The Mass of 1965
#21
Don't the folks in Iran deserve good bishops?  I would think Iranians might need even better bishops than those of us in the ostensibly Christian West.
Reply
#22
(05-04-2009, 01:32 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: For anyone interested:

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

- Lisa
Thanks for the link.
Reply
#23
(05-05-2009, 01:07 AM)DrBombay Wrote: Don't the folks in Iran deserve good bishops?  I would think Iranians might need even better bishops than those of us in the ostensibly Christian West.
True but its a demotion because Its not a very sought after place to be. Maybe Paul VI thought that if he was out in the desert he couldnt do any trouble.
Reply
#24
Baskerville Wrote: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.

It doesn't matter is Protestants, suspected Freemasons, orthodox Christians, hobos or housewives influenced or actually wrote all or some of the liturgy. For the purposes of considering Quo Primum this does not matter at all. The point is that traditionalists claim Quo Primum allows for absolutely no changes to the Mass or Office and we know the Mass and Office were changed at least dozens of times between the 1500s and 1962. What gives? Why do we give S. Pius X, who DRASTICALLY changed the Office, a free pass, but not Paul VI?
Reply
#25
(05-05-2009, 06:24 AM)Credo Wrote: It doesn't matter is Protestants, suspected Freemasons, orthodox Christians, hobos or housewives influenced or actually wrote all or some of the liturgy. For the purposes of considering Quo Primum this does not matter at all. The point is that traditionalists claim Quo Primum allows for absolutely no changes to the Mass or Office and we know the Mass and Office were changed at least dozens of times between the 1500s and 1962. What gives? Why do we give S. Pius X, who DRASTICALLY changed the Office, a free pass, but not Paul VI?

I agree with you in the principle that the Liturgy should not be frozen, and never was frozen by infallible definition. The Liturgy is the prayer of the living Church, and whatever lives it changes.

However for the question why do we give St Pius X a free pass, the answer is that his renewal was followed by a unprecedented surge in the Catholic life: Church attendance, vocations, conscientious Catholic life. On the other side Paul VI reform was followed by an unprecedented decline in the same areas.

Matthew 7:16 By their fruits you shall know them.
Reply
#26
(05-05-2009, 01:07 AM)DrBombay Wrote: Don't the folks in Iran deserve good bishops?  I would think Iranians might need even better bishops than those of us in the ostensibly Christian West.

Yeah.  Too bad they got Bugnini.
Reply
#27
The Mass of 1965 was a transitional Liturgy as someone already pointed out. It's long gone into the dustbins of History. Nowadays, there are only two liturgies fighting each other to the death: the traditional catholic Mass (as per the 1962 editio typica) and the protestantized Novus Ordo Missae.

We hope and pray that the traditional Mass will once more win the battle, despite the strong suspects of the so called "Reform of the Reform" looming in the horizon.
Reply
#28
(05-05-2009, 06:24 AM)Credo Wrote:
Baskerville Wrote: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.

It doesn't matter is Protestants, suspected Freemasons, orthodox Christians, hobos or housewives influenced or actually wrote all or some of the liturgy. For the purposes of considering Quo Primum this does not matter at all. The point is that traditionalists claim Quo Primum allows for absolutely no changes to the Mass or Office and we know the Mass and Office were changed at least dozens of times between the 1500s and 1962. What gives? Why do we give S. Pius X, who DRASTICALLY changed the Office, a free pass, but not Paul VI?

Credo buddy if it was up to me we would return everything to 1400 ad. Your right Pius X shouldnt be given a pass. I think everything should have been left as it was.
Reply
#29
(05-06-2009, 02:06 AM)Baskerville Wrote: Credo buddy if it was up to me we would return everything to 1400 ad. Your right Pius X shouldnt be given a pass. I think everything should have been left as it was.

So no books, no internet, flies and mosquitoes everywhere, high child and birth mortality etc.

If the Liturgy is living, then it has to be changed with the changes in the world.
Reply
#30
(05-06-2009, 09:27 AM)glgas Wrote:
(05-06-2009, 02:06 AM)Baskerville Wrote: Credo buddy if it was up to me we would return everything to 1400 ad. Your right Pius X shouldnt be given a pass. I think everything should have been left as it was.

So no books, no internet, flies and mosquitoes everywhere, high child and birth mortality etc.

If the Liturgy is living, then it has to be changed with the changes in the world.

Somebody loses a fish point.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)