Episode 1024: Did the Catholic Church try to commit Catholicide?

So lets discuss a True sense of the liturgy?
The elders of the Catholic Church decided to slowly and painfully commit deicide and what I call Catholicide (killing the Catholic Church) in the late 1950’s and elected the Pope who could start the destruction, the Jolly Pope John 23rd.
Several feasts that were eliminated after having been in the Universal Calendar for centuries.Show more

Remember always that what Vatican II appeared to give with one hand “True sense of the liturgy” the other hand took away centuries of traditions that “Didn’t provide a true sense of the liturgy”?
What is Liturgy?
Liturgy is public worship, the work of Christ and that of the Church, the Body of Christ. By virtue of our participation in Christ's work as members of the Body, we also participate in the divine life of the Trinity, an eternal exchange of love between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Okay so if certain feasts or liturgical practices promoted a better and more thorough liturgy and someone took it away would you not conclude that their real intentions were to destroy the liturgy? Remember always the golden rule when dealing with progressives and modernists. When they say one thinhg they mean the opposite, when they accuse you of something its really what they are doing and never ever believe them. Flee from them.
Flee from the Catholic Church Leaders? Really? Well lets take a walk with the Jolly Pope John 23rd again. The originator of Vatican II. Remember he will go down in Church history as the Pope who committed Catholicide.
The 1960 Rubrics allowed these feasts to be celebrated “in some places.” (1) No sooner had Pope John XXIII’s Rubrics gone into effect in January 1961 than the Congregation of Rites issued an Instruction on February 14 to ensure that their celebration would not be generally adopted on their traditionally observed dates. It specified that this could take place only if “altogether exceptional reasons” (rationes omnino singulares) were given to justify it. (2)

That set the bar exceedingly high, making it unlikely that the “right” criteria would be fulfilled in most cases, thus discouraging requests to the Holy See from Bishops wishing to retain the traditional dates for their dioceses.

This was just the beginning of a series of increasingly harsh and restrictive measures designed to reduce the majority of feasts in the Universal Calendar.

Local feasts suppressed

In accordance with the February 1961 Instruction, (§§ 32, 33), the following 14 feasts observed in local Calendars were suppressed unless “truly special reasons” required their continued observance.
• The Translation of the House of the Blessed Virgin Mary (10 December);
• The Expectation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (18 December);
• The Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary to St. Joseph (23 January);
• The Flight of Our Lord into Egypt (17 February);
• The Commemoration of the Passion of Our Lord (Tuesday after Sexagesima Sunday);
• The Holy Crown of Thorns (Friday after Ash Wednesday);
• The Holy Lance and Nails (Friday after the I Sunday in Lent);
• The Holy Shroud (Friday after the II Sunday in Lent);
• The Five Wounds (Friday after the III Sunday in Lent);
• The Most Precious Blood (Friday after the IV Sunday in Lent);
• The Eucharistic Heart of Jesus (Thursday after the Octave of Corpus Christi);
• The Humility of the Blessed Virgin Mary (17 July);
• The Purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (16 October).
The Instruction gave the following pretexts as to why these feasts should be abolished:
a. They had originated from the devotion of the faithful (“e privata devotione”), had multiplied exceedingly (“nimis multiplicata sunt”) and invaded the public domain of the liturgy (“in publicum Ecclesiae cultum inducta”);
b. They only came into existence from the Middle Ages (“inde a Media Aetate”);
c. They duplicated themes that were celebrated at other times of the year (in aliis festis aut anni temporibus);
d. They had relevance only to a particular location (cum aliquo tantum loco particulari).
It would be well to note that these pretexts were based on erroneous assumptions about the nature and relevance of the feasts listed for expulsion from the local calendars. We will take each point in turn.

Pretexts based on erroneous assumptions

First, as these feasts commemorated events in the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady, they drew the faithful into an ever deeper contemplation and union with Christ and His Blessed Mother. But such Catholic devotion was perceived by the Liturgical Movement in general and the members of the Liturgical Commission in particular to be in opposition to a true sense of the liturgy.

The Five Wounds illustrate a medieval manuscript
The feasts were incorrectly treated as merely by-products of so-called “devotionalism,” as if they were para-liturgical exercises, which during the Middle Ages had been wrongly inserted into the Church’s official liturgy. Many of the faithful, certainly, were devoted to them, but the feasts themselves were – and had been for centuries – an approved part of the liturgy, having their own unique Mass and Propers in the Pro aliquibus locis section of the pre-1962 Missal.

The unnecessary suppression of these feasts, which, being optional, posed no impediment to the General Calendar, is an example of “clericalism,” the unjustified assertion of dominance of Church leaders over the rights of Tradition. It was the metaphorical equivalent of a wet blanket to dampen the fires of devotion among the faithful.

Second, it makes no sense to suggest that a relatively late origin of a feast (the Middle Ages) constitutes grounds for its suppression. At that rate, many feasts, both local and universal, added after that period would stand condemned. When, however, it suited the reformers’ purposes, they also abolished feasts that had been celebrated in the first centuries of the Church’s existence because they were “too old” to appeal to modern expectations.

The feasts on the above list may have entered the official Calendars in the Middle Ages, but the mysteries they enshrined had been the object of contemplation by the faithful from the early days of Christianity. To take one example, the Holy House of Nazareth where Our Lady received the Annunciation and where the Holy Family lived, was venerated by Christians even in the lifetime of the Apostles; and when St. Helena visited the Holy Land in about 330, she had a church built around the Holy House in order to protect it. (4)

Translation of the Holy House from Nazareth to Loreto, celebrated in many paintings
Third, it had never been an accepted custom in the Church to abolish a feast because its theme is similar or identical to that of other feasts in the Calendar. In fact, such “pairings” had always been a feature of the Roman Missal, e.g., Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi, Good Friday and the Precious Blood, the Finding and the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, two feasts for an individual Saint etc.. It was all part of the richness of the pre-1962 Missal, a form of “recapitulation” that helped the faithful to contemplate different aspects of each mystery.

Fourth, it does not follow that because a feast has a special connection with a particular location ‒ whether it be Loreto or Fatima etc. ‒ that it cannot partake of a the universality of the Faith and be of spiritual value to all Catholics around the world. Who would think of abolishing Christmas because it started in Bethlehem, or Good Friday because the Crucifixion took place at a particular spot, Mount Calvary? Why, then, suppress the Translation of the Holy House (10 December), which originated in Nazareth before its miraculous transfer to Loreto?

Yet the Instruction ordered the suppression of this feast on the grounds that its relevance was limited only to a local area (tantum loco particulari), despite the fact that, by 1960, it had been held in veneration on every continent, (5) and was one of the most popular Marian pilgrimage destinations in the world.

Furthermore, with a Decree of March 24, 1920, (6) Pope Benedict XV, inspired by the aerial flight of the Holy House from Nazareth to Loreto, had named the Virgin of Loreto Patroness of aviators and flight attendants. She even achieved iconic status in Space – during the Apollo 9 mission in 1969, the American Astronaut, James McDivitt, wore a medal of Our Lady of Loreto bearing the caption “Protect my Flight.” (7)

Goalposts on wheels

What is striking about the 1961 Instruction is that the rules and requirements of the Calendar reform kept changing this way and that to secure the outcome desired by the progressivist reformers, while making it impossible for the “other side” to score a point. Moving the goalposts would, by any standards, be considered an unfair advantage, a form of cheating – a point of special relevance to the 1960 Calendar reform, as the outcome had already been decided by the plotters on Pius XII’s Liturgical Commission more than a decade earlier.

The ancient feast of Our Lady of the Expection, or The Lady of the O
The secret deliberations of Pius XII’s Liturgical Commission were first made available to the public by Fr. Carlo Braga in 2003. In Chapter 3 of his Memoria sulla Riforma Liturgica, (1948, nn. 134-176), there are references to the Commission’s plans to eliminate “minor” feasts of Our Lord and Our Lady, and feasts “of devotion” in general, especially those of more recent origin.

But the feast of the Expectation of Our Lady (December 18) was neither minor nor recent – it originated in the 7th century and was celebrated with a solemn octave. (8) Its abolition discouraged the liturgical tradition long practised by the faithful, especially expectant mothers, (9) to make a week-long spiritual preparation for the coming of Christ in union with the thoughts of Our Lady as she awaited the birth of her Son.

In the 19th century, Fr. Frederick Faber (1814-1863), the noted hymn writer (10) and founder of the London Oratory, composed an Advent carol, which sings of the joy Our Lady felt as the time of her delivery drew near. He gave it the title “Our Lady’s Expectation,” though it was popularly known by its opening words: Like the Dawning of the Morning, and is still remembered as having been sung in Catholic schools at morning Assembly.

But so great was the reformers’ animosity to this devotion – and the feast that celebrates it – that the hymn was excised from the Westminster Hymnal and never saw the light of day in hymn books published after 1960.

‘Bin that!’

The reformers were not moved by considerations of the good of the Church, but by the desire to meet “ecumenical” targets, which are inappropriate for Catholic worship. How treacherous of them to ignore the faithful, trample on their cherished traditions and deprive them of their liturgical patrimony. The contempt with which they did so calls to mind, in modern computer parlance, the “drag and drop” method of discarding unwanted material into the place marked “bin.”