SSPX bad liturgy?

[Baylee]

These 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".

[trentcath]

These 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".

 

[SamVanHouten]

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.

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.

[Bonaventure]

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.

[Miriam_M]

Hard to keep track of it all  -  and of everyone's opinions: 55, 58, 62, 65.....

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Hard 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.

[Kaesekopf]

Hard 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. 

[LausTibiChriste]

Hard 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. 

Does that logic apply to St Pius X's changes to the Breviary?

[Kaesekopf]

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. 

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.

[andy]

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.

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?

[Bonaventure]

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.

[Bonaventure]

Also, 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.

[Miriam_M]

Hard 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. 

I'm aware.  I guess I was referring more to the postings on this page.

[trentcath]

Hard 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. 

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.

[trentcath]

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.

I wasn't aware that you had taken the place of the holy office?  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...