The Mass of 1965
#11
(05-04-2009, 10:26 AM)Credo Wrote: Good points in the above post, except,

Quote:the true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time to be used in perpetuity

"The true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time" was changed a few decades after Quo Primum was issued, and it was changed again a few decades after that, and a few decades thereafter, all the way down to 1955 and 1962.

Indeed, the same stipulation of Pope Pius' is true for the Breviary. A point that is never, ever brought up by trads is that the Divine Office, on which Pius V enjoined the same strict prohibitions against alteration, was drastically changed by Pope S. Pius X in the first-half of the 20th Century. Why the silence from trads?

BTW - My point in critiquing the stock arguments traditionalists use against the Novus Ordo is not that I'm newly enamoured with the revised liturgy. Rather, now that we trads "have a place at the table" since 2007s Summorum Pontificum, it's time we refine our apology for tradition to reflect history more accurately. That's all.

The changing of extremely minor details in the Holy Mass is not of concern -and could even be seen as implied as long as the basis of teaching the truth and the dispensing of the Sacred Mysteries is not harmed - but the stripping away of all things Catholic and the total re-formatting of the Mass into a new bastardized, Protestantized "Mass" is of MAJOR concern and goes firmly against Quo Primum.
Reply
#12
It's not historically correct to call '65 a transitional Mass.  It wasn't written with the 1970MR in mind-- that project wouldn't have been started/completed in time, as Bugnini wasn't named as secretary to the Concilium for the implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy until 1964.

The 1965 Mass is its own freestanding Mass.  It just didn't exist long enough to be recognized as such.
Reply
#13
(05-04-2009, 12:43 PM)Gondalus Wrote: (bites tongue)

Heh heh.  I read it.  And tend to agree, albeit with somewhat less skepticism.
Reply
#14
(05-04-2009, 12:43 PM)Gondalus Wrote: (bites tongue)

Heh, I read it too and awarded you for it -- may want to take those teeth off of the tongue ;D
Reply
#15
Nic Wrote:The changing of extremely minor details in the Holy Mass is not of concern

Au contraire:

St. Pius V, "Quo Primum" Wrote:We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it

Nothing means nothing. Minor details are something. No fudging.
Reply
#16
For anyone interested:

http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

- Lisa
Reply
#17
(05-04-2009, 10:26 AM)Credo Wrote: Good points in the above post, except,

Quote:the true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time to be used in perpetuity

"The true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time" was changed a few decades after Quo Primum was issued, and it was changed again a few decades after that, and a few decades thereafter, all the way down to 1955 and 1962.

Indeed, the same stipulation of Pope Pius' is true for the Breviary. A point that is never, ever brought up by trads is that the Divine Office, on which Pius V enjoined the same strict prohibitions against alteration, was drastically changed by Pope S. Pius X in the first-half of the 20th Century. Why the silence from trads?

BTW - My point in critiquing the stock arguments traditionalists use against the Novus Ordo is not that I'm newly enamoured with the revised liturgy. Rather, now that we trads "have a place at the table" since 2007s Summorum Pontificum, it's time we refine our apology for tradition to reflect history more accurately. That's all.
But were either the breviary or the Mass stripped by a commision of a Freemason (wether the Pope knew it or not) and six Protestants of all things Catholic for the soul purpose of appealing to heretics. Indeed before John XXIII Protestants were listed as "enemies" of the Church (which they are) they were not called in by Pius X to help "observe" the changes in the new Breviary.
Reply
#18
(05-04-2009, 07:52 AM)Credo Wrote:
Baskerville Wrote:Was the 1965 Missal the one that was called for by the council?

In addition to Gamber, the Adoremus Bulletin is of the mind that the 1965 Missal was in line with the changes called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. How we ended up with the 1969 Missal, I don't know.

Quote:And why did Paul VI have a whole new Mass written up by six Protestants and a Freemason since the missal of 65 follows all of what the council's document on the Mass called for.


we first must ask ourself whether Pope Paul VI knew this at the time of appointing Bugnini to his highly influential position? The answer would seem to be no. This is based on the fact that when Paul VI was supposedly presented with fileson Freemasons in the Church in 1975, Bugnini was reassigned to Iran within a year. A rapid fall from grace. By '75, the revised liturgy - including the new Office - was already in effect.
This has always puzzled me Paul VI found out about Bug boy Bugnini and shipped him off to Iran because he was "not a good boy" and probably a freemason and yet he kept all the liturgical changes of this "bad boy" and his six protestant cronies as the norm in the Church. This alone is enough to label him the worst Pope in Church history especialy since he knew things were going down the crapper-his smoke of satan remark etc. yet he did nothing to change things.
Reply
#19
(05-04-2009, 09:33 AM)Nic Wrote:
(05-04-2009, 07:52 AM)Credo Wrote:
Baskerville Wrote:Was the 1965 Missal the one that was called for by the council?

In addition to Gamber, the Adoremus Bulletin is of the mind that the 1965 Missal was in line with the changes called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. How we ended up with the 1969 Missal, I don't know.

Quote:And why did Paul VI have a whole new Mass written up by six Protestants and a Freemason since the missal of 65 follows all of what the council's document on the Mass called for.

He did not. This is a traditionalist talking point, and a bad one at that. It is used more for emotion than anything else.

While this poster finds it difficult that Annibale Bugnini was not a Mason (no one gets posted to Iran for being a good boy), we first must ask ourself whether Pope Paul VI knew this at the time of appointing Bugnini to his highly influential position? The answer would seem to be no. This is based on the fact that when Paul VI was supposedly presented with fileson Freemasons in the Church in 1975, Bugnini was reassigned to Iran within a year. A rapid fall from grace. By '75, the revised liturgy - including the new Office - was already in effect.

The second problem with the above statement was that the six Protestant Experts who were present at the formulation of the Mass of Paul VI were just advisers, they had absolutely no voting rights on the New Mass.  It is disturbing they were there to begin with, but let's just take it as a misguided act of friendliness rather than anything sinister.

If anything truly sinister happened or not, it can be easily seen by all today that the Protestant and Masonic efforts in the New Mass were heard loud and clear, due to the fact that the New Mass is closer Protestantism than Catholicism - regardless if they had "voting privileges" or not, with the abolishing of the altar and the replacement of such a necessary thing with a Lutheran "supper table." -- Not to mention the watering down of the Liturgy.  The fact that Bugnini stated that the New Mass must be stripped of all things Catholic so as to be more easily accepted by heretics should be evidence enough of the wickedness of its "promulgation" -- not to mention the suppression of the true Latin Mass that St. Pius V canonized for all-time to be used in perpetuity -- all these things can be seen as somewhat "sinister" in my eyes.
Plus 1 nic I am with ya with all due respect to Credo.
Reply
#20
(05-04-2009, 11:58 AM)timoose Wrote: Credo, your analysis is correct. Since they now have a "seat at the table" their discussion should be measured and rational, as the criticism of the 1969 Mass will stand on it's own. It is more than ironic that the 1965 Mass could be a model to "fix" the 1970 Mass, and bring both forms closer together. It appears to me that Bishop Fellay's Rosary Crusade is the next logical step before discussions can begin.
tim
I am of the opinion that if one accepts VII as a ligitimate council than the Mass of 65 is what that council called for and should ergo become the norm.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)