Massive liturgical changes expected in 2018!

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Oct 11, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    When inside a circus, there are all sorts of acts, clowns, and fancy colors. Inside the Vatican II universe, it is no different.

    There has been an initiative within the novus ordo mainstream to harmonize the old liturgy with the new over the many years. For some it is a cultural experience, others a harmonization with the traditional "brethren", and others to sink the past of the Church.

    Here is some recent news on this affront:

    Sunday, October 8, 2017
    Reliable sources close to the Holy See have indicated that sometime in the second half of 2018, the Novus Ordo Lectionary and Calendar are to be imposed upon the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

    The new Roman Missal will become available on the First Sunday of Advent 2018 but the Vatican will allow a two-year period to phase it in. These changes are expected to be much more drastic than what was envisaged in Universae Ecclesiae that states:

    1. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently. (emphasis ours)
    The Vatican approved societies and institutes, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, will likely apply for exemptions, but all requests are expected to be turned down. The only exception seems to be the SSPX, which might be granted a temporary exemption, to ensure that an agreement is reached between the SSPX and Rome. However, if the exemption granted will be of a temporary nature, more SSPX priests are expected to join the so-called Resistance (formerly known as SSPX-SO) under Bishop Richard Williamson and more will go independent.This would make the traditional Catholic movement more fragmented than ever before.

    Of course this is nothing new. It has been documented many times this merging has been happening quite often over the last ten years since the 2007 Moto Proprio "extraordinary mass". Including the sspx having no problem offering mass in St. Peter's a couple of years ago with the sspx priest in photo doing the calendar of the novus ordo (red vestment) when the traditional liturgy was a different color and different feast day to honor St. John Mary Vianney (the patron of priests). The conciliar merge within the sacrament of marriage to follow the novus ordo vows of marriage for everyone's view and every other compromise desiring to be incorporated within a "legal" framework and identity with the conciliarists.

    Frankly, this merging is a natural outcome when the "extraordinary mass" is subject to the primary novus ordo rule and structure.

    For Bishop Fellay or others to frame this sspx agreement with rome anything other than what it is to incorporate (hybrid) tradition into the Vatican II mainstream is not honest to the years of facts showing this is the course.

    Pope Benedict XVI also said, "But it must be stated quite clearly that it is not a matter of going backward, of returning to the times before the 1970 reform." Seen here
    The aims of the Ecclesia Dei: to Destroy Catholic Tradition

    The original 2007 document agreeing to the "extraordinary mass" by all the bishops in the world and Menzingen, including Bishop Williamson, (with a Te Deum) quite clearly emphasizes the use of using both the liturgies as "enriching" and "a matter of Principle" and "should be inserted in the old Missal". Everyone knows this. The shock is not hearing of another document pointing to this direction, the shock is not pulling away from this abomination offensive against God.

    If "inside" sspx priests want to make another stink about these practical changes, it is only in reference to their comfort; not based on the primacy of God. If it was, they would have stood up for the faith and the doctrinal consequences 4-years ago and anytime in between seeing the faith lessened and weakened by their superiors.

    Cor-Mariae has highlight these facts showing Bishop Fellay has sought the Hybrid mass and it consequential calendar for years. See here:

    The Hybrid Mass and the n-SSPX

    New-sspx Continues to Prepare for the Hybrid Mass

    Bishop Fellay's intended support for a Hybrid mass

    Ecclesia Dei: the NOM is Legitimate with possible Hybrid mass

    The slide of the neo-sspx is more obvious than it is by their external cover.

    Menzingen OFFICIALLY announced that they too believe in novus ordo "miracles"

    Back in 2012-2013 the sspx Angelus Calendar had started merging the 1983 code of canon law and its new liturgical disciplines. The liturgical fasts and symbols were altered to follow the new rite and made 'reference' to the old as something "voluntary" and "better" to follow. (sic)

    To any honest observer following the medias of the neo-sspx they are well incorporated within the Vatican II ecclesia dei community also promoting and holding retreats and conferences together; mass celebrations, and doctrinal accords. With Bishop Fellay accepting the legitimacy of the novus ordo mass, the practice is a natural conclusion.

    The real news is, why are we constantly being focused on Vatican II and its compromises by the Menzingen administration than to focus on the Lord God and the fight led by all of the great popes they once stood for under the great Archbishop Lefebvre?
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  2. Martius

    Martius Guest

    The periodic release of such ‘news’ seem to be our frequent but subtle inoculations, so that when the time comes, we will already be used to and accepting of the idea of a hybrid Mass.

    These types of blog posts and ‘news’ postings about the possibility of a hybrid Mass between the new mass and the Tridentine Mass allow both sides - SSPX and Rome - to watch and observe how people (like lab rats) will react to the idea. Thus both sides will be better prepared and armed as to how people on both sides will react. Thus they can hone and perfect the roll-out of such abominations so that they are the most palatable to both sides.
  3. Deus Vult

    Deus Vult Well-Known Member

    dogs classical conditioning.
  4. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    As mentioned above, the neo-sspx is not adamant against the changes in the liturgy adapting to the new mass, they are positive to the changes, and bipolar to others wanting only to sound indifferent, to say, "it hardly makes sense".

    "As for the Society of St. Pius X, while it welcomed Benedict XVI’s act declaring that the liturgical law prior to the Vatican II reform had never been abrogated, it considers that the distinction between the two forms (extraordinary and ordinary) of one single rite hardly makes sense and only serves to mask the essential problem."

    Hardly makes sense? Like barely or almost not? Where is the absoluteness of makes NO sense? But hardly? Here we see the placating of Menzingen again. Softer words; negative reflexes; nothing in the positive affirmative - NO. Always an open door of the gray maybe. (sic)

    If that is not enough, in the same article "hardly" came from, Menzingen is memorized in "statistics" again. 'Look how many are attending the old mass'; but no question on the ballot is asked regarding the sincerity of the faith. The neo-sspx loves the attendance and the attention while emptying the soul of doctrine; can't chase them off...with bashing the vileness of Vatican II can we?
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  5. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Dodging the supremacy of God again, Menzingen hides themselves in another article on this question of the mass and its rights under first commandment of God dictated in the Divine Liturgy by God's Divine revelation and act making the only sacrifice of His Son to be in front of all men for all generations.

    The Sacrifice is Eternal and immovable!

    This is not a human question or a debate to "enhance" or culturally "enrichen" the scope of men's feelings into the obligation as creature to creator. Adam and eve tried to play that game -and lost.

    The result of Menzingen hiding this fact in discourse and dialogue with their roman modernist counterparts is against charity and missionary zeal only to succumb to the greater darkness and agenda to fulfill man's universe of pride to substitute God.

    This new article for the digestion of their benefactors Magnum Principium: The Risk of a Tower of Babel is empty of anything of God's rights and full of conciliar churchmen's thoughts and quotes Babel-ing, of course, a lot of hot air saying nothing but allowing familiarity and concessions -- authority rests in rome.

    "It is urgent that we keep the Mass of all times and the use of the sacred language – Latin", they say ambiguity, because there are moral confusions in the church dividing us and abrupt change is not good for unity is the walk away. Translation, go slower for the crowd to catch mold them into a mob; then they will be ready for change.

    History shows this ultimately ends in a chant -- crucify Him!
    unbrandable likes this.
  6. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    "Vatican City, October 15, 2017
    Your Eminence is Reverendissima
    Mr. Cardinal Robert SARAH
    Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship
    and the Discipline of the Sacraments
    Vatican City

    I received your letter of September 30, with which you wished to express your gratitude for the publication of Motu Proprio Magnum Principium and to send me a commentary aimed at a better understanding of the text.

    In expressing my gratitude for the commitment and the contribution, I would simply like to express, some comments on the above mentioned note which I consider to be important, especially for the proper application and understanding of the Motu proprio and to avoid any misunderstanding.

    First of all, it is important to point out the importance of the clear difference that the new MP establishes between recognitioand confirmatio, well enshrined in §§ 2 and 3 of the can. 838, to abolish the practice adopted by the Dicastery following the Authentic Liturgy (LA) and that the new Motu Proprio wanted to change. We can not therefore say that recognitio and confirmatio are "strictly synonymous (or) are interchangeable" or "they are interchangeable at the level of responsibility of the Holy See."

    In fact the new can. 838, through the distinction between recognitio and confirmatio , asserts the different responsibility of the Apostolic See in the exercise of these two actions, as well as that of the Episcopal Conferences. The Magnum Principium no longer argues that translations must conform at all points to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, as it was done in the past. For this reason, individual LA numbers must be carefully re-understood, including nn. 79-84, in order to distinguish what is required by the code for translation and what is required for legitimate adaptations. It is therefore clear that some LA numbers have been abrogated or have fallen into the terms in which they were re-formulated by the MP's new canon (eg No. 76 and even No. 80).

    On the responsibility of the Bishops' Conferences to translate " fideliter ", it should be pointed out that the judgment of Latin fidelity and any necessary corrections was the task of the Dicastery, while now the norm grants the Episcopal Conferences the right to judge the goodness and consistency of the 'one and the other term in the translation from the original, even if in dialogue with the Holy See. The confirmatio not supposed more, therefore, a detailed examination word for word, except in obvious cases that can be made to the present Bishops for their further reflection. This applies in particular to the relevant formulas, such as the Eucharistic Prayers and in particular the sacramental formulas approved by the Holy Father. The confirmatioIt also takes into account the integrity of the book, that is, verifying that all parties that make up the typical edition have been translated [1] .

    Here it can be added that, in the light of the MP, the "fideliter" of § 3 of the canon implies a threefold fidelity: to the original text in the first ; to the particular language in which it is translated, and finally to the comprehension of the text by the recipients (see Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani Nos. 391-392)

    In this sense, recognitio only indicates verification and preservation of conformity to the law and communion of the Church. The process of translating relevant liturgical texts (eg sacramental formulas, the Credo, the Pater Noster ) into a language - from which they are considered authentic translations - should not lead to a spirit of "imposition" at the Episcopal Conferences of a date translation made by the Dicastery, as this would undermine the right of the bishops sanctioned in the canon and already before SC 36 § 4. Moreover, keep in mind the analogy with the can. 825 § 1 about the version of Sacred Scripture that does not require confirmation by the Apostolic See.

    It is wrong to attribute to confirmation the purpose of recognitio (ie to "verify and safeguard compliance with law"). Of course, confirmation is not merely formal, but necessary for the edition of the liturgical book "translated": it is granted after the version has been submitted to the Apostolic See for the ratification of the Bishops' approval in a spirit of dialogue and aid to reflect if and when necessary, respecting their rights and duties, considering the legality of the process followed and its modalities [2] .

    Finally, Eminence, I reiterate my fraternal gratitude for his commitment and note that the commentaire has been published on some websites and wrongly attributed to his person, I kindly ask you to provide this answer to the same sites as well as sending it to all Episcopal Conferences, Members and Consultors of this Dicastery.


    [1] Magnum Principium: "The end of the translations of the liturgical texts and the biblical texts, for the liturgy of the Word, is to announce to the faithful the word of salvation in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. To this end, it is necessary to communicate faithfully to a particular people, through their own language, what the Church intended to communicate to another by means of the Latin language. Although fidelity can not always be judged by singular words, but it must be in the context of the whole act of communication and according to its literary genre, however, some peculiar terms should also be considered in the context of the Catholic faith. liturgical texts must be congruent with the sound doctrine. "
    [2] Magnum Principium : "One must certainly pay attention to the usefulness and goodness of the faithful, nor should we forget the rights and burdens of the Episcopal Conferences which, together with the Episcopal Conferences of regions with the same language and with the Apostolic See, must make sure that the indole of each language is preserved, fully and faithfully rendered the meaning of the original text and that the liturgical books translated, even after the adaptations, always shine through the unity of the Roman Rite ".


    Last edited: Oct 23, 2017
  7. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    For Menzingen, all of this forming to a new liturgy in some format it is an easy transition. With all of the articles coming from the neo-sspx medias in the last years virtue channeling the novus ordo with praise and necessity to be in accompany with, they admit again to the core spirituality of Vatican II in another article - A Hostage Testifies to Spiritual Communion.

    There is no traditional teaching or theology whatsoever in that consumption. It's narration is all Vatican II spirituality and "honest" feelings towards and merging likeness of novus ordo spiritual communion. Even Buddhists and protestants have "spiritual communion". Assisi was full of "spiritual communion".

    The drama of Menzingen makes no distinction again incorporating their harmonization with the novus ordo.