"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader

Dynamic New Video on the Forthcoming New Missal

I'm happy to pass along this dynamic video on the process of preparing the translation of the third edition of the Roman Missal by my friend Fr. John Muir. If you've heard of green books, grey books and white books, Vox Clara and BCDW, but never really knew what they meant, here's a good primer.

Word for Word [Parents] from Life Teen on Vimeo.

Your Ad Here


Julie Robison said...

Amazing!! Thank you for posting this!!

CatholicDRE said...

That was great. Concise. Accurate. Joyful.

Anonymous said...

Damn! He's cute!

I am not Spartacus said...

The changes that ended-up in The Missal were NOT mandated by Vatican Two and the artificial changes made under a Committee led by the execrable Msgr. Bugnini were a revolution.

This was the FIRST time in the history of the Catholic Church that a Mass was artificially created by a Committee and imposed upon the Church which did NOT request the changes.

In fact, the first time the Bishops saw a performance (yeah, that is what it was) of the New Mass, in the Sistine Chapel, they were aghast and a large majority of them present voted against approval of the New Mass

As it was first drafted, the new roman missal stated that the Service was a memorial meal; that is, it was no different than a Protestant service.

After POpe aPaul VI was forced to intervene, following the Ottaviani Intervention, the Mass was simply imposed upon the Catholic Church and the Bishop who attended Vat Two did not have the opportunity to even see the Mass before it was imposed - say nothing about approving it -and it was imposed in a letter in which Pope Paul Vi was constrained to admit that the changes would be shocking to Catholics.

I have no idea who this Priest and I am not charging him with any malign motive but of what service to truth is a recapitulation of history that is so wildly out of touch with the truth?

Oh, and Msgr Bugnini. What happend to him? Once Pope Paul VI discovered he was secretly a Mason, Msgr Bugnini was politley shown the door by Pope Paul and sent off to eithr Iran or Iraq.

A Mason wrote our New Mass. So, we've got that going for us; which is nice

I am not Spartacus said...

Vatican Two - "In faithful obedience to tradition the Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity, that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way"

And then, Post-Council, Pope Paul VI took away from us the very Mass the Ecumenical Council promised it would preserve and foster

Una Voce: The new Mass was first celebrated in public in the Sistine Chapel on 24th October 1967 before the Synod of Bishops. Afterwards many of the bishops were very uneasy about what they had seen. Only 71 out of a total of 176 voted 'Yes' for the new rite. The rest voted 'No' or had reservations. It must also be remembered that the rest of the world's bishops were not given the opportunity of voting. The fact that their new rite of Mass had been rejected did not deter the reformers because this, in fact, with very minor alterations, became your new Mass.

Cardinal Heenan addressed the Synod the day after the experimental Mass had been presented and said he did not know the names of those who had proposed the new Mass but it was clear to him that few of them had ever been parish priests.

"At home," he said, "it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday we would soon be left with a congregation of women and children."

++++++ end of quotes++++++++++

And, of course, as true history shows, Cardinal Heenan was proved right.

I am not Spartacus said...

Pope Paul VI

Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969

Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass...

2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed... This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, ...

4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect....

This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms...

8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?

10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic... (So, for 19 Centuries we were neither human or apostolic?)
17. But there is still a practical difficulty, which the excellence of the sacred renders not a little important. How can we celebrate this new rite when we have not yet got a complete missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?..


Hey, a crummy bewildering annoying innovation that changes our venerable heritage and that will makes us seem like profane intruders and a change that we we end up regretting, not to mention that we do not even yet have the Missal?

Sounds GREAT !! Impose SUBITO!!!!

I am not Spartacus said...

Here is what-has-come-to-be-known-as, The Ottaviani Intervention:

...Let us begin with the definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst." (Mt. 18:20)[4]

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a "supper," a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this "supper" as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

- The Real Presence - The reality of the Sacrifice - The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates - The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of - the presence of the "assembly." [6]

In a word, the Instruction's definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by "going beyond them" amounts, at least in practice, to denying them. The second part of Article 7 makes this already serious equivocation even worse. It states that Christ's promise, ( "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst") applies to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts Christ's promise (which refers only to His spiritual presence through grace) on the same qualitative level (save for greater intensity) as the substantial and physical reality of the sacramental Eucharistic sacrifice. The next Article of the Instruction divides the Mass into a "Liturgy of the Word" and a "Liturgy of the Eucharist," and adds that the "table of God's Word" and the "table of Christ's Body" are prepared at Mass so that the faithful may receive "instruction and food." As we will see later, this statement improperly joins the two parts of the Mass, as thought they possessed equal symbolic value. The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass, such as:

- Action of Christ and the People of God. - Lord's Supper or Mass - Paschal Banquet - Common participation in the Table of the Lord - Eucharistic Prayer - Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharistic

All these expressions are acceptable when used relatively--but when used separately and absolutely, as they are here, they must be completely rejected. It is obvious that the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes "supper" and "memorial," instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even the phrase in the Instruction describing the Mass as a "memorial of the Passion and Resurrection" is inexact. The Mass is the memorial of the unique Sacrifice, redemptive in itself; whereas the Resurrection is the fruit which follows from that sacrifice. We shall see later how such equivocations are repeated and reiterated both in the formula for the Consecration and throughout the Novus Ordo as a whole...


++++end of quotes ++++++++

This truly was a revolution. A change within Form. And for it to be "accepted," the Immemorial Traditional Mass had to be suppressed.

Thanks be to God, Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, resurrected it after forty years (hhmm..interesting) in the Liturgical Desert. But the claim that the New Mass is what The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council desired is progressive propaganda of the worst sort

I am not Spartacus said...

...A comparison of the missal revised by St. Pius V and the missal of Paul VI at first shows certain likenesses between the two orders of Mass; an opening rite, Kyrie Eleison, Gloria, readings and Credo, preparation of the offerings on the altar, Preface and Sanc- tus, Consecration, Pater Noster, distribution of Communion. A closer analysis reveals, however, that despite the material appearances remaining the same, the structure of the Eucharistic liturgy has been changed at its very foundations. In place of the sacrificial structure of the traditional missal—oblation, consecration, con- summation—the new missal has substituted the structure of the Jewish meal—berakah or blessing of the food, thanksgiving for gifts received, and the breaking and partaking, of bread....

Thus, in place of the Offertory, the architects of the new missal thought they ought to “place what we call today the ‘words of institution’ of the Eucharist back into their own context which is that of the ritual berakoth of the Jewish meal... At the heart of the new “Presentation of the Gifts” will be prayers “in part borrowed word for word from the Jewish grace-before-meals”

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

These words of thanksgiving (“Blessed are you”) are orientated towards the paschal meal (“It will become for us the Bread of Life”) and have replaced the words from the traditional missal: “Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting.”


Are there one in one million Catholics who know that the Liturgical Revolutionaries substituted a Jewish Prayer before a meal for the Sacred Sacrificial language redolent as it is of the PluPerfect Sacrifice of The New Covenant?

What was intended by just that one change? Why the need for such an incendiary and galactic-sized change; why the need for a Liturgical Super Nova that obliterated nearly 2000 years of Ecclesiastical tradition?

The Law of Prayer is the law of belief..Lex Orandi Lex Credendi..and vice-versa.

If one man, Msgr Bugnini, and his cohorts, believed differently than the thousand of Saints and Doctors, and Popes and Bishops and Cardinals who had prayed those very words at Mass, then those words had to be changed to fit the new theology so Paul and Pam Pewdeller could be catechised into the new theology through the new Memorial Meal.

That which had developed organically, in nearly 2000 years of ecclesiastical orthopraxis, The Traditional, Immemorial Mass, was abruptly jettisoned by a Committee led by a Mason and approved by an unfortunate Pope.

And since the New Mass was imposed, every single objective measurement of Catholicism has been in a steep and rapid decline even as heterodox ideas about the Mass and the Real Presence have grown exponentially.

If Satan had been given liberty to destroy the Catholic Church, he would have left its Hierarchical structure intact while he changed the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.

Anonymous said...

They played this when I went to the Steubenville West Teen retreat two weeks ago. Im excited for the new Missal! :)

I am not Spartacus said...

Pope Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant. Jean Guitton wrote: "The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvanist Mass."

Bill Karabinus said...

Thank you for posting this as i sure do need all the help I can get. I am 52 and after years of the Mass being as it is I find it very hard to change. I do understand (somewhat) the need for these changes but I am very reluctant to let go of the familiar....

I am not Spartacus said...

Eye-opening and shocking; The Anti-Lituergical Heresy, it's principles and how the Liturgical Revolution of the 1960s seemed to have borrowed heavily from it


Steven Todd Kaster said...

Overall the new translation looks good, but I am not pleased about the allowance made for substitution of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed with the Apostles' Creed.

I am not Spartacus said...

New liturgy composed by Protestants

A myth? Well, no, as French blog Osservatore Vaticano reminds us today of yet another example:

This past Saturday, users of the Liturgy of the Hours promulgated by Paul VI said at Vespers, perhaps without knowing it, a text personally composed by Max Thurian, who was, at that time, a Calvinist minister [he would enter the Church almost two decades later, in 1988]. According to his own testimony, the Geneva native, who was an "observer" representative of the Taizé community on the commission guided by Monsignor Bugnini, personally wrote the second prex (intercession) of Vespers for the Feast of the Transfiguration.

Afterwards, writing on the columns of Notitiae, the periodical of the Congregation for Divine Worship, he complained of the "liberties" taken by the translators [of the vernacular versions of the Liturgy of the Hours] regarding his text (Notitiae n°171, Oct. 1980, p. 506).

What a sad and pathetic joke. A Protestant wrote this part of The Catholic Liturgy Liturgy and yet he was still constrained to complain about the poor translations while we Christian Catholics blithely go along as though nothing monumental and scandalous ever happened.


Thank God for the Traditional Orders, like the FFSP and The SSPX.. Their's is not a Mass written by Protestants intended to please protestants. Their's is a Mass written by Catholics to please God

I am not Spartacus said...

Sacrosanctum Concilium, promised this;

Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.

And then, following Vatican Two, Pope Paul VI , in direct opposition to Vatican Two,suppressed the very Mass the Bishops of Vatican Two promised to preserve and foster and those same Bishops of Vatican Two voted not to approve the banal and artificial Committee Confection known as the New Mass approved of by Pope Paul VI and still the Pope chose to impose that Mass on everyone and yet I am supposed to ignore all of the real facts and pretend that everything is jake?

(A Pope can oppose a decision taken by Vatican Two but woe betide the poor layman who does)

Fr Muir refers to the Roman Missal of 1570, (promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V), but, no doubt due to limited time, he did not note that following The Council of Trent, unlike what happened after Vatican Two where there was a ruture of Tradition, that Missal of 1570 was a restoration of Tradition.

We have seen that Vatican Two promised to preserve and foster the Mass of 1570 but just the opposite happened. That Mass was suppressed and virtually forbidden and the man requesting that Mass be offered was treated as though he were Bill Clinton seeking permission to become a chaperone to the finalists of Miss America.

I am not Spartacus said...

Here is an excerpt from the document promulgating the Roman Missal of 1570:


Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570

...This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom....

+++++ end quote+++++++

Pope Saint Pius V, in promulgating that Roman Missal acknowledged the legitimacy of any Rite that had been celerated for 200 years whereas Pope Paul VI forbade the Mass that had been celebrated in literally every single Catholic Chuch in every single Country, County, City, Village, and Hamlet for far more than double four hundred counsecutive years.

What happened after Vatican Two was radical and profound and unique. What happened after Vatican Two was a first in the 2000 year history of The Catholic Church. A Mass that had been faithfully celebrated for over a millenia was suddenly forbidden in direct opposition to the promises made during an Ecumenical Council.

It has caused untold destruction within the Sheepgate and while we have had modern Popes apologise for the putative sins of long dead Christians, when have they ever apologised for authorising this Mass and its dreadful translations?

How is the Catholic Church served by conducting her affairs this way by rhetorically papering-over true history by pretending that this Liturgical Revolution was a good thing?

I am not Spartacus said...

Traditional Mass; Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus:


New Mass Sanctus..


Traditional Mass; Kyrie Eleison...


New Mass Kyrie..


'Nuff said

I am not Spartacus said...

Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a Council peritus, and an enthusiastic proponent of the postconciliar revolution. In his book Demain la liturgie, he stated with commendable honesty, concerning the Mass as most Catholics know it today: "To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed."


Thanks be to God that Our Holy Father resurrected the Immemorial Mass/The Gregorian Rite/ The Traditional Mass/The EF Mass

Post a Comment