Author Topic: Holy Week changes (Read 9615 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 28, 2011, 10:46:59 AM »

How come many so-called Traditional Catholics take it upon themselves to NOT ONLY stand aloof from Vatican II and the New Mass, but ALSO seem to reject (for personal preferences?) the 1956 changes to Holy Week.

Last time I checked, 1956 was during the reign of Pope Pius XII. MOST Sedevacantists acknowledge the legitimacy of his papacy.

So how can we pick and choose, like picky eaters at an all-you-can-eat buffet, which Holy Week we will use?

Isn't the Church a living institution? Or is it a dead museum piece that can never change?

If you ask me, the appeal of the 1954 Holy Week is:

- Human pride -- If being a Traditional Catholic is good, being an Uber-Traditional-Catholic is better! The elite of the elite.
- It's accessible -- very recent, so many missals have it.
- Knee-jerk reaction -- "Modernists tried to change the Faith, the Church, and the Mass, so I'll go to the opposite extreme and reject ALL changes to the liturgy!"

Matthew

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 28, 2011, 10:59:15 AM »

No, it is distrust of Bugnini. That's not pride.

Vatican II had plenty of ground-work laid for it.

The SSPX claims the Popes after Pius XII are valid but reject the changes.

So a sede can claim Pius XII as a true Pope and still argue that the enemies of the Church were getting into position.

Look at the changes to the pre-Communion fast, and allowing attendance on Saturday for miners to make up their Sunday obligation?

Those happened under Pius XII.

Should Catholic uncritically accept changes that seem to be preliminaries for what came later?

JohnGrey · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:04:42 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

How come many so-called Traditional Catholics take it upon themselves to NOT ONLY stand aloof from Vatican II and the New Mass, but ALSO seem to reject (for personal preferences?) the 1956 changes to Holy Week.

Last time I checked, 1956 was during the reign of Pope Pius XII. MOST Sedevacantists acknowledge the legitimacy of his papacy.

So how can we pick and choose, like picky eaters at an all-you-can-eat buffet, which Holy Week we will use?

Isn't the Church a living institution? Or is it a dead museum piece that can never change?

If you ask me, the appeal of the 1954 Holy Week is:

- Human pride -- If being a Traditional Catholic is good, being an Uber-Traditional-Catholic is better! The elite of the elite.
- It's accessible -- very recent, so many missals have it.
- Knee-jerk reaction -- "Modernists tried to change the Faith, the Church, and the Mass, so I'll go to the opposite extreme and reject ALL changes to the liturgy!"

Matthew

Matthew,

It has nothing to do with elitism. The reason that they are not followed by SV churches is that the change was not intended to stand in the long-term. The change in the rubrics was intended to be a precursor to those blasphemous changes to canon and prayer in the John XXIII version, to say nothing of the profane parody of the Novus Ordo, and indeed were abrogated from use in the conciliar church in 1960 when Roncalli issued his missal.

Under the canon law precepts of stability (the law was not intended to be perpetually binding with the allowance of abrogation by another pontiff at a later date) and cessation through harm to discipline (the changes were introduced as the first creeping vines of modernism to that would eventually choke the Holy Sacrifice out of the conciliar structure), the holy week rubrics are no longer in force.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:15:08 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

No, it is distrust of Bugnini. That's not pride.

Vatican II had plenty of ground-work laid for it.

The SSPX claims the Popes after Pius XII are valid but reject the changes.

So a sede can claim Pius XII as a true Pope and still argue that the enemies of the Church were getting into position.

Look at the changes to the pre-Communion fast, and allowing attendance on Saturday for miners to make up their Sunday obligation?

Those happened under Pius XII.

Should Catholic uncritically accept changes that seem to be preliminaries for what came later?

What's the matter with miners going to Mass on Saturday if that's the only time they can attend?

My independent priest (ordained 1961, Redemptorist, never said the Novus Ordo) advised people to attend Mass during the week in place of Sunday, if they had to miss Mass for some good reason on Sunday (illness, work, car breakdown, etc.)

There are professions that have to work on Sunday. Why not attend Mass on Saturday or some other day, rather than not at all?

And if your argument is "slippery slope", why not climb the slope ALL the way and do the post-Midnight fast? I know many traditional Catholics use the 3-hour fast (myself included), but why not go "all the way"?

The communion fast is disciplinary, which the Church can change.
I understand your argument; it's a slippery slope. But we have to be careful when rejecting things purely from a "slippery slope" argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Quote

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

Matthew

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:23:00 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

What's the matter with miners going to Mass on Saturday if that's the only time they can attend?

Nothing. But they are dispensed from their Sunday obligation as well. The Saturday Mass attendance does not mean they require no dispensation for the Sunday Mass. It does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. In the NO, people substitute the Saturday for Sunday out of convenience and it is taught, in some places, that Sunday is no longer a holy day of obligation.