Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
and allowing attendance on Saturday for miners to make up their Sunday obligation?
Any proof?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
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
-
JohnGrey said:
... 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.
The CMRI which is the biggest SV congregation in the world, most likely, definitely observes this reduced fast. I personally don't, but I don't say others are wrong to do so.
If Pius XII was a true Pope, as pretty much everyone believes he is, then this is a discipline that can't be questioned.
The same goes for the Holy Week changes under Bugnini in 1955. If Pius XII was the Pope, then God was still protecting what sits in Rome, and all disciplines, all changes in the liturgy were protected by the Holy Ghost. Remember what the Council of Trent says about saying the true Church can promote a liturgy that is an "incentive to impiety..."
God can use Bugnini just as he can use an immoral Pope for his own ends.
I must confess, the SSPX is more logical in this one case, at least. There is no real way to prove that John XXIII wasn't a Pope. If you say "He was a Mason," show me the proof. If you say "He convened the Council," so what? It hadn't yet been put into place, you can't assume he knew what direction it would take. Besides that, Pius XII spoke of a future Council that would be convened by his successor. If you're going to judge internal intentions based on external impressions, then you'd better eliminate Pius XII too, who said some extremely questionable things. I tried to do that once, it didn't take, so my new theory is that Pius XII was a true Pope but a weak one.
The exact line of demarcation that divides the true Church from the non-Church is not easy to spot. But where all sedes agree, if not the SSPX, is that from Paul VI on we have had nothing but non-Popes, so that everything after the VII Council was signed is null.
-
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
This is precisely the mindset behind modernism and behind the machinations of Bugnini and the Liturgical Reform Movement. That change is something necessary and to be desired, that the discipline of the Church needs to change to deal with modern men. Such blasphemous disregard for the expression of faith! To say that the Church must and should change her ways to make herself relevant and appealing to this age or that, like a woman painting her face to attract a man. It is the duty of man, not the Church, to reform their ways, to divorce themselves from time and the world, and approach the Church and its perpetual sacrifice as though present at the very foot of the cross two millennia ago.
-
Some may disagree with Abp. Lefebvre's choice, but you have to admit he had a rational reason for doing so.
I do not think anyone here would argue that he was irrational, but neither are those who choose to utilize the pre-Bugnini rites.
He disagreed with some; some disagreed with him. You disagree with some; some disagree with you. That is the way it goes in times like these. The problem arises when one side attributes bad motives to the other, or pretends that the other side holds what they hold as a result of mere stupidity, or some other lesser motive.
-
Raoul,
FWIW, the CMRI, IF they consider J23 a valid Pontiff (or do not know for sure), would be more consistent to use the 1962 Missal, instead of doing the contrary (which point you made, albeit indirectly). However, this is just my uninformed opinion, as I do not KNOW exactly what they think about each issue, point, etc.
-
The less the Church expects from the faithful, the less it will get.
According to R. Engel, it was the intent of Pius XII to update every thing in the liturgy. If this isn't Modernism, what is?
-
Cristian:
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.
Please note here the author, Fr. Scott, is talking about the possibility to fulfill Sunday obligation on Saturday as ruled by the new Canon Law.
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).
I`d still wish to read the original docuмent, so if you can get it I`d appreciate it.
Thanks!
-
Change is necessary! We shouldn't be a bunch of dinosaurs, or Amish who reject all change out of principle.
Agreed, but it is unfair/uninformed to think those who reject the Bugnini-esque changes do so just because they are changes. From what I have seen, this is not the case.
-
Ok, let me clarify my original post --
I'm not attacking any individuals -- take what I said as a hypothesis.
I honestly got to thinking that this is good matter for a discussion (I seem to have been proven right!)
Where does proper organic liturgical change end, and modernist "everything MUST be updated, early and often" begin?
and
Are Traditional Catholics too intransigent when it comes to change? Have they gone too far in some cases, even though it's humanly understandable?
Innocenza makes a good point -- going too far would lead to Modernism.
Does it depend on the principle that brought about the change?
Matthew
-
The less the Church expects from the faithful, the less it will get.
According to R. Engel, it was the intent of Pius XII to update every thing in the liturgy. If this isn't Modernism, what is?
Who is R. Engel? No offense, but he sounds like a big nobody. Was he a Pope? He seems to be judging a Pope. You talk about R. Engel, but I have a quote from Matthew M (of CathInfo) that says Pius XII only had good intentions. Who are we to believe?
How do any of us know what the intentions of Pius XII were?
Shouldn't we judge such actions (if at all!) on their own objective merit, or licitness, rather than hypothetical motives that some choose to assign to them?
If a Freemason told me to attend daily Mass, thinking it would connect me better with my fellow man, should that be condemned as well? I might criticize that motive, yes, IF IT WAS EXPLICIT.
But what if we didn't know his internal motives? We'd probably just let him be.
Matthew
-
JohnGrey said:
... 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.
The CMRI which is the biggest SV congregation in the world, most likely, definitely observes this reduced fast. I personally don't, but I don't say others are wrong to do so.
If Pius XII was a true Pope, as pretty much everyone believes he is, then this is a discipline that can't be questioned.
The same goes for the Holy Week changes under Bugnini in 1955. If Pius XII was the Pope, then God was still protecting what sits in Rome, and all disciplines, all changes in the liturgy were protected by the Holy Ghost. Remember what the Council of Trent says about saying the true Church can promote a liturgy that is an "incentive to impiety..."
God can use Bugnini just as he can use an immoral Pope for his own ends.
I must confess, the SSPX is more logical in this one case, at least. There is no real way to prove that John XXIII wasn't a Pope. If you say "He was a Mason," show me the proof. If you say "He convened the Council," so what? It hadn't yet been put into place, you can't assume he knew what direction it would take. Besides that, Pius XII spoke of a future Council that would be convened by his successor. If you're going to judge internal intentions based on external impressions, then you'd better eliminate Pius XII too, who said some extremely questionable things. I tried to do that once, it didn't take, so my new theory is that Pius XII was a true Pope but a weak one.
The exact line of demarcation that divides the true Church from the non-Church is not easy to spot. But where all sedes agree, if not the SSPX, is that from Paul VI on we have had nothing but non-Popes, so that everything after the VII Council was signed is null.
The use of the three-hour fast is, so far as I and my own understanding are concerned, licit; that said, it should be with the understanding much is profited in observing the greater fast, which was neither abrogated nor proscribed in Christus Dominus. The precepts of canon law concerning the changes to the rubrics of Holy Week are outlined above; under them, it is perfectly licit to abandon them, and indeed should be imperative because of the harm done to the notion of liturgical stability.
-
Who is R. Engel? No offense, but he sounds like a big nobody.
FWIW, R. Engel is Randy Engel, the author of Rite of Sodomy. She is a woman :)
-
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
Well said!
-
Thanks for the clarification, Gladius.
I must say, my position holds: For purposes of Church authority, she is a big nobody. In terms of qualifications, and compared to other laymen/women, her place is probably BELOW many of those participating in this thread.
In other words, her opinions are neither here nor there.
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
This is precisely the mindset behind modernism and behind the machinations of Bugnini and the Liturgical Reform Movement. That change is something necessary and to be desired, that the discipline of the Church needs to change to deal with modern men. Such blasphemous disregard for the expression of faith! To say that the Church must and should change her ways to make herself relevant and appealing to this age or that, like a woman painting her face to attract a man. It is the duty of man, not the Church, to reform their ways, to divorce themselves from time and the world, and approach the Church and its perpetual sacrifice as though present at the very foot of the cross two millennia ago.
No, liturgical change is necessary quoad nos, because the world is changing, but not in se (in itself). The world needs to get back to a more natural and God-centered orientation.
The Modernists would say that all is evolving, usually to a higher level.
And the change that I am claiming is "necessary" is very minor, over a long period of time. Organic change, not revolution. The Modernists would approve of what happened to the Mass in 1969.
Matthew
-
Pope Pius XII said:
"Of the many docuмents published on this subject in recent times, it will suffice for Us to mention three: The Encyclical “Mediator Dei,” “De sacra liturgia,” of November 20, 1947 (2); the new decree on Holy Week, dated November 16, 1955,(3) which has helped the faithful to achieve a better understanding and fuller participation in the love, sufferings and triumph of our Savior; and finally, the Encyclical “De musica sacra” of December 25, 1955. (4) "
"Thus the liturgical movement has appeared as a sign of God’s providential dispositions for the present day, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church, intended to bring men closer to those mysteries of the faith and treasures of grace which derive from the active participation of the faithful in liturgical life."
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=425&start=0
-
As for the bolded portion of text, do you believe that is still an accurate assumption/deduction? I do not.
-
As for the bolded portion of text, do you believe that is still an accurate assumption/deduction? I do not.
It is the words of the Pope. I leave it at that. He is the shepherd, we are the sheep.
-
JohnGrey said:
... 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.
The CMRI which is the biggest SV congregation in the world, most likely, definitely observes this reduced fast. I personally don't, but I don't say others are wrong to do so.
If Pius XII was a true Pope, as pretty much everyone believes he is, then this is a discipline that can't be questioned.
The same goes for the Holy Week changes under Bugnini in 1955. If Pius XII was the Pope, then God was still protecting what sits in Rome, and all disciplines, all changes in the liturgy were protected by the Holy Ghost. Remember what the Council of Trent says about saying the true Church can promote a liturgy that is an "incentive to impiety..."
God can use Bugnini just as he can use an immoral Pope for his own ends.
I must confess, the SSPX is more logical in this one case, at least. There is no real way to prove that John XXIII wasn't a Pope. If you say "He was a Mason," show me the proof. If you say "He convened the Council," so what? It hadn't yet been put into place, you can't assume he knew what direction it would take. Besides that, Pius XII spoke of a future Council that would be convened by his successor. If you're going to judge internal intentions based on external impressions, then you'd better eliminate Pius XII too, who said some extremely questionable things. I tried to do that once, it didn't take, so my new theory is that Pius XII was a true Pope but a weak one.
The exact line of demarcation that divides the true Church from the non-Church is not easy to spot. But where all sedes agree, if not the SSPX, is that from Paul VI on we have had nothing but non-Popes, so that everything after the VII Council was signed is null.
Changing the length of the fast doesn't change the Faith. Nevertheless, it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.
The Encyclical Pacem in Terris supported religious liberty.
-
It is the words of the Pope. I leave it at that. He is the shepherd, we are the sheep.
Yet, this does not apply to MANY words of V2-era popes? How do you explain that one? You do accept them as legitimate pontiffs, yes?
-
it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.
Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church. Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life. He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.
-
Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.
They certainly indicate it. What started as small changes snowballed into catastrophic changes, and Bugnini was always there. I reject Bugnini's legacy.
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church. Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life. He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.
The midnight fast was an immemorial tradition of the Church.
That it was changed just prior to Vatican II is no coincidence.
-
it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.
Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church. Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life. He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.
This argument does not track. A distinction must be understood between a valid, licit discipline which over time loses its utility or positive effect, and one that, by its ingrained theology, overthrows the infallible doctrine and espouses heresy by its very promulgation. The profane supper of Montini is such a "discipline."
That said, if there is probable evidence that the following of ecclesiastical law will cause harm to the faith, the precepts of canon law not only allow but necessitate its abandonment. That is the very founding principle of epikea.
-
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church.
Surely you grasp that the changes under Pius XII were, in the main, authored by Bugnini, a Mason and an avowed enemy of Holy Church?
Disagree, if you will, but do not pretend the men responsible for the changes were faithful sons of the Church. Yes, they did their work under Pius XII, but they were snakes all the same.
-
It is the words of the Pope. I leave it at that. He is the shepherd, we are the sheep.
Yet, this does not apply to MANY words of V2-era popes? How do you explain that one? You do accept them as legitimate pontiffs, yes?
When I speak of Pius XII, I am referring to a Pope. The Vatican II claimants, are just that, claimants. I reject their claim based on their promulgation of evil laws and erroneous official teaching, things that Popes cannot do.
My attitude towards a Pope can be summed up in the quote from St. Pius X below. I have that love for our deceased Holy Father, Pius XII. This teaching of Pope St. Pius X cannot be faithfully applied to the post Vatican II claimants, yet one more proof among many that they are anti-popes.
"How must one love the Pope? Not only with words but with actions, as well, and with sincerity . . . When one loves the Pope, one must not discuss on what He advises or demands, as to find out which are the duties of obedience, and to limit there one's obligations. When one loves the Pope, one does not object that He has not spoken clearly enough, as if He was to tell each and everyone His will clearly expressed many times, not only in speech, but in His letters and public docuмents; one may not doubt His orders under the pretext that they do no emanate from Him directly, but from His entourage; one may not limit where He may and must exercise His will; one may not oppose the authority of the Pope against that of others, no matter how well educated, who differ from the Pope's mind. Besides, whatever their knowledge, sanctity is lacking in them, for there could not be sanctity where this is disagreement with the Pope." (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
Latin original from the Acta:
"Perciò quando si ama il Papa, non si fanno discussioni intorno a quello che Egli dispone od esige, o fin dove debba giungere l'obbedienza, ed in quali cose si debba obbedire; quando si ama il Papa, non si dice che non ha parlato abbastanza chiaro, quasi che Egli fosse obbligato di ripetere all'orecchio d'ognuno quella volontà chiaramente espressa tante volte non solo a voce, ma con lettere ed altri pubblici docuмenti; non si mettono in dubbio i suoi ordini, adducendo il facile pretesto di chi non vuole ubbidire, che non è il Papa che comanda, ma quelli che lo circondano; non si limita il campo in cui Egli possa e debba esercitare la sua autorità; non si antepone alla autorità del Papa quella di altre persone per quanto dotte che dissentano dal Papa, le quali se sono, dotte non sono sante, perchè chi è santo non può dissentire dal Papa." (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
-
That's not the Latin original, but rather the Italian.
-
Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.
They certainly indicate it. What started as small changes snowballed into catastrophic changes, and Bugnini was always there. I reject Bugnini's legacy.
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church. Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life. He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.
The midnight fast was an immemorial tradition of the Church.
That it was changed just prior to Vatican II is no coincidence.
You have made conclusions about Pius XII's law, but I disagree. You find a connection between a law given to the universal Church and accepted by the Church, with evil laws given by anti-popes. I do not see this connection.
The Catholic Church in the 1950's was functioning. The Church fed the sheep. The Church taught, governed and sanctified the faithful. It was for this reason that Catholics faithfully and piously accepted all of the liturgical reforms of the 20th century popes, St. Pius X through Pope Pius XII.
-
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church.
Surely you grasp that the changes under Pius XII were, in the main, authored by Bugnini, a Mason and an avowed enemy of Holy Church?
Disagree, if you will, but do not pretend the men responsible for the changes were faithful sons of the Church. Yes, they did their work under Pius XII, but they were snakes all the same.
Once Pope Pius XII agreed with and promulgated the liturgical laws, it became the law of the Church, and the Pope supported this law, as shown in the words I posted from him. I trust the pope, I do not trust Bugnini or other enemies of the Church.
-
None of the above referenced changes or adaptions resulted from false principles nor did it end in the perversion of the liturgy itself. One may conjecture about hidden motives, but such an endeavor is essentially fruitless if the external, verifiable object is without essential defect. To treat the matter as if it were a "contagious disease" because the name Bugnini is attached is to replace the objective with the subjective. Bugnini didn't create a liturgy, Roman authority augmented extrinsic discipline.
-
This is precisely the mindset behind modernism and behind the machinations of Bugnini and the Liturgical Reform Movement. That change is something necessary and to be desired, that the discipline of the Church needs to change to deal with modern men.
Was this the minset of Pope St. Pius X when he allowed for more frequent Holy Communion?
-
None of the above referenced changes or adaptions resulted from false principles nor did it end in the perversion of the liturgy itself. One may conjecture about hidden motives, but such an endeavor is essentially fruitless if the external, verifiable object is without essential defect. To treat the matter as if it were a "contagious disease" because the name Bugnini is attached is to replace the objective with the subjective. Bugnini didn't create a liturgy, Roman authority augmented extrinsic discipline.
Well said.
-
This is precisely the mindset behind modernism and behind the machinations of Bugnini and the Liturgical Reform Movement. That change is something necessary and to be desired, that the discipline of the Church needs to change to deal with modern men.
Was this the minset of Pope St. Pius X when he allowed for more frequent Holy Communion?
What are you talking about? Frequency of receiving Holy Communion has nothing to do with the content of the liturgy. Furthermore, so long as the communicant were receiving it worthily, there is no way that the they could not profit from more frequent reception.
This, however, is a specious argument that has nothing to do with why the modernists do, or did anything. They sought to amputate the majesty of the liturgy under the auspices of making it simpler and more accessible to modern man. Desirable is not the same thing as licit or utilitarian.
-
JohnGrey,
I think you're getting off-topic.
I think we can all agree that the Modernists' archaeologism is a bad thing.
We all dislike the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and the whole orientation of the Church vis-a-vis the world post-Vatican II.
Matthew
-
This is precisely the mindset behind modernism and behind the machinations of Bugnini and the Liturgical Reform Movement. That change is something necessary and to be desired, that the discipline of the Church needs to change to deal with modern men.
Was this the minset of Pope St. Pius X when he allowed for more frequent Holy Communion?
What are you talking about? Frequency of receiving Holy Communion has nothing to do with the content of the liturgy.
Of course, I didn't say that, as you are well aware.
Furthermore, so long as the communicant were receiving it worthily, there is no way that the they could not profit from more frequent reception.
No, but abuses and sacrilegious communions were bound to increase.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."
This, however, is a specious argument that has nothing to do with why the modernists do, or did anything. They sought to amputate the majesty of the liturgy under the auspices of making it simpler and more accessible to modern man. Desirable is not the same thing as licit or utilitarian.
This is your opinion. There are other reasons for the change in the law, and it was approved by the Pope.
-
Re Randy Engel:
She is most definitely not a nobody, and possibly more educated and literate as a traditional Catholic than the majority of the people posting on cathinfo.
She had been extremely prominent in the pro-life movement. As far as her Rite of Sodomy is concerned, it was spoken very well of by T. Droleskey (although he told me as a woman I shouldn't be reading it). Anyone who does read it can see that it is an exhaustively researched 1100+ page work, with its 4500+ footnotes and 100+ pages of bibliography & index, by an intelligent and well educated author.
To disparage a writer with whose work you have no acquaintance, suggests to me that you are unwilling to endanger the state of comfortable complacency in which you presently subsist, by letting in information, however well docuмented, that would tend to challenge it.
-
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?
Hello Matthew: I think this is a valid objection, when it regards the sedevacantists who believe Pope Pius XII to have been the most recent Supreme Pontiff to have reigned over Holy Mother Church. This trend of "picking and choosing" has disturbed me for quite sometime, and I fear it may lead to abuses in the future.
The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen has the most sound and consistent position regarding this question, for it observes the Restored Order of Holy Week promulgated by the late Pope through the Congregation of Sacred Rites in the General Decree Liturgicus Hebdomadae Sanctae Ordo instauratur (16 November 1955), as well as the simplification of the Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal according to the General Decree De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis (23 March 1955). Furthermore, the same Priests and Religious avail themselves of the New Latin Translation of the Psalms and Canticles of the Roman Breviary promulgated by the late Holy Father in his Motu Proprio In cotidianis precibus (24 March 1945) in the recitation of the Canonical Hours and in the administration of the Sacraments. This version of the Psalter was promulgated to be used ad libitum. Rev. Father Vaillancourt is the only other sedevacantist cleric that follows this praxis too.
The safest and most decorous course of thought and action for an individual Catholic to take in these vexing times is that of prayerful humility and obedience to the doctrinal teachings and disciplinary decrees of Holy Mother Church. For a sedevacantist who believes the late Pius XII was the most recent Roman Pontiff, this should include everything that was promulgated by the Roman Congregations that availed himself of his supreme authority. To do otherwise may compromise (at least in the practical order) the dogma of the infallibility and primacy of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the Vatican Council in Pastor aeternus.
This is at least my way of looking at the matter.
Post script: I do not believe that the CMRI regards John XXIII as having been a valid Roman Pontiff, because Rev. Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki show why he could not be regarded as such in their book Tumultuous Times.
-
it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.
Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church. Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life. He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.
I totally agree my friend!
-
Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.
They certainly indicate it. What started as small changes snowballed into catastrophic changes, and Bugnini was always there. I reject Bugnini's legacy.
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church. Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life. He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.
The midnight fast was an immemorial tradition of the Church.
That it was changed just prior to Vatican II is no coincidence.
You have made conclusions about Pius XII's law, but I disagree. You find a connection between a law given to the universal Church and accepted by the Church, with evil laws given by anti-popes. I do not see this connection.
The Catholic Church in the 1950's was functioning. The Church fed the sheep. The Church taught, governed and sanctified the faithful. It was for this reason that Catholics faithfully and piously accepted all of the liturgical reforms of the 20th century popes, St. Pius X through Pope Pius XII.
These have been always my thoughts on the matter! :cheers:
-
it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.
Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church. Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life. He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.
I totally agree my friend!
Agreed, as well. While we can certainly be sympathetic to and even understand the arguments of those who reject the changes under Pius XII, the rejection of these changes is hardly the safest position.
-
Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church.
Surely you grasp that the changes under Pius XII were, in the main, authored by Bugnini, a Mason and an avowed enemy of Holy Church?
Disagree, if you will, but do not pretend the men responsible for the changes were faithful sons of the Church. Yes, they did their work under Pius XII, but they were snakes all the same.
Once Pope Pius XII agreed with and promulgated the liturgical laws, it became the law of the Church, and the Pope supported this law, as shown in the words I posted from him. I trust the pope, I do not trust Bugnini or other enemies of the Church.
Besides Eamon, we have to care the mind and intention of the lawmaker, that is Pius XII, not someone else, be it Bugnini or Ottaviani.
-
The use of the three-hour fast is, so far as I and my own understanding are concerned, licit; that said, it should be with the understanding much is profited in observing the greater fast, which was neither abrogated nor proscribed in Christus Dominus. The precepts of canon law concerning the changes to the rubrics of Holy Week are outlined above; under them, it is perfectly licit to abandon them, and indeed should be imperative because of the harm done to the notion of liturgical stability.
Pius XII in "Sacram Communionem", which modified Christus Dominus" said this:
Mindful of the notable changes which have occurred in private and public working conditions as well as in all branches of social life, We deemed it advisable to comply with the insistent requests of the bishops and have therefore decreed:
(1) Local Ordinaries, with the exception of vicars general who do not enjoy a special mandate, may permit the daily celebration of Holy Mass in the hours after midday whenever the spiritual good of a notable number of the faithful demands it.
(2) The period of time for the observance of the Eucharistic fast by priests who wish to celebrate Mass and by the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion, whether in the forenoon or in the afternoon, is limited to three hours for solid food and alcoholic beverages. The Eucharistic fast is not broken through the consumption of water.
(3) The Eucharistic fast as specified in the above regulation (n. 2) must be observed even by those who celebrate Mass or receive Holy Communion at midnight or in the early hours of the day.
(4) The sick, though not confined to bed, may take, apart from all temporal restrictions or limitations, non-alcoholic beverages, and true and proper medicines in liquid or solid form, before the celebration of Mass and the reception of Holy Communion.
We earnestly exhort the priests and faithful who are able to do to observe the venerable and time-honored form of the Eucharistic fast before the celebration of Mass and the reception of Holy Communion.
Let all, then, who make use of these faculties compensate for the conferred benefit as best they can by becoming shining examples of a Christian life, especially through their works of penance and charity.
The prescriptions as given in this Motu Proprio begin to bind on March 25, 1957, the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Every dispensation whatsoever to the contrary though it appears deserving of special mention, is hereby abrogated.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=652&view=previous
-
Ok, let´s quote Pius XII and let Him to talk pls.
We are most effectively consoled—and it is right to speak of this here, even though briefly—when We see that devotion to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar is increasing day by day, not only in the souls of the faithful, but also in what has to do with the splendor of the divine worship, which has often been made evident in public popular demonstrations. The careful directions of Sovereign Pontiffs have doubtless contributed a great deal to this effect, and especially that of the Blessed Pius X who, summoning all to renew the primitive custom of the Church, urged them to receive the Bread of Angels very frequently, even daily if possible. Inviting the little ones to this heavenly food, he wisely decreed that the precept of holy Confession and Holy Communion has reference to every one of those who have reached the use of reason. This same rule is prescribed in the Code of Canon Law. The faithful responding generously and willingly to these directions of the Sovereign Pontiffs, have approached ever more frequently to the sacred Table. May this hunger for the heavenly Bread and the thirst for the Sacred Blood burn in all men of every age and of every walk of life!
It should nevertheless be noted that the times in which we live and their peculiar conditions have brought many modifications in the habits of society and in the activities of common life. Out of these there may arise serious difficulties which could keep men from partaking of the divine mysteries if the law of the Eucharistic fast is to be observed in the way in which it had to be observed up to the present time.
In the first place, it is evident to all that today the clergy are not sufficiently numerous to cope with the increasingly serious needs of the faithful. Especially on feast days they are subject to overwork, when they have to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice at a late hour and frequently twice or three times the same day, and when at times they are forced to travel a great distance so as not to leave considerable portions of their flocks without Holy Mass. Such tiring apostolic work undoubtedly weakens the health of priests. This is all the more true because, over and above the offering of the Holy Mass and the explanation of the Gospel, they must likewise hear confession, give catechetical instruction, devote ever-increasing care and take ever more pains in completing the duties of the other parts of their ministry. They must also diligently look after those matters that are demanded by the warfare against God and His Church, a warfare that has grown so widespread and bitter at the present time.
Now our mind and heart go out to those especially who, working far from their own native country in far distant lands, have generously answered the invitation and the command of the Lord: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations." We are speaking of the heralds of the Gospel who, overcoming the most difficult and multitudinous labors and all manner of difficulty in traveling, strive with all their might to have the light of the Christian religion illumine all, and to nourish their flocks, who but very recently received the Catholic faith, with the Bread of Angels which nourishes virtue and fosters piety.
Almost in the same situation are those Catholics who, living in many localities cared for by Catholic missionaries, or who, living in other places and not having among them their own priests, must wait until a late hour for the coming of another priest that they may partake of the Eucharist and nourish themselves with the divine Food.
Furthermore, since the introduction of machines for every sort of use, it very often happens that many workers—in factories, or in the land and water transportation fields, or in other public utility services—are employed not only during the day, but even during the night, in alternate shifts. As a result, their weakened condition compels them at times to take some nourishment. But, in this way, they are prevented from approaching the Eucharist fasting.
Mothers also are often unable to approach the Eucharist before they take care of their household duties, duties that demand of them many hours of work.
In the same way, it happens that there are many boys and girls in school who desire to respond to the divine invitation: 'Let the little children come to me." They are entirely confident that "He who dwells among the lilies" will protect their innocence of soul and purity of life against the enticements to which youth is subjected, the snares of the world. But at times it is most difficult for them, before going to school, to go to church and be nourished with the Bread of Angels and then return home to partake of the food they need.
Furthermore, it should be noted that it often happens, at the present time, that great crowds of people travel from one place to another in the afternoon hours to take part in religious celebrations or to hold meetings on social questions. Now, if on these occasions it were allowed to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the living Fruit of divine grace and which commands our will to burn with the desire of acquiring virtue, there is no doubt that strength could be drawn from this by which all would be stirred profoundly to think and act in a Christian manner and to obey legitimate laws.
To these special considerations it seems opportune to add some which have reference to all. Although in our days medical science and that study which is called hygiene have made great progress and have helped greatly to cut down the number of deaths, especially among the young, nevertheless conditions of life at the present time and the hardships which flow from the cruel wars of this century are of such nature that they have greatly weakened bodily constitution and health.
For these reasons, and especially so that renewed piety towards the Eucharist may be all the more readily increased, many Bishops from various countries have asked, in official letters, that this law of fast be somewhat mitigated. Actually, the Apostolic See has kindly granted special faculties and permissions, in this regard, to both priests and faithful. As regards these concessions, We can cite the Decree, entitled, <Post Editum,> given for the sick by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 7, 1906; and the Letter of the 22nd of May, 1923, from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to the local Ordinaries in favor of priests.
In these latter days, the petitions of the Bishops have become more frequent and urgent, and the faculties granted were more ample, especially those that were bestowed in view of the war. This, without doubt, clearly indicates that there are new and grave reasons, reasons that are not occasional but rather general, because of which it is very difficult, in these diversified circuмstances, both for the priest to celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and for the faithful to receive the Bread of Angels fasting.
Wherefore, that we may meet these grave inconveniences and difficulties, that the different indults may not lead to inconsistent practice, We have deemed it necessary to lay down the discipline of the Eucharistic fast, by mitigating it in such a way that, in the greatest manner possible, all, in view of the peculiar circuмstances of time, place, and the faithful, may be able to fulfill this law more easily. We, by this decree, trust that We may be able to add not a little to the increase of Eucharistic piety, and in this way to move and stir up all to partake at the Table of the Angels. This, without doubt, will increase the glory of God and the holiness of the Mystical Body of Christ.
In other words, the only thing Pius XII did was exactly the same as St. Pius X. At the beginning of XX cent. the Pope exhorted Catholics to communicate even daily, and Pius XII modified the exigences so that Catholics could approach daily to communicate since the changes in civil society had changed so drastically that it was not possible, in many cases, to communicate daily.
Besides note that many Bishops from all around the world have asked the Pope to modify the discipline. It was not a caprice of Him.
As an aside, note that the beginning of dispansations dated from St. Pius X himself (the same may be said about the "active"participation of faithful at Mass, but that´s another story...)
Valete!
Cristian
-
Sacram Communionem[/i]]Let all, then, who make use of these faculties compensate for the conferred benefit as best they can by becoming shining examples of a Christian life, especially through their works of penance and charity.
This is what most people have forgotten.
In the multitude of his paternal loving-kindness and solicitude, the late Pope wished for the faithful who availed themselves of the mitigation of the ancient Eucharistic fast to compensate for the eased discipline by an earnest cultivation of the interior life that would enable us to render greater glory to God and edify our fellow neighbor. This is the best way to assure that every Holy Communion we make would be better than the last, insofar as works of penance and charity make the soul better disposed to receive the graces of Holy Communion by a more purified prayer life and a greater self-abnegation. It seems that the mitigation of the ancient fast as allowed in this Motu Proprio is contingent upon this requirement, though I may be wrong.
Even those who choose not to avail themselves of this mitigation ought to be "shining examples of a Christian life," because, as Rev. Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange writes, every Holy Communion ought to be better than the one preceding it.
-
Here is one (of many) traditional Catholic issues that is completely beyond my ability to answer. Furthermore, I think most Catholic laymen are not competent to answer in spite of the many fine comments that have been posted already.
In general, I have simply chosen 1960 as the line of demarcation in most cases when it comes to the Church. I chose this date strictly for ease for my own use and don't attempt to argue for this date for others. Essentially, if something is prior to 1960 my first assumption is that it is probably in accord with the Catholic Religion. If something is 1960 or after my first assumption is that it is probably in accord with the false Conciliar Church (knowing full well that the Council actually started two years later--I don't need a correction).
When it comes to the Mass, I would not object to any Catholic priest that used the 1570 Missal, or any Missal promulgated since...that is, until the 1962 Missal. While I would prefer to use a Missal prior to 1960, I would not object to a priest that uses the 1962 Missal. On the other hand, I would not attend a parish that uses the 2008 Missal (that is, a chapel that uses the new and improved Good Friday Prayer for the Jews).
My chapel only recently invited the SSPX to the chapel. Prior to the SSPX, the chapel used the 1955 Missal. The Missal on the altar looks like it is the same Missal, but I have been told that the SSPX uses the 1962 Missal, so I'm not sure which Missal is currently being used.
I know another priest who uses the pre-1955 Missal. His reason is that the Holy Week changes were the first blows to the foundation of the Mass preparing the way for the Ultimate goal of the Novus Ordo as these changes were initiated by Bugnini.
I defer to the priest to do as his conscience dictates up to and including the 1962 Missal. I truly believe that this issue is generally used to attempt to divide traditional Catholics rather than actually find an answer. For the most part, this is a non-issue as far as almost all laymen are concerned.
-
Telesphorus said:
Changing the length of the fast doesn't change the Faith. Nevertheless, it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.
The Encyclical Pacem in Terris supported religious liberty.
Is this Freaky Friday, are you becoming me and vice versa? :smile:
Believe me, I have misgivings about the three-hour fast, that's why I do the fast from midnight. But if Pius XII was a true Pope, then this can't be a harmful discipline.
You say it might have been a bad decision. Maybe. At first I was thinking that all disciplinary decisions are in themselves good, because if they come from a true Pope, they come from God. But it might be better to say they are ALLOWED by God, and that some are better than others. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. My reasoning is that Cardinal Merry del Val disagreed with Pope St. Pius X lowering the age of first communion. He even said "You're wrong on this one." Well, Cardinal Merry del Val and Pius X were a team, so clearly questioning a discipline in itself isn't against the faith.
I don't think I've read Pacem in Terris. I'll try to do that tonight. Just from the title, I can see it will be more of the same, Pius XII rhapsodizing about ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic "peace." A Pope is not infallible when it comes to political decisions, though, so if he supported ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracy, bad as that is, it's not heresy ( the Americanist heresy is when you say that our system is the BEST political system, not just when you tolerate it or even actively support it ).
The heresy from Dignitatis Humanae is not "religious liberty" per se, since that term has many possible interpretations. It was, as has been said many times here, saying that men have a "right" to reject Christ and practice a false religion. This is different than merely approving a political system that calls for religious liberty.
-
P.S. I don't know if Americanism is a heresy or a grave error. Probably a grave error.
-
JohnGrey said:
The use of the three-hour fast is, so far as I and my own understanding are concerned, licit; that said, it should be with the understanding much is profited in observing the greater fast, which was neither abrogated nor proscribed in Christus Dominus. The precepts of canon law concerning the changes to the rubrics of Holy Week are outlined above; under them, it is perfectly licit to abandon them, and indeed should be imperative because of the harm done to the notion of liturgical stability.
Is this what you mean by the precepts of canon law?
JohnGrey said:
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.
Yet we have had no pontiff since Pius XII or John XXIII, depending on how you look at it. So who is the Pontiff that abrogated the Bugnini/ Pius XII Holy Week rubrics? I'm getting a little scared here...
Yes or no -- do you follow someone who calls himself a Pope?
-
FYI, J23 wrote Pacem in Terris.
-
You say it might have been a bad decision. Maybe. At first I was thinking that all disciplinary decisions are in themselves good, because if they come from a true Pope, they come from God. But it might be better to say they are ALLOWED by God, and that some are better than others. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. My reasoning is that Cardinal Merry del Val disagreed with Pope St. Pius X lowering the age of first communion. He even said "You're wrong on this one." Well, Cardinal Merry del Val and Pius X were a team, so clearly questioning a discipline in itself isn't against the faith.
Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:
1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circuмstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.
-
It's quite clear - quite clear - that the one hour fast is bad.
Now if the one hour fast is bad, I don't think one can easily argue the 3 hour fast is good or an improvement over the old discipline. Particularly given the timing. At best one could argue it is good for people in hard circuмstances.
Father Alphonse Marie, when visiting our parish, recommended the fast from midnight but said for masses late in the day the three hour fast would be fine.
-
Thanks, SJB. Are you contradicting me or agreeing with me? I think what you posted fits with what I was suggesting.
You can go so far as to insult a discipline and be given the minorly negative theological note of "rash" --
Although it would be rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs.
Therefore, to merely question a discipline would not even be rash.
What would be more than rash, and bordering on blasphemous, would be to say a disciplinary law was harmful to faith and morals.
But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
That doesn't mean you can't say another disciplinary law was BETTER for faith and morals, does it?
Anyway, like with NFP, I have made my peace with the three-hour fast, I just assume there's some reason for it that I can't understand and that God knows about. I have some theories, like that He knew that Vatican II would lead to excessive rigorism in the opposite direction, and so He allowed a moderate path. Another theory is that he knew we'd have to drive longer to get to Mass, us sedes and other trads, and so He gave us a break, knowing we couldn't just go around the corner to go to Mass very often.
Like CMRI in Fontana has Mass at two thirty, if you were observing the after-midnight fast, you'd have to go for over fifteen hours without food or water. It can be done, and I think it's salutary, but God doesn't always push people that hard.
-
That is to say, I agree with Tele I think.
-
Yet we have had no pontiff since Pius XII or John XXIII, depending on how you look at it. So who is the Pontiff that abrogated the Bugnini/ Pius XII Holy Week rubrics? I'm getting a little scared here...
Yes or no -- do you follow someone who calls himself a Pope?
No, no, you're missing the point entirely. The stability of an ecclesiastical law, in this case a law governing a part of liturgical discipline, deals with its intended duration. Usually, when there is a reform of liturgy or other discipline by the Roman Pontiff, it should be considered probable that that Pontiff intends that change to be lasting, in use for the foreseeable future. Not so with the changes to the Holy Week and also the rubrics of the Mass prepared by the CLR. It was stated by Bugnini himself that the changes were not intended to be maintained in their present state, but would abrogated in favor of broader changes at a later date. The changes were openly recognized as experimental and by definition had an expiration date on them; this is proved by Roncalli abrogating the conciliar church's use of them in favor of his own missal.
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
-
In regards to the three hour fast (as well as the relaxation in special circuмstances of the time of Mass), it seems that it was an inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
He already knew that many Catholics were going to soon be deprived of the Sacraments and He already knew that there would be some traveling priests who would, in order to provide the Mass to more of the faithful, would have to say Mass at later hours than usual. He already knew that evening Masses (that is, the evening of Sunday or Holy Days, not the evening before) would become necessary in some places if people were to attend any Masses.
Thus, the Holy Ghost inspired the change in the REQUIREMENT to fast from midnight in order to accommodate what would soon become necessary while we still had a reigning pope who could legally and morally make the change a reality. Pope Pius XII obeyed this inspiration from the Holy Ghost even though he did not know the reason why this inspiration would become necessary.
-
Thanks, SJB. Are you contradicting me or agreeing with me? I think what you posted fits with what I was suggesting.
I was providing a source that was in agreement. :-)
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
Who defined it as transitory? Did Pius XII?
-
Mass at our chapel begins at 4 pm. I have attempted to fast from midnight until Mass. But since I am usually done with dinner at 6 pm on Saturday and to bed by 10 or 11, it turned into a 24 hour fast. I almost fainted and decided it was not wise to not eat for 24 hours. Three hours, minimum, is our standard now.
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
Who defined it as transitory? Did Pius XII?
Naturally. Pius XII didn't just allow the CLR work without any guidelines or prospectus. A very lengthy docuмent called the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica was prepared and approved by Pius XII before Bugnini and his cohorts were to begin work on formulating and implementing the actual changes; I incidentally have one of approximately 30 copies ever released outside the Holy See. In it, it makes clear that the reform of the liturgy would occur in stages, with abrogation of the previous phase when the new one was implemented. It also instructed that at the end of the reform, a Code of Liturgical Law would be produced that would then formalize the stability of the reform.
The changes to the rubrics of the Breviarium and the Rites of Holy Week were actually one a part of the first phase, and the only ones implemented by Pius XII before his death. The fact that he promulgated no new breviary or liturgical books, in fact commanded that no changes should be made to existing Breviaries and Missals despite the changes makes it obvious that they were considered experimental and of limited duration.
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
You are making two very huge assumptions here:
1. The changes in and of themselves were harmful.
2. It is not required to follow transitory laws (I'm not conceding it was transitory). Do you have some source who says this? I can't believe you do.
-
You are making two very huge assumptions here:
1. The changes in and of themselves were harmful.
2. It is not required to follow transitory laws (I'm not conceding it was transitory). Do you have some source who says this? I can't believe you do.
It is not merely for the sake of harm that a transitory law may be abrogated. By virtue of the explicitly-defined nature of the reform of Pius XII, the changes were intended to be experimental not normative. Its effect was recorded, to be studied and used as necessary. Because of the apostasy, no functional use of the results were ever used by a valid Roman pontiff. Despite this, the original intention of the reform was completed. A founding principle of canon law is that of intrinsic cessation; a law, having completed its end, whose end has become unjust or unreasonable, negates itself. In the words of the canonist Edward Regatillo: "the law ceases ipso facto without a legislator’s declaration.”
This is the common doctrine among canonists, as echoed by Amleto Cicognani, who writes:
"In treating the elements of law we saw that it is proper and fitting that a law should be stable and firm. However, every law has its element of uncertainty, for the reasons and the purpose for which the law was made can change, and consequently, since law is an ordinance in accordance with reason, it ought to be revoked if it becomes useless, harmful or unreasonable; and if it has not actually been revoked, it is to be reasonably presumed to be revoked. For its purpose is the soul of law, and a law without a soul lapses, ceases to exist, dies."
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
Who defined it as transitory? Did Pius XII?
Naturally. Pius XII didn't just allow the CLR work without any guidelines or prospectus. A very lengthy docuмent called the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica was prepared and approved by Pius XII before Bugnini and his cohorts were to begin work on formulating and implementing the actual changes; I incidentally have one of approximately 30 copies ever released outside the Holy See. In it, it makes clear that the reform of the liturgy would occur in stages, with abrogation of the previous phase when the new one was implemented. It also instructed that at the end of the reform, a Code of Liturgical Law would be produced that would then formalize the stability of the reform.
The changes to the rubrics of the Breviarium and the Rites of Holy Week were actually one a part of the first phase, and the only ones implemented by Pius XII before his death. The fact that he promulgated no new breviary or liturgical books, in fact commanded that no changes should be made to existing Breviaries and Missals despite the changes makes it obvious that they were considered experimental and of limited duration.
2 Questions for now:
1) Sorry but what is CLR?
2) Any proof that Pius XII "prepared and approved" the docuмent called Memoria sulla riforma liturgica?
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
Who defined it as transitory? Did Pius XII?
Naturally. Pius XII didn't just allow the CLR work without any guidelines or prospectus. A very lengthy docuмent called the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica was prepared and approved by Pius XII before Bugnini and his cohorts were to begin work on formulating and implementing the actual changes; I incidentally have one of approximately 30 copies ever released outside the Holy See. In it, it makes clear that the reform of the liturgy would occur in stages, with abrogation of the previous phase when the new one was implemented. It also instructed that at the end of the reform, a Code of Liturgical Law would be produced that would then formalize the stability of the reform.
The changes to the rubrics of the Breviarium and the Rites of Holy Week were actually one a part of the first phase, and the only ones implemented by Pius XII before his death. The fact that he promulgated no new breviary or liturgical books, in fact commanded that no changes should be made to existing Breviaries and Missals despite the changes makes it obvious that they were considered experimental and of limited duration.
2 Questions for now:
1) Sorry but what is CLR?
2) Any proof that Pius XII "prepared and approved" the docuмent called Memoria sulla riforma liturgica?
The CLR is the Commission for Liturgical Reform, which was the body that studied, formulated and implemented the changes under the auspices of Pius XII and in association with the Sacra Rituum Congregatio, the congregation that dealt with the liturgy.
For the second question, I'm afraid the phrase was missing a comma between "prepared" and "and approved". The CLR was responsible for compiling the initial report, which included issues of canon law, the opinions of periti and communications between bishops and the Holy See concerning the changes. That it was approved by His Holiness is tacit given that the report was then formalized and printed, along with supplemental materials, and sent to bishops so that they could be prepared to implement the changes when so instructed. This printed version, like a Code of Canon Law or Missal, carried an order of issuance by His Holiness on the first page.
-
You are making two very huge assumptions here:
1. The changes in and of themselves were harmful.
2. It is not required to follow transitory laws (I'm not conceding it was transitory). Do you have some source who says this? I can't believe you do.
It is not merely for the sake of harm that a transitory law may be abrogated. By virtue of the explicitly-defined nature of the reform of Pius XII, the changes were intended to be experimental not normative. Its effect was recorded, to be studied and used as necessary. Because of the apostasy, no functional use of the results were ever used by a valid Roman pontiff. Despite this, the original intention of the reform was completed. A founding principle of canon law is that of intrinsic cessation; a law, having completed its end, whose end has become unjust or unreasonable, negates itself. In the words of the canonist Edward Regatillo: "the law ceases ipso facto without a legislator’s declaration.”
This is the common doctrine among canonists, as echoed by Amleto Cicognani, who writes:
"In treating the elements of law we saw that it is proper and fitting that a law should be stable and firm. However, every law has its element of uncertainty, for the reasons and the purpose for which the law was made can change, and consequently, since law is an ordinance in accordance with reason, it ought to be revoked if it becomes useless, harmful or unreasonable; and if it has not actually been revoked, it is to be reasonably presumed to be revoked. For its purpose is the soul of law, and a law without a soul lapses, ceases to exist, dies."
Can you produce an official text which explicitly states that the 1955 Holy Week Rites were experimental or transitory? Without an explicit text we only have your opinion that the rite was not meant to be permanent. I am not aware of Pope Pius XII or any other official source speaking of the 1955 reformed rite as transitory or experimental.
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
Who defined it as transitory? Did Pius XII?
Naturally. Pius XII didn't just allow the CLR work without any guidelines or prospectus. A very lengthy docuмent called the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica was prepared and approved by Pius XII before Bugnini and his cohorts were to begin work on formulating and implementing the actual changes; I incidentally have one of approximately 30 copies ever released outside the Holy See. In it, it makes clear that the reform of the liturgy would occur in stages, with abrogation of the previous phase when the new one was implemented. It also instructed that at the end of the reform, a Code of Liturgical Law would be produced that would then formalize the stability of the reform.
The changes to the rubrics of the Breviarium and the Rites of Holy Week were actually one a part of the first phase, and the only ones implemented by Pius XII before his death. The fact that he promulgated no new breviary or liturgical books, in fact commanded that no changes should be made to existing Breviaries and Missals despite the changes makes it obvious that they were considered experimental and of limited duration.
It is not obvious to me. If Pius XII wished to reform the liturgy in stages, this does not mean it was experimental, but that it was a process which may take time to achieve the final goal.
If Pius XII had lived on, or if a lawful pope had continued the reform, we may have seen the fruition of the gradual reform of the liturgy, and it may have been a beautiful sight. Unfortunately for us, the movement was hijacked by modernists under the direction of anti-popes, and the rot is there for all to see.
-
... it ought to be revoked if it becomes useless, harmful or unreasonable ...
When did this law become "useless, harmful or unreasonable?"
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
Who defined it as transitory? Did Pius XII?
Naturally. Pius XII didn't just allow the CLR work without any guidelines or prospectus. A very lengthy docuмent called the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica was prepared and approved by Pius XII before Bugnini and his cohorts were to begin work on formulating and implementing the actual changes; I incidentally have one of approximately 30 copies ever released outside the Holy See. In it, it makes clear that the reform of the liturgy would occur in stages, with abrogation of the previous phase when the new one was implemented. It also instructed that at the end of the reform, a Code of Liturgical Law would be produced that would then formalize the stability of the reform.
The changes to the rubrics of the Breviarium and the Rites of Holy Week were actually one a part of the first phase, and the only ones implemented by Pius XII before his death. The fact that he promulgated no new breviary or liturgical books, in fact commanded that no changes should be made to existing Breviaries and Missals despite the changes makes it obvious that they were considered experimental and of limited duration.
It is not obvious to me. If Pius XII wished to reform the liturgy in stages, this does not mean it was experimental, but that it was a process which may take time to achieve the final goal.
If Pius XII had lived on, or if a lawful pope had continued the reform, we may have seen the fruition of the gradual reform of the liturgy, and it may have been a beautiful sight. Unfortunately for us, the movement was hijacked by modernists under the direction of anti-popes, and the rot is there for all to see.
With Bugnini working on it?
I don't think the changes that were made under Pius XII touch infallibility. Compare that to the idea that the changes since Vatican II somehow do not violate papal infallibility?
Is it okay to follow Pius XII's changes? I think so. Are there reasons to doubt their wisdom?
Given the circuмstances of who was involved and what came after, how could one not doubt their wisdom?
-
The point is that when an ecclesiastical law is defined as being transitory it is neither requisite, nor perhaps even laudable, to maintain it if doing so harms the discipline or the faithful's understanding of it.
Who defined it as transitory? Did Pius XII?
Naturally. Pius XII didn't just allow the CLR work without any guidelines or prospectus. A very lengthy docuмent called the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica was prepared and approved by Pius XII before Bugnini and his cohorts were to begin work on formulating and implementing the actual changes; I incidentally have one of approximately 30 copies ever released outside the Holy See. In it, it makes clear that the reform of the liturgy would occur in stages, with abrogation of the previous phase when the new one was implemented. It also instructed that at the end of the reform, a Code of Liturgical Law would be produced that would then formalize the stability of the reform.
The changes to the rubrics of the Breviarium and the Rites of Holy Week were actually one a part of the first phase, and the only ones implemented by Pius XII before his death. The fact that he promulgated no new breviary or liturgical books, in fact commanded that no changes should be made to existing Breviaries and Missals despite the changes makes it obvious that they were considered experimental and of limited duration.
It is not obvious to me. If Pius XII wished to reform the liturgy in stages, this does not mean it was experimental, but that it was a process which may take time to achieve the final goal.
If Pius XII had lived on, or if a lawful pope had continued the reform, we may have seen the fruition of the gradual reform of the liturgy, and it may have been a beautiful sight. Unfortunately for us, the movement was hijacked by modernists under the direction of anti-popes, and the rot is there for all to see.
With Bugnini working on it?
I don't think the changes that were made under Pius XII touch infallibility.
It was an universal law and the Church is infallible on those matters as all the theologians teach (see for instance the quote of Van Noort given by SJB on page 3).
-
Having read Fr. Cekada http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=78&catname=6 and http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=82&catname=6 I found the same arguments laid down by JohnGrey, but there is something I don´t understand, pls correct me if I misunderstood you: first you say the law was not permanent and therefore it was not a law but then you say that that law become harmful because of what it came later, recognizing in that way that the law existed. So, my question is: the rubrics don´t exist because they never did or because now they are harmful?
As an aside, if Fr. Cekada, and those who think like him were logic in their thoughts I think they should reject the 3 hours fast on the same grounds, namely that the post Vat II reforms used Sacram Communionem as an argument for a 1 hour fast. No traditional priest I know of, and no traditional layman I know of follow the pre Pius XII discipline, why?
Second point: they reject the feast of St. Joseph the worker, on what grounds? Because it was temporary? Because is it harmful? Why?
Cristian
-
Having read Fr. Cekada http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=78&catname=6 and http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=82&catname=6 I found the same arguments laid down by JohnGrey...
I noticed the similarities too. :wink:
-
Having read Fr. Cekada http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=78&catname=6 and http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=82&catname=6 I found the same arguments laid down by JohnGrey, but there is something I don´t understand, pls correct me if I misunderstood you: first you say the law was not permanent and therefore it was not a law but then you say that that law become harmful because of what it came later, recognizing in that way that the law existed. So, my question is: the rubrics don´t exist because they never did or because now they are harmful?
As an aside, if Fr. Cekada, and those who think like him were logic in their thoughts I think they should reject the 3 hours fast on the same grounds, namely that the post Vat II reforms used Sacram Communionem as an argument for a 1 hour fast. No traditional priest I know of, and no traditional layman I know of follow the pre Pius XII discipline, why?
Second point: they reject the feast of St. Joseph the worker, on what grounds? Because it was temporary? Because is it harmful? Why?
Cristian
This is me correcting you. :smile: What I actually said was that while the changes in themselves were not temporally harmful and that they were licit in the sense that they were validly promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, I argue (as does Fr. Cekada), that they were not intended to be normative, that is, that they were not intended to be binding for the foreseeable future. As laid out in the Memoria, there were definite changes that would've abrogated those issued by Pius XII. They were most definitely laws that, having served their temporal purpose, should no longer be considered valid. If one can give me such evidence beyond that which I already have, that those laws were intended to be truly normative beyond the context of their own particular phase of the Piine liturgical reform, I'd be happy to consider it. :smile:
The 3-hour fast is mandated precisely for the reason that the liturgical changes could be overlooked. The change in the fast was not experimental, it was intended to be normative and not limited to a particular duration. That's why, however imprudent it may have been given the modernists' use of it to justify a 1-hour fast, it's still observed today. Privately, however, I know of a great many traditionalists that do, in the spirit of healthful self-denial, practice the midnight-to-Communion fast.
As for the Feast of St. John the Worker, I don't know that they do or don't reject it, as I've never assisted at Mass at SGG or any church associated with Fr. Cekada or Bps. Dolan or Sanborn, on May 1st or any other day so far as I'm aware. I believe he may have been commenting on the imprudence of having done so in the context of what came after as with the Eucharistic fast, or its associability with Liberation Theology. Beyond that, you'd have to ask him.
-
Having read Fr. Cekada http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=78&catname=6 and http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=82&catname=6 I found the same arguments laid down by JohnGrey, but there is something I don´t understand, pls correct me if I misunderstood you: first you say the law was not permanent and therefore it was not a law but then you say that that law become harmful because of what it came later, recognizing in that way that the law existed. So, my question is: the rubrics don´t exist because they never did or because now they are harmful?
As an aside, if Fr. Cekada, and those who think like him were logic in their thoughts I think they should reject the 3 hours fast on the same grounds, namely that the post Vat II reforms used Sacram Communionem as an argument for a 1 hour fast. No traditional priest I know of, and no traditional layman I know of follow the pre Pius XII discipline, why?
Second point: they reject the feast of St. Joseph the worker, on what grounds? Because it was temporary? Because is it harmful? Why?
Cristian
they were not intended to be normative, that is, that they were not intended to be binding for the foreseeable future. As laid out in the Memoria, there were definite changes that would've abrogated those issued by Pius XII.
The Memoria says further changes will abrogate the post 1955 changes or merely that there will be more changes in the same line as those already done?
They were most definitely laws that, having served their temporal purpose, should no longer be considered valid.
Which were those temporal purposes?
The 3-hour fast is mandated precisely for the reason that the liturgical changes could be overlooked. The change in the fast was not experimental, it was intended to be normative and not limited to a particular duration.
Therefore the 1955 changes are not longer in force because they were (dato sed non concesso) "temporal" and not because they are harmful, right?
That's why, however imprudent it may have been given the modernists' use of it to justify a 1-hour fast, it's still observed today.
Do you really think it was imprudent? :surprised:
Privately, however, I know of a great many traditionalists that do, in the spirit of healthful self-denial, practice the midnight-to-Communion fast.
Ok, but they still have no problem to assist to an evening Mass, do they?
-
I think it may be useful to add to this discussion the actual decree which issued the Holy Week Rites.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=112
English translation of docuмents promulgating the revised Holy Week approved by Pope Pius XII, Decree: Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria (16 Nov. 1955) AAS 47 (1955) 838-847.
Sacred Congregation of Rites
GENERAL DECREE
To Restore the Liturgical Order of Holy Week
From Apostolic times Holy Mother Church has been zealous to celebrate annually the greatest mysteries of our Redemption, namely, the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, with a completely unique commemoration. First of all the highest moments of these mysteries were recalled in a special triduum, the mysteries, that is, of “Christ crucified, buried, risen” (Saint Augustine, Ep. 55, 14); next the solemn commemoration of the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist was added; later, on the Sunday immediately preceding the Passion, there was established the liturgical celebration of the triumphant entrance of our Lord, King and Messias, into the Holy City; after that a special liturgical week took its rise which, because of the excellence of the mysteries celebrated, was called “Holy” and was enriched by very splendid and sacred rites.
In the beginning these rites were celebrated on the same days of the week and at the same hours of the day at which the sacred mysteries took place. Thus the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist was recalled on Thursday, in the evening, at the solemn Mass of the Lord’s Supper. On Friday a special liturgical service of the Lord’s Passion and Death was celebrated in the afternoon hours. Finally, on the evening of Holy Saturday the solemn vigil was begun, to be concluded the following morning in the joy of the Resurrection.
But in the middle ages, for various concomitant reasons, the time for observing the liturgy of these days began to be anticipated to such a degree that — toward the end of the middle ages — all these liturgical solemnities were pushed back to the morning hours; certainly with detriment to the liturgy’s meaning and with confusion between the Gospel accounts and the liturgical representations referring to them. The solemn liturgy of the Easter Vigil especially, having been torn from its own place in the night hours, lost its innate clarity and the sense of its words and symbols. Furthermore, the day of Holy Saturday, invaded by a premature Easter joy, lost its proper sorrowful character as the commemoration of the Lord’s burial.
In more recent times, moreover, another change took place and this most serious from a pastoral point of view. For many centuries the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of Holy Week were numbered among the festive days, with the manifest purpose that the whole Christian people, freed from servile works, might be present at the sacred ceremonies of these days. But in the course of the seventeenth century the Roman Pontiffs themselves were compelled — on account of the completely changed conditions of society — to reduce the number of festive days. Urban VIII, therefore, in the Apostolic Constitution, “Universa per orbem,” of September 24, 1642, was constrained to list the sacred triduum of Holy Week also among the ferial days, and no longer among the festive days.
From that time the attendance of the faithful at these sacred rites necessarily decreased, especially because their celebration had long since been put back into the morning hours when, on weekdays, schools, businesses, and public affairs of all kinds were and are conducted everywhere. In fact, common and almost universal experience teaches that these liturgical services of the sacred triduum are often performed by the clergy with the body of the church nearly deserted.
This is certainly much to be regretted. For the liturgical rites of the Sacred Week possess not only a singular dignity but also a particular sacramental power and efficacy for nourishing the Christian life; nor can these rites be sufficiently compensated for by those exercises of devotion which are usually called extraliturgical and which are performed during the sacred triduum in the hours after noon.
For these reasons, outstanding experts in liturgical matters, priests who have the care of souls, and principally the Most Excellent Bishops themselves have presented strong petitions to the Holy See in more recent years, asking that the liturgical services of the sacred triduum be returned to the hours after noon, as was once the custom, to the end that all the faithful might more easily assist at these rites.
The matter having been maturely considered, the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII, in the year 1951, restored the liturgy of the sacred Easter Vigil, to be celebrated temporarily according to the desire of Ordinaries and as an experiment.
Now, since this experiment had the greatest success everywhere, as very many Ordinaries have reported to the Holy See; and since the same Ordinaries did not fail to renew their petitions, asking that, just as for the Easter Vigil, a similar liturgical restoration be made for the other days of Holy Week as well, with the sacred functions restored to the evening hours; and finally with the knowledge that evening Masses — provided by the Apostolic Constitution, “Christus Dominus,” of January 6, 1953 — are being celebrated everywhere in the presence of increasing numbers of the people, our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius XII, with all these considerations before him, commanded that the Commission for the restoration of the liturgy, established by His Holiness should examine this question of restoring the Order of Holy Week and propose its conclusions. When these had been received, His Holiness decreed that, in view of the gravity of the matter, the entire question should be submitted to the particular examination of the Most Eminent Fathers of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.
The Most Eminent Fathers, assembled in extraordinary congregation at the Vatican Palace on July 19, 1955, after mature deliberation, recommended by unanimous vote that the restored Order of Holy Week should be approved and prescribed, if it should please His Holiness.
When all these matters had been individually reported to the Holy Father by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, His Holiness deigned to approve the recommendations of the Most Eminent Cardinals.
Wherefore, by special mandate of our Most Holy Lord, Pius XII, by divine Providence Pope, the Sacred Congregation of Rites has decreed the following:
I. The restored Order of Holy Week is prescribed
1. Those who follow the Roman rite are bound to observe in the future the restored Order of Holy Week, as described in the typical Vatican edition. Those who follow other Latin rites are bound to observe only the time set in the new Order for the liturgical functions.
2. This new Order must be observed from March 25, 1956, the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday.
3. No commemoration is allowed during the entire Holy Week, and collects commanded under any title are prohibited at Mass.
II. The proper hour for the celebration of the sacred Liturgy in Holy Week
DIVINE OFFICE
4. On the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday, and on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week, the Divine Office takes place at the usual hours.
5. During the sacred triduum, that is, Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, Friday of the Passion and Death of the Lord, and Holy Saturday, if the Office is performed in choir, or in common, the following things are to be observed:
Matins and Lauds are not anticipated in the evening, but are said in the morning, at the proper hour. In cathedral churches, however, since the Mass of the Chrism is celebrated in the morning of Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, Matins and Lauds of the same Thursday can be anticipated in the evening.
The lesser hours are said at the proper hour.
Vespers of Thursday and Friday are omitted, since the principal liturgical functions of these days take their place. But on Holy Saturday Vespers are said after noon, at the usual hour.
Compline of Thursday and Friday is said after the evening liturgical functions; it is omitted on Holy Saturday.
In the private recitation, all the canonical hours must be said, according to the rubrics, on these three days.
MASS OR THE PRINCIPAL LITURGICAL SERVICE
6. On the Second Passion Sunday, the solemn blessing and procession of palms are held in the morning, at the usual hour; in choir, after Terce.
7. On Holy Thursday, the Mass of the Chrism is celebrated after Terce, but the Mass of the Lord’s Supper must be celebrated in the evening, at the most suitable hour; not, however, before 5 nor after 8p.m.
8. On Good Friday, the solemn liturgical service is celebrated in the afternoon, and indeed about 3 p.m.; but if a pastoral reason urges this, a later hour may be chosen — not, however, beyond 6 p.m.
9. The solemn Easter Vigil is to be celebrated at the proper hour, namely, a time which will permit that the solemn Mass of the Vigil begin at about the midnight which falls between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday.
Nevertheless, where in the judgment of the local Ordinary, the conditions of the faithful and of the place having been considered, it is advantageous to anticipate the hour for the celebration of the Vigil, this may be done, but the Vigil may not begin before twilight, or certainly not before sunset.
III. Lenten abstinence and fast extended to midnight of Holy Saturday
10. The abstinence and fast prescribed for Lent, which hitherto has ceased on Holy Saturday after noon, according to canon 1252, § 4, will cease in the future at midnight of the same Holy Saturday.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
November 16, 1955.
L. S.
G. CARD. CICOGNANI,
Prefect of S. R. C.
A. CARINCI, Archbishop of Seleucia,
Secretary of S. R. C.
INSTRUCTION
For the Proper Celebration of the Restored Order of Holy Week
Since the purpose of the restored Order of Holy Week is this, that the venerable liturgy of these days, restored to hours that are suitable and at the same time convenient, may be attended by the faithful more easily, more devoutly, and more fruitfully, it is of the greatest importance that this salutary purpose should be brought to the desired conclusion.
Therefore it has seemed advisable to this Sacred Congregation of Rites to add an Instruction to the general decree on the restored Order of Holy Week, by which the transition to the new order may be made easier and the faithful led more safely to the richer fruits that may be received from a living participation in the sacred ceremonies.
The knowledge and observance of this Instruction is therefore imposed upon all concerned.
I. Pastoral and ritual preparation
1. Local Ordinaries are to provide carefully that priests, especially those who have the care of souls, are well instructed, not only concerning the ritual celebration of the restored Order of Holy Week, but also concerning its liturgical meaning and pastoral purpose.
Let them, therefore, see to it that the faithful also are more suitably instructed during Lent in the proper understanding of the restored Order of Holy Week, so that they may take part in this celebration with intelligence and devotion.
2. The principal headings for the instruction to be given to the Christian people are these:
a) For the Second Passion Sunday, Called Palm Sunday
The faithful are to be invited to come together in greater numbers for the solemn procession of palms, to render a public testimony of love and gratitude to Christ the King.
Next, the faithful are to be warned that they should come to the Sacrament of Penance at a suitable time in the course of Holy Week. This warning must be urged particularly wherever there exists the custom that the faithful come to the sacred tribunal in throngs on the evening of Holy Saturday and the morning of Easter Sunday. Those who have the care of souls, therefore, should see that throughout Holy Week, but especially during the sacred triduum, every occasion is offered to the faithful of going to the Sacrament of Penance.
b) For Holy Thursday, the Lord’s Supper
The faithful are to be instructed concerning the love with which Christ the Lord “on the day before He suffered” instituted the sacred Eucharist, Sacrifice and Sacrament, the perpetual memorial of His Passion, to be celebrated at the hands of priests year after year.
The faithful are also to be invited to pay due adoration to the most august Sacrament after the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.
Finally, wherever the washing of feet is performed in church according to the rubrics of the restored Order, to manifest the Lord’s commandment of brotherly love, the faithful are to be taught the profound significance of this sacred rite and the opportunity to be generous in the works of Christian charity on this day.
c) For Good Friday, the Lord’s Passion and Death
The faithful are to be disposed for a correct understanding of the unique liturgical service of this day, in which, after sacred lessons and prayers, the Passion of our Lord is solemnly chanted; prayers are offered for the needs of the whole Church and of the human race; then the Holy Cross, trophy of our redemption, is most devoutly adored by the family of Christ, clergy and people; and lastly, according to the rubrics of the restored Order, as was the custom for many centuries, all who desire and who are properly prepared, may also come to Holy Communion, with this intention above all: that, devoutly receiving the Body of the Lord, delivered up for all on this day, they may obtain more abundantly the fruits of Redemption.
Let priests urge, moreover, that the faithful on this most sacred day observe a pious recollection of mind, and not forget the law of abstinence and fast.
d) For Holy Saturday and the Easter Vigil
First of all it is necessary that the faithful be diligently instructed concerning the special liturgical nature of Holy Saturday. It is a day of the greatest sorrow when the Church lingers at the Lord’s tomb, meditating upon His Passion and Death and abstaining from the Sacrifice of the Mass, with the sacred table left bare; until, after the solemn Vigil or nocturnal expectation of the Resurrection, it gives way to paschal joys whose abundance flows over into the following days.
But the purpose and end of this Vigil consists in this, that by a liturgical act there is shown forth and recalled how our life and grace have proceeded from the Lord’s Death. And so under the symbol of the Easter candle the Lord Himself, “the light of the world” (John 8, 12), is brought forward, He who overcame the darkness of our sins by the grace of His light; the Easter hymn is sung, in which the splendor of the holy night of Resurrection is chanted; the great deeds accomplished by God in the Old Covenant are commemorated, pale images of the wonders of the New Testament; the baptismal water is blessed, in which “buried with Christ” unto the death of sin, we rise again with the same Christ, that “we may walk in newness of life” (Romans 6, 4); then we promise, in the presence of all, to bear witness by life and deeds to the grace which Christ merited for us and conferred on us in Baptism, through the renewal of the promises of that Baptism; last of all, after we have called for the intervention of the Church Triumphant, the sacred Vigil is concluded with the solemn Mass of the Resurrection.
3. No less necessary is the ritual preparation of the sacred ceremonies of Holy Week.
Therefore all those things which are needed for the devout and fitting liturgical celebration of this most holy week are to be prepared and arranged carefully; besides this, the sacred ministers and the other servers, whether clerics or lay persons, and especially if they are young boys, are to be diligently instructed in their duties.
II. Annotations to certain rubrics of the Ordo of Holy Week
a) For all of Holy Week
4. Where there are enough sacred ministers, the sacred functions of Holy Week are to be celebrated with all the splendor of holy rites. But where sacred ministers are lacking, the simple rite is to be used, by observing the particular rubrics, as noted in the proper places.
5. Whenever the restored Order of Holy Week says, “as in the Roman Breviary,” everything is to be taken from that liturgical book, but according to the norms established by the general decree of the S. Congregation of Rites, “De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis,” of March 23, 1955.
6. Throughout Holy Week, that is, from the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday, to the Mass of the Easter Vigil, inclusive, when Mass (and, on Friday, the solemn liturgical service) is celebrated solemnly, namely, with. sacred ministers, the celebrant omits all those things which the deacon, subdeacon, or lector chant or read by reason of their own office.
b) For the Second Passion Sunday or Palm Sunday
7. In the blessing and procession, branches of palms or olive or other trees are to be used. These branches, according to the various customs of different places, are either prepared by the faithful themselves and brought to church, or distributed to the faithful after the blessing has been completed.
c) For Thursday, the Lord’s Supper
8. For the solemn reposition of the Blessed Sacrament a suitable place is to be prepared in another chapel or altar of the church, as prescribed in the Roman Missal, and as far as possible this is to be decently adorned with hangings and lights.
9. The decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites having been observed concerning the abuses to be avoided or removed in the preparation of this place, a severity which is proper to the liturgy of these days is clearly recommended.
10. Pastors and rectors of churches are to remind the faithful in due season of the public adoration of the Most Holy Eucharist, to be begun at the completion of the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, and to be continued at least until midnight, the time when the memorial of the Passion and Death of the Lord succeeds to the liturgical remembrance of the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist.
d) For the Easter Vigil
11. Nothing prevents the preparation beforehand, in colors or in another way, of the signs which are to be cut in the Easter candle by the celebrant with a stylus.
12. It is proper that the candles which the clergy and people carry, should remain lighted while the Easter hymn is chanted, and while the renewal of the baptismal promises is made.
13. It is proper that the vessel containing the water to be blessed should be suitably ornamented.
14. If there are persons to be baptized, and especially if there are many, it is permissible to anticipate, at a suitable time on the same morning, the ceremonies of the Roman Ritual which precede the conferral of Baptism itself; that is, in the Baptism of infants as far as the word Credis? (Rituale romanum, tit. II, cap. II, n. 17), and in the Baptism of adults as far as the words Quis vocaris? (Rituale romanum, tit. II, cap. IV, n. 38).
15. If it happens that sacred Ordinations are conferred in this solemn Vigil, the bishop is to make the final admonition (with the imposition of the so-called “penance”), which according to the Roman Pontifical takes place after the pontifical blessing and before the last Gospel, before that pontifical blessing on this night.
16. On the vigil of Pentecost, the lessons or prophecies, blessing of baptismal water, and litanies are omitted. Mass, even if conventual, solemn, or chanted, begins in the customary manner with the Introit cuм sanctificatus fuero, as noted in the Roman Missal at the same place for private Masses, the confession having been made at the altar steps.
III. Mass, Holy Communion, and the Eucharistic fast in the sacred triduum
17. On the Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, the most ancient tradition of the Roman Church is to be observed, by which, the celebration of private Masses having been forbidden, all the priests and all the clergy assist at the Mass in Cena Domini and approach the holy table (cf. canon 862).
Where a pastoral reason requires it, however, the local Ordinary may permit one or two low Masses in individual churches or public oratories; but only one low Mass in semi-public oratories; and this for the reason that all the faithful may assist at the Sacrifice of the Mass and receive the Body of Christ upon this sacred day. These Masses are permitted between the same hours of the day which are assigned for the solemn Mass of the Lord’s Supper (Decree, n. II, 7).
18. On the same Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion may be distributed to the faithful only during the evening Masses or immediately after and continuously with the Masses; on Holy Saturday likewise, Holy Communion may be given only during Mass or immediately after and continuously with the Mass, except in the case of the sick who are in danger of death.
19. On Friday of the Lord’s Passion and Death, Holy Communion may be distributed only during the solemn liturgical service of the afternoon, likewise with the exception applying to the sick who are in danger of death.
20. Priests who celebrate the solemn Mass of the Easter Vigil at the proper hour, that is, after the midnight which falls between Saturday and Sunday, may celebrate the festive Mass on the Sunday of the Resurrection itself — may even celebrate two or three times, if an indult is had.
21. Local Ordinaries who celebrate the Mass of the Chrism on the morning of Holy Thursday may offer the solemn Mass of the Lord’s Supper in the evening; on Holy Saturday, if they wish to celebrate the solemn Easter Vigil, they may, but they are not bound to, offer the solemn Mass on the Sunday of the Resurrection itself.
22. With regard to the Eucharistic fast, the norms of the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus and the annexed Instruction of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, issued January 6, 1953, are to be observed.
IV. Solutions to certain difficulties
23. Since by reason of the diversity of places and peoples there are many popular customs connected with the celebration of Holy Week, local Ordinaries and priests having the care of souls are to see to it that customs of this kind which appear to foster solid piety, are prudently accommodated to the restored Order of Holy Week. Moreover, the faithful are to be instructed on the supreme value of the sacred liturgy, which always, and especially on these days, far surpasses by its very nature other kinds of devotion and customs, even the very best.
24. Where the custom has existed hitherto of blessing homes on Holy Saturday, local Ordinaries are to issue suitable regulations that this blessing may be performed at a more opportune time, either before or after Easter, by pastors or by other priests having the care of souls and delegated by them. They are to take this occasion to make a paternal visit to the faithful committed to them and to inform themselves concerning the spiritual welfare of these faithful (canon 462, n. 6).
25. The ringing of bells, prescribed at the Mass of the Vigil on Holy Saturday at the beginning of the hymn Gloria in excelsis Deo, is to be done in this way:
a) In places where there is only one church, the bells are to be rung at the time when the chanting of the above hymn begins.
b) But in places where there are several churches, whether the sacred ceremonies are celebrated in all of them at the same time or at different times, the bells of all the churches are to be rung together with the bells of the cathedral church, or the mother or principal church. In doubt as to which church in a place is the mother or principal church, the local Ordinary is to be consulted.
November 16, 1955.
L. S.
G. CARD. CICOGNANI,
Prefect of S. R. C.
A. CARINCI, Archbishop of Seleucia,
Secretary of S. R. C.
Sacred Congregation of Rites
DIRECTIVES AND DECLARATIONS
Concerning the Restored Order of Holy Week
The liturgical restoration of Holy Week, promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the general Decree Maxima Redemptionis nostrae mysteria of November 16, 1955, was joyfully received by all and accomplished everywhere with the greatest pastoral success.
Nevertheless some Bishops have indicated, in reports made to this Sacred Congregation, certain practical difficulties which arose from the various circuмstances of places and peoples. For the solution of these difficulties the Pontifical Commission of experts which had prepared the restored Order assembled these “Directives and Declarations” after mature deliberation. The earlier Declaration concerning the celebration of the restored rites, issued by this S. Congregation on March 15, 1956, is also included in them. But the general Decree Maxima Redemptionis nostrae mysteria, and its Instruction, of November 16, 1955, continue in force, with the exception of those matters which are changed below.
When all these matters were individually reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius XII, by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, they were approved by His Holiness.
Therefore, by special mandate of our Most Holy Lord, Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, the Sacred Congregation of Rites decrees the following:
I. The use of the solemn and the simple rite in the celebration of the liturgy of Holy Week
1. In all churches, public oratories, and semi-public oratories, where there are sufficient sacred ministers, the sacred rites of the Second Passion or Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter Vigil, may be celebrated in the solemn form (Declaration, March 15, 1956, n. 1; Instruction, November 16, 1955, n. 4).
2. But in churches, public oratories, and semi-public oratories, where sacred ministers are lacking, the simple rite may be used. For the celebration of this simple rite, however, a sufficient number of servers (ministrantes) is required, either clerics or at least boys — a minimum of three for the Second Passion Sunday or Palm Sunday and for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper; a minimum of four for the celebration of the liturgical service of Good Friday and for the Easter Vigil. These servers must be carefully instructed in their duties (Instruction, November 16, 1955, n. 3).
This twofold condition, namely, a sufficient number of servers and their suitable preparation, is absolutely required for the performance of the simple rite. Local Ordinaries should exercise great care that this twofold condition, established for this simple rite, be observed to the letter (Declaration, March 15, 1956, n. 2).
3. Where the liturgical services of Holy Week are celebrated in the simple rite, if a second priest or at least a deacon is present, there is no objection to his vesting as a deacon and chanting the Gospel, when it occurs, the history of the Passion (the part of Christ being reserved to the celebrant himself), or the Easter Praeconium, as well as the lessons and the invitations such as “Flectamus genua” and “Levate,” or “Benedicamus Domino” or “lte, missa est.” In a word, he may appropriately take the parts of the deacon.
II. Second Passion Sunday or Palm Sunday
4. The solemn blessing of branches and procession, with the Mass following, are held in the morning, at the usual hour of the principal Mass; in choir, after Terce (cf. General Decree, November 16, 1955, n. 6).
In churches, however, where evening Masses are usually celebrated with large gatherings of the people, the local Ordinary may permit the blessing of branches and procession with the Mass following in the evening, if a true pastoral reason is present, but with the further law that the blessing and procession may not take place in the morning in these churches.
5. The blessing of branches alone, without the procession and Mass that follow, may not be lawfully celebrated.
6. The blessing of branches may take place in another church from which the procession goes to the principal church for the celebration of Mass (Order, n. 17). But where there is no second church, the blessing of branches may be performed in some other suitable place, in fact even in the open air, in front of some sacred shrine or before the processional cross itself, provided that the procession goes from that place to the church for the celebration of Mass.
7. Since all the faithful can hardly be present at the blessing of branches, rectors of churches should see to it that the blessed branches be made available in the sacristy or other suitable place for distribution to the faithful who did not take part in the procession.
III. Holy Thursday
8. The Mass of the Chrism is to be celebrated in the morning, after Terce. The Mass of the Lord’s Supper is to be offered in the evening, at the most convenient hour — not before 4 p.m. and not after 9 p.m.
9. Where a pastoral reason requires it, however, the local Ordinary may permit, in addition to the principal Mass of the Lord’s Supper, one or even two low Masses in individual churches or public oratories; but in semi-public oratories, only one (cf. Instruction, November 16, 1955, n. 17).
If for any reason the principal Mass of the Lord’s Supper cannot be celebrated even in the simple rite, the local Ordinary may permit, for a pastoral cause, the offering of two low Masses in churches or public oratories, but only one in semi-public oratories (Declaration, March 15, 1956, n, 4).
These low Masses must be celebrated within the same period of time as was assigned above (n. 8) for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.
10. It is very fitting that in the low Masses mentioned above (n. 9) the celebrant should give a brief talk to the faithful after the Gospel concerning the principal mysteries of this day.
11. On Holy Thursday it is lawful to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful only at the principal Mass of the Lord’s Supper and at all other low Masses which the local Ordinary permits, or immediately after and continuously with Mass.
12. Holy Communion may be brought to the sick both before and after noon.
13. The local Ordinary may permit bination for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper for priests who have the care of two or more parishes (Declaration, March 15, 1956, n. 6).
14. Wherever the transfer and reposition of the Blessed Sacrament are held after the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday, even if celebrated in the simple form, it is strictly required that the afternoon liturgical service of the Passion and Death of the Lord be also held on Good Friday in the same church or oratory (Declaration, March 15, 1956, n. 3).
IV. Good Friday
15. On Good Friday, the solemn liturgical service is celebrated in the afternoon, and indeed about 3 p.m.; but if a pastoral reason urges this, it may begin at noon or later, or after 3 p.m., but not beyond 9 o’clock at night.
16. For priests who have the care of two or more parishes, the local Ordinary may permit the repetition of the liturgical service of Good Friday, not, however, within the same parish, and the celebration must be during the same period of time as established above (n. 15) for this service (cf. Declaration, March 15, 1956, n. 6).
17. If the pastor or rector of a church foresees that the adoration of the Holy Cross, as prescribed in the Order of Holy Week, can scarcely be performed without harm to good order and devotion on account of the large number of people, the ceremony may be performed in this way: After the clergy, if present, and the servers have completed the adoration, let the celebrant take the Holy Cross from the hands of the servers. Then let him, standing on the platform of the altar, invite the people in a few words to the adoration of the Holy Cross and lift the Cross still higher for silent adoration of the faithful during a brief period.
18. On Good Friday, Holy Communion may be distributed only during the solemn liturgical service of the afternoon, except for the case of those who are in danger of death (cf. Instruction, November 16, 1955, n. 19).
V. Holy Saturday and the Easter Vigil
19. The following is to be observed with regard to the hour of the celebration of the Easter Vigil:
a) The proper hour is that which permits the Mass of this Vigil to begin about midnight between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday (General Decree, November 16, 1955, n, 9).
b) Nevertheless, where in the judgment of the local Ordinary, the conditions of the faithful and of the place having been considered, it is advantageous for grave reasons of public and pastoral order to anticipate the hour for the celebration of the Vigil, this may be done, but the Vigil may not begin before twilight, or certainly not before sunset (cf. General Decree, November 16, 1955, n, 9).
c) But the permission for the anticipation of the hour for the Easter Vigil may not be given by the local Ordinary indiscriminately or in general for the entire diocese or region, but only for those churches or places where true necessity urges it. Moreover, it is preferable that the proper hour be observed at least in the cathedral church itself and in all other churches, especially those of religious, where this can be done without grave inconvenience.
20. The Easter Vigil may be celebrated even in churches or oratories where the services of Holy Thursday and Good Friday were not held. It may be omitted in churches or oratories in which the preceding functions were celebrated (Declaration, March 15, 1956, n. 5).
21. For priests who have the care of two or more parishes, the local Ordinary may permit bination for the Mass of the Easter Vigil, not, however, in the same parish (Declaration, March 15, 1956, n. 6).
22. Since the Easter Vigil has been restored to its original place at night, it is not suitable to confer tonsure or minor or major Orders during the Mass of this Vigil.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
February 1, 1957.
L. S.
G. CARD. CICOGNANI,
Prefect of S. R. C.
A. CARINCI, Archbishop of Seleucia,
Secretary of S. R. C.