Rorate Caeli

A most important historical document:
the 1969 Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (the original GIRM)



7. Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae Ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi: "Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum" (Mt. 18, 20).

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

This is the original complete definition of the Mass according to the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae: they were arguably the most influential liturgical words written in the 20th century and signaled a watershed moment - in a sense, closing the book written since late antiquity and the chapter begun in Sessions XIII and XXII of the Council of Trent. 

Number 7 of the first edition of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (the General Instruction of the Roman Missal - GIRM) is the end moment of the original liturgical movement. Its writers also thought they would have the final say in the history of the Traditional Mass - within a few months, the storm started by these words on the edge of acceptability would spark the Brief Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass, presented to the Pope and to the Catholic world under the auspices of Cardinals Ottaviani, first Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Bacci. 

The waves set by that text have not subsided. That famous number 7 and other highly problematic words of the original 1969 IGMR (in which Trent is not mentioned a single time) and Ordo Missae would be amended in 1970, 1975, and 2002. While much was vindicated by the swift and significant corrections of 1970 - and, ultimately, by the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the traditional Roman Missal was "never abrogated -, can it be denied that the spirit of the 1969 IGMR lives on in the New Mass, or "Ordinary Form"?

While the texts of the 1970, 1975, and 2002 IGMR are widely available, it had been impossible up to now to find online the original source of the controversy. Thanks to the generous effort of a priestly source, RORATE can now present to our readers the original 1969 Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. (Note: this is the entire IGMR, but only the first pages of the original complete publication of the 1969 Ordo Missae, promulgated on April 3, 1969, by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, of Pope Paul VI.)


57 comments:

Brian said...

I have been searching for this for several years. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Well there it is! Thank you "priestly source!"

Anonymous said...

Oh my! So the Novus Ordo Mass was concocted without the intention of a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Our Lord JC on the Cross.
It is so Protestant. So even if there is a modification of the NO to a more orthodox form (reform of the reform?? etc), it is still a product of the innovaters to create a non-Sacrificial service acceptable to Protestants. It should just be chuck out of the window. Eeek!
Thank you, Rorate Celi, for letting us know this. :)

Jordanes551 said...

It is instructive to compare this 1969 IGMR no. 7 to its equivalent passage in the current IGMR:

27. At Mass or the Lord’s Supper the People of God is called together, with a Priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic Sacrifice.[37] In an outstanding way there applies to such a local gathering of the holy Church the promise of Christ: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt 18:20). For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated,[38] Christ is really present in the very assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and uninterruptedly under the Eucharistic species.[39]

http://usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-2.cfm

Very significant are the additional passages, as is the fact that no. 27 comes only after a lengthy discourse on the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass. Note how the current IGMR now begins:

1. As Christ the Lord was about to celebrate with the disciples the paschal supper in which he instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, he commanded that a large, furnished upper room be prepared (Lk 22:12). Indeed, the Church has always judged that this command also applied to herself whenever she decided about things related to the disposition of people's minds, and of places, rites, and texts for the Celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist. The present norms, too, prescribed in keeping with the will of the Second Vatican Council, together with the new Missal with which the Church of the Roman Rite will henceforth celebrate the Mass, are again a demonstration of this same solicitude of the Church, of her faith and her unaltered love for the supreme mystery of the Eucharist, and also attest to her continuous and consistent tradition, even though certain new elements have been introduced.

Testimony of an Unaltered Faith

2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent, because it accords with the universal tradition of the Church,[1] was once more stated by the Second Vatican Council, which pronounced these clear words about the Mass: "At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church."[2] . . . .

Anonymous said...

Is it Novus Missae or Novus Masonic?

Gratias said...

This 1969 Missal probably the first document written by Freemasons in Latin. Masons will do anything to undermine the Catholic Faith. Since before the French Revolution they have been at it yet we are still standing.

Thank you Rorate. The truth shall make us free.

Anonymous said...

In what way was the Tridentine Mass deficient in expressing the Sacrificial nature of Christ on the Cross that something else needed to be invented(NO)?
Might it not have been that the Tridentine Mass (or TLM) is Catholic, that's why it is so repugnant to the enemies of the Catholic Church, that a pretender meal had to be made to be pleasing to co-religionists and what-nots?
Yucks!

Anonymous said...

"Oh my! So the Novus Ordo Mass was concocted without the intention of a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Our Lord JC on the Cross.
It is so Protestant.
"

Yes, the 1969 GIRM, and all the updated versions that followed are very much in the spirit of Protestantism. It is a disgrace.

I am always amazed (and not in the good sense) at how the Roman Catholic Church could have possibly discarded 1,200 years of magnificent liturgical heritage (including music and the arts), and replaced it with this garbage, which is 100% Protestant in it's influences and intention.

When I think of the 1969 GIRM, which is absolutely the child of Vatican II, I compare it with all it's liturgical abuses,heresies, scandals and blasphemy, the closed seminaries it engendered, the destroyed religious Orders of priests and nuns and friars, monks and sisters, the collapse of the Catholic Faith and practice across the world, the tens of thousands of closed churches, convents, Motherhouses, monasteries and friaries, the extinction of a true Catholic culture and of a true Catholic missionary spirit, the disgusting forms of "art" and liturgical "music", with on the other hand, the magnificent flourishing of the Faith born of the Tridentine Latin Mass and the Council of Trent...all the great new religious Orders such as the Jesuits, Discalced Carmelite nuns and friars, Oratorians, Theatins, then a bit later the Redemptorists, Passionists, Vincentians, Daughters of Charity, and later still the Salesians, Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, the magnificent art of Bernini and the Baroque, the masterpieces of music such as from Palestrina, Gabrielli, Des Prez, and of course Mozart, the rolling back of the Protestant hordes and the re=conversion of much of Europe which had fallen to them, the grand missionary endeavours in the Church in the true Catholic spirit from about 1550 right up until the opening of Vatican II.
Then I see the total collapse and utter wreckage of all that as of today. It exists only in tiny pcokets where the SSPX continues on in the true Catholic spirit and tradition.
As I remember all this, and contrast/compare, increasingly I am horrified to think that considering the vast magnitude of the destruction of our Faith since this document of 1969 and of Vatican II....is it not possible that the influences of the devilwas very much a part of the inspirastion and actions and end results of Vatican II and the GIRM of 1969, 70,75 and 2001?
It can not be that an inspiration of God could have created such total ruin.

Nathaniel said...

The Mass HAD to be altered to accomplish the post-conciliar revolution. The New Mass changes the Faith of the people in the pews by verbal omissions in the ritual and the visual antics of everything from EMHC, Communion in the hand, standing for Communion, a lay-filled sanctuary, etc. (all required for instilling a democratic sense throughout the Church and the elimination of a vertical relationship with God).

The New Mass was utilized for the revolution in the thinking of Catholics about God and His Church. The revolutionary principles are now deeply embedded within the life of the great majority of Catholics.

Anonymous said...

Why is the Church holding on to this liturgy when the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven is available? It is a contradiction no matter the changes promulgated in 1970 and thereafter. Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig! The reason, dear friends, is that the modernists will not give up their attempt to destroy Tradition.

I'm thinking of the attempt they made to get Archbishop Lefebvre to celebrate the new Mass just once and he refused and showed them the door. I'm thinking of this newly prepared doctrinal preamble prepared and issued in the form of an order to the FSSPX - issued, by the way, by a man who is the former archbishop of San Francisco and that den of iniquity known as the Castro district in which the most incredible blasphemies take place and in the Church of the Most Holy Redeemer, for heaven's sake. If there is a modern-day Sodom & Gomorrah, that is it!

The danger of making changes in the Liturgy has been proclaimed by others more erudite than I and we are living in the era of consequences to those changes. Just look at the various "forms" the new Mass takes in parishes around the country. Can you say with all honesty that the same beliefs are signified in those celebrations? The same beliefs that are signified in the Mass of All Time, the re-enactment of the Sacrifice on Calvary with all facing the same direction towards that Holy Cross bearing the figure of Our Lord and Savior?

And in this era of diabolical disorientations the FSSPX is asked to sign what amounts to an order to be submissive to those same hierarchs responsible for and contributing to those disorientations? Well, I don't know what's going to happen at the meeting on October 7-8 with the leadership of the Fraternity in Italy but I'll tell you what I would do. If that Preamble in any way obfuscates or changes what Holy Mother Church has always held and taught from Apostolic times, I would rewrite it to conform to Tradition saying: "This is what we'll sign - will you?"

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF Ret aka PEH

M. A. said...

Council of Trent:

"That He might leave to His own beloved spouse, the Church , a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, to be accomplished once on the cross, might be represented and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and by which its saving power might be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit .... And forasmuch in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, the Holy Synod teaches that this sacrifice (of the Mass) is truly propitiatory, and that by means thereof this is effected that we might obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid if we draw near to God contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and an upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof (of the Mass), granting grace and the gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the Victim is one and the same, and the One who now offers by the ministry of the priests is the very same One who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of the offering being different. The fruits of that oblation - namely, that bloody one - are received most plentifully by this unbloody one."

Makes you wonder why a merely pastoral council would want to tamper with the dogmatic teachings of Trent. (Actually, I don't wonder. I know.) It's time to stop defending the indefensible. VII stinks.

Hieronymus said...

Thank you very much, I too have been trying to find this.

Jordanes551 said...

So the Novus Ordo Mass was concocted without the intention of a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Our Lord JC on the Cross.

Deficiencies of the 1969 IGMR notwithstanding, that conclusion would seem to be incorrect, judging from the 1969 IGMR no. 2, which corresponds to the current IGMR no. 2. 1969 IGMR no. 2 has the words, "the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which he entrusted the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church." That is a reference to Sacrosanctum Consilium no. 47, which says, "At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church."

In subsequent versions of the IGMR, including the current version, that passage is incorporated into IGMR no. 2, thus stressing the Sacrifice of the Mass and making it much more clear. That is also accomplished with the addition of the words, "The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent, because it accords with the universal tradition of the Church, . . ."

Yes, the 1969 GIRM, and all the updated versions that followed are very much in the spirit of Protestantism.

Obviously you have not read the current IGMR.

Jordanes551 said...

Makes you wonder why a merely pastoral council would want to tamper with the dogmatic teachings of Trent.

Vatican II didn't tamper with those dogmatic teachings at all -- it reiterated them.

The 1969 IGMR, however, passed over quite a lot of them, and through silence and omission shifted emphasis away from traditional Eucharistic sacramental theology.

I am not Spartacus said...

The Revolutionary Council and its Mass was the fruition of a long and well-organised effort to change the thinking of Pat and Pam Pew Dweller as to what the Church was and what the Mass was about.

All of it, it seems, was an attempt to institute a civilisation of love that would replace the Traditional Dogmatic Certitude and Ecclesiastical Discipline that established a solid wall around the Catholic Church that Jesus established and about which there could be no confusion that The Catholic Church was the true Church and true Faith and that all, as in every last man Jack of them in those false faiths, were material heretics and in error and that they, every last man Jack of them, HAD to convert or continue on their way to perdition.

Everyone, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew alike, knew that is what we taught and believed.

Until the new theology and the revolution...


M. B. Martinez, “The Undermining of the Catholic Church”

After Louvain came the greatest of the liturgical
congresses, that of Assisi. Twelve hundred delegates,
among them six cardinals and eighty bishops, converged on the little Umbrian city of St. Francis. The year was 1956. In his book Has the Catholic Church Gone Mad? the British scholar, John Eppstein, considers this assembly to be the run-up to the drastic liturgical decrees that followed the Council.

He writes, "Here was a group of enthusiasts ready to
implement the pre-Conciliar organization still to be
convoked by Cardinal Cicognani. Its members were drawn mostly from France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and the United States. It did not take them long to work out the schema for the Liturgical Constitution which was ready when the Council met. Many of the same group worked together throughout the Council and found their way into the post-Conciliar commission set up to implement the principles which Vatican II had adopted. And during the whole process the dominant figure was Msgr. Bugnini who headed each of the stages of work in the reforming
bodies. ...Bugnini was as much an architect of the New
Mass as Cramner of the Book of Common Prayer."

That Pius XII was pleased with the Congress at
Assisi and with its guidance by his appointee, Bugnini,
was evident from the closing message he addressed to the assembly. In part, "The liturgical movement has appeared like a sign of a providential gift of God for our time, like a passage of the Holy Spirit over the Church in order to show the faithful the mysteries of the faith and the riches of grace that come from active participation in the liturgy."

Among the events drawing inspiration from the
Assisi Congress that year, was a Canadian symposium
entitled "The Great Action of the Christian Church".
organized by the North American Liturgical Conference and a committee headed by Bishop (later Cardinal) John Wright of Worcester, Massachusetts, it presented a central ritual unparalleled at the time. Replacing the Introibo, the opening words that had come into the Mass in the days of Charlemagne, "I go unto the altar of God, to God who gives joy to my youth" with "We welcome our president"
chanted in unison, the ceremony proceeded to the tune of rousing Lutheran hymns, a sermon in which it was explained that the Eucharist was a community meal rather than a sacrifice and to top the morning off there was a Pontifical Blessing from Pius XII in Rome.


Assisi; where Pope Pius XII hid the Jews and let them conduct their synagogue services in the Church; Assisi, where the revolutionaries gathered; Assisi, where the scandalous meeting called by Pope Blessed John Paul II took place; Assisi, where we as a Church, in the person of the Holy Father, will, again, gather to pray for world peace as the new ecclesiastical traditions established by Pope Blessed John Paul II are irreformable; Assisi, where man goes to pray for peace even as they ignore the Plan for Peace Mary revealed at Fatima..

Well, who needs Fatima and Mary when we can chew the fat with some animists and polytheists?

Brian said...

Vatican II didn't tamper with those dogmatic teachings at all -- it reiterated them.

The 1969 IGMR, however, passed over quite a lot of them, and through silence and omission shifted emphasis away from traditional Eucharistic sacramental theology.


Jordanes,
Do you think that "passing over" and "shifting emphasis" was by accidental oversight or intentional?

Jordanes551 said...

I suspect it was intentional, though we can't be really sure. If intentional, I think the tamperers meant well. . . . but then I've been told that President Harry Truman said one of the worst things you could say about a man is that he meant well.

Henry said...

Jordanes: "I think the tamperers meant well."

In all seriousness, I -- much less critical of the Novus Ordo Missale Romanum than most traditional Catholics -- wonder precisely what you thought the tamperers meant to do well.

Anonymous said...

From this thread I have gleaned that the NO is a deficient mass to say the least. Could it also be called a 'second expression' and the TLM the 'first expression'?

Jerry

P.S.
Middle school boy just suspended from Texas school for saying that homosexuality is wrong.

Jordanes551 said...

Obviously what they meant to do well was to reform the liturgy.

Even granting that the whole exercise was a Freemasonic plot, it still would have been meant well -- if one thinks the Catholic Faith is a bad thing, and believes Freemasonry is the correct approach to religion, then as a matter of course one would work to overthrow the Faith and substitute what one erroneously believes to be good. Probably very few of us are explicitly committed to the advancement of what one knows to be evil, consciously working for the triumph of evil over good. Rather, we believe that evil is good and work for the advancement of what we think is good.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"I think the tamperers meant well"

As Alistair Crowley meant "well" when he wrote his "Book of Law" and the "Gnostic Mass".

He thought.

Henry said...

"Even granting that the whole exercise was a Freemasonic plot, it still would have been meant well"

If this is the side step you want, ok. But the more usual interpretation of "good intentions" might be that the Novus Ordo reformers sincerely meant to accomplish the objectives of the largely constructive early 20th century liturgical movement dating back to Pope Pius X and beyond, but (given the disaster that has resulted) missed the mark and failed to achieve their laudable intentions.

Whereas I conclude from accounts of the workings of the "Bugnini Concilium" (including his own memoir) that they pretty much achieved what they actually intended--namely, what most of us here would call the deconstruction of the Mass (or something similar).

Anonymous said...

Well, I don't think that the "tamperers" meant well at all. In fact, if they could have done more and worse, I am confident that they would have. If you read "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber", you will find that not a little chicanery went on during the infamous council.

The "tamperers" wanted a church in their own image and likeness, and had the audacity to think they knew better.

Delphina

Jordanes551 said...

If this is the side step you want, ok.

It's not a side step.

But the more usual interpretation of "good intentions" might be that the Novus Ordo reformers sincerely meant to accomplish the objectives of the largely constructive early 20th century liturgical movement dating back to Pope Pius X and beyond, but (given the disaster that has resulted) missed the mark and failed to achieve their laudable intentions.

Maybe some of them intended that, but don't think so -- they obviously intended to go far beyond the original intentions of the liturgical movement.

Whereas I conclude from accounts of the workings of the "Bugnini Concilium" (including his own memoir) that they pretty much achieved what they actually intended--namely, what most of us here would call the deconstruction of the Mass (or something similar).

I agree -- but even that would have been well intended. Grievously mistaken, but not intended to harm: they thought they were doing everyone a colossal, magnanimous favor.

If the post-conciliar liturgical reform/deform was Freemasonic in origin and execution, there was insincerity and duplicity on the part of the Freemasonic conspirators presenting themselves as orthodox Catholics: but no doubt they would have seen their duplicity as necessary to serve what they thought was the greater good of transforming the Catholic Church into a completely different religion.

Anonymous said...

Whereas I conclude from accounts of the workings of the "Bugnini Concilium" (including his own memoir) that they pretty much achieved what they actually intended--namely, what most of us here would call the deconstruction of the Mass (or something similar).

I agree -- but even that would have been well intended. Grievously mistaken, but not intended to harm: they thought they were doing everyone a colossal, magnanimous favor.

Have you ever tried to sell the Brooklyn bridge? I find the excuses you give for the actions of the modernists really at odds with most of us in this forum. With friends like you we hardly need enemies.

Look, they have presided over the worst decline of the Faith and the most atrocious liturgical abuses and actions by the clergy in history. How can you defend them? Nevermind, we know where you're coming from.

PEH

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, there is some type of flaw in your reasoning, if you don't mind me saying so.

We can conclude then that Joseph Stalin meant well, as well as Adolph Hitler, since they, too, "thought they were doing everyone a colossal, magnanimous favor."

I think it is better to call a spade a spade. There's nothing charitable about being purposely naive; rather, it is a recipe for disaster.

Delphina

HSE said...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (hell is full of good wishes and desires).

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Jordanes at 20:03

Amen. Outside of Satan and his minions, few are those whose intent is evil. Even the worst of us is able to convince himself that he intends good with his actions.

Propaganda for change and a new way of thinking - The New Theology - can lead men astray and unless Ecclesiastical Discipline is applied by the likes of a Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val, then ecclesiastical and theological errors the size of mustard seeds can be cultivated and fertilised by Satan and brought to fruition until they become gigantic oaks * of modernity that threaten to steal all the light of Tradition.

However, no matter how bleak it all seems, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity remains forever vigilant and faithful and He will not let error be taught as a Magisterial Truth and the best way for men to be aware of what is and isn't Tradition is to assist at The Immemorial Mass and be steeped in Tradition in the writing of the Saints etc.

Roughly, anything prior to 1940 is relatively safe to read.

The newest Biblical Commentary I dare read is Dom Orchard's 1953, "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture" but I know I am part of a teeny minority of Christian Catholics because I am well aware that men like Mark Shea and Scott Hahn are considered go-to men when it comes to questions of Catholicism.

* I blame modernity for crummy metaphors like that.

Jordanes551 said...

We can conclude then that Joseph Stalin meant well, as well as Adolph Hitler, since they, too, "thought they were doing everyone a colossal, magnanimous favor."

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I didn't say everyone has good intentions.

I find the excuses you give for the actions of the modernists really at odds with most of us in this forum. With friends like you we hardly need enemies.

Read more carefully. I have made no excuses for the wreck of the liturgy that the reformers/deformers made. Good intentions are not an excuse. That was in part what I meant by the (perhaps apocryphal) Harry Truman quote.

Jordanes551 said...

We can conclude then that Joseph Stalin meant well, as well as Adolph Hitler, since they, too, "thought they were doing everyone a colossal, magnanimous favor."

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I didn't say everyone has good intentions.

I find the excuses you give for the actions of the modernists really at odds with most of us in this forum. With friends like you we hardly need enemies.

Read more carefully. I have made no excuses for the wreck of the liturgy that the reformers/deformers made. Good intentions are not an excuse. That was in part what I meant by the (perhaps apocryphal) Harry Truman quote.

How can you defend them?

I don't, and I didn't.

Nevermind, we know where you're coming from.

No, you obviously don't.

Anonymous said...

Spartacus:

"Roughly, anything prior to 1940 is relatively safe to read."

I came to that conclusion myself one day about sixteen years ago. I used to live near a big Jesuit University that had a massive library filled with treasures. Among those treasures were some old magazines from the turn last century. I spent many a Sunday afternoon in that library reading those magazines, and noticed that after 1940 there was a significant change in the tone of the articles. After WWII, it got even worse.

Delphina

Tradster said...

I appreciate your thoughtfulness, Jordanes, as one who has taken his own share of eclectic views over the years.

But without meaning to pile onto you, I must respectfully disagree with the theory that the tamperers may have meant well.

They didn't. If they were freemasons who truly meant well in some sense at some level, they would have left the Catholic Church to formally join the Masonic movement and work for Masonry and the eradication of what they considered to be the traditionalist Catholic threat from that vantage point.

To stay in the Church, to import freemasonry under the guise of some kind of Catholic reform would be treachery, pure and simple.

Anonymous said...

Father Malachi Martin describes the council goings on in some of his radio interviews that you can find on youtube. These are great pieces of information and insight if we can believe Fr. Martin and I see no reason why I shouldn't believe him.

Father Martin mentions a German Bishop who states during the council that "we're not leaving the Church this time, we're going to stay and change it from inside. That sounds pretty intentional to me.

Mark of the Vineyard said...

Jordanes is saying that those who destroyed the liturgy were SUBJECTIVELY (possibly) well intentioned, when he says that they might have been acting on what they THOUGHT what was the greater good; OBJECTIVELY they were not well intentioned. Jordanes is not defending them; he is not justifying/excusing them. He is merely trying to explain what he thinks happened. To explain does not necessarily mean to justify.

Anonymous said...

If there was truly an attempt to water down the Faith and make it appeal to other religions by removing reference to sacrifice I would think it so deplorable and actually a bit insane. As if the leaders in the Church lost their mind or turned their backs on the Catholic message and identity. One day, and I hope soon, The Pope, and all the Cardinals will undo the catastrophic route they have taken after the last Council and return normalacy to Holy Mother Church and integrity to Catholic Identity by restoring all that has been lamented and lost over this. With every passing day she loses more souls over this scandal. Must we beg?

Gratias said...

Whether well-meaning or Masonic does not matter. The damage inflicted by the Vatican II Council have devastated the Catholic Church.

reflect on the title of this important 1969 document rescued here for the Internet. In my crude translation it means something resembling:

"Roman Missal
Instaured from [ex in Latin] decree of the Sacrosant Ecumenical Council Vatican II. Promulgated by the authority of Pope Paul VI."

Some of you can surely provide a better translation, but that is the gist of it.

This evil deed was imposed on the Universal Church with the color of authority. Now we are stuck with it and reduced to restoring the Catholic Faith brick by brick. Not that I am complaining, most of us here are seriously dedicated to right this wrong.

Mar said...

You are right, Delphina, in your reference to "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber". There it is documented how German-born Bishop Duschak stressed the need for "an ecumenical Mass" - his words - over and above the existing form of the Latin Rite Mass. He said: "If men in centuries gone by were able to choose and create Mass
rites, why should not the greatest of all ecumenical Councils be able to do so?" He also said: "I believe it is also likely that if the world receives such an ecumenical form of the Eucharistic celebration, the faith of non-Catholic Christian communities in the sacramental presence of Christ might be renewed or even rectified."

To quote Fr. Wiltgen directly: Asked whether his proposal originated with the people whom he served, he answered, "No, I think they would oppose it, just as many
bishops oppose it. But if if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it."
(End of quote)

How right he was!

I am not Spartacus said...

Reply to Objection 1. The will is not always directed to what is truly good, but sometimes to the apparent good; which has indeed some measure of good, but not of a good that is simply suitable to be desired. Hence it is that the act of the will is not always good, but sometimes evil.

That is what I had in mind when I wrote that few intend evil, that most men, even those who are obviously in error, think they are doing good - which is why it is necessary to think with the Church, and not just with the Church of the moment but with the entire Church throughout its history.

Brian said...

The post-Vatican II Church speaks of invincible ignorance and good intentions, where more fitting Biblical terms might be spiritual blindness due to hardness of heart.

Anonymous said...

Vatican II at 30..
Vatican II at 40...
Vatican II at 50....

Why was it again that Vatican II was a good and necessary thing? I forgot.

Henry said...

Jordanes,

Now I understand what you meant: That the post-conciliar reform-meisters were well-intentioned in the sense that, say, Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer were well-intentioned.

However, it's unclear why you wish to emphasize this, to the point of multiple defense of your original statement. Unless I am still missing some further subtlety in your thought, it seems rather vacuous and devoid of any significant meaning beyond the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 00:41"Must we beg?"

I think the answer is YES. Catholics took their Faith for granted. Then, it was taken out from under us without much of a fight (except for the minority who saw it coming).

It's time to re-Catechize and gather the troops!

Picard said...

Ok. - subjectively most probably the reformers meant well. But normally we are discussing the objective level, not the subjective intentions.

For the objective level we have sources that openly admit that one goal was to make the Mass more oecomenical - so no wander the 1969 introduction/instruction was so.

And yes, then they changed it. - Fr. S. Maeßen, former SSPX, now under Eccl. Dei, had a good comparison to that:

Imagine that sbd. built a car that was deformed, perhaps without steering wheel or without wheels, etc. with an corresponging instruction manual.

Then you complain about that - and they change the instructions in the manual but they don´t change the car!!

John McFarland said...

Since the GIRM was changed and the New Mass was not, the textual history of the GIRM is of no interest to anyone but scholars, and not very many of them.

As for good intentions, the good intentions of the conciliar revolutionaries were to effect with the world (which the Lord refused to pray for) something somewhere in a range between accommodation and surrender.

The differences between, say, the Holy Father and the German bishops who declined to shake hands with him (after having shaken hands with the German president) relate to where they are along the accommodation-surrender line.

LeonG said...

This is what one might call Girm warfare!

The new liturgy represents a total rupture with the Traditional Latin Mass. It is founded on a completely antithetical paradigm of which the consequences have been an unmitigated disaster. Its useage in the church is indefensible and it has to be abrogated eventually. The sooner the better.

Knight of Malta said...

"7. The Lord's Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord."

NO! It's infinitely more than that! It is, as Michael Davies so artfully points-out in his book, The Eternal Sacrifice, first and foremost, the Unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ renewed and perpetuated at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But, modernists don't like such "superstitious" notions!

Anonymous said...

How could the council revolutionaries have (objectively speaking, from where we view things now)have had subjective good intentions for the Church when they embarked on their reforms? Surely they knew that they were straying from the path of objective magisterial Church teaching that had been passed along over the centuries, or are we to believe that the destiny of Holy Mother Church was left in the hands of mindless men, with little instruction? I doubt that. It would appear that these reformers (who were in the minority) had rejected Orbus Catholicus, knowingly, and with great enthusiasm set upon the road of protestantising the Church, simply in the end, because they had lost the Catholic faith. Thus, knowingly, their subjective good intentions, were subjectively focussed on their own subjective ideas about how to turn the Catholic faith into a purely subjective experience.... the heart of protestantism being essentially subjective in nature.

The fact, that other Fathers (the majority) surrendered to these ideas is somewhat troubling. I'm sure they couldn't possibly have envisaged the devastation that was about to come.....

It is difficult to accept the notion that these reformers were well- intentioned and had the best interests, at heart, in their intent to reform the ENTIRE Holy Roman Catholic Church. (The well-intentioned masonic infiltration is a strange proposition).

Nice of you all to have had the patience to read my,shall I say, 3 cents worth subjective viewpoint, on the subjective good intentions of the reformers at Vatican II.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

I am not Spartacus, what was it that brought about this dramatic transformation in your thinking regarding these matters? And so civil-toned, too. I used to catched your comments on another web site.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

John McFarland said…

"Since the GIRM was changed and the New Mass was not, the textual history of the GIRM is of no interest to anyone but scholars, and not very many of them."

This was my impression at first — that since the 69 GI had been changed in 1970, it was not of much interest.

But the creators of the New Mass, I later discovered, said very clearly that the 69 GI was intended to be a statement of the "doctrinal" or "theological" principles behind the creation of the New Mass.

Since this is the case, the 69 GI can be treated as sort of a smoking gun — solid evidence that a new theology of the Mass — an ecumenical and modernist theology — was the basis for the creation of the new rite.

Jordanes551 said...

However, it's unclear why you wish to emphasize this, to the point of multiple defense of your original statement.

I don't wish to emphasise it, but Brian asked me a question, and I answered it -- and apparently it was necessary to explain my answer. Answering follow-up questions isn't necessarily intended as a "defense" of my original answer.

Unless I am still missing some further subtlety in your thought, it seems rather vacuous and devoid of any significant meaning beyond the obvious.

I doubt my thought could often be described as "subtle," and while I'm not sure my statement was vacuous, I do think the meaning of my answer to Brian was pretty obvious.

Anonymous said...

"The differences between, say, the Holy Father and the German bishops who declined to shake hands with him (after having shaken hands with the German president) relate to where they are along the accommodation-surrender line."

The "German bishops" who refused to shake the Pope's hand after shaking the German President's hand were not German Bishops, but rather members of the Roman Curia who had just gotten off the plane with the Pope himself. Why shake hands again with the Pope, when you just flew with him from Rome to Berlin?

It wasn't a snub. These were people who work with the Pope every day.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Anon at 16:35. I am a really slow learner.

And, oncet, I was a proud practitioner of Papolatry.

I assume you are referring to the site I got kicked-off of for making fun of Dubya and opposing the Iraq War, Free Republic?

I wisht I could take back those words but, luckily, I can't. They stand as a good reminder to me that I specialise in error.

But, I think I finally got my mind right about the wrong idea that I was under some obligation to defend the Pope no matter what he said or did.

I spewed some inventive invective and I unfairly caused consternation in the minds and hearts of some really faithful folks and for that I am truly sorry.

John McFarland said...

Dear Father Cekada,

Well, the circumstantial evidence was pretty strong by itself, but there's nothing like an unforced admission.

Do we have to buy your book to get the cites?

John McFarland said...

Dear Barbara,

The scribes and pharisees stood there and watched Jesus heal -- sometimes with a physical action, sometimes with a word, sometimes with nothing but the healing act.

The scribes and pharisees interpreted them as actions, and furthermore as actions breaking the sabbath, even though no one considered undoubted actions (rescuing one's ox or ass) as breaking the sabbath.

Where there is determination not to admit the truth, the lamest sophistry is more than enough.

This was as true for the conciliar revolutionaries, and the mass of Council fathers without the courage to resist a revolution under Pope Paul's patronage, as it was for the scribes and pharisees.

Brian said...

John McFarland,
I strongly recommend Father Cekada's book. I read it and it is excellent.

Brian said...

Jordanes,
Thank you for answereing my question. I thought that your meaning was perfectly clear.
Brian

Father Anthony Cekada said...

John McFarland said...

"Well, the circumstantial evidence was pretty strong by itself, but there's nothing like an unforced admission.

Do we have to buy your book to get the cites?"

There are too many to reproduce here. If you search "Work of Human Hands Cekada" on Amazon, the LookInside feature will let you access pp. 136-140. You'll see that when the Ottaviani Intervention came out, the modernists DENIED that the GI was doctrinal or theological. But, as I show, this was a lie, because they were already on record as stating the OPPOSITE.

Elsewhere in the book, I quote Concilium members praising the ecumenical theology of the 69 GI, which they say was "saved" in the 1970 version, thanks to the "cleverness of the revisors," and which still "takes us out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice." (pp. 104-5, 156-7).

But if you're going to go to Amazon anyway, oh heck, why not just buy the book?