I am not knowledgeable about the SSPX in any deep or familiar sense even less the inerworkings of traditional circles but I've heard many jokes or references on how the SSPX has sloppy liturgy or liturgical understanding or poor seminary formations.
I have no idea how true these claims are and am not anti SSPX in the least but was curious where these ideas came from and how much weight they hold.
I have been attending the SSPX chapels for over 40 years; their priests are very well trained theologically and liturgically; they offer the Mass with great reverence, and their ceremonies are well done.
Most of these types of comments either are borne out of envy or by "super-trad" so-called experts, who only raise such objections to attract attention to their own seemingly superior liturgical expertise.
Quote from: californiacatholic on April 14, 2023, 11:33:02 AMI am not knowledgeable about the SSPX in any deep or familiar sense even less the inerworkings of traditional circles but I've heard many jokes or references on how the SSPX has sloppy liturgy or liturgical understanding or poor seminary formations.
I have no idea how true these claims are and am not anti SSPX in the least but was curious where these ideas came from and how much weight they hold.
Those claims are quite wrong. The SSPX has well-trained priests who perform the ceremonies with reverence. (to echo Michael Wilson)
The altar servers aren't bad either, I heard.
Some trads "in full communion" like to commit detraction and talk smack about the SSPX when they often have no idea about anything. I've heard it ::)
Or they love Church Militant😆
I've not experienced this.
Archbishop Lefebvre was all about priestly formation. Everything done precisely to the 9's. Everything has a reason and the proper way. Holiness above all. Even as a member of the third order the rigorousness and demand for excellence shows. I've never heard the things you speak of. The Pope wishes what you speak of would be true.
If anything the quality of Diocesan priests is much more variable, particularly as some don't actually 'know' latin so to speak, and of course they are sometimes informed by the NO. But overall I don't have many memories of anything outrageous at a TLM, and I'd never heard gossip re the SSPX being bad at liturgy which, to be honest, seems a little absurd considering hwhat the SSPX are about.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on June 07, 2023, 10:18:39 PMSome trads "in full communion" like to commit detraction and talk smack about the SSPX when they often have no idea about anything.
And some "pure" ("resistance" *cough*) trads like to commit
detraction slander 24/7/365 and whine endlessly about how no one on Planet Earth is holy enough and perfect enough to say a proper Mass. I'm not sure where that puts the slanderers except to make them 21st century Gnostics.
(Obviously not you, TRM.) My only point is that the detraction I myself hear and read comes overwhelmingly from the opposite side of the spectrum. And we probably travel in different circles.
:)
I mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.
As to "SSPX having bad liturgy" - I assume this is a result of the low Mass culture at the Mass centers. It's hard to coherently offer a rigorous, solid liturgy when every sees each other once a week after driving two hours. :lol:
I know I personally attended a pretty sloppy liturgy with the SSPX for confirmations. They seemingly did one practice run for the liturgy immediately before the confirmations and then went right into it. You could tell it wasn't as good as it should've been, especially given that there was a bishop (+TdM) and it's, y'know, kinda a big deal.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 20, 2023, 01:18:59 PMI mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.
Right, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.
It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."
Quote from: Maximilian on August 20, 2023, 02:21:46 PMRight, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.
It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."
Full agreement with this post.
There is a specific reason FSSPX had no choice other than following 1962. You do not know it?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 20, 2023, 01:18:59 PMI mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.
As to "SSPX having bad liturgy" - I assume this is a result of the low Mass culture at the Mass centers. It's hard to coherently offer a rigorous, solid liturgy when every sees each other once a week after driving two hours. :lol:
I know I personally attended a pretty sloppy liturgy with the SSPX for confirmations. They seemingly did one practice run for the liturgy immediately before the confirmations and then went right into it. You could tell it wasn't as good as it should've been, especially given that there was a bishop (+TdM) and it's, y'know, kinda a big deal.
You ever try serving for Confirmations + a bishop's Mass after working 8 hrs and driving in another hour to a rushed practice? Confirmations isn't easy to serve, cut them some slack man.
Quote from: Maximilian on August 20, 2023, 02:21:46 PMQuote from: Kaesekopf on August 20, 2023, 01:18:59 PMI mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.
Right, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.
It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."
Or because they went and got permission... I see the risk of going from resisting a genuinley problematic mass to liturgical protestantism 'Oh I like this better than that' and the issue of where to draw the line. In any event I'll trust the judgment of ABL/ the SSPX on this matter rather than other trad groups.
Quote from: Melkor on August 20, 2023, 08:33:19 PMYou ever try serving for Confirmations + a bishop's Mass after working 8 hrs and driving in another hour to a rushed practice? Confirmations isn't easy to serve, cut them some slack man.
It was a Saturday morning at like 10am.
Quote from: trentcath on August 21, 2023, 01:34:32 AMOr because they went and got permission... I see the risk of going from resisting a genuinley problematic mass to liturgical protestantism 'Oh I like this better than that' and the issue of where to draw the line. In any event I'll trust the judgment of ABL/ the SSPX on this matter rather than other trad groups.
ABL wasn't infallible. He wasn't even noted that much for "liturgy."
Quote from: andy on August 20, 2023, 06:58:05 PMThere is a specific reason FSSPX had no choice other than following 1962. You do not know it?
The only one I can think of is the farcical claim that they needed to "show fidelity" to Rome and use the "last missal that was wholly intact" (except, it wasn't, and Holy Week was absolutely butchered by the same barbarians who issued the NO!).
Quote from: andy on August 20, 2023, 06:58:05 PMThere is a specific reason FSSPX had no choice other than following 1962. You do not know it?
No, there isn't.
Quote from: trentcath on August 21, 2023, 01:34:32 AMQuote from: Maximilian on August 20, 2023, 02:21:46 PMQuote from: Kaesekopf on August 20, 2023, 01:18:59 PMI mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.
Right, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.
It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."
Or because they went and got permission... I see the risk of going from resisting a genuinley problematic mass to liturgical protestantism 'Oh I like this better than that' and the issue of where to draw the line. In any event I'll trust the judgment of ABL/ the SSPX on this matter rather than other trad groups.
ABL initially allowed the Novus Ordo Mass at Econe.
His focus was always doctrine and formation of priests, not liturgy.
Things were always laissez faire until Cekada, Dolan, Jenkins, Skierka, Ahern, Collins, Kelly, Zapp, and Sanborn disrespected the Abp, stole property, sued, got 3 priests to leave 1 day after ordination, etc
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 21, 2023, 09:40:42 AMQuote from: trentcath on August 21, 2023, 01:34:32 AMOr because they went and got permission... I see the risk of going from resisting a genuinley problematic mass to liturgical protestantism 'Oh I like this better than that' and the issue of where to draw the line. In any event I'll trust the judgment of ABL/ the SSPX on this matter rather than other trad groups.
ABL wasn't infallible. He wasn't even noted that much for "liturgy."
Someone's got more extreme over time lol.
The reality is that if you accept the TLM is a valid catholic mass and pleasing to God there is no justification to go celebrating another one, at least without permission (and I have to say even then I find it a bit odd). We don't have a right to "the best mass" or "the mass I like most" we have a right to a valid catholic mass pleasing to God. Anything else inevitably devolves into private judgment and subjectivity, which is likely why the SSPX didn't go down that route.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 21, 2023, 12:27:26 PMQuote from: trentcath on August 21, 2023, 01:34:32 AMQuote from: Maximilian on August 20, 2023, 02:21:46 PMQuote from: Kaesekopf on August 20, 2023, 01:18:59 PMI mean, strictly speaking, the 1962 missal is but a pit stop en route to the liturgical revolution of 1970 - that the SSPX hasn't "gotten on-board" with the rest of traditionalism in restoring the traditional, authentic Roman liturgy (that prior to 1955) is pretty laughable.
Right, but they are stuck in a pit they dug for themselves. The kicked out "the Nine" for using the pre-1955 Missal. Now they feel they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Other groups have been able to adopt the pre-1955 Missal because they don't have the same stumbling block.
It's kind of the pre-Vatican II spirit of ultramontanism being carried on within the SSPX, "If we ever admit we were wrong about anything at any time, the sky will fall, the world will end."
Or because they went and got permission... I see the risk of going from resisting a genuinley problematic mass to liturgical protestantism 'Oh I like this better than that' and the issue of where to draw the line. In any event I'll trust the judgment of ABL/ the SSPX on this matter rather than other trad groups.
ABL initially allowed the Novus Ordo Mass at Econe.
His focus was always doctrine and formation of priests, not liturgy.
Things were always laissez faire until Cekada, Dolan, Jenkins, Skierka, Ahern, Collins, Kelly, Zapp, and Sanborn disrespected the Abp, stole property, sued, got 3 priests to leave 1 day after ordination, etc
I'm pretty sure this was contested and I'm not going to get into trad politics, because it's tiresome.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 21, 2023, 12:24:54 PMQuote from: andy on August 20, 2023, 06:58:05 PMThere is a specific reason FSSPX had no choice other than following 1962. You do not know it?
No, there isn't.
There is my friend. A very grave reason. The obedience to PXII.
Quote from: andy on August 21, 2023, 06:53:18 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 21, 2023, 12:24:54 PMQuote from: andy on August 20, 2023, 06:58:05 PMThere is a specific reason FSSPX had no choice other than following 1962. You do not know it?
No, there isn't.
There is my friend. A very grave reason. The obedience to PXII.
That does not make sense to me.
Pius XII died in October 1958.
John XXIII promulgated the '62 Missal, including a very watered down prayer for the Jews on Good Friday, adding St. Joseph to the Canon, eliminating the 2nd confiteor, etc.
I have never seen the SSPX omit the 2nd Confiteor.
Where is their obedience to John XXIII?
Benedict XVI implemented an even more pathetic prayer in '08. Does the SSPX use that prayer? If not where is their obedience to Benedict XVI?
Where was the obedience to Paul VI when he ordered Archbhishop Lefebvre to shut down Econe? Or to JP2 in 1988?
It seems to me that all your talk of this so called "grave reason" is conditional. As Fr. Cekada said, a cardboard, cutout pope.
You are right, it is obedience to JXXIII (not PXII) and '62 Missal. Subsequent Missal(s) is(are) not catholic, so I am not sure what is your problem. With regards to Econe - the story is not a clear cut. Even Rome has to abide by CCC.
Quote from: andy on August 21, 2023, 08:36:11 PMYou are right, it is obedience to JXXIII (not PXII) and '62 Missal. Subsequent Missal(s) is(are) not catholic, so I am not sure what is your problem. With regards to Econe - the story is not a clear cut. Even Rome has to abide by CCC.
What's not Catholic about the Interim Missal/1965?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 21, 2023, 08:57:07 PMQuote from: andy on August 21, 2023, 08:36:11 PMYou are right, it is obedience to JXXIII (not PXII) and '62 Missal. Subsequent Missal(s) is(are) not catholic, so I am not sure what is your problem. With regards to Econe - the story is not a clear cut. Even Rome has to abide by CCC.
What's not Catholic about the Interim Missal/1965?
http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/02/the-death-of-reform-of-reform-5-1965.html (http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/02/the-death-of-reform-of-reform-5-1965.html) you'd have to do a more thorough study but there's some discussion there, also it was never set as a missal strictly speaking, being merely interim revisions, so even if it was all fine (which seems doubtful) I don't see how one could go 'back' to it.
These above posts illustrate the weakest point of Recognize and Resistance.
Infallibility, indefectibility, and pope sifting.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 22, 2023, 09:31:46 AMThese above posts illustrate the weakest point of Recognize and Resistance.
Infallibility, indefectibility, and pope sifting.
Someone hasn't changed *at all* We could equally say the above demonstrates the weakest points of sedevecantism, liturgical purists and all its variants. The priest didn't say mass exactly how I wanted, X part of Y missal isn't right according to me because of Z, therefore I'm going to :rant: and anyone who disagrees with me isn't really a trad, can't make good arguments etc... etc... You do you and, as with many things in life, we'll find out who was right (or whether we were both wrong) at the final judgment :pray2:
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 21, 2023, 08:57:07 PMQuote from: andy on August 21, 2023, 08:36:11 PMYou are right, it is obedience to JXXIII (not PXII) and '62 Missal. Subsequent Missal(s) is(are) not catholic, so I am not sure what is your problem. With regards to Econe - the story is not a clear cut. Even Rome has to abide by CCC.
What's not Catholic about the Interim Missal/1965?
Being interim ...
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 22, 2023, 09:31:46 AMRecognize and Resistance.
What is Recognize and Resistance?
Quote from: trentcath on August 22, 2023, 03:17:39 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 22, 2023, 09:31:46 AMThese above posts illustrate the weakest point of Recognize and Resistance.
Infallibility, indefectibility, and pope sifting.
Someone hasn't changed *at all* We could equally say the above demonstrates the weakest points of sedevecantism....anyone who disagrees with me isn't really a trad.....
Actually, no you can't. Given one of the posters agreeing with Bonaventure is a non-sede, Kaese. And no one here has said those that disagree aren't "really a trad".
Quote from: Baylee on August 22, 2023, 03:59:30 PMQuote from: trentcath on August 22, 2023, 03:17:39 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 22, 2023, 09:31:46 AMThese above posts illustrate the weakest point of Recognize and Resistance.
Infallibility, indefectibility, and pope sifting.
Someone hasn't changed *at all* We could equally say the above demonstrates the weakest points of sedevecantism....anyone who disagrees with me isn't really a trad.....
Actually, no you can't. Given one of the posters agreeing with Bonaventure is a non-sede, Kaese. And no one here has said those that disagree aren't "really a trad".
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 21, 2023, 08:57:07 PMQuote from: andy on August 21, 2023, 08:36:11 PMYou are right, it is obedience to JXXIII (not PXII) and '62 Missal. Subsequent Missal(s) is(are) not catholic, so I am not sure what is your problem. With regards to Econe - the story is not a clear cut. Even Rome has to abide by CCC.
What's not Catholic about the Interim Missal/1965?
I will be perfectly honest... the 1965 Missal isn't
bad. If it were the initial version where it is mostly a vernacular Tridentine Mass with a truncated Judica me and no Last Gospel, it would be infinitely better than what we have now.
The '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
For one to state that it is not-Catholic is borderline blasphemy, and certainly rash and injurious to pious ears.
I despise the 1955 Holy Week. I would never say that the '58 or '62 Missals aren't Catholic.
Hard to keep track of it all - and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....
Quote from: Miriam_M on August 23, 2023, 02:02:00 PMHard to keep track of it all - and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....
If we can't all agree and play nice, we'll just have to go back to 1570.
Quote from: Miriam_M on August 23, 2023, 02:02:00 PMHard to keep track of it all - and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....
I wouldn't say it's all that difficult.
Pre-55 is simply traditional Catholicism. Everything after is a concession to the weakness of modern man, a reduction of the importance of the liturgical year, and a slow descent into the Novus Ordo.
:shrug:
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 23, 2023, 02:32:10 PMQuote from: Miriam_M on August 23, 2023, 02:02:00 PMHard to keep track of it all - and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....
I wouldn't say it's all that difficult.
Pre-55 is simply traditional Catholicism. Everything after is a concession to the weakness of modern man, a reduction of the importance of the liturgical year, and a slow descent into the Novus Ordo.
:shrug:
Does that logic apply to St Pius X's changes to the Breviary?
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on August 23, 2023, 02:33:45 PMQuote from: Kaesekopf on August 23, 2023, 02:32:10 PMI wouldn't say it's all that difficult.
Pre-55 is simply traditional Catholicism. Everything after is a concession to the weakness of modern man, a reduction of the importance of the liturgical year, and a slow descent into the Novus Ordo.
:shrug:
Does that logic apply to St Pius X's changes to the Breviary?
I think St Pius X's changes to the breviary were well-intentioned, but in hindsight a Bad Idea. He was trying to solve the problem of a monastic/communal obligation placed on the secular clergy and in doing so reduced the "difficulty" of the Office.
I don't fault him for it as though he did it maliciously, he was trying to be a good shepherd for his flock (clergy). The others, though? The ones perpetrated by Bugnini and Co in the 50s and 60s? Definitely fault them.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 01:41:07 PMThe '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
For one to state that it is not-Catholic is borderline blasphemy, and certainly rash and injurious to pious ears.
I despise the 1955 Holy Week. I would never say that the '58 or '62 Missals aren't Catholic.
B16 would disagree with you. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html calls for 1962.
Also, does '65 contain Quo Primum Tempore?
What on earth are you prattling on about?
Show me where Benedict XVI would disagree that the '65 is not Catholic. If not, be silent.
Quote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 02:36:07 PMAlso, does '65 contain Quo Primum Tempore?
Yes, it does.
Just for you, I cracked open my '65. Q.P. is there.
If you want to blaspheme and call the '65 non Catholic, be my guest.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on August 23, 2023, 02:32:10 PMQuote from: Miriam_M on August 23, 2023, 02:02:00 PMHard to keep track of it all - and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....
I wouldn't say it's all that difficult.
Pre-55 is simply traditional Catholicism. Everything after is a concession to the weakness of modern man, a reduction of the importance of the liturgical year, and a slow descent into the Novus Ordo.
:shrug:
I'm aware. I guess I was referring more to the postings on this page.
Quote from: Miriam_M on August 23, 2023, 04:24:57 PMQuote from: Kaesekopf on August 23, 2023, 02:32:10 PMQuote from: Miriam_M on August 23, 2023, 02:02:00 PMHard to keep track of it all - and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....
I wouldn't say it's all that difficult.
Pre-55 is simply traditional Catholicism. Everything after is a concession to the weakness of modern man, a reduction of the importance of the liturgical year, and a slow descent into the Novus Ordo.
:shrug:
I'm aware. I guess I was referring more to the postings on this page.
I'm sure someone could find an objection to pre-55, it's naive to pretend otherwise. Not to mention this only applies to the roman rite, and not the other rites that exist. You would need to find different cut off dates for those, all were changed post V2 sooner or later but whether they were also butchered beforehand I don't know.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 01:41:07 PMThe '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
For one to state that it is not-Catholic is borderline blasphemy, and certainly rash and injurious to pious ears.
I despise the 1955 Holy Week. I would never say that the '58 or '62 Missals aren't Catholic.
I wasn't aware that you had taken the place of the holy office? :rofl: If the New Liturgical Movement, and Joseph Shaw at LMS, both very thoughtful and moderate trads, are willing to point out issues its laughable to accuse them of blapshemy etc... etc...
Thoughtful issues does not mean it is not substantially the same. It is not the Novus Ordo Missae.
@Kaesekopf and I will "point out issues" in the Pian Holy Week liturgy, but we dare not say it is "not Catholic."
Asking in all honesty; I don't use my missal much cause I'm usually serving but regardless. When I do use a missal it's the 1962. Which I quite like. Is there a good reason to switch to a pre-55 one, and if so what are your recommendations?
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 02:36:07 PMAlso, does '65 contain Quo Primum Tempore?
Yes, it does.
Just for you, I cracked open my '65. Q.P. is there.
If you want to blaspheme and call the '65 non Catholic, be my guest.
It does not seem to be included in a PDF copy I have an access to.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 02:54:42 PMShow me where Benedict XVI would disagree that the '65 is not Catholic. If not, be silent.
A classic syllogism. And rudeness.
B16 apparently found some serious issues and permitted last acceptable Roman Latin Missal which is 1962.
Quote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 05:43:11 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 02:54:42 PMShow me where Benedict XVI would disagree that the '65 is not Catholic. If not, be silent.
A classic syllogism. And rudeness.
B16 apparently found some serious issues and permitted last acceptable Roman Latin Missal which is 1962.
Again, serious issues is not the same as not Catholic.
You're more slippery than jellied eel.
I ask again, here and now, to provide evidence that Benedict XVI said that the 1965 Missale Romanum is "not Catholic."
Show me any evidence you have, from any theologian.
One May have "serious issues" with many things. The reduction of the Eucharistic face from Midnight to 3 hours, the Pian Holy Week, the Pian Psalter, etc.
These all have "serious issues."
You, some anonymous internet poster, are claiming that the 1965 Missal is not Catholic, and I need to see the proof.
If not, shut your mouth.
Quote from: trentcath on August 23, 2023, 04:31:09 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 01:41:07 PMThe '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
For one to state that it is not-Catholic is borderline blasphemy, and certainly rash and injurious to pious ears.
I despise the 1955 Holy Week. I would never say that the '58 or '62 Missals aren't Catholic.
I wasn't aware that you had taken the place of the holy office? :rofl: If the New Liturgical Movement, and Joseph Shaw at LMS, both very thoughtful and moderate trads, are willing to point out issues its laughable to accuse them of blapshemy etc... etc...
Also, please reread my original post. You are a lawyer if I am not mistaken, or at least studied law. So, reading comprehension is presumably a strong suit.
I'll bold this point for you.
The '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
For one to state that it is not-Catholic is borderline blasphemy, and certainly rash and injurious to pious ears.Issues does not equal not-Catholic
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 10:19:42 PMQuote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 05:43:11 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 02:54:42 PMShow me where Benedict XVI would disagree that the '65 is not Catholic. If not, be silent.
A classic syllogism. And rudeness.
B16 apparently found some serious issues and permitted last acceptable Roman Latin Missal which is 1962.
Again, serious issues is not the same as not Catholic.
You're more slippery than jellied eel.
I ask again, here and now, to provide evidence that Benedict XVI said that the 1965 Missale Romanum is "not Catholic."
Show me any evidence you have, from any theologian.
One May have "serious issues" with many things. The reduction of the Eucharistic face from Midnight to 3 hours, the Pian Holy Week, the Pian Psalter, etc.
These all have "serious issues."
You, some anonymous internet poster, are claiming that the 1965 Missal is not Catholic, and I need to see the proof.
If not, shut your mouth.
Did your mother teach you some basic good manners?
The entire trad world does not go beyond 1962. Think about it.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 10:19:42 PMThe '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
You have to prove it first. Not us.
A few links https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-mass-of-1965-back-to-future-why-it.html https://www.ccwatershed.org/2013/11/15/1965-missale-romanum-online https://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 10:19:42 PMThe '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
You have to prove it first. Not us.
A few links https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-mass-of-1965-back-to-future-why-it.html https://www.ccwatershed.org/2013/11/15/1965-missale-romanum-online https://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/
Quote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 05:35:05 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 02:36:07 PMAlso, does '65 contain Quo Primum Tempore?
Yes, it does.
Just for you, I cracked open my '65. Q.P. is there.
If you want to blaspheme and call the '65 non Catholic, be my guest.
It does not seem to be included in a PDF copy I have an access to.
Would you mind to post here picture's of Q.P.T. from your copy?
Quote from: andy on August 24, 2023, 05:00:00 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 10:19:42 PMThe '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
You have to prove it first. Not us.
A few links https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-mass-of-1965-back-to-future-why-it.html https://www.ccwatershed.org/2013/11/15/1965-missale-romanum-online https://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/Quote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 05:35:05 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 02:36:07 PMAlso, does '65 contain Quo Primum Tempore?
Yes, it does.
Just for you, I cracked open my '65. Q.P. is there.
If you want to blaspheme and call the '65 non Catholic, be my guest.
It does not seem to be included in a PDF copy I have an access to.
Would you mind to post here picture's of Q.P.T. from your copy?
Show me in those linked posts, which I have already read, where the authors state that the 1965 Missal isn't Catholic.
I will upload the picture once I am home.
The 1965 PDF I got from https://archive.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/21/07/19/03-33-31_0.pdf does not seem to include Q.P - unless I am blind which is not impossible :-)
https://ibb.co/kS5jyvH
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 10:23:21 PMAlso, please reread my original post. You are a lawyer if I am not mistaken, or at least studied law. So, reading comprehension is presumably a strong suit.
I'll bold this point for you.
The '65 Missal is substantially, the Tridentine Missal.
For one to state that it is not-Catholic is borderline blasphemy, and certainly rash and injurious to pious ears.
Issues does not equal not-Catholic
Truly, a pleasure dealing with you as always. I don't remember you being such an ..... in the past however :huh:
Please continue bandying around theological censures as if you're the Holy Office, truly adding insults to that will surely make people listen no? And increasing font size with bold letters is just so mature, how could anyone resist your arguments...
It's an interim missal, in fact as far as I can see it's not even a missal it consists of interim revisions to a missal, the problems with it have been explained elsewhere, assuming one could even go sensibly, or juridically, go back to interim revisions to a missal.
You won't agree however, and aren't even arguing for the 65, you simply want to use this argument to try and make trads you don't like look bad and then rant on about sede nonsense. It'd be better if you just started doing that in the first place rather than using the side wind of the 65...
Quote from: andy on August 23, 2023, 05:43:11 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on August 23, 2023, 02:54:42 PMShow me where Benedict XVI would disagree that the '65 is not Catholic. If not, be silent.
A classic syllogism. And rudeness.
B16 apparently found some serious issues and permitted last acceptable Roman Latin Missal which is 1962.
I honestly don't remember Bonaventure being this unhinged, lord knows what happened to him since I was away but he's now as bad as some of those who wanted to turn everything into an "why R+R are wrong" discussion until they left.
Quote from: Miriam_M on August 23, 2023, 02:02:00 PMHard to keep track of it all - and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....
55 – Snakes alive
58 – Make them wait
62 – Turn the screw/Tickety-boo
65 – Old age pension
67 – Stairway to heaven
Based of Bingo numbers 55 seems suspect. I would opt for the 67 missal but it is really hard to find.
ref: https://blog.meccabingo.com/bingo-calls-complete-list/
.
Quote from: Bonaventure on August 24, 2023, 06:25:18 PMhttps://ibb.co/kS5jyvH
So we have two examples of 1965: one with QP and other without then.