at least begin, in a most finite way, to better understand this profound Mystery.

Thank You for Reading!  :)

God Bless You!   :pray:

A Catholic Catholic
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9