Problems with the 1962 Rite of Mass

The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared Most Rev. Daniel L. Dolan Missal of St. Pius X Missal of John XXIII 1.Promulgated by a canonized saint who condemned Modernism, and composed with the collaboration of absolutely orthodox priests both learned and pious.

1. Promulgated by a pope who admitted that he was suspect of Modernism, the same pope who called Vatican II to "consecrate ecumenism" and open up the windows of the Church to "renewal". Composed under the direction of Ferdinando Antonelli, who signed the document promulgating the New Mass, and under the direction of Annibale Bugnini, the "Great Architect" of the New Mass, notorious modernist and suspected Freemason.

2.Based upon sound traditional Catholic principles which were employed many times by the popes in the past. This missal was used by the Church from 1914 until the ascendancy of the Modernist "Liturgical Movement" in the 1950's.

2. Based upon the principles of the modernist "Liturgical Movement" often condemned in the past by the Roman Pontiffs, this missal was a transitional work. According to Father Bugnini it was a "compromise" until the liturgy could be made "a new city in which the man of our age can live and feel at ease." It was used for only four years.

3."Do not innovate anything; remain content with tradition." (Pope Benedict XIV)

3."it is a bridge which opens the way to a promising future." (Annibale Bugnini)

Prayers at the Foot of the Altar 4.Omitted on (1) The Purification after the Procession, (2) Ash Wednesday after the distribution of ashes, (3) Holy Saturday, (4) Palm Sunday after the Procession, (5) the four Rogation Days after the Procession, and (6) certain other Masses according the new rubrics of the Roman Pontifical.

The Collect 5. On days of lower rank, in addition to the collect of the day, the collects of Our Lady, Our Lady and All the Saints, Against the Persecutors of the Church, For the Pope, or For the Faithful Departed, etc. are recited.

6. The commemorations of a lower ranking feast of a saint or a Sunday are made according to the rubrics.

6.The commemorations of a lower ranking feast of a saint or a Sunday are either abolished or strictly curtailed, so that on an ordinary Sunday most saints' feasts entirely disappear.

The Epistle 8. Always read by the celebrant at Solemn Mass as specifically mandated by Pope St. Pius V.

The Epistle 8. The celebrant at Solemn Mass sits over on the side and listens instead, just as he does at the New Mass.

The Gospel 10.Always read by the celebrant at Solemn Mass as specifically mandated by Pope St. Pius V.

The Creed 11.Suppressed on many feasts (Doctors of the Church, St. Mary Magdalene, the Angels, etc.)

The Canon of the Mass 12.Unchanged since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great.

The Canon of the Mass 12. The name of St. Joseph is inserted; thus the Canon is no longer the "unchanging rule" of worship.

The Communion of the People 13. The Confiteor, Misereatur, and Indulgentiam are always said before Holy Communion.

The Benedicamus Domino 14. Recited in place of Ite Missa Est on Sundays and Weekdays of Advent and Lent, Vigils, Votive Masses, etc.

The Benedicamus Domino 14.Abolished, except when there is a procession after Mass.

The Last Gospel 15. Either the beginning of St. John's Gospel or the proper Last Gospel of an occuring feast ends every Mass.

The Last Gospel 15.The proper Last Gospel is abolished with one exception. No Last Gospel at all is recited for: (1) the Third Mass of Christmas, (2) Palm Sunday, (3) Holy Thursday, (4) Holy Saturday, (5) any Mass followed by a procession, (6) Requiem Masses followed by the Absolution, and (7) certain other Masses according to the new rubrics of the Roman Pontifical.

Changes in Feasts 16. St. Peter's Chair in Rome Finding of the Holy Cross St. John Before the Latin Gate Apparition of St. Michael St. Leo II St. Anacletus St. Peter in Chains Finding of St. Stephen Commem. of St. Vitalis St. Philomena (by indult) St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church Circumcision of Our Lord St. Peter's Chair at Antioch Most Holy Rosary of the BVM St. George Our Lady of Mt. Carmel St. Alexius Ss. Cyriacus, Largus & Smaragdus Impression of Stigmata of St. Francis Ss. Eustace and Companions Our Lady of Ransom St. Thomas a Becket St. Sylvester Seven Sorrows of Our Lady

Changes in Feasts 16. Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Changed to St. Joseph the Worker Changed to Octave Day of Christmas Changed to St. Peter's Chair Changed to our Lady of the Rosary Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Downgraded Octaves of Feasts 17. Epiphany (7th Century) Corpus Christi (1294) Ascension (8th Century) Sacred Heart (1928) Immaculate Conception (1693) Assumption (ca. 850) St. John Baptist (8th Century) Ss. Peter and Paul (7th Century) All Saints (ca. 1480) Nativity of Our Lady (1245) St. Stephen (8th Century) St. John the Evangelist (8th Century) Holy Innocents (8th Century) Dedication of a Church (8th Century)

Octaves of Feasts 17. Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Vigils of Feasts 18. Epiphany St. Matthias St. James St. Bartholomew St. Matthew All Saints St. Andrew Immaculate Conception St. Thomas Vigils of Feasts 18. Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished Abolished

Miscellaneous Rubrics 19. Three tones of voice are used by the celebrant: audible, secret, and audible only to those at the altar.

20. When the celebrant is at the Epistle or Gospel side of the altar, he always bows to the cross at the center of the altar whenever he mentions the Holy Name.

The Holy Week Rites 21. Contains the Holy Week rites mandated by Pope St. Pius V.

The Holy Week Rites 21. Radically altered to such a degree that they are no longer the Holy Week rites of the Tridentine Missal. These rites, in fact, needed only cosmetic changes to fit the pattern of the New Mass in 1969.

(1) The Communion of the People: Some priests, who claim to adhere to the changes of John XXIII on the grounds of "papal authority" nevertheless refuse to suppress the Confiteor, Misereatur and Indulgentiam before the Communion of the people, as prescribed by John XXIII.

(2) The Last Gospel: Father Bugnini expressed the wish "of many" that the practice of reciting the Last Gospel be severely curtailed or suppressed altogether. He only had to wait for a few years.

(3) Changes in Feasts: Note the modernist prejudice against the cult of the saints and against feasts which refer to papal prerogatives or apparitions approved by the Church. During Lent, the John XXIII Missal suppresses most of the Masses of the saints.

It is difficult to argue with Traditionalists because their arguments are inconsistent and illogical. Moreover, they disagree among themselves on many issues,

Really, I find that true about the neo-Caths, do they believe in birth control or not? Do they believe in the real presence or not? Is it okay for nuns to do homilies or not? Are clown Masses acceptable liturgy or not? If only it were possible to learn what the position of the neo-Catholics actually is.

I don't know what a "neo-Catholic" is. However, Catholics such as myself, who are loyal to the magisterium, reject contraception because it is immoral. Similarly, we would never approve of "clown" Masses or of nuns delivering homilies since such practices violate the rubrics and the dignity of the Mass.

The only Catholics who would approve of such things are those who dissent from Church teachings, namely those with Modernist leanings. I have never come across any "conservative," traditional-minded Catholic who approves of anything like this. When you find one, let me know.

Here's the biggest one. Some traditionalists--not all--claim that they accept the teaching authority of the pope but they do so only as long as the pope agrees with "Tradition." They then set themselves up as the real arbiters of what that "Tradition" is. Thus, we have the sad spectacle of a man like Thomas Droleskey writing an article in the most recent issue of "Catholic Family News," in which he calls Benedict XVI's first encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est," a "masterpiece of Modernist obfuscation and fog." How can a Catholic assert that a papal encyclical is in error unless that Catholic does not accept the pope's authority?

If only it were possible to learn what the position of the traditionalists actually is. I don't know what a "neo-Catholic" is.
A catholic who is liberal and wants to change the culture of the church rather than leave it.
However, Catholics such as myself, who are loyal to the magisterium, reject contraception because it is immoral. Similarly, we would never approve of "clown" Masses or of nuns delivering homilies since such practices violate the rubrics and the dignity of the Mass.
Sounds like traditionalism to me.
The only Catholics who would approve of such things are those who dissent from Church teachings, namely those with Modernist leanings.

AKA neo-Catholics. If some of those things are merely abuses, why weren't those abuses happening prior to VaticanII?

Are you saying that Catholics who disapprove of the abuses that you cite have Modernist leanings?

Also, it is a logical fallacy to assert that because one event precedes another event in time that the first event caused the second. Yes, abuses occurred after Vatican II but these abuses were not caused by the Council but rather by the deliberate misinterpretation of the Council. But, for the extremist Traditionalists, blaming the Council is just a whole lot easier than trying to draw such distinctions.

That's a good example. I suppose any Catholic may assert anything he wishes and be wrong. I read Deus Carites Est and thought it an excellent expression, but without testing for upholding Tradition. An ecclesial document of obfuscation and fog seems, if not quite Tradition, at least traditional.
I don't know Mr. Droleskey's argument, or even that he accepts the authority of the Pope. He may be right in one area and wrong in another. He may be totally off his rocker, but he has reason for alarm.
I had to go back to your previous post where you wondered "if only it were possible to learn what the position of the traditionalists actually is." For that you have to compare the New Mass with the Latin Mass, and the physical changes to Catholic churches in the last forty years. I know people who love the New Mass, and may even think it a great improvement; Saturday service so it doesn't interfere with Sunday fun, guitars and drums, laughter and applause, tabernacles relocated out of the way, no need to kneel, sins forgiven automaticly. Hey, what's not to like? (unless you're some weirdo dinosaur trad)
Did you know, the entire Mass is prayer? The idea is not "go to church" but pray the Holy Mass. One may receive the sacrament of Holy Communion at the New Mass, but with loss of reverence to God (in my opinon) and greater glory to Man (also my opinion). Hooray for the people who find spiritual fulfillment there, and many do. I feel very fortunate in my circumstance after reading many FReeper's posts about the goings-on, and shopping for a parish in their onw cities. Traditionalists may have seen the New Mass as a great hope, but now think it an experiment turned sour, or perhaps an evil intention with a measure of success.

Are you saying that Catholics who disapprove of the abuses that you cite have Modernist leanings?

I believe I said the opposite.

Also, it is a logical fallacy to assert that because one event precedes another event in time that the first event caused the second. Yes, abuses occurred after Vatican II but these abuses were not caused by the Council but rather by the deliberate misinterpretation of the Council.

This argument is disingenuous. These abuses do not happen for at least five centuries, then Vatican II (an unnecessary council) happens and Voila! abuses abound! But there's no connection at all, right. I guess there's no connection between the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror either.

Pyro,

All I can say is this...the Dolan excerpts are over 20 years old. These were written in response to and in defense of the formation of the SSPV. The whole reason the 9 priest broke away from the SSPX were over the acceptance or not of the 1962 Missal.

I personally share symphathies for the older rubrics and Missals, but I believe as a matter of consistency, we either accept the liturgical authority of Pope Pius XII or we don't. The problem with the SSPV is that they pick and choose which Pius XII changes they will follow. The CMRI, another sedevacantist group, at least has the consistency to follow the Missal of 1958, that is, upon the death of and inclusive of the entire Pontificate of Pius XII.

That being said, TODAY's traditionalists are being well nourished by the 1962 Missal. I say we accept that fact, but we can have friendly and intellectually fruitful discourse about the pre-V2 changes. The proper venue for such discourse is here online and also perhaps we can start discussion groups at church. What we shouldn't do is tear down the vast number of traditionalists who follow the 1962 Missal.

When the 1962 Missal is put on a more normal footing, then, I believe the competent authorities need to carefully re-evaluate the pre-V2 changes, and produce a revised Missal, which will be the product of a truly traditional mindset akin the St. Pius X reforms of 1911.

I think it is quite possible to disagree with many of the changes that were made to the Mass in the years following the Council without concluding that the Missal of Paul VI is evil or illegitimate. Unfortunately, that is exactly the conclusion that the more radical traditionalists have come to. Moreover, they fail to distinguish between the authorized changes that have been made to the Mass and the many unauthorized experiments and innovations that all too many priests and liturgists have made. These latter cannot be blamed in any way upon the missal itself or upon the Second Vatican Council. Catholics need to have a reasoned discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the current Roman Rite but a knee-jerk rejection of the so-called New Mass--it's not a new Mass, it's the Roman Rite--contributes nothing to this discussion. Finally, while the older form of the rite, the so-called Tridentine Mass, had its strengths, it also had its weaknesses. The fact is that it is possible for a priest to say either form of the Roman Rite badly. Having grown up in the era of the Council and its aftermath, I have attended my share of English Masses in which the assembly was the focus of the liturgy, which was certainly a penance. But I have also had the misfortune of having attended several indult Tridentine Masses, which were said in such a way as to deny the people in attendance any opportunity to participate in them, except to receive Commiunion. These were not good either. Let's stop blaming the rite and start focusing on the abuses of the rite and on the ways to correct whatever inherent weaknesses it may have.

Rome should have simply stuck with her custom. There were precedents in various Medieval cognate usages of the Roman rite for other saints names being added to the canon.

It should have been left alone in deference to St. Gregory the Great who finalized the canon. Believe me, these liturgical changes dating back to St. Pius X's Breviary revisions are an ecumenical stumbling block as far as Orthodoxy is concerned.

Just because the Church can change things does not make doing so prudent or even wise. Besides who are you to say those who reject innovations aren't Catholic.

Revise the Mass, you revise the faith. Try to tell me the faith of ordinary Catholics today is the same as that of their grandparents or great-grandparents.

St. Pius X's breviary was a product of a similar mindset to that, which produced the Novus Ordo 60 years later. Change for change's sake.

Oh no, the prayers are TOO long, so let's shorten them. The people are too dumb(sarcasm) to say the entire Breviary in the order St. Benedict intended.

At least we Byzantines have not revised our Horolgion, and it remains the same as it was during the height of the Byzantine Empire 1,000 years ago.

St. Pius X's breviary was a product of a similar mindset to that, which produced the Novus Ordo 60 years later. Change for change's sake.

Oh no, the prayers are TOO long, so let's shorten them. The people are too dumb(sarcasm) to say the entire Breviary in the order St. Benedict intended.

I agree 100%. The St. Pius X Breviary destroyed the basis of the Roman Breviary, which was that Matins covered Psalms 1 to 108 and Vespers covered Psalms 109 to 150, with Psalm 118 being the day hours. This made the whole thing much more complicated, since now the little hours varied every day.

If it really was "too long", the secular clergy could have been given the option of combining the little hours of Prime, Terce, Sext, and None into one longer midday hour, where Psalm 118 would be recited in its entirety, instead of being broken up over four hours. That wouldn't have required alienating the Breviary from tradition.

That's quite a list of items in your post #29. I don't think traditionalists believe the New Mass inherently evil or illegitimate, but rather inferior. You may admit of objections as well. But promotion of the inferior is not a good thing. Let me begin with your comment:

"But I have also had the misfortune of having attended several indult Tridentine Masses, which were said in such a way as to deny the people in attendance any opportunity to participate in them, except to receive Communion."

The Old Mass takes effort to understand and follow. Some think it too difficult, too much trouble. If you find sanctity and holiness in the New Mass, good for you. Many people do. Many people have found a way to worship God in Pentecostal or Baptist churches; good, holy people.

A long examination of your question was happily posted just this morning, an essay written a couple years ago (which saves a lot of writing for me): The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1602405/posts

The questioning of the New Mass is not "knee-jerk rejection" but a rather thorough-examination rejection. This has been a long learning process for me. I would not argue the New Mass has been beneficial for the Church, even though it certainly is beneficial for many faithful Catholics.

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of the issues regarding the changes in the Mass and the Breviary. It's a shame that so much of the traditionalist literature is aimed at promoting the 1962 Missal. And, as you say, the discussions often go "over the top" and get off topic, or get bogged down by personalities. It's nice to read a level-headed analysis of the subject.

I will read the link you posted.

I agree that the Tridentine Mass takes effort to understand and follow, especially for people like myself who do not understand Latin. I attended an indult Tridentine Mass almost every Sunday for three years. At the end of the three years, I still could not speak or understand the prayers in Latin although I was able to follow a translation of the Mass in a missal. At that point I stopped going to the Tridentine Mass on a regular basis.

If others want to attend the Tridentine Mass, that's great. But I don't think that the solution to the Church's liturgical problems is to ditch the Novus Ordo and return to the older form of the rite unless that rite could be said in the vernacular.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.