Author Topic: Holy Week changes (Read 8796 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:54:25 PM »

JohnGrey said:

Quote

... 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.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #16 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:00:02 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew

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.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #17 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:00:12 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #18 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:02:50 PM »

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.

innocenza · « **Reply #19 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:03:00 PM »

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 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:04:55 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

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.

Quote

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!

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:06:43 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:15:02 PM »

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

Matthew · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:19:36 PM »

Quote from: innocenza

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 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:21:59 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

JohnGrey said:
Quote
... 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.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #25 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:25:18 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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 :)

Ambrose · « **Reply #26 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:29:38 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew

Well said!

Matthew · « **Reply #27 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:29:42 PM »

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

Matthew · « **Reply #28 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:32:27 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew

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

Ambrose · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:35:27 PM »

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