Author Topic: Holy Week Law of Pope Pius XII (Read 3278 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** December 16, 2013, 01:02:12 PM »

PFT wrote:

Quote

Just to be clear, neither the words "utterly discard" or "abrogated" were used to apply to the traditional rite, when this "NEW RITE" (as Pius XII himself calls it) was added. I noticed that right away about this docuмent.

The decree stated, "All things to the contrary notwithstanding." Do you understand what that means?

PFT wrote

Quote

Pius XII never said that one could not use the traditional Rite either. No where in this docuмent does it say that.

The decree states:

Quote

1. The restored Order of Holy Week is prescribed

2. 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.

3. This new Order must be observed from March 25, 1956, the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday.

The decree speaks for itself. All are bound to use the restored order of the Holy Week.

PFT wrote:

Quote

I'm a bit confused here, as some of these paragraphs you had included in the one you put in the library version of Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria, when I translated from Latin, are not contained here. Where did you get your translation? This is where I got mine.

This translation was posted on the Bellarmine Forums found HERE.

I have a translation from the AER, if I can find it I will scan it for you as well.

PFT wrote:

Quote

The one you posted in the library appears to be two separate docuмents.

There was a second decree relevant to the first, so it was included.

PFT wrote:

Quote

It would be helpful if you provided a link to your source.

There are two dates on the docuмent you linked. One from 1955, one from 1957. So where's the other one? I would like to source both of them if you don't mind.

They are both found on that same link on the Bellarmine Forums.

Quote

If you actually listened to Fr. Hesse, he takes full responsibility for HIMSELF for doing things the traditional way, and not the "new rite" that Pius XII "prescribed and approved" (again in Pius XII's own words.)

I never discussed this with Fr. Hesse, but I have no reason to doubt your word. As I sated before, we are living in confusing times, and I am not throwing stones at individuals, but I am upholding objective truth.

The rite approved by the Pope is Tradition. The Pope is Tradition (Pius IX).

May Fr. Hesse rest in peace.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2013, 01:41:01 PM »

Many of the more learned here go to the Bellarmine Forums for answers to our most perplexing questions.

I pray for the day when we can look to a living valid Pope.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2013, 06:08:20 PM »

Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:

Quote

We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.

Ambrose · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2013, 08:21:56 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:

Quote
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.

Is not the truth what all of us seek? If your idea that a Pope can bind his successors were true, then you should have no problem providing authorities to support such a view. But, I can assure you that this has never been taught and all authorities that have explained this state exactly what I am telling you.

An equal cannot bind an equal. A Pope cannot bind his successors. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to believe?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2013, 09:05:35 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Again, Ambrose, the Missal of Pius V has never been, and cannot be, abrogated. So it doesn't matter, even if the office that handed down this docuмent said "all things to the contrary notwithstanding" because Quo Primum trumps that by saying this:

Quote
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.

Is not the truth what all of us seek? If your idea that a Pope can bind his successors were true, then you should have no problem providing authorities to support such a view. But, I can assure you that this has never been taught and all authorities that have explained this state exactly what I am telling you.

An equal cannot bind an equal. A Pope cannot bind his successors. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to believe?

What you're saying is partially true, but Quo Primum was binding on a MATTER OF FAITH, and Father Hesse aptly explains this, as do other good traditional priests like Fr. Perez, and Fr. Kramer.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was commanded by the Council of Trent to be codified. NOTHING NEW was added at that time, and it was canonized as something that already existed.

This was NOT a matter of discipline to codify the Mass. This was a matter of FAITH. The Apostolic Bull Quo Primum was NOT a disciplinary docuмent. It was a matter of the Faith. It has all of the hallmarks of a BINDING docuмent.

This is where you're wrong, though. You say that a "pope cannot bind his successors" but you don't say WHEN a pope cannot bind his successors. HE CANNOT BIND HIS SUCCESSORS ON MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE, which Quo Primum is NOT.

A pope MOST DEFINITELY CAN BIND HIS SUCCESSORS ON MATTERS OF FAITH, because matters of Faith are IMMUTABLE. Just ONE example of this is a Dogma, like the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If a pope cannot bind his successors ever, then everything is open to change.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2013, 09:15:55 PM »

I want to be very clear here.

A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.

When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.

I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.

Ambrose · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2013, 09:46:56 PM »

PFT wrote:

Quote

I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.

I am very happy to hear this. But, just so you know, the changes of Pope Pius XII fall under the disciplinary laws of the Church. I was about to cite numerous authorities for you to prove that, but in light of your last post, I do not see that as necessary.

The Popes are infallibly protected in their universal disciplinary laws, so as long as we are dealing with certain popes, we can be certain that their laws for the Church are good, holy and acceptable to God.

This principle is certain with the Holy Week rites. There is no valid Catholic principle that can be used to argue against Pope Pius XII's Holy Week law.

I will agree with you in regard to the 1962 missal. There remains grave questions about the orthodoxy of John XXIII, and therefore it remains uncertain if his laws are binding or not. The case of John XXIII is not an easy one to solve. The question that needs to be tackled by scholars is not about the 1962 missal, it is whether he was certainly a pope. If he was a Pope, then there can be no question that his laws are binding.

Since John XXIII's status is very much an open question, the status of his laws are also an open question.

The process of reasoning this out with Paul VI and his successors, as they were all clear public heretics. Catholics can form moral certainty of the falsity of their claims, therefore all of their universal laws are have no binding effect on Catholics. A non-popes laws are not laws, therefore are not protected by infallibility, therefore open to heresy, error, and possible incentives to evil and impiety. This fact about Paul VI's Novus Ordo is plain for all with eyes to see. It was clearly not protected by infallibility.

If Paul VI were a true Pope, the Novus Ordo Missae could never have come from him, the infallibility of the Church in protecting the Pope's universal disciplinary laws would have prevented it from being promulgated.

I am with you in agreement that when a Pope comes again, I will readily and immediately submit to all of his laws. This is the reason that I already submit to Pope Pius XII's law, it was the last law of the Church given by a certain Pope, therefore the 1955 Holy Week is infallibly protected and acceptable to God.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:48:20 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I want to be very clear here.

A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.

When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.

I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.

Did you know that an "insane" or "out of his mind" "Pope" is not a valid Pope?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:56:10 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: parentsfortruth
I want to be very clear here.

A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.

When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.

I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.

Did you know that an "insane" or "out of his mind" "Pope" is not a valid Pope?

Yes, but I suppose that's going to be for a future pope to decide whether those last 6 popes were antipopes or out of their mind. As a Catholic, you'd either have to be an apostate (which isn't even a Catholic), or out of your mind to do what they did. And that's not for me to decide.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2013, 10:04:00 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: parentsfortruth
I want to be very clear here.

A future Pope is going to clearly say which missal is the official Missal of Pius V. This is something in dispute now, because of the changes of the 1962 missal, and the Holy Week changes that occurred. Until that's done (and neither you, nor I have the authority to say which one it is) we wait. I look at the objective reality that the 1955 changes were a DESTRUCTION of the Holy Week rites, some of the most ancient rites in the Church, and I choose not to go along with those changes. What is also apparently in dispute, and wasn't up until then, was that Quo Primum was looked at by every successor Pope to Pope Saint Pius V, in the past as something that was not up for debate. The unchangeable parts of the Mass were never touched, neither was Holy Week touched by any Pope up until Pius XII.

When a future Pope comes along and decrees which rites are absolutely to be used, I will TOTALLY go along with whatever that decision is. Until then, we wait until this crisis is mercifully brought to an end, and there is a definite decision by a pope that's not entirely out of his mind (like obviously the last 6 popes we've had) to make that decision.

I do not dispute the authority of the Pope in disciplinary matters. That's not even an accusation that can be made.

Did you know that an "insane" or "out of his mind" "Pope" is not a valid Pope?

Yes, but I suppose that's going to be for a future pope to decide whether those last 6 popes were antipopes or out of their mind. As a Catholic, you'd either have to be an apostate (which isn't even a Catholic), or out of your mind to do what they did. And that's not for me to decide.

Gottcha. So you are not anti-SV.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2013, 10:50:03 AM »

Never have been. I'm actually sympathetic towards that point of view, however, my opinion is--- is--- is---

....

I
do
not
know.

God is not going to condemn me for ignorance of a situation that is impossible to filter through. I really don't think there are very many people who actually KNOW what happened, or what the situation is for absolutely certain right now, except maybe a few of the most heinously evil people that live at this moment. I would venture to say that maybe even a few good people know, but their silence isn't helping the rest of us know.

All I know, is that I'm a Catholic, and I respect the authority of the OFFICE of the Papacy, but can I know if Franny the Fraud, the "pope emiritus", JPII, JPI, Paul the Sick, and Fat John XXIII were really popes? Nope. -I- can't know. That doesn't effect my adherence to the Catholic FAITH. I adhere to the teachings and infallible definitions handed down by all the Popes up until the crisis, and that's really all I can do.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2013, 11:52:17 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Never have been. I'm actually sympathetic towards that point of view, however, my opinion is--- is--- is---

....

I
do
not
know.

God is not going to condemn me for ignorance of a situation that is impossible to filter through. I really don't think there are very many people who actually KNOW what happened, or what the situation is for absolutely certain right now, except maybe a few of the most heinously evil people that live at this moment. I would venture to say that maybe even a few good people know, but their silence isn't helping the rest of us know.

All I know, is that I'm a Catholic, and I respect the authority of the OFFICE of the Papacy, but can I know if Franny the Fraud, the "pope emiritus", JPII, JPI, Paul the Sick, and Fat John XXIII were really popes? Nope. -I- can't know. That doesn't effect my adherence to the Catholic FAITH. I adhere to the teachings and infallible definitions handed down by all the Popes up until the crisis, and that's really all I can do.

I believe you will be able to look Jesus in the eye without squirming on this issue. I have respect for the position you hold.

If you were to say about the SV position something that losely translates to "No way man, you are crazy to hold a such a position" as the Grunner, Ferrara, Viannaey, Felley clan do, then I would have trouble respecting your position. If you appeared as knowledgeable as they, and you do appear knowledgeable, and took that attitude "the SV position is patently absurd" I would doubt your intellectual honesty. All the above could very well be sincere in that attitude and not willfully blind, but on the surface it certainly appears, to me, that they are intellectually dishonest.

I respect your position and even admire it as it is a position that the genuinely humble take.

The others seem as if they have "something to lose" if they renounce their public claims about the issue.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2013, 12:44:07 PM »

That's exactly my view on sedevacantism.

I consider it quite possible, nay, rather, very likely, ... or actually, almost morally certain, that the V2 popes were not legitimate.

Yet I feel that there absolutely must be some role for the Church's authority. Legitimacy of popes is classified as a dogmatic fact, and as such the legitimacy (or lack thereof) must be known with the certainty of faith. Otherwise, for instance, any dogmatic pronouncements made by a such a pope cannot be held with the certainty of faith either.

Consequently, I defer to the judgment of the Church. I consider my state of doubt sufficient reason to effectively withdraw from obedience to the V2 popes while avoiding formal schism.

I have problems with both the SVs who feel that you MUST hold it as practically de fide that these are not popes (the Sanborn anti-"Opinionism" position) as well as with the sedeplenists who hold that you MUST believe the V2 popes to be legitimate (all the while refusing to obey them but paying lip service and posting a token picture of the current V2 pope in the vestibule). Neither of those extremes is at all defensible.

Archbishop Lefebvre held a similar view, if you look at his entire body of work, and Bishop Tissier has articulated the same thing. Bishop Williamson has hinted at it and that one Resistance Father has said it (I forget his name momentarily).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2013, 12:59:26 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The Popes are infallibly protected in their universal disciplinary laws, so as long as we are dealing with certain popes, we can be certain that their laws for the Church are good, holy and acceptable to God.

This principle is certain with the Holy Week rites. There is no valid Catholic principle that can be used to argue against Pope Pius XII's Holy Week law.

Yes and no. Infallibility protects the changes from having anything in them inherently harmful or contrary to the faith. It does not protect them from being inferior in a "relative" sense. Since they're not exactly the same, one can make an argument about which one is better and which one worse. That essentially is the epikeia argument made by the sedevacantists who fail to implement the Holy Week Rites, i.e. that they're inferior and/or "inopportune", i.e. harmful relatively speaking due to the modernist climate of our time; had the same changes been made 300 years ago, there would not have been a question.

Of course, the problem here is that the you could look at the Novus Ordo as just a LOT of changes very similar to the Pius XII changes, none of which in and of itself is inherently harmful. Is it intrinsically harmful or bad for the faith to reduce the Kyrie Eleison-Christe Eleison sequence from 9 to 3? You could go down the line for each change in the NOM.

As for the Pius XII changes, I absolutely LOVE the fact that the time of the Easter Vigil was changed. I've always found it extremely annoying to hear Traditional Catholics running around on Easter Saturday morning saying "Happy Easter". Didn't Christ die on the 3rd Day? That's CLEARLY an abuse that crept in over time. You look at the darkness & light imagery in the Liturgy, and it's obviously meant to be a TRUE VIGIL.

At the time of Pius XII, one would absolutely have been required to accept the changes and implement them. In a sedevacante or sede-"doubtist" period like this, however, there's some freedom for an application of epikeia.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:00:18 PM »

I would say it is one thing to say all who are not SV are not Catholic. That is an improper position to take.

But to avoid the issue just to get long by hiding authentic teaching such as a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office is also wrong.

To be an "excuse me" people so to speak. Will golly gee you know a non-Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church and public heretics are not Catholics, and well, oh my this is difficult for me, but Bergi is a public heretic and well ah well it really is not important, just pray, we really do not need to acknowledge facts if they make up uncomfortable, oh, I'm sorry, did I offend you, I really didn't mean to, bergi, tries he's a good man. It really does not matter if you get invalid or doubtful sacraments I'm mean I guess they are invalid, I'm sorry, I hope I'm not offending you, I take it back.

No that is puke-worthy. Ignoring reality to "get along" isn't the Catholic way in my opinion. But acknowledging that you are not sure is very Catholic if you really are not sure.