Donation for the '62 Missal
We certainly would like to assist, as much as we are able, in funding the reprinting of Roman missals [which is mentioned at the end of the article Missal Crisis of '62].
Thank you to Fr. Perez for asking! We are not of substantial means, but hopefully, many will respond to such a simple and direct request. If any trustworthy publisher takes this on, please reply with a general estimate of such a "costly" undertaking.
B. & P.D.
Likely Pius XII was not as unknowing of the liturgical destruction as we would hope. Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII) was tutored under the personal direction of the Freemasonic Cardinal Secretary of State Rampolla. Not until the second year of seminary did Pacelli receive any institutional schooling, and that seminary training was at the Louvain, a modernist institution even then. Giovanni Battista Montini (Paul VI) was personally tutored by Rampolla and, like Pacelli, received only tutoring until his second year of seminary.
Until the late 20th century, except for St. Pius X, every Pope was a personal protégé of Rampolla. Pacelli and Montini also share this - their families were connected to the Rothschilds.
The details, including the details of Pius XII's collusion in the destruction of the Mass are carefully presented in Mary Ball Martinez's recently reprinted 'The Undermining of the Catholic Church,' available at this online bookstore.
Splitting a Hair into Four
In reaction to the article about the "Missal of 1962," I would like to pass the following information along.
According to Professor Luc Perrin from Strasbourg University, Bugnini did not have the main role in the 1955 Holy Week modifications. Here is the relevant quote:
"Bugnini was the boss of the most important magazine in Italy: from there comes his career. He played a discrete role in the Pius XII Commission, like Stalin at the beginning of the Politburo. After that, little by little the discrete man took over. The turning point was 1960-1962, the Preparatory Commission of the Council. Three events helped him:
'If John XXIII would have lived longer, he would not have permitted thing to go astray, as the chastisement inflicted to Annibale [Bugnini] in 1962 shows: he was the only secretary of the Commission to be replaced!" The text in French is available here.
- the very old Cardinal Ciccognani, prefect of the Rites, passed away in 1962;
- Fr. Antonelli, true architect of the reform of the Holy Week, was promoted and could no longer act directly;
- Fr. Löw, another great architect of the Pacelian reforms suddenly died in 1962 at the moment when Antonelli, Löw and Laraona passed to the counter-attack. One knows that they prepared a very careful version of the project coordinated by Bugnini.
So according to Prof. Perrin, Antonelli and Löw were the real architects of these revisions, not Bugnini. Bugnini was helped along in 1962 because of 3 unforeseen events (death of Ciccognani, promotion of Antonelli and death of Löw). These events happened at the time when Antonelli and Löw were preparing a much modified schema on the liturgy to counter the Bugnini schema, which, according to Prof. Perrin, John XXIII would have reined in if he had lived longer, as demonstrated by the putting aside of Bugnini during the Council, the only preparatory commission secretary to suffer such a fate. (This last point seems a bit of wishful thinking to me).
Regarding your posting, it is against Church law to create any new rite of Mass. So they can come up with all the new masses they want, and not one of them conform as a valid rite. This is why they coined it the New "Order" of the Roman rite. This is a very important concept to understand. At Trent they did not come up with a "Tridentine" Mass as a new rite. They already had the "Tridentine" rite, which they called, and still call, the "Roman" rite. They did not introduce anything new in the Mass, but merely corrected the confusion that had developed over centuries with local modifications. They did not change the rite, but corrected LOCAL errors.
Then they said, "From the Chair" and for all time, that this correction could NEVER be changed - not one word. The "Tridentine" Mass has never been changed up until the modernists in the 1950's started changing the Easter liturgy, which Pope Pius XII did not fully protect.
This is why the Vatican 2 sect did not call it by a different name, but called it a New Order, or new "arrangement" of the Mass, so they could cover their tracks. For almost 500 years, there was not one change to the Roman Rite. The additional prayers were added at the end, as one now hears.
This is why Benedict XVI's statement is so significant that there is only one Roman Rite, but multiple ways to say it. It is similar to you stealing my car, and when the cops find you and my car, you defend yourself by showing them your car and your car's title and claiming that the title is for both your car and mine, and both cars are really the same car, so you have not stolen anything. The cops let you go because you appear to be an important man, Chief of Police, and even some magazine's 'Man Of The Year'.
We are living through the period that Church Father St. Hyppolytus described in his interpretation of Daniel. He said that there are two "abominations of desolation" - one from "Antiochus" and one from "Antichrist". Now, why would he mention Antiochus when Antiochus (see Maccabees) had already come and gone? Antiochus was one of the four invalid high priests elected in the Old Covenant. He was the fourth in that line and had the longest reign of the four, and had the appearance of being most pious. Through his seemed piety, he solidified the false new world order (the Greek Empire) of the Old Covenant, and he died in agony from an illness that caused shaking and, in the end, the inability to speak.
This Antiochus of the Old Testament signified John Paul II, but just as the New Covenant is superior to the Old, John Paul II was the real Antiochus that St. Hyppolytus spoke of, and the Vatican 2 sect is the first abomination of desolation that Daniel prophesied. This is similar to how the Church Fathers understand John the Baptist and Elija both being pointed to as "Elija".
Where does Benedict XVI fall? The election of John Paul II was in a conclave that still had one electing Cardinal from before Vatican 2. Who did that Cardinal vote for? That Cardinal died afterwards. So, when Benedict XVI was elected, whom was he elected by? Is this why Machabees only lists four invalidly elected Popes?
We are in the final wave of persecution before the direct rule of Antichrist, so we are in the period that looks more like it than ever has been or will be. Daniel said that the Mass would cease, so in this wave, we must not be shocked to see it end, even in the traditional movement. Although, for now at least, there is reasonable hope that it is still available; rare but available.
When all is said and done, the outcome will have to be exactly as Nostrodamus said, "They will go back to Trent." There is no other possible solution, because of Quo primum. All the changes to the Easter liturgy, and the changes by the John XXIII in the 1962 liturgy, and anything else, will be removed.
If all this sounds too "Sirist", I will say this: The Sirists have the burden verifying historical accounts; the sede-vacantists have the burden of saying that the Holy Ghost could error in validly electing a Pope who would then not be infallible; and the non Sirist/non sede-vacantists traditionalists have the burden of a situation were their valid Popes teach error when speaking infallibly.
I suppose people can debate what the real situation is, but hopefully, it will become clearer, probably more by impending future events rather than debate.
Posted September 11, 2007
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting -
do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
The Missal Crisis of '62
The Motu Proprio after the Emotions
The Cheese in the Mousetrap
Bugnini and the Rabbi Papal Knight
Quo Primum vs. Novus Ordo
Review: The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform
Was Msgr. Bugnini a Mason?