Author Topic: Holy Week changes (Read 8009 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.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:24:18 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

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

There's nothing wrong with going to mass on Saturday, the problem is that it is not the Sabbath - so claiming attendance on that day is equivalent to attending on the Sabbath day is very problematic.

Quote

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.)

That's fine, but there's only one sabbath day - not one day for some people and another day for others.

Quote

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.

Yes, but not change to one hour. The midnight fast was an immemorial tradition. Going from midnight to 3 hours was a step to the non-fast that rules today. My parents today go get coffee and breakfast before going to an diocesan Latin mass. It just doesn't click to them that the 1 hour fast is wrong.

Quote

I understand your argument; it's a slippery slope. But we have to be careful when rejecting things purely from a "slippery slope" argument.

I don't know if it's a "slippery slope" so much as it is an observation of the suspect origin of the changes.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:43:15 AM »

Quote

Going from midnight to 3 hours was a step to the non-fast that rules today.

Was it a planned step or was it just accidental? It surely had some bad effects, yet that is true of almost all changes like this. There was a reason for it, along with the evening Mass on Sundays.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:52:05 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

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

There's nothing wrong with going to mass on Saturday, the problem is that it is not the Sabbath - so claiming attendance on that day is equivalent to attending on the Sabbath day is very problematic.

Quote
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.)

That's fine, but there's only one sabbath day - not one day for some people and another day for others.

Quote
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.

Yes, but not change to one hour. The midnight fast was an immemorial tradition. Going from midnight to 3 hours was a step to the non-fast that rules today. My parents today go get coffee and breakfast before going to an diocesan Latin mass. It just doesn't click to them that the 1 hour fast is wrong.

Quote
I understand your argument; it's a slippery slope. But we have to be careful when rejecting things purely from a "slippery slope" argument.

I don't know if it's a "slippery slope" so much as it is an observation of the suspect origin of the changes.

I have similar feelings toward and I know of no SV congregation that observes the 3-hour mitigation. SSPX, or any group using the John XXIII missal would no doubt use the same fast. This was done to appease modern weakness, and was introduced during the experimental period between 1950 - 1956.

Cristian · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:53:24 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

and allowing attendance on Saturday for miners to make up their Sunday obligation?

Any proof?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:24:56 PM »

I do not know if it has been mentioned, but there are a few non-sede trad priests who also shun the liturgical changes of 1955 and after. Fr. Perez, who thinks all sedes are mentally disturbed (i.e., that it is a psychological problem), comes to mind.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:27:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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

Although it may be hard to see and harder to swallow, the SSPX has done this since its inception.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:36:44 PM »

The SSPX has chosen what is best, keeping one eye on the authority of the Church to change certain things, while keeping another eye on preserving the Faith.

The SSPX neither went along with all changes (like your local Diocesan parish) nor sat back and chose everything based on personal preferences.

If it was "up to us" which Missal to use, WHY THE HECK would ANYONE choose a missal soiled with the fingerprints of Annibale Bugnini?

The 1954 Missal would seem to be much "safer from the fray". But is that up to us? Or is it better to pick the latest missal which isn't clearly contaminated with any changes, even the smaller changes leading to the Novus Ordo? (Epistle/Gospel in vernacular, etc.)

Do you think the SSPX is a fan of Bugnini? Modernism? Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?

The very actions of the SSPX answer a resounding "no".

Some may disagree with Abp. Lefebvre's choice, but you have to admit he had a rational reason for doing so.

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:42:01 PM »

We need to remember that sometimes the Church is prudent to change things. Change is necessary! We shouldn't be a bunch of dinosaurs, or Amish who reject all change out of principle.

See, I bet I sound like a Modernist above, right? But it's TRUE. Just because we're trad Catholics in 2011 doesn't mean that Catholic Truth changes.

The Liturgy DOES and SHOULD change over time; that is a fact, and God's holy will. Not in the drastic manner envisioned by the enemies of the Church, but change nevertheless.

The calendar, liturgy, Mass, etc. are NOT fixed in stone for all time. They are to adapt to the times. In the TRUE sense.

The Church is not a museum piece, though we traditional Catholics have been forced to treat it like one for about 50 years now.

For example, what should Christ's Church do if food were denatured on a wide scale, so that almost no one could get TRULY nutritious food? It makes sense that fasts should be curtailed.

Fasting 3 hours is harder today than fasting 12 hours was 300 years ago.

300 years ago people got to sleep in fresh air, away from ANY electric or electromagnetic radiation. No high voltage power lines, no cell towers, no wi-fi.

The soil was fertilized with manure. ALL crops were organic! No pesticides, no genetically modified organisms. No corn that creates its own pesticide and alters your gut bacteria to produce pesticide in your intestines. And let's not forget that our 90% of our immune system originates in our intestines.

In short, it was easier to be healthy back then.

Let's not act as if the world doesn't change -- it does. Christ doesn't change. The world does. The Church's job is to bring the Gospel message into every age, with prudence.

Matthew

Cristian · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:46:53 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

We need to remember that sometimes the Church is prudent to change things. Change is necessary! We shouldn't be a bunch of dinosaurs, or Amish who reject all change out of principle.

See, I bet I sound like a Modernist above, right? But it's TRUE. Just because we're trad Catholics in 2011 doesn't mean that Catholic Truth changes.

The Liturgy DOES and SHOULD change over time; that is a fact, and God's holy will. Not in the drastic manner envisioned by the enemies of the Church, but change nevertheless.

The calendar, liturgy, Mass, etc. are NOT fixed in stone for all time. They are to adapt to the times. In the TRUE sense.

The Church is not a museum piece, though we traditional Catholics have been forced to treat it like one for about 50 years now.

For example, what should Christ's Church do if food were denatured on a wide scale, so that almost no one could get TRULY nutritious food? It makes sense that fasts should be curtailed.

Fasting 3 hours is harder today than fasting 12 hours was 300 years ago.

300 years ago people got to sleep in fresh air, away from ANY electric or electromagnetic radiation. No high voltage power lines, no cell towers, no wi-fi.

The soil was fertilized with manure. ALL crops were organic! No pesticides, no genetically modified organisms. No corn that creates its own pesticide and alters your gut bacteria to produce pesticide in your intestines. And let's not forget that our 90% of our immune system originates in our intestines.

In short, it was easier to be healthy back then.

Let's not act as if the world doesn't change -- it does. Christ doesn't change. The world does. The Church's job is to bring the Gospel message into every age, with prudence.

Matthew

Agreed.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:50:39 PM »

Matthew:

I disagree that fasting from midnight is a particular hardship.

It's not as though one is required to go to Communion if one breaks the fast.

Pew clearing is a very serious problem, I suppose that's another issue.

Cristian:

Quote

However, this is not the real issue at stake. The real question is whether this relaxation of the law is in conformity with Tradition, whether it helps protect the Faith, and whether it assures the keeping of the Third Commandment of God, as it was designed to do. Alas, the response must be negative on each count. Whereas those who were legitimately impeded from assisting at Mass (e.g., by work obligations) were freed from their obligation, there is no tradition in the pre-Vatican II Church of substituting Mass for the offices that are designed to prepare for the feast (with the sole exception being in the 1950’s when Pius XII authorized miners who had to work every Sunday to assist at Mass on Saturday evening). It certainly does not protect the Faith or help in the sanctification of Sunday, as experience has shown. What do those Catholics do to sanctify the Sunday, to study and pray their Faith, when they will not even go to Mass on Sunday, but prefer Saturday afternoon so that their Sunday can be free for secular activities? Clearly, little or nothing. Gone are the Sunday catechism classes made obligatory by St. Pius X, the study of scripture, the reading of spiritual books, meditation and prayer, and even the respect for Sunday as a special day, consecrated to the honor of Almighty God. To introduce such a measure into the Church’s law is a major step in the secularization of the Church, and in making Catholics’ lives entirely indiscernible from those of anybody else in this pagan world.

http://www.sspx.org/catholic_faqs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm