It is Our understanding that this article, written by the above Author, has been translated into English. However, in some places it is obvious that the English translation suffers, perhaps by a too literal translation of the original language? For this reason, plus minor clarifications, etc., We have included (as few as possible) Editor's Notes within the actual text of this article which will be found in brackets like this one: [ ]. Some spelling errors and grammatical constructions have been automatically corrected. Because of the length of this article, We have underlined certain names, dates, and various important data which Readers, pressed for time, will find helpful on which to focus.
In addition, for reasons which should be self-evident to all Readers, because the average Catholic Lay Reader does not have an extensive knowledge of some of the more technical terms, and/or certain historical facts, various theological concepts, and issues of canonical jurisprudence, which are either to be found, or variously presupposed, or somehow otherwise imputed, in this article, it has seemed both wise and prudent to provide such Readers with some information, and/or, explanation, of some of these things so that the average Catholic Lay Reader may have the opportunity to become at least somewhat familiar with some of these mysterious things of which they are not otherwise knowledgeable. This is one reason why We have also added some hyper-links in various places.
Our purpose and intention in doing these things is not to impute to the Author of this very interesting, and easy to read, expansive and helpfully detailed article, any kind of incompetence, and/or ignorance. On the contrary, taught by Our many years of Pastoral experience with the average Catholic Laity, We quickly learned that the average Catholic Laity is in need of various commentaries, clarifications, etc., to better grasp the concepts involved, and to more rationally understand what those authors, especially those who are distinguished for being very knowledgeable concerning their subject matter, and to which extensive time and research has been used by the author, and We include the Author of this article in this category, tend, at least subconsciously, to write more for an audience of Clergy and the more erudite Laity who have had opportunities not available to the majority of the Catholic Laity, but perhaps with the hope that the average Catholic Laity will somehow be able to have recourse to currently unknown necessary resources for a much better comprehension of the material covered in their very helpful and much-needed articles.
Finally, in an attempt to clarify, and/or to correct where necessary, some of the data in this Author's article, We have also considered it necessary, appropriate, and/or helpful for the Reader to have more information about such data. You will find this at the conclusion of this article in the Editor's Notes which is near the bottom of this web page.
Therefore, it should be clear that it is not Our intention to somehow "rewrite" this article, but rather to try to help the average Catholic Laity to better plumb the depths (as the expression goes) of the riches of the historical, and other, facts to be found in this article and their extremely important relevance to today - a time of horrendous confusion in which Our experience tells Us is the current state of the average Catholic Laity which has been caused by the blatantly deliberate propaganda of lies perpetrated by so many .automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .Modernist Heretics, as well as the .automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .NEW Theology Heretics, whether such lies and hatred of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition are to be found in so-called sermons, books, magazines, audio-visual material, TV programs, meetings, conferences, etc., etc. of whatsoever kind, in whatsoever way, and howsoever propagated.
The New Mass was only the final stage of a long process.
“The Liturgy, considered as a whole, is the collection of symbols, chants and acts by means of which the Church expresses and manifests its religion towards God.”
In the Old Testament, God Himself, so to speak, is the Liturgist: He specifies the most minute details of the worship which the faithful had to render to Him. The importance attached to a Form of Worship which was but the shadow of that sublime Worship in the New Testament which Christ the High Priest wanted His Church to continue until the end of the world.
In the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, everything is important, everything is sublime, down to the tiniest details, a Truth which moved St. Teresa of Avila to say: “I would give my life for the smallest ceremony of Holy Church.”
The Reader, therefore, should not be surprised at the importance we will attach to the rubrics of the Liturgy, and the close attention we will pay to the “reforms” which preceded the Second Vatican Council.
In any case, the Church’s enemies were all too well aware of the importance of the Liturgy - heretics corrupted the Liturgy in order to attack the Faith itself. Such was the case with the ancient Christological heresies, then with Lutheranism and Anglicanism in the 16th century, then with the Illuminist and Jansenist reforms in the 18th century, and finally with Vatican II, beginning with its Constitution on the Liturgy and culminating in the Novus Ordo Missae.
The liturgical “reform” desired by Vatican II and realized in the post-Conciliar period is nothing short of a revolution. No revolution has ever come about spontaneously. It always results from prolonged attacks, slow concessions, and a gradual giving way. The purpose of this article is to show the Reader how the liturgical revolution came about, with special reference to the pre-Conciliar changes in 1955 and 1960.
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, a German liturgist, pointed out that the liturgical debacle pre-dates Vatican II. “If”, he said, “a radical break with tradition has been completed in our days with the introduction of the Novus Ordo and the new liturgical books, it is our duty to ask ourselves where its roots are. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that these roots are not to be looked for exclusively in the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution on the Liturgy of December 4, 1963 represents the temporal conclusion of an evolution [Editor's note: evolution is a term that is used today by Modernist Heretics and NEW Theology Heretics.] whose multiple and not all homogenous causes go back into the distant past.”
According to Mgr Gamber: “The flowering of church life in the Baroque era (the Counter - Reformation and the Council of Trent) was stricken towards the end of the eighteenth century, with the blight of Illuminism. People were dissatisfied with the traditional liturgy, because they felt it did not correspond with the concrete problems of the times.”
Rationalist Illuminism found the ground already prepared by the Jansenist heresy, which, like Protestantism, opposed the traditional Roman Liturgy. Emperor Joseph II, the Gallican bishops of France, and of Tuscany in Italy, meeting together for the Synod of Pistoia, carried out reforms and liturgical experiments “which resemble to an amazing extent the present reforms; they are just as strongly orientated towards Man and social problems.... We can say, therefore, that the deepest roots of the present liturgical desolation are grounded in Illuminism.”
The aversion for tradition, the frenzy for novelty and reforms, the gradual replacement of Latin by the vernacular, and of ecclesiastical and patristic texts [replaced] only by Scripture [sola Scriptura], the diminution of the cult of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, the suppression of liturgical symbolism and mystery, and finally the shortening of the Liturgy, [which was] judged to be excessively and uselessly long and repetitive - we find all these elements of the Jansenist liturgical reforms in the present reforms, and see them reflected especially in the reforms of John XXIII. In the most serious cases the Church condemned the innovators: thus, Clement IX condemned the Ritual of the Diocese of Alet in 1668, Clement XI condemned the Oratorian Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719) in 1713, Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia and Bishop Scipio de’ Ricci in his bull Auctorem Fidei in 1794.
“A reaction to the llluminist plague,” says Mgr. Gamber. “is represented by the restoration of the nineteenth century. There arose at this time the great French Benedictine abbey of Solesmes, and the German Congregation of Beuron.” Dom Prosper Gueranger (1805-1875), Abbot of Solesmes, restored the old Latin liturgy in France.
His work led to a movement, later called the “Liturgical Movement,” which sought to defend the traditional liturgy of the Church, and to make it loved. This movement greatly benefitted the Church up to and throughout the reign of St. Pius X, who restored Gregorian Chant to its position of honor and created an admirable balance between the Temporal Cycle (feasts of Our Lord, Sundays, and ferias) and the Sanctoral Cycle (feasts of the saints).
The Movement’s Deviations
After St. Pius X, little by little, the so called “Liturgical Movement” strayed from its original path, and came full circle to embrace the theories which it had been founded to combat. All the ideas of the anti-liturgical heresy - as Dom Gueranger called the liturgical theories of the 18th century - were now taken up again in the 1920's and 30's by liturgists like Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960) in Belgium and France, and by Dom Pius Parsch and Romano Guardini in Austria and Germany.
The “reformers” of the 1930’s and 1940’s introduced the “Dialogue Mass,” because of their “excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions.” In some cases - in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations - the innovators succeeded in introducingMass in the vernacular [16th Century Protestantism], the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people [16th Century Protestantism], and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini. [future Paul 6]
In Belgium, Dom Beauduin gave the Liturgical Movement an ecumenical purpose, theorizing that the Anglican Church could be “united [to the Catholic Church] but not absorbed.” He also founded a “Monastery for Union” with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which resulted in many of his monks “converting” to the eastern schism. Rome intervened: the Encyclical against the Ecumenical Movement, “Mortalium Animos” (1928) resulted in Dom Beauduin being discreetly recalled, a temporary diversion. The great protector of Beauduin was Cardinal Mercier, founder of “Catholic” ecumenism, and described by the anti-modernists of the time as the “friend of all the betrayers of the Church.”
In the 1940’s liturgical saboteurs had already obtained the support of a large part of the hierarchy, especially in France (through the CPL - Center for Pastoral Liturgy) and in Germany.
A Warning from Germany
On January 18, 1943, the most serious attack against the Liturgical Movement was launched by an eloquent and outspoken member of the German hierarchy, the Archbishop of Freiburg, Conrad Grober. In a long letter addressed to his fellow bishops, Grober gathered together seventeen points expressing his criticisms of the Liturgical Movement. He criticized the theology of the charismatics, the Schoenstatt movement, but above all the Liturgical Movement, involving implicitly also Theodor Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna.
Few people know that Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., who then lived in Vienna, wrote a response to Grober. We shall meet Karl Rahner again as the German hierarchy’s conciliar “expert” at the Second Vatican Council, together with Hans Kung and Schillebeeckx.
The dispute ended up in Rome. In 1947 Pius XII’s Encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, ratified the condemnation of the deviating Liturgical Movement.
Pius XII “strongly espoused Catholic doctrine, but the sense of this encyclical was distorted in the commentaries made on it by the innovators and Pius XII, even though he remembered the principles, did not have the courage to take effective measures against those responsible; he should have suppressed the French CPL and prohibited a good number of publications. But these measures would have resulted in an open conflict with the French hierarchy”.
Having seen the weakness of Rome, the reformers saw that they could move forward: from experiments they now passed to official Roman reforms.
Underestimating the Enemy
Pius XII underestimated the seriousness of the liturgical problem: “It produces in us a strange impression,” he wrote to Bishop Grober, “if, almost from outside the world and time, the liturgical question has been presented as the problem of the moment.”
The reformers thus hoped to bring their Trojan Horse into the Church, through the almost unguarded gate of the Liturgy, profiting from the scant attention of Pope Pius XII paid to the matter, and helped by persons very close to the Pontiff, such as his own confessor Agostino Bea, future cardinal and “super-ecumenist.”
The following testimony of Annibale Bugnini is enlightening:
“The Commission (for the reform of the Liturgy instituted in 1948) enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept informed by Mgr. Montini, and even more so, weekly, by Fr. Bea, the confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to this intermediary, we could arrive at remarkable results, even during the periods when the Pope’s illness prevented anyone else getting near him.”
The Revolution Begins
Fr. Bea was involved with Pius XII’s first liturgical reform, the new liturgical translation of the Psalms, which replaced that of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, so disliked by the Protestants, since it was the official translation of the Holy Scripture in the Church, and declared to be authentic by the Council of Trent. (Motu proprio, In Cotidianis Precibus, of March 24, 1945.) The use of the New Psalter was optional, and enjoyed little success.
After this reform, came others which would last longer and be more serious:
• May 18, 1948: establishment of a Pontifical Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy, with Annibale Bugnini as its secretary
• January 6, 1953: the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus on the reform of the Eucharistic fast.
• March 23, 1955: the decree Cum hac Nostra Aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary. [It was published, but Cum hac Nostra Aetate is not the official text of the first sentence, and thus the confusion on this point.]
• November 19, 1955: the decree Maxima Redemptionis, new rite of Holy Week, already introduced experimentally for Holy Saturday in 1951.
The following section will discuss the reform of Holy Week. Meanwhile, what of the rubrical reforms made in 1956 by Pius XII? They were an important stage in the liturgical reforms, as we will see when we examine the reforms of John XXIII. For now it is enough to say that the reforms tended to shorten the Divine Office and diminish the cult of the saints. All the feasts of semi-double and simple ranks became simple commemorations; in Lent and Passiontide one could choose between the office of a Saint and that of the feria; the number of vigils was diminished and octaves were reduced to three. The Pater, Ave and Credo recited at the beginning of each liturgical hour were suppressed; even the final antiphon to Our Lady was taken away, except at Compline. The Creed of St. Athanasius was suppressed except for once a year.
In his book, Father Bonneterre admits that the reforms at the end of the pontificate of Pius XII are “the first stages of the self-destruction of the Roman Liturgy.” Nevertheless, he defends them because of the “holiness” of the pope who promulgated them.
“Pius XII,” he writes, “undertook these reforms with complete purity of intention, reforms which were rendered necessary by the need of souls. He did not realize - he could not realize - that he was shaping discipline and the liturgy in one of the most crucial periods of the Church’s history; above all, he did not realize that he was putting into practice the program of the straying liturgical movement.”
Jean Crete comments on this:
“Fr. Bonneterre recognizes that this decree signaled the beginning of the subversion of the liturgy, and yet seeks to excuse Pius XII on the grounds that at the time no one, except those who were party to the subversion, was able to realize what was going on. I can, on the contrary, give a categorical testimony on this point. I realized very well that this decree was just the beginning of a total subversion of the liturgy, and I was not the only one. All the true liturgists, all the Priests who were attached to tradition, were dismayed.
“The Sacred Congregation of Rites was not favorable toward this Decree, the work of a special commission. When, five weeks later, Pius XII announced the feast of St. Joseph the Worker (which caused the ancient feast of Ss. Philip and James to be transferred, and which replaced the Solemnity of St Joseph, Patron of the Church), there was open opposition to it.
“For more than a year the Sacred Congregation of Rites refused to compose the Office and Mass for the new feast. Many interventions of the pope were necessary before the Congregation of Rites agreed, against their will, to publish the Office in 1956 - an Office so badly composed that one might suspect it had been deliberately sabotaged. And it was only in 1960 that the melodies of the Mass and Office were composed - melodies based on models of the worst taste.
“We relate this little-known episode to give an idea of the violence of the reaction to the first liturgical reforms of Pius XII”.
The 1955 Holy Week: Anticipating the New Mass
“The liturgical renewal has clearly demonstrated that the formulae of the Roman Missal have to be revised and enriched. The renewal was begun by the same Pius XII with the restoration of the Easter Vigil and the Order of Holy Week, which constituted the first stage of the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the needs of our times.”
These are the very words of Paul VI when he promulgated the New Mass on April 3, 1969. This clearly demonstrates how the pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar changes are related. Likewise, Msgr. Gamber wrote that:
“The first Pontiff to bring a real and proper change to the Traditional Missal was Pius XII, with the introduction of the new liturgy of Holy Week. To move the ceremony of Holy Saturday to the night before Easter would have been possible without any great modification. But then along came John XXIII with the new ordering of the rubrics. “Even on these occasions, however, the Canon of the Mass remained intact. [Also John XXIII introduced the name of St. Joseph into the Canon during the council, violating the Tradition that only the names of Martyrs be mentioned in the Canon.] It was not even slightly altered. But after these precedents, it is true, the doors were opened to a radically new ordering of the Roman Liturgy.”The decree, Maxima Redemptionis, which introduced the new rite in 1955, speaks exclusively of changing the times of the ceremonies of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, to make it easier for the Faithful to assist at the sacred rites, now transferred after centuries to the evenings those days. But no passage in the Decree makes the slightest mention of the drastic changes in the texts and ceremonies themselves. In fact, the new rite of Holy Week was nothing but a trial balloon for post-Conciliar reform which would follow. The Modernist Dominican Fr. Chenu [Father Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P.] testifies to this:
“Fr. Duploye followed all this with passionate lucidity. I remember that he said to me one day, much later on. ‘If we succeed in restoring the Easter Vigil to its original value, the liturgical movement will have won; I give myself ten years to achieve this.’ Ten years later it was a fait accompli.”In fact, the new rite of Holy Week is an alien body introduced into the heart of the Traditional Missal. It is based on principles which occur in Paul VI’s [pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini] 1965 reforms.
Here are some examples:
Brief Editorial Commentary by Patriarch Jacobus Maria DeJesus, D.D.
We have kept the original text, but put it into a table format to make it visually easier to examine and to study.
|Paul VI suppressed the Last Gospel in 1965||In 1955 it was suppressed for the Masses of Holy Week.|
|Paul VI suppressed the psalm Judica me for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar||The same had been anticipated by the 1955 Holy Week.|
|Paul VI (following the example of Luther) wanted Mass celebrated facing the people||The 1955 Holy Week initiated this practice by introducing it wherever possible (especially on Palm Sunday).|
|Paul VI wanted the role of the priest to be diminished, replaced at every turn by ministers||Already in 1955, the celebrant no longer read the Lessons, Epistles, or Gospels (Passion) which were sung by the ministers --even though they form part of the Mass. The priest sat down, forgotten, in a corner.|
|In his New Mass, Paul VI suppresses from the Mass all the elements of the Gallican liturgy (dating from before Charlemagne [b. April 2, 742/747/748 - d. January 28, 814]), following the wicked doctrine of “archaeologism” condemned by Pius XII. Thus, the offertory disappeared (to the great joy of Protestants), to be replaced by a Jewish grace before meals.||Following the same principle, the New Rite of Holy Week had suppressed all the prayers in the ceremony of blessing the palms (except one), the Epistle, Offertory and Preface which came first, and the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday.------------------------|
|Paul VI, challenging
the anathemas of the Council of Trent, suppressed the sacred order of the
|The new rite of Holy Week, suppressed many of the subdeacon’s functions. The deacon replaced the subdeacon for some of the prayers (the Levate on Good Friday) the choir and celebrant replaced him for others (at the Adoration of the Cross).|
The 1955 Holy Week: Other Innovations
Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:
• The Prayer for the Conversion of Heretics became the “Prayer for Church Unity”This brief examination of the reform of Holy Week should allow the reader to realize how the “experts” who would come up with the New Mass fourteen years later had used and taken advantage of the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy.
• The genuflection at the Prayer for the Jews, a practice the Church spurned for centuries in horror at the crime they committed on the first Good Friday.
• The new rite suppressed much medieval symbolism (the opening of the door of the church at the Gloria Laus for example).
• The new rite introduced the vernacular in some places (renewal of baptismal promises).
• The Pater Noster was recited by all present (Good Friday).
• The prayers for the emperor were replaced by a prayer for those governing the republic, all with a very modern flavor.
• In the Breviary, the very moving psalm Miserere, repeated at all of the Office, was suppressed.
• For Holy Saturday the Exultet was changed and much of the symbolism of its words suppressed.
• Also on Holy Saturday, eight of the twelve prophecies were suppressed.
• Sections of the Passion were suppressed, even the Last Supper disappeared, in which our Lord, already betrayed, celebrated for the first time in history the Sacrifice of the Mass.
• On Good Friday, communion was now distributed, contrary to the tradition of the Church, and condemned by St. Pius X when people had wanted to initiate this practice
• All the rubrics of the 1955 Holy Week rite, then, insisted continually on the “participation” of the faithful, and they scorned as abuses many of the popular devotions (so dear to the faithful) connected with Holy Week.
Roncalli: Modernist Connections
Pius XII was succeeded by John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli [2nd Pope John 23rd, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli]. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:
As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne’s work, Histoire Ancienne de l’Eglise, ended up on the Index [of Forbidden Books].
While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he [Roncalli] wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier’s] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity.”
Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr. Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.
The Revolution Advances
John XXIII’s attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: “If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism...”’
On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956 into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. “We have reached the decision,” he writes, “that the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman Missal must not be delayed any longer.” [They went into effect on January 1, 1961.]
In this framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a climate which was already “Conciliar,” the Breviary and Missal of John XXIII were born. They formed a “Liturgy of transition” destined to last - as it in fact did last - for three or four years. It is a transition between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II.
The “anti-Liturgical Heresy” in the John XXIII Reform
We have already seen how the great Dom Gueranger defined as “liturgical heresy” the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John XXIII.
Since John XXIII’s innovations touched the Breviary as well as the Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the “flavor” and scope of the innovations. [Excellent!]
1. Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the Breviary in 1736, “reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to make it shorter.” In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture. Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.
2. Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. “The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect,” said Dom Gueranger “is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from Holy Scripture.” While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII’s Breviary suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.
3. Removal of saints’ feasts from Sunday. Dom Gueranger gives the Jansenists’ position: “It is their [the Jansenists’] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not permit this day to be ‘degraded’ by consecrating it to the veneration of a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays, reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection - shouldn’t they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts would pass by silently and unnoticed?”
John XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X, fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Jansenist heretics: only nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of which were former holydays of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.
4. Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Gueranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: “The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church’s calendar with the inclusion’ of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!”
John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints’ days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to “Calvinist principles.”
Dom Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated.
5. Excising miracles from the lives of the Saints. Speaking of the principle of the Illuminist liturgists, Dom Gueranger notes: “the lives of the saints were stripped of their miracles on the one hand, and of their pious stories on the other.”
We have seen that the reform of 1960 suppresses two out of three lessons of the Second Nocturn of Matins, in which the lives of the saints are read. But this was not enough. As we mentioned, eleven feasts were totally suppressed by the preconciliar rationalists. For example, St. Vitus, the Invention of the Holy Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, the Apparition of St. Michael on Mt. Gargano, St. Anacletus, St. Peter in Chains, the Finding of St. Stephen, Our Lady of Loreto (“A flying house! How can we believe that in the twentieth century!”); among the votive feasts, St. Philomena (the Cure of Ars was so “stupid” to have believed in her).
Other saints were eliminated more discreetly: Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Our Lady of Ransom, St. George, St. Alexis, St. Eustace, the Stigmata of St. Francis - these all remain, but only as a commemoration on a ferial day.
Two popes are also removed, seemingly without reason: St. Sylvester (was he too triumphalistic?) and St. Leo II (the latter, perhaps, because he condemned Pope Honorius?)
We note finally a “masterwork” which touches us closely. From the prayer to Our Lady of Good Counsel, the 1960 reform removed the words which speak of the miraculous apparition of her image, if the House of Nazareth cannot fly to Loreto, how can we imagine that a picture which was in Albania can fly to Genzzano?
6. anti-Roman Spirit. The Jansenists suppressed one of the two feasts of the Chair of St. Peter (January 18), and also the Octave of St. Peter. Identical measures were taken by John XXIII.
7. Suppression of the Confiteor before Communion. The suspect Missal of Trojes suppressed the Confiteor. John XXIII did the same thing in 1960.
8. Reform of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday. and Holy Saturday. This happened in 1736, with the suspect Breviary of Vintimille (“a very grave action, and what is more, most grievous for the piety of the faithful,” said Dom Gueranger.) John XXIII had his precedent here, as we have seen!
9. Suppression of Octaves. The same thing goes for the suppression of nearly all the octaves (a usage we find already in the Old Testament, to solemnize the great feasts over eight days), anticipated by the Jansenists in 1736 and repeated in 1955-1960.
10. Make the Breviary as short as possible and without any repetition. This was the dream of the renaissance liturgists (the Breviary of the Holy Cross, for example, abolished by St. Pius V), and then of the Illuminists. Dom Gueranger said that the innovators wanted a Breviary “without those complicated rubrics which oblige the priest to make a serious study of the Divine Office; moreover, the rubrics themselves are traditions, and it is only right they should disappear. Without repetitions...and as short as possible... They want a short Breviary. They will, have it; and it will be up to the Jansenists to write it.”
These three principles will be the public boast of the reform of 1955 and 1960: the long petitions in the Office called Preces disappear; so too, the commemorations, the suffrages, the Pater, Ave, and Credo, the antiphons to Our Lady, the Athanasian Creed, two-thirds of Matins, and so on.
11. Ecumenism in the Reform of John XXIII. The Jansenists hadn’t thought of this one. The reform of 1960 suppresses from the prayers of Good Friday the Latin adjective perfidis (faithless) with reference to the Jews, and the noun perfidiam (impiety) with reference to Judaism. It left the door open for John Paul II’s visit to the synagogue.
Number 181 of the 1960 Rubrics states: “The Mass against the Pagans shall be called the Mass for the Defense of the Church. The Mass to Take Away Schism shall be called the Mass for the Unity of the Church.”
These changes reveal the liberalism, pacifism, and false ecumenism of those who conceived and promulgated them.
12. The Office becomes “private devotional reading.” One last point, but one of the most serious: The Ottaviani Intervention rightly declared that “when the priest celebrates without a server the suppression of all the salutations (i.e., Dominus Vobiscum, etc.) and of the final blessing is a clear attack on the dogma of the communion of the saints.”
[“58. A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the Priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the Ite Missa est <53>now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.” (Op. Cit., 58.)]The priest, even if he is alone, when celebrating Mass or saying his Breviary, is praying in the name of the whole Church, and with the whole Church. This truth was denied by Luther.
Now this attack on dogma was already included in the Breviary of John XXIII it obliged the priest when reciting it alone to say Domine exaudi orationem meam (O Lord, hear my prayer) instead of Dominus vobiscum (The Lord be with you). The idea, “a profession of purely rational faith.” was that the Breviary was not the public prayer of the Church any more, but merely private devotional reading.
A Practical Conclusion
Theory is of no use to anyone, unless it is applied in practice. This article cannot conclude without a warm invitation, above all to priests. to return to the liturgy “canonized” by the Council of Trent, and to the rubrics promulgated by St. Pius X.
Msgr Gamber writes: “Many of the innovations promulgated in the last twenty-five years - beginning with the decree on the renewal of the liturgy Holy Week of February 9, 1951 [still under Pius XII] and with the new Code of rubrics of July 25, 1960, by continuous small modifications, right up to the reform of the Ordo Missae of April 3. 1969 - have been shown to be useless and dangerous to their spiritual life.”
Unfortunately, in the “traditionalist” camp, confusion reigns: one stops at 1955; another at 1965 or 1967. Archbishop Lefebvre’s followers, having first adopted the reform of 1965, returned to the 1960 rubrics of John XXIII even while permitting the introduction of earlier or later uses! There, in Germany, England, and the United States, where the Breviary of St. Pius X had been recited, the Archbishop attempted to impose the changes of John XXIII. This was not only for legal motives, but as a matter of principle; meanwhile, the Archbishop’s followers barely tolerated the private recitation of the Breviary of St. Pius X.
We hope that this and other studies will help people understand that these changes are part of the same reform and that all of it must be rejected if all is not accepted. Only with the help of God - and clear thinking - will a true restoration of Catholic worship be possible.
An Heart-felt Thank You to the Author of the Above Article!
by Patriarch Jacobus Maria DeJesus, D.D.
Our most heart-felt Thank You to the Author of this article, The Liturgical Revolution, Abbé Francesco Ricossa, for writing this factual article which We hope will be used as a ready reference by all of the Catholic Laity, and, of necessity, by all of the Catholic Clergy.
An article such as this requires a great deal of prayer to God the Holy Ghost for His guidance and inspirations, and also requires a great deal of time and energy spent in research, frequently very unfruitful, consulting many historical and ecclesiastical documents and records.
Therefore, We are pleased to grant you Our Patriarchal Blessing for your defense of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition, especially of the Traditional Roman Catholic Liturgical Books, including the Breviary and the Missal.
It is Our hope and prayer that all of the Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church will use the Breviary and Missal as it was before the changes began. Concerning the Missal, We recommend the Missale Romanum of 1943 or earlier, although it seems that the Missals printed and published by the well-known publishers are hopefully free from the contagion of the changes up to and including 1950, before the Holy Week changes began in 1951, although missals of some Innovators obviously existed as early as the 1930's and 1940's and of which Pius XII seems to reference in his Mediator Dei of 1947.
God Bless You and God Bless all of the Readers of this article!
Maria DeJesus, D.D.
In an attempt to
clarify, and/or to correct, some of the data in the above Author's article,
We have considered it appropriate and helpful for the Reader to have more
information about some of that data.
“I knew well, that in all things relating to the Catholic Faith, even to the least Ceremony of the Church, or for the Truth of any Doctrine in the Holy Scripture, I was ready to die a thousand deaths.” (Saint Teresa of Avila, Teresa Sanchez Cepeda Davila y Ahumada [b. at Avila, Old Castile, Spain, on Sunday, March 28, 1515 A.D. - d. at Alba de Tormes on Monday, October 4, 1582 A.D.], “Autobiography”, Translated from the Spanish by the Rev. John Dalton, 1870, Chapter 33, The Saint continues the history of the foundation of St. Joseph’s Monastery, etc., pp: 301-302; emphasis added.)
St. Teresa of Avila.
This quote is apparently a revision of her actual longer quote found in “Life of Saint Teresa”, Chapter XXXIII, The Saint continues the history of the foundation of St. Joseph’s Monastery:
“In the mean time, that holy Dominican [*] [Footnote *: His name was Pedro Ibanez. (See vol. vii. of the Bullandists, p. 183, etc.)] continued to believe for certain the business would succeed, and I believed the same also: but I made no account of this, because I was resolved to obey my confessor. The Dominican and my companion arranged matters together, and wrote to Rome about the affair, and made their offers. Here the devil began to make it known, one person talking about these things to another, that I had had some revelation on the matter. Upon this, some came to me, in a great deal of fear, to tell me ‘I had better look well to myself; that the days were evil, and that, perhaps, men might lay things to my charge, and complain even to the Inquisitors’. These fears made me laugh, because in this matter I never had any fears, because I knew well, that in all things relating to the Catholic Faith, even to the least Ceremony of the Church, or for the Truth of any Doctrine in the Holy Scripture, I was ready to die a thousand deaths. I therefore desired those persons not to fear for me, and that my soul would indeed be in a miserable condition, if anything could be found in her to make her afraid of the Inquisition; and that, if I thought there were any grounds to fear, I myself would be the first to go before the Inquisitors; and that if any charge were brought against me, our Lord would deliver me from it, and I should be the gainer thereby.” (“Life of Saint Teresa, Written by Herself”, Translated from the Spanish, by the Rev. John Dalton. First American Edition. Published with the Approbation of the Rt. Rev. Bishop of Philadelphia. Publisher: Peter F. Cunningham & Son, 825 Arch Street, Philadelphia. Permissu Superiorum. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1870, by Peter F. Cunningham, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Chapter XXXIII, The Saint continues the history of the foundation of St. Joseph’s Monastery, etc., pp: 301-302; emphasis added.)
St. Teresa of Avila Quote:
In attempting to trace the alleged quote as found in the text of this current Article: “I would give my life for the smallest ceremony of Holy Church”, We discovered it, almost verbatim, in the 1870 edition of “Fraser’s Magazine”, Edited by James Anthony Froude, M.A., New Series. Vol. I, January to June 1870. London, Printed by Spottiswoode and New Street Square and Parliament Street. London, Longmans, Green, and Co. Paternoster Row MDCCCLXX:
“Mgr. Gaume, however, does not care. St. Theresa’s well-known dictum, ‘I would give my life for the smallest ceremony of the Church,’ seems to him to settle the point as to Holy Water.” June, 1870, Ultramontane Text-Books, page 767, bottom of column d; emphasis added.)
Page 290: THE RENAISSANCE
Ruysbroeck (1294-1381), the ardent contemplative, combined vigorous transports of piety with their brilliant figures and an extreme prudence which guarded him from the illuminism of the Beghards. For him the movement of the soul towards God is like a hunt, directed by the Holy Ghost, who acts in the soul by interior excitations and gives it the feeling and, so to speak, the scent of the divine. Lessius praised him without reserve, and Bossuet has stated, after Bellarmine, that “his teaching has remained uncondemned,” because “it is impossible to draw any precise conclusions from his exaggerations.” 
John Tauler (d. 1361), the profound master of the interior
Page 291: MYSTICISM
life, set forth his spiritual teaching in his Institutiones divinae and Sermons. Starting out from the principle that perfection consists in detaching oneself from the world in order to become attached to God, he taught that this is accomplished in us interiorly by destroying the evil recesses of our soul so as to give perfect freedom to God’s inspirations. We attain this by renouncing all that is ephemeral and accidental, by mortifying our self-will, by stripping ourselves of all deceptive images and abandoning ourselves to the Holy Ghost. 
In certain passages, of which Luther later made abusive use, Tauler seems to regard external works as of small value; but he employs correctives that leave no doubt as to the orthodoxy of his doctrine. 
St. Francis de Sales strongly recommended the reading of Tauler to St. Jane de Chantal. 
Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), the inspired chanter of suffering and love, relates in the first part of his Exemplar the distressing interior and exterior trials through which God made him pass. But by these very sufferings he reached a joyous love, overflowing with warmth and generosity. He expresses this love in the second part of his Exemplar, which he entitles The Little Book of Eternal Wisdom. Thiriot says this work was the most widely read book in Germany in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 
It was in vain that Luther invoked the great mystical theo-
Page 292: THE RENAISSANCE
logians of that period in support of his theses;  the only ones that could be considered his real precursors are some venturesome spirits, of whom it remains for us to speak in order to complete this sketch of the intellectual movement at the time of the Renaissance.
We have already seen a popular form of false mysticism spreading under the name of “Brethren of the Free Spirit.” This sect, which arose in Germany near the end of the thirteenth century, was made up of various communities, some of them directed by priests, others by laymen. They taught the coexistence of two religions: one for the ignorant - the religion of obedience and literal observance; the other for the enlightened - the religion of freedom and of the Spirit. 
The Brethren of the Free Spirit managed to have their dangerous doctrines penetrate the communities of Beghards and Beguines, strange associations, half-religious, half-lay, founded at the close of the twelfth century by Lambert le Begue. In the fourteenth century they were widespread in Flanders, Germany, and France. The Council of Vienne (1311) gave notice to the associations of Beghards and Beguines that they were to disperse. But Pope John XXII, when publishing this decision five years later, did not press for its execution; and the Beguinages, centers for the spread of the doctrine of the Free Spirit, often became places of most shameless excesses. The bishops of Strasburg and Cologne, as also Pope Urban V himself, in 1367, were obliged to have recourse to the tribunals of the Inquisition to suppress these scandals.
But the false mysticism found its learned expression in the teaching of three men of great culture, Berthold de Rohrbach, John Wessel of Gröningen, and John Wesel of Erfurt.
Page 293: MYSTICISM
To form an idea of the influence exercised by the German doctors of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, we must consider them in all the prestige which the custom of the times attached to their high functions. These pontiffs of learning uttered their maxims in the manner of oracles, from a sort of elevated throne surmounted by a kind of canopy. When one of them passed along the street, dressed in his long and ample garb and wearing the traditional cap, students respectfully gathered about him as the “master.” Several were publicly crowned with laurels in the midst of triumphal ovations.
Berthold de Rohrbach, who was burned at Spires as a heretic at the end of the fourteenth century, had taught from his professorial chair that the man who has reached perfection no longer needs anything but fasting and prayer. This was tantamount to denying the efficacity of good works, at least for the perfect. He also said that for a pious man all food taken in the spirit of faith produced the same effect as the Eucharist, and that a layman urged by the Spirit of God is more useful than a priest. This was an implicit negation of the special efficacy (opus operatum) of the Sacraments and of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. 
The erudition and dialectic skill of John Wessel (1419-1489) won for him the surnames of Lux mundi and Doctor contradictionum. Thomas à Kempis had been his teacher; Bessarion, Reuchlin, Agricola, and Francesco della Rovere, the future Sixtus IV, were his friends. Wessel never intended to withdraw from the Roman Church, but his great vivacity led him to employ violent invectives against the abuses of his time, and an excessive independence of mind at times suggested to him new formulas that had a most dubious appearance. He was fond of saying that “to be freed from sin was
Page 294: THE RENAISSANCE
nothing else but to possess justifying love,” that “love is more than all obedience,” that “to cleanse us of sin, Christ communicates justice to us.” 
There is none of these expressions but is susceptible of an orthodox interpretation. But ill-disposed and rebellious minds affected to understand them in a[n] heretical sense. They did not even hesitate to falsify Wessel’s writings. 
“I regard Wessel as a theodidact,” said Luther; “because I have read him, my opponents imagine that Luther has taken everything from Wessel, so much do our ideas agree.” 
It appears, however, that Luther never read the works of Wessel, but relied on the reports of others as to their contents. 
Though Luther was not acquainted with the writings of the Gröningen professor, he knew the teachings of John Wesel, professor at Erfurt. That bold and turbulent spirit, whether as preacher or as vice-rector of the University of Erfurt, grievously scandalized the Church by the temerity of his opinions. He was censured by the tribunal of the Inquisition in 1479 for having maintained the following propositions: that Scripture is the only authority in matters of faith; that Christ conferred the right of jurisdiction over the faithful neither on the Apostles nor on their successors; that those only are saved who are predestined to grace; that Christ wishes no other prayer but the “Our Father” and requires neither festal solemnities, nor fasts, nor pilgrimages, etc. When condemned to be burned at the stake, unless he retracted these doctrines, Wesel did public penance and was confined in the Augustinian monastery at Mayence, where he died in 1481, two years before the birth of Luther. 
Similar doctrines were taught at Erfurt and there created
Page 295: MYSTICISM
a great stir, which had not yet quieted down when Luther came to that city to study.
At that same period in England, the disciples of Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349), under the pretext of combating a pretended Pelagianism, maintained very nearly the doctrine of absolute predestination,  and in Switzerland Thomas Wyttenbach (1556) taught at Basle that indulgences were nothing but illusions and impostures. 
It was not Only German Lutheranism, it was also French Calvinism, English Puritanism, and Swiss Zwinglianism that was thus being worked out in some heads of that period.
Nearly all these ideas were to be found vaguely indicated, or cleverly insinuated, in an anonymous treatise on spirituality, probably written towards the end of the fourteenth century. This work Luther published in part in 1516, two years later in its entirety, under the title Deutsch Theologia. He prefixed an introduction which contained the following lines: “This excellent little book, which is so sparingly ornamented with fine words of worldly wisdom, is so much richer in the wisdom of God that I fear not to place it beside the Bible and the works of St. Augustine, for more than any other it has taught me what are God, Christ, man, and all things.” In fact, the most risky speculations of the thinkers of the time were to be found therein, mingled with the most equivocal tendencies of the mystics.
Nothing could be more orthodox than the leading idea of this book, which derived not a little of its inspiration from Master Eckhart’s spirituality. The author, after stating the principle that God is, if not immanent, at least present in all things, and that all activity comes from Him and should return to Him, deduces the practical conclusion that we ought to leave all things, even ourselves, in order to unite ourselves to God alone, who is to be found in the very depth of our soul.
296 THE RENAISSANCE
But the Deutsch Theologia sets forth these ideas with so much force that at times it seems to exaggerate them; it exalts the exclusive power of God so that it appears to ignore all initiative and merit on the part of man; it lays such emphasis on the value of the interior life that it appears to deny all value to external works and thereby seems to be a rough sketch of the Protestant theories of predestination and the inutility of good works.
It was in this book that Luther thought he found support for his doctrine when he published it in 1516, one year before the famous quarrel over indulgences, and provided it with an introduction which was in reality a manifesto. 
The artistic, literary, philosophical, and mystical movement of the Renaissance was, in fact, as capable of becoming the starting-point of the Protestant revolt, as the prelude of a Catholic reform: All depended on the spirit that prevailed in this movement and the men who directed it. 
Footnotes Found in Above Source on Illuminism
(Rev. Fernand Mourret, S.S. “A History of the Catholic
Church”, Volume Five, Period of the Renaissance and Reformation,
Translated by the Rev. Newton Thompson, S.T.D., B. Herder Book Co., 15
& 17 South Broadway, St. Louis, Mo., and 33 Queen Square, London, W.
C. Imprimatur, Sti. Ludovici, die 5. Aug., 1930, +
Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus. Part I, The Renaissance, Chapter
X, The Intellectual Evolution [evolution-
Another example of the subtle influence of the Heresy of Modernism!] of
the Renaissance, Mysticism, pp. 290-296.)
Synod of Pistoia:
“Pistoia, SYNOD OF, a Synod held in the diocese of Pistoia, Italy, 1786, under Bp. Scipio de Ricci, and under the patronage of the Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany. It was an attempt to introduce Jansenism into Italy. The sessions and the decrees were marked with a Jansenistic and regalistic spirit. Many of those attending were extra-diocesans. Pius VI commissioned four bishops to examine the decrees; the synod was condemned, and 85 of the propositions were characterized as erroneous and dangerous.” (Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D., John J. Wynne, S.J., S.T.D., et Alii, “The New Catholic Dictionary”, 1929, Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Tuesday, October 1, 1929, Pistoia, SYNOD OF, Page 764, column 1-b.)
“The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself
eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced
a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy,
‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites,
by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice...’;
if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church,
had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which
it should be regulated,—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to
the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.” (Pope
Pius VI, Giovanni Angelo Braschi [Wednesday, February 15, 1775 - Thursday,
August 29, 1799], Infallible Papal Constitution, “Auctorem Fidei”, August
28, 1794, ¶ 33; emphasis added.)
In Cotidianis Precibus:
“6. You are surely well aware that this Apostolic See has always made careful provision for the schooling of the people committed to its charge in the correct spirit and practice of the liturgy; and that it has been no less careful to insist that the sacred rites should be performed with due external dignity. In this connection We ourselves, in the course of our traditional address to the Lenten preachers of this gracious city of Rome in 1943, urged them warmly to exhort their respective hearers to more faithful participation in the eucharistic sacrifice. Only a short while previously, with the design of rendering the prayers of the liturgy more correctly understood and their truth and unction more easy to perceive, We arranged to have the Book of Psalms, which forms such an important part of these prayers in the Catholic Church, translated again into Latin from their original text.  [Footnote 8: Cf. Apostolic Letter (Motu Proprio) In Cotidianis Precibus, Saturday, March 24, 1945.].” (Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, Thursday, November 20, 1947, ¶ 6.)
Where Pope Pius XII writes in his Encyclical Mediator Dei, Thursday, November 20, 1947, ¶ 6, that it was:
only a short while previously [i.e. BEFORE Pius XII's traditional address to the Lenten preachers of this gracious city of Rome in 1943], We [Pius XII had] arranged to have the Book of Psalms.... translated again into Latin from their original text,at first read, one gets the impression that it was either during the latter part of 1942, or at least a month or so BEFORE his traditional address to the Lenten preachers of this gracious city of Rome in 1943, that Pius XII had arranged to have the Book of Psalms.... translated again into Latin from their original text.
Exactly what is meant by arranged to have the Book of Psalms.... translated again into Latin from their original text. is open to interpretation. It is not a question of what was to be done, but WHEN it was to be done.
This is important because the answer to WHEN could very possibly mean that AFTER the Psalter had been re-translated, not only would this NEW translation of Psalms automatically replace the Psalms which are found in the Breviarium Romanum - the Roman Breviary - which is the traditional prayerbook for the Divine Office used by the Clergy and the members of Religious Orders and Religious Congregations, but also the Missale Romanum - the Roman Missal - which is the traditional missal for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass used by the Mass Celebrants (validly Ordained Roman Catholic Priests, and validly Consecrated Roman Catholic Bishops) when they Offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Traditional Mass, the primary Western Rite of the Mass.
In other words, not only would it seem logical to expect that the NEW translation of the entire Psalter of the Roman Breviary would be published by the Vatican Printing Office, as soon as possible, but also it would likewise seem logical to expect that the NEW translation of the Psalter, would also automatically replace the Psalter that is found in the Missale Romanum - the Roman Missal - which apparently would also be published by the Vatican Printing Office?
However, historically, AFTER the Professors of Our Pontifical Biblical Institute.... completed the longed-for new translation ....., it turns out that Pius XII, after due consideration of all the issues involved, only made the use of the NEW Psalter in the NEW Breviarium Romanum - the Roman Breviary - OPTIONAL!
The phrase of Pius XII: after due consideration of all the issues involved, is indicative of the fact that there was a great amount of opposition to this completed the longed-for new translation creature!Said another way, Pius XII, because of the fierce opposition he encountered, backed down, so that instead of making this NEW, highly-questionable, translation OBLIGATORY, Pius XII merely made it OPTIONAL by simply PERMITTING the NEW Psalter, which is to say, the NEW Breviarium Romanum - the NEW Roman Brevary - to be used for the Divine Office, ONLY IF those who must use the Breviarium Romanum - the Roman Brevary - should WISH TO DO SO, in either private or public recitation as soon as it has been adapted to the Psalter of the Roman Breviary and published by the Vatican Printing Office. [emphasis added.]
Insofar as the Missale Romanum - the Roman Missal - is concerned, it, too, therefore, was OFFICIALLY spared from this NEW pseudo-translation of the Psalms, and other changes, at that time, by Pius XII.
But, ironically, long before the rubrics found in the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum of Monday, July 25th 1960, issued by the Freemason - 2nd John 23rd - who refused to OBEY the Blessed Virgin Mary to publicly reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, but yet obeyed the Freemasons and revealed the NEW changes to the Breviary and the Missal, Pius XII himself implicitly admitted the existence of a number of UNOFFICIAL CHANGES consisting of DANGEROUS and IMPRUDENT INNOVATIONS, to various Missals for Offering the Mass in his Encyclical Mediator Dei, of Thursday, November 20, 1947, as in these examples:
“57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of Divine Worship against abuse from DANGEROUS and IMPRUDENT INNOVATIONS introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about -- during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors -- that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V, of immortal memory, established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation. [Endnote # 48: Constitution “Immensa”, Friday, January 22, 1588.].”Therefore, We have taken the precaution to require all of Our Priests and Prelates to make certain that they use ONLY real Roman Catholic Missals which were published/printed on or before the year 1943 A.D. because .automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .Modernist Heretics, as well as the .automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .NEW Theology Heretics, from the Roman Catholic Church, first made subtle changes, and then became more bold and made more blatantly obvious changes, to the Unchangeable Catholic Traditional Faith, Mass, and Sacraments, and the Sacred Books in which these texts and/or rubrics are to be found, which include the Liturgical Books because of the principle of legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi, which is usually shortened to lex orandi, lex credendi.
“59. It has pained Us grievously to note... that such INNOVATIONS are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the August Eucharistic Sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates.”
62..... Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the Altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the Crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. (Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, Thursday, November 20, 1947: ¶ 57; ¶ 59; ¶ 62; emphasis added.)[Note: Today, in all .anti-Catholic..Satanic..Synod Vatican 2 pseudo-churches, there are:
1) only an updated, modernized, synthesized 16th Century Protestant memorial-supper-table;
2) no black vestments - whether for Good Friday or Funerals or Masses for the Faithful Departed;
3) most traditional Catholic Holy pictures, statues, and Crucifixes have been thrown into the local dumps, or buried on farms, or burned, or otherwise destroyed;
4) the so-called "risen Christ cross" has replaced the real Roman Catholic Crucifix;
5) Gregorian Chant is almost never heard, as is true of other Catholic Traditional music, hymns, etc., etc.]
Note: This does NOT automatically mean that ALL Liturgical Books published/printed after 1943 and up to, but NOT including, the first changes to Holy Week in 1951, are automatically suspected of error. Nevertheless, it is totally naive to think that ALL Liturgical Books up to, but not including, Holy Week, 1951, are 100% free from any/all changes.You will find that a bright spotlight had already exposed the intrinsic evils of Liturgical CHANGES and INNOVATIONS by.automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .Modernist Heretics, as well as the .automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .NEW Theology Heretics, in this example::For example: We have been informed by certain members of the Clergy, in various places, over many years, that BEFORE the so-called "changes" were OFFICIALLY decreed by the various popes of the .anti-Catholic..Satanic..Synod Vatican 2 pseudo-church, began to use some/all of the "changes", not to mention, in some cases, either the mutilation, and/or replacement, of certain pages with UNOFFICIAL rubrics and/or texts, or their very own special liturgical books neatly printed and hard-bound!Those who would want to doubt, or to otherwise question, these historical facts are reminded that, historically, similar things have happened.
The same holds true in some cases for the Rituale Romanum - the Roman Ritual - which contains the Liturgical Rites Roman Catholic Priests are required to use in the Administration of the Sacraments (excluding those Administered by Prelates, i.e. Confirmation and Holy Orders), in addition to the Exorcism, the many different Blessings, etc.
Examples:1. In England the personal hand-missal of Hank 8th was somewhat mutilated with the changes of Tom Cranmer! Perhaps it was done, personally, by Cranmer?Need more proof?
2. Those who accepted the changes of the Synod of Pistoia, likewise, as a natural and logical consequence, would have changed their liturgical books.3. Merely compare the great similarities between the First Protestant Prayer Book of Edward VI and the Novus Ordo Missae to see changes and innovations to liturgical books in the 16th Century and the 20th Century.
4. We understand that in a number of places in the U.S.A., various .automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .Modernist Heretics, as well as the .automatically excommunicated..Apostates. and .NEW Theology Heretics, refused to wait until the Heretics and Apostates in the Vatican officially issued their illegal and .invalid. changes to the Missal, and thus began using their own "missals".
5. Proof for this is also evident even during the time of Pius XII who, in 1947, writes about both private individuals, as well as particular churches, using their very own liturgical books, obviously specially printed just for them BEFORE 1947! WHEN were these INNOVATIONS..... actually.... introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well????? Therefore, under these historical circumstances, it was most necessary for Us to take wise and prudent precautions by requiring all of Our Priests and Prelates to make certain that they use ONLY real Roman Catholic Missals which were published/printed on or before the year 1943 A.D. from well-known publishers.
Unfortunately, Pius XII is very vague and extremely ambiguous where he writes in part: it has pained Us grievously to note... that such INNOVATIONS are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the August Eucharistic Sacrifice.... These DANGEROUS and IMPRUDENT INNOVATIONS had already been introduced by private individuals and particular churches BEFORE 1947!!!!!
Pius XII wrote:1) about abuse from: DANGEROUS and IMPRUDENT INNOVATIONS introduced by private individuals and particular churches;
3) which: it has pained Us grievously to note... that such INNOVATIONS are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the August Eucharistic Sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates.
“38. ..it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for INNOVATION. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed.. Scholastic Philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy.. young men.. taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology.. [with] modern philosophy for its foundation.. history.. must be written and taught only according to their methods.. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase.. a share in ecclesiastical government should.. be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity.. authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized.. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the AMERICANISTS, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice.. the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism... What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?” (Pope Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto [b. at Riese, Lombardy-Venetia, Austrian Empire on Tuesday, June 2, 1835; Pope: Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, On the Doctrine of the Modernists, Sunday, September 8, 1907; emphasis added.)
Cum hac Nostra Aetate:
The Author of this current article writes:
• March 23, 1955: the decree Cum hac Nostra Aetate, not published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and not printed in the liturgical books, on the reform of the rubrics of the Missal and Breviary.First. The date of “March 23, 1955” is correct. It is found on page 219 at the conclusion of the "Introduction" (Our designation) which begins with this sentence on page 218:
Cum nostra hac aetate sacerdotes, praesertim illi qui curam animarum gerunt, variis novisque in dies apostolatus officiis onerentur, ita ut divini officii recitationi........Second. Most probably the reason why the Author of this current article was unable to find this document is because he would have been searching for: Cum hac Nostra Aetate, whereas the actual term, which begins the first sentence of this Decree, is: Cum nostra hac aetate sacerdotes. The said Author probably used the transposed term hac Nostra for the actual term: nostra hac. Since the term hac Nostra seems to flow better than the actual term, nostra hac, the above Author could have considered the term hac Nostra the more probable sequence of words of the actual Decree.
(Please refer to the graphic below for page 218.)
Third. Most historians and serious researchers are familiar with the issue of problematic sources. including forged documents. One example of a forged document is Pseudo-Cyril which was written in about 461 A.D. Unfortunately, various ecclesiastical writers have been misled, not only by this forgery, but also by other forgeries. Being a Holy Saint is no guarantee of preservation from such errors. Example: Saint Thomas Aquinas was misled by the Pseudo-Cyril forgery of 461 A.D.
But sometimes the source an historian or a researcher is reading is not a forged document, but that particular source has merely transposed the title of a certain document, or, in the case of a vernacular translation from a Latin original, if the source is not aware of the actual term in Latin, merely translates the first few words of the first sentence from the vernacular back into Latin with: a) the sequence of words being slightly different than the original Latin text of the document; and/or b) possibly using one or more words in Latin which would have either an identical or a very similar meaning to the actual Decree in Latin.
Fourth. Because the above Author knew the correct date, another way he could have searched for this Decree would have been to use the official date format of the Acta Apostolica Sedis which, for “March 23, 1955” is: die 23 mensis Martii anni 1955.
As you can verify for yourself, in examining the graphic below, it is self-evident that this Decree actually was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Acts of the Apostolic See.
However, it can be somewhat confusing to find it, because, as you will note from the cover page, it is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis: ANNUS X X X X V I I - SERIES II - VOL. X X II.
Year 47, Series 2, Volume 22.
The "Year 47" being the 47th year of the publication of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, NOT the calendar year which is 1955! The reason is because the Acta Apostolicae Sedis did not begin publication in calendar year 1900, but rather in January, 1909.
But, since 1909 was "Year 1", not "Year 0", ("Year 1" is usually considered to consist of 12 calendar months, not merely "day 1", so to speak - counting from the completion of a completed year, not the very beginning of a new year), it is more logical - mathematically - to consider the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as having begun publication on December 31, 1908.
Therefore, by adding publication year 47 to calendar year 1908, one arrives at calendar year 1955 (47 + 1908 = 1955).
Page 218 of the
About a third of the way down this page is:
DE RUBRICIS AD SIMPLICIOREM FORMAM REDIGENDIS
At the bottom half of page 224, it concludes with:
Tit. V - VARIATIONES IN MISSALI
b) De quibusdam aliis variationibus
5. In feriis per annum, si commemoratio alicuius sancti fieri debeat, Missa dici potest, ad libitum celebrantis, vel de feria vel, more festivo, de sancto commemorato.
6. In Missis defunctorum sequentia Dies irae omitti potest, nisi agatur de Missa in die obitus seu depositionis praesente cadavere, vel etiam absente ob rationabilem causam, et de die Commemorationis omnium fidelium defunctorum. Hoc autem die sequentia semel tantum dici debet, scilicet in Missa principali, secus in prima Missa.
7. Credo dicitur dumtaxat in dominicis et festis I classis, in festis Domini et B. Mariae Virg., in festis nataliciis Apostolorum et Evangelistarum, et Doctorum universae Ecclesiae, et in Missis votivis sollemnibus in cantu celebratis.
8. Praefatio dicitur quae cuique Missae propria est; qua deficiente, dicitur praefatio de tempore, secus communis.
9. In quavis Missa pro ultimo Evangelio sumitur semper initium Evangelii secundum Ioannem, excepta tertia Missa Nativitatis Domini et Missa Dominicae Palmarum.
For a stronger reason. This is said of a conclusion that is even more logically cogent than a conclusion already accepted.