Quote from: JohnGrey

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.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: JohnGrey

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.

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.

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Ambrose

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.

Quote

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:

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Ambrose

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.

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

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.

P.S. I don't know if Americanism is a heresy or a grave error.  Probably a grave error.