Step 2: Abolish the 1962 Missal?


#1

Today, the talk is about Rome’s plan to integrate the PCED into the CDF, and what this might portend for the SSPX and Summorum Pontificum (with some speculating that it could signal Rome’s intent to limit the “licit” celebration of the 1962 Mass to a “regularized” SSPX and the personal prelature which will be established for them).

Some may not have realized that such a scenario also implies that the SSPX’s personal prelate would exercise authority over all the captured communities formerly governed by the PCED.

In any case, what is not being discussed is whether, once all the semi-traditionalists are corralled within the new prelature, the 1962 missal itself will even survive.

Over a year ago, on my defunct blog, I wrote the following article about the subject, which was picked up by a Polish Resistance blog, and survives here:


#2

SSPX Preparing for a Hybrid Mass?

By

Sean Johnson

October 9, 2017

When in 2007, the SSPX celebrated Benedict XVI’s promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, which announced among other things, that the traditional rite had never been abrogated, that admission largely overshadowed some “timebombs” contained within the same document, such as:

“Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.”

And:

“For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.” (Citation)

In other words, in the same breath it is announced the old Rite was never abrogated, Rome announces its intention to abrogate it, by creating a new hybrid rite.

Benedict XVI reiterated the Roman intention to infuse the traditional rite with elements of the Novus Ordo in his Universae Ecclesiae :

“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.

  1. 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.

  2. With regard to the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical discipline contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies.” (Citation)

Translation: Rome intends to plow ahead with the “reform of the reform,” and impose it on all those communities availing themselves of Summorum Pontificum : Epistle/Gospel readings in the vernacular only; 1 hour fast; new “saints” and prefaces; and presumably, most of the other innovations of the 1965 rubrics, which are considered to be the “real Mass of Vatican II” (See here for why).

Now the conciliar Tridentina Malta blog is reporting that:

“sometime in the second half of 2018, the Novus Ordo Lectionary and Calendar are to be imposed upon the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass…The new Roman Missal will become available on the First Sunday of Advent 2018 but the Vatican will allow a two-year period to phase it in. These changes are expected to be much more drastic than what was envisaged in Universae Ecclesiae …The Vatican approved societies and institutes, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, will likely apply for exemptions, but all requests are expected to be turned down. The only exception seems to be the SSPX, which might be granted a temporary exemption, to ensure that an agreement is reached between the SSPX and Rome.”

In other words, the SSPX is being baited, and will have the 1962 rug pulled out from under their own feet at a later date.

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Rome senses the weakness of Bishop Fellay from all the compromises already extracted, and from 20 years of ralliement, knows he is on the hook.

So well hooked is he, that not even the 1962 Missal is safe.

In fact, it is doomed.

How will the SSPX clergy and faithful react to the reintroduction of substantially the same 1965 Missal that Archbishop Lefebvre eventually turned his back on as being insufficient for the formation of traditional priests?

Well, if the disinterest and apathy of the last several years is any barometer, they will go right along with Cranmer’s, er, Francis and Fellay’s revolution.

The interesting part is to see how Menzingen will go about “preparing minds” to set them all up for this future infidelity.

At my own SSPX chapel, some changes began to be implemented several years ago, while others have popped up only in the last couple months. Here is a description of some of them:

  • Standing through the Agnus Dei , rather than kneeling as we had always done (and which is a much more liturgically congruent posture for the faithful during a penitential prayer). Remember, Vatican II wanted “active participation,” which it erroneously equated with “vocal participation,” despite the teaching to the contrary of St. Pius X. Now, how can you “actively/vocally” participate (i.e., sing with the choir) if you are on your knees pounding your chest? Therefore, stand it is!
  • The altar boys now say the “ Domine non sum dignus ” aloud with the priest , as opposed to a 40 years custom to the contrary. More erroneous active = vocal participation. It also gets the servers used to saying prayers proper to the priest (which in turn encourages the faithful to babble along with them).
  • No more triple genuflection during Holy Week at the adoration of the cross (“Well hey, that was part of the pre-Pius XII reforms anyway, so that is actually proper.” Yes, but enforcing Pius XII’s innovations in this regard was never the custom here. Why the sudden concern the last few years?
  • No more adoration of the cross in socks (Keep your shoes on!). This gets an explicit mention in the bulletin (as does the abolition of the triple genuflection), which proves an interruption of the faithful’s customs from those of the older practice.
  • No more refusing to genuflect for the Jews on Good Friday . It used to be that a good number of SSPX priests refused to genuflect for the Jews, and kept to the traditional practice (i.e., pre-1956 experimental rubrics of Pius XII), which omitted the “ flectamus genua.

Additionally, one could cite the proliferation of the Dialogue Mass throughout all SSPX schools and seminaries (which implements all the same faulty liturgical principles of the Novus Ordo , which is precisely why and how we arrived at it!):

  • Equating vocal participation with active participation
  • Blurring the distinction between the sacrificial and ministerial priesthood with the priesthood of the faithful
  • Bending the Mass to the “needs” of the apostolate
  • Using the Mass as a catechetical tool
  • Encouraging the faithful to take a more “active” (i.e., vocal) participation in the Mass
  • Extending the prayer responses beyond the sanctuary into the pews (not the choir), so why not go versus populum ?

Enough already:

Rome’s plans are exposed in broad daylight, and Menzingen is complicit.

As Michael Davies stated:

“Likewise, the 1965 Missal was intended to condition the faithful into accepting without protest the radically reformed Missal of 1969.”

If, then, Menzingen agrees to plow forward with the ralliement , despite Rome’s very transparent and public intention to morph the 1962 Missal into something more along the lines of 1965, how then can the Society escape Michael Davies’ indictment?


#3

Six months after the previous article was published, Rome announced an indult for the PCED communities to use the true (I.e., pre-1951) Holy Week. Had I erred in the previous article? Was Rome turning back the clock, and expressing a new openness to Tradition (as Bishop Fellay was continually suggesting)? The following article was my take on the matter:

Preliminary Reflections on the Roman Holy Week Indult

by

Sean Johnson

4/6/18

Introduction:
Several years ago, the Rorate Coeli blog, surprisingly, posted a translated critique of the “reformed” 1955/56 Holy Week rites of Pius XII by Fr. Stefano Carusi (a priest of the indultarian Institute of the Good Shepherd), which stands as a withering indictment of the Pian Holy Week “reforms” from beginning to end.

Shortly thereafter, Fr. Anthony Cekada (an American sedevacantist priest) offered the following comment regarding the surprising study of Fr. Carusi:

“It is worth noting that Fr. Carusi is a member of the IBP (Institute of the Good Shepherd), a Vatican-approved society for priests (mostly former SSPX-ers) who offer the traditional Latin Mass under the banner of Benedict XVI’s 2007 Motu Proprio — which, in theory at least, prescribes the use of the John XXIII Missal that contains the very rites Fr. Carusi criticizes. It is significant that even in these circles many are now examining the pre-Vatican II liturgical changes with a critical eye, an undertaking previously regarded as exclusively “sedevacantist” territory.” (citation)

Last month, we quoted this observation of Fr. Cekada on the Sodalitium Pianum blog, and corroborated it by posting another article by a fully conciliar priest promoting the pre-1951 Holy Week revisions, here.

No doubt, many of you thought to yourselves, “One rose does not make spring (or even two roses).”

Well, spring is here.

The Bombshell:
On February 18 Francis dropped a 50 megaton nuclear bomb, verified by the following amazing notice which recently appeared in a Fraternity of St Peter bulletin on 2/18/18:

“The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has granted to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter the use of the rites of Holy Week prior to the reforms of 1951-1955. Our parish has been selected as one of the apostolates to use this permission. Over the next several weeks, we will examine some of the differences in a series of bulletin pieces.” (citation)

Indeed, even the conciliar/indultarians are openly questioning (and apparently politely voicing their distaste for) the pre-Vatican II liturgical reforms, as the aforementioned indult makes clear (i.e., It was obviously not granted without having been the object of requests made to Rome).

So what is Francis the Destroyer up to?

Is he desirous of reversing course, bolstering Tradition, or just being a “good” liberal, and giving everyone whatever they want?

Well, we can dismiss the “good liberal” theory out of hand, simply by recalling the destruction of the Franciscans of the Immaculate: Francis is rabidly averse to any manifestation of Tradition, which poses a threat to conciliar modernism. His anti-traditional comments these last five years make that perfectly clear.

And as far as reversing course on Vatican II is concerned, we have his own words to the contrary quoted by Commonweal in 2013:

“But 50 years later, have we done everything the Holy Spirit was asking us to do during the Council, he asked. The answer is No, said Pope Francis. We celebrate this anniversary, we put up a monument but we don’t want it to upset us. We don’t want to change and what’s more there are those who wish to turn the clock back. This, he went on, is called stubbornness and wanting to tame the Holy Spirit.” (citation)

So again, we ask, what is Francis up to with the granting of this latest indult?

To answer that question, we have to begin by accepting a priori a certain and undeniable foundational principle, which is surely this:

All of Francis’ acts are designed to promote radical conciliarism, to the deliberate detriment of Tradition. Meaning, if he has offered an indult for the true Holy Week to the captured communities, it is a further attack upon, not a promotion or concession to, Tradition.

How So?

The Strategy in Rome?

Stemming the tide of sedevacantism:
Rome understands the threat of sedevacantism.
With the capitulation of the SSPX, sedevacantism is now the primary threat to conciliarism. But the farther along the revolution progresses, the more momentum is surrendered to sedevacantism, since in the conciliar and post-conciliar heresies there is no longer even the pretense to a “development of doctrine” (into its own contradiction?), as was the case for the first 45 years after Vatican II.

Sedevacantism has great appeal to simplistic and legalistic minds (which, let’s face it, comprise most of the faithful, who are unable to distinguish between true/false obedience, grasp the doctrine of necessity, or understand how a legitimate but damnable Pope may/must be resisted).

What better way to stem the tide of defections to sedevacantism than to make the true Holy Week available to the captured ghettoes of Ecclesia Dei? That move connotes one central idea to the faithful: “Francis may be a heretic, but if he gives us the true Holy Week, we can still find ‘normalcy’ (so they reason) in the Church, without resorting to sedevacantism.

That is a card well played.

Weaken the already disintegrating SSPX:
Locked into the rubrics of the 1962 Roman Missal as the result of Archbishop Lefebvre’s battle with the sedevacantists (and the 1981 Pledge of Fidelity which pre-dates that battle, by which all SSPX clergy promise to adhere strictly to the liturgical books of 1962), Francis’ “concession” effectively makes the SSPX the most liturgically modern of all approved religious “congregations.” All but them will have the option of using the true Holy Week rites prior to the 1951 changes of Bugnini/Pius XII, while the SSPX will be stuck, by its own legislation, with Bugnini’s rite.

It will not matter that the spirit of the 1981 Pledge was to prevent a slide into Novus Ordo bi-ritualism, rather than precluding recourse to the 1954 Missal, because Rome’s new lapdog is desirous of demonstrating its newfound “loyalty” to its heretical masters (a quality it is trying to inculcate into its own clergy and faithful).

There will also be defections from the pews: While the SSPX goes about importing modernist French liturgical customs into its American chapels, the indult communities are heading in the opposite direction: “Well, if the SSPX is already (or soon to be) just another indult community, why not go to the one with a more traditional liturgy? After all, there has been no difference in the sermons for years, and since the SSPX no longer seems worried about the validity of priestly ordinations or episcopal consecrations in the conciliar church, what really is to keep us at the SSPX?”

Create the illusion of things getting better in Rome:
A necessary face-saving pretext for the great betrayal, useful to both Rome and Menzingen alike, this mirage facilitates the conditioning of minds to accepting a practical accord with unconverted Rome. The SSPX will interpret this indult, therefore, (and desire that you interpret this indult) as more evidence that Rome is becoming ever more approving of Tradition:

“Look (they will say), they even allow the old Holy Week now! Who could ever have dreamed such a thing was possible?! They have really come a long way. True, Francis is a flaming liberal, but that just means he will give is whatever we want. Surely, no one who would give us the old Holy Week would want to destroy us?”

We have already rebutted that delusion many times (especially here), but will the SSPX faithful (and clergy) who have been slow-boiled for 7 years without sermons mentioning the crisis in the Church and within the SSPX still be capable of discerning the attack, or will they see in it another benevolent example of Pope Francis’ “paternal solicitude?” Thus far, these have preferred to believe all the lies and turn blind eyes to the most blatant compromises and contradictions, and now for their punishment, many do truly believe them. Like the final words of Orwell’s 1984, “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother:”

For not resisting the lies, they have been accepted as truths, and if people like me should happen to remind them of their self-deceiving subtleties in articles such as this one, naturally they resent us for it, both for reintroducing the disturbances of conscience which they hoped to have quelled, and because of their own insecurities knowing however vaguely that they have been subtle with themselves in order to swallow the lies.

Like the dancing bishops of Brazil, these sad souls of broken spirit and compromised principles can now be led by the nose in any direction conciliar authority leads them (just think about the pathetic example of Bishop Rifan!), via their SSPX lieutenants, even to the point of believing modernist Rome isn’t so bad after all.

The “Ace in the Hole”
If Rome can “give permission,” it can also withhold permission.

Apparently, it never occurs to anyone that Quo Primum has never been abrogated (and arguably, never can be abrogated; Summorum Pontificum unwittingly and/or reluctantly implied as much); that the Holy Week rites of Bugnini/Pius XII are NOT the Holy Week rites of the Roman Missal of Quo Primum; that the innovations of Bugnini/Pius XII from 1951-1955/6 are so numerous and substantial as to constitute another rite altogether, or what might be called a “Novus Ordo of Holy Week”; that, consequently, nobody can be forced to use the modernist rites of Pius XII (impregnated with historical errors, liturgical incongruity, archaeologism, and uncatholic liturgical principles); that every Catholic priest is in full possession of the right to use the traditional Holy Week rites, and as St. Pius V states (prophetically) nobody ought to have any scruple at all in the matter in having recourse to them.

Therefore, to avail oneself of this indult is a loss, rather than a victory, in what it implies: That the traditional Holy Week could not be used without the indult.

Be careful: By availing yourselves of the true Holy Week, you are telling Rome that what they give, they can also take back!

Conclusion:
There is clearly a growing love and desire for the fully traditional pre-Bugnini/Pius XII Holy Week rites, even (I might even say “especially”) outside the ranks of the sedevacantists, as this indult (and the other studies listed above) makes clear, and that is, in and of itself, a very good thing.

But the granting of this indult is manifestly not born of a love for the traditional rites by those who have granted it, much less a desire to curb Vatican II, or turn back the clock.

It is a political strategy, with many aims in mind, transpiring in historical context toward the end of the long SSPX ralliement process by which Roman modernism will finally, at long last, prevail over captured Tradition (or at least, that portion of Tradition which has allowed itself to be captured); it is geared toward that end.

Firstly, the promulgation might be useful in stemming the tide of defections to sedevacantism, and the momentum Francis’ heresies have given to that movement.

Secondly, it hopes to facilitate this end by being perceived as evincing an openness to Tradition, thereby facilitating the SSPX’s apologetics, which attempt to justify the acceptance of the Prelature partially upon this basis:

“You see, things are getting better in Rome!”

Thirdly, this indult also hopes to facilitate this final victory over Tradition by isolating the SSPX as the most liturgically modern of all the “approved” conciliar communities, thereby encouraging defections to other “approved” communities, who (the issue of valid of clergy aside) will be perceived as “more traditional” than an SSPX which is stuck with the 1962 books, and offers no substantially different content to its faithful today than any other indult group.

Finally, this indult cleverly pulls off a coup incognito:

It augments in the minds of men the mistaken idea that the use of the traditional Holy Week requires the permission of Rome (and consequently the opposite conclusion implicit in the first: That “what Rome giveth, Rome can taketh away”), even without attempting to abrogate Quo Primum.

In short, we rejoice that the true, traditional Holy Week is making a limited comeback of sorts (however controlled and calculatingly), but neither are we blind to the ulterior motives and stratagems for Rome’s maneuver, which is to capture, then crush Tradition, not restore it.


#4

Someone just posted this!

https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/dialogue-massleading-the-choir-in-singing/msg638048/?topicseen#msg638048


#5

Wow that was awful. As others have said, it makes that conductor the center of attention instead of the Sacrifice of the Mass. I am sure this is what some liturgists were promoting during the hijacked Liturgical Movement. Incredible…

Would you not say though that this is an isolated incident? By that I mean the conductor in the center waving his arms around…


#6

Here is the video…

The conducting starts around the 11 minute mark.

I should add that I in no way judge the intentions which are undoubtedly good but simply question the nature of placing the conductor at the center when he is conducting for the Kyrie, Gloria etc…