Oh No!!! Modernists take aim at Old Roman Missal
#21
If this happens then we have yet to see the darkest days fall upon the Roman Rite, the past forty years have been just a taste of what is to come...
Reply
#22
(08-16-2012, 10:42 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: If this happens then we have yet to see the darkest days fall upon the Roman Rite, the past forty years have been just a taste of what is to come...
One of the sick ironies of the Novus Ordo is that the desecrators meant to destroy the Roman Rite, but the Novus Ordo is so different that it is obviously a different entity altogether. 1965 is close enough to the TLM, and many who assist at TLM's would be okay with the 65 Missal. So playing this game of the "Reform of the Reform" could actually, in theory, destroy the Roman Rite.*

*I do not think the destroyers will ultimately be successful.
Reply
#23
(08-16-2012, 10:17 PM)MRose Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 09:19 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: - General allowance of the Traditional Mass to be celebrated "versus populum";

This is probably the worst abuse of the N.O.  I can't see a Trad priest doing this.  Standing there mooning the Lord as he says Mass. 

And I can't see Fr. Berg allowing it.  It says "allowance", so I doubt it will be forced.  If it was forced on the FSSP, most priests would probably go join the SSPX.

James, I am tempted to think this too, but what about the "hard-line" FSSP priests and Protocol 1411? Did any of them go back to the SSPX then? I mean, perhaps one can argue that they are not the same thing, but how long until they are "forced" to use a Novus Ordo preface? Will criticism be tolerated? Will Fr. Berg protest loudly?

This is indeed not the "same thing", by a long shot. 1999 was a very tumultuous year for the FSSP and the complexity of the situation combined with the public and not-so-public efforts of both FSSP and Vatican clergy make this an occurrence that was far from being black and white. It was divine prudence that prevented them from screaming "We're all doomed!" and jumping ship at the slightest drop of a hat ... which is apparently a main criteria of "traddiness" in the minds of many here.
Reply
#24
:eyeroll:  come one, my fellow fisheaters,  let's not get carried away.  This is a rumor and the person who posted it hasn't even given us a link to any document.  Besides no news has come from Rome about this sort of thing. Wouldn't we have heard it straight from the horse's mouth?
Reply
#25
And on another note all these seem like options we don't have to follow!
Reply
#26
(08-17-2012, 12:33 AM)Josué Wrote: :eyeroll:  come one, my fellow fisheaters,  let's not get carried away.  This is a rumor and the person who posted it hasn't even given us a link to any document.   Besides no news has come from Rome about this sort of thing. Wouldn't we have heard it straight from the horse's mouth?

I'm not alone ...
Reply
#27
(08-16-2012, 07:06 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: How odd. Who will use this? The FSSP's charism is specifically to offer the Mass and Sacraments using the pre-VII missal.

Maybe it's for conservative Novus Ordo Catholics to be able to move a little closer to tradition while still saving face by being obedient to the changes and staying up to date and relevant and all that stuff.  What a complicated church we have.

This was my first thought, too. Especially, if what we get is a number of OF-style "options," I don't see much likelihood of traditional communities exercising them. However, perhaps OF parishes with CAF-type folks would enjoy dabbling. Hm.
Reply
#28
I think what you'll see is the same traditional Mass of 1962, but additions (as optional) of prefaces, saints canonized after 1962, with SP and UE in the front. You will not see Mass facing the people, or the entire Mass up to the creed in the vernacular. This has already been forbidden. Nothing new here:

Universae Ecclesiae Wrote:25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.

26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.

27. With regard to the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical discipline contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies.

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

This is, of course, to foster unity, and bring the traditionalist communities out of a time warp. I am posting all the time saints in the Divine Office forum which are completely omitted in traditionalist Masses. Think, Padre Pio, Maximilian Kolbe, etc. I think this will be good to have a fresh definitive printing of the 1962 Missal.

See also:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/01...-soon.html

Reply
#29
I'm pretty sure this is nothing but a rumor, especially since the original website was rather doubtful of its authenticity. If, however, it is more then a rumor--that they are in fact going to make revisions to the 1962 Missal for use in the EF, then I imagine it could perhaps turn out alright, depending on who is doing the revisions. Adding the new saints would be good. Some of the new prefaces would be alright. Also, I would not have that much of a problem if the epistle and the gospel were permitted to be said in the vernacular, although I would prefer that they keep it the way it is--read them in the Latin first, and give the priest the option of reading them in the vernacular after, right before the sermon. Of course, the absence of a sermon often seems to rule out the possibility of a reading in the vernacular, so perhaps making a note somewhere that the vernacular gospel reading can occur with or without a sermon would be an acceptable change.

The tridentine missal was revised several times in its history. And while I'm well aware of the argument that it is too soon after VII to mess around with things, I don't think that is even a question anymore. They are going to mess around with things, and have possibly already started. The question is what are they going to mess around with, and will these changes be acceptable.

Also, leaving the Church is not a valid option, Petertherock. I sick of heretical, almost-protestants on the trad side. You don't get to just leave the Church in protest. And if you think it is justified, you have forgotten that the Church, founded by Christ himself, is a visible Church, outside of which there is no salvation. So really, stop this nonsense. You are a danger not only to your own soul, but to anyone with similar thoughts. Heresy feeds off the heresy in others.
Reply
#30
(08-16-2012, 11:05 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 10:17 PM)MRose Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 09:19 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: - General allowance of the Traditional Mass to be celebrated "versus populum";

This is probably the worst abuse of the N.O.  I can't see a Trad priest doing this.  Standing there mooning the Lord as he says Mass. 

And I can't see Fr. Berg allowing it.  It says "allowance", so I doubt it will be forced.  If it was forced on the FSSP, most priests would probably go join the SSPX.

James, I am tempted to think this too, but what about the "hard-line" FSSP priests and Protocol 1411? Did any of them go back to the SSPX then? I mean, perhaps one can argue that they are not the same thing, but how long until they are "forced" to use a Novus Ordo preface? Will criticism be tolerated? Will Fr. Berg protest loudly?

This is indeed not the "same thing", by a long shot. 1999 was a very tumultuous year for the FSSP and the complexity of the situation combined with the public and not-so-public efforts of both FSSP and Vatican clergy make this an occurrence that was far from being black and white. It was divine prudence that prevented them from screaming "We're all doomed!" and jumping ship at the slightest drop of a hat ... which is apparently a main criteria of "traddiness" in the minds of many here.
I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am screaming "We are all doomed" and jumping any ship and suggesting that one must do so in order to qualify as a trad. I was asking a question about the FSSP and the Protocol because I did not know. So if you are going to accuse people of jumping the gun and jumping down others' throats, do not do the same to me.

(And, if I am misreading you or misunderstanding you, please accept my apology.)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)