Author Topic: Pius XII Revised Holy Week rites (Read 1202 times)

Sneakyticks · « **on:** May 01, 2014, 01:57:16 PM »

Wouldn't they fall into the Church's infalliblity as regards to Her liturgy, and if this was the case, wouldn't it mean Pius XII became an antipope when this happened for the same reason that Cekada & co. say that it was impossible Paul 6 was a true Pope because of Vatican 2?

So if these rites are erroneous or wrong, then what does that say of the infallibility of the Church with regards to liturgy?

And if they aren't wrong, then why do some oppose them?

They say they were only a transitory or temporal thing, as if saying that heresy or error could be approved of only for a little while or even a second wouldn't bring down the Church's indefectibility and infallibility anyways.

Ambrose · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2014, 02:32:03 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Wouldn't they fall into the Church's infalliblity as regards to Her liturgy, and if this was the case, wouldn't it mean Pius XII became an antipope when this happened for the same reason that Cekada & co. say that it was impossible Paul 6 was a true Pope because of Vatican 2?

So if these rites are erroneous or wrong, then what does that say of the infallibility of the Church with regards to liturgy?

And if they aren't wrong, then why do some oppose them?

They say they were only a transitory or temporal thing, as if saying that heresy or error could be approved of only for a little while or even a second wouldn't bring down the Church's indefectibility and infallibility anyways.

This position is grounded on the idea that the revolution must be traced back before Paul VI. While it is true that modernists were in the ranks, Pope Pius XII was a thoroughly Catholic and good pope.

Their position takes the spotlight off the Novus Ordo and Paul VI and stupidly shines it in Pope Pius XII. It is a distraction and an annoyance and those who hold it should not have allowed themselves to go there.

PG · « **Reply #2 on:** May 06, 2014, 05:15:48 PM »

Sneakytricks - vacantists use that argument(and it is weak indeed) for rejecting the changes(and the changes must be rejected) because if they didn't, they would have to reject Pius XII. But, that is not an option, because vacantsists rely on not allowing a heretic to "ascend to"(rather than "fall from") the papacy due to heresy. They cannot get away with the latter. If they tried, they would end up sounding like Ambrose, and would be snuffed out immediately.

:scratchchin:Couple that with a glorification of Pius XII, and the majority of vacantist trads will never suspect a thing :cool:. I like to think that this is the fifties-ism that +Williamson is observing(glorification of Pius XII).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** May 06, 2014, 07:28:43 PM »

I think that the argument is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the Pius XII changes (it has to be really or otherwise your point is well taken), but that in hindsight and in the absence of a legitimate authority, by the principle of epikeia, they feel that Pius XII, were he alive today, seeing it in retrospect, would himself have undone the changes.

I actually like most of the Pius XII changes. So, for instance, I find it borderline silly that the Easter Vigil is celebrated in the morning on Saturday, and the people go around saying Happy Easter on Saturday morning. Christ rose on the THIRD day, not the second. Holy Saturday Vigil was obviously an all-night vigil in anticipation of Easter Sunday.

Emitte Lucem Tuam · « **Reply #4 on:** May 08, 2014, 05:44:00 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

Sneakytricks - vacantists use that argument(and it is weak indeed) for rejecting the changes(and the changes must be rejected) because if they didn't, they would have to reject Pius XII. But, that is not an option, because vacantsists rely on not allowing a heretic to "ascend to"(rather than "fall from") the papacy due to heresy. They cannot get away with the latter. If they tried, they would end up sounding like Ambrose, and would be snuffed out immediately.

:scratchchin:Couple that with a glorification of Pius XII, and the majority of vacantist trads will never suspect a thing :cool:. I like to think that this is the fifties-ism that +Williamson is observing(glorification of Pius XII).

There have been changes made to ceremonies in the Church for centuries and to criticize Pope Pius XII for the Holy Week changes is ignorant thinking. To compare the Holy Week changes vs the Novus Ordo Revolution is absurd. The Novus Ordo revolution overthrew all seven sacraments, overthrew the ecclesiology of the Church, and attempted to abolish the Holy Mass of all time and pass off a heretical Protestant supper service in it's place not to mention hundreds of other little revolutions since 1964. You just can't compare this to the Pope's Holy Week ceremonial changes.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** May 08, 2014, 06:34:01 AM »

I happen to attend a chapel that uses the pre-1955 Missal. The bishop has explained the reasons why he does not use the Pius XII Missal with the changes in Holy Week. In short, he contends that these were the first of the Bugnini changes to the Mass and views them has Bugnini's "test run" to see if the world would accept the changes that he had planned for destroying the traditional Latin Rite. He also contends that Pope Pius XII would certainly not have accepted the changes to Holy Week had he truly known the purposes for implementing them.

Personally, I find all these reasons for rejecting the 1955 Holy Week changes to be less than compelling. On the other hand, I can understand the thought process behind the ideas.

I regard this as a debate that is best kept at the episcopal level. The traditional bishops (and priests) should debate this issue amongst themselves and away from the public eye. I would unhesitatingly participate in the Holy Week rites from either the pre or post 1955 Missals according to the determination of the priest at whose Mass I attend. When there is a true pope, the issue will be, at some point, resolved.

On the other hand, if a traditional priest were to declare any other traditional priest anathema because he does not use the particular Missal he uses, I would regard that as schismatic. I have listened to traditional priests from each side of the debate discuss this issue and it seems that it is one issue in which both sides seek to convince the other while not condemning their opponents.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** May 08, 2014, 12:25:46 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I happen to attend a chapel that uses the pre-1955 Missal. The bishop has explained the reasons why he does not use the Pius XII Missal with the changes in Holy Week. In short, he contends that these were the first of the Bugnini changes to the Mass and views them has Bugnini's "test run" to see if the world would accept the changes that he had planned for destroying the traditional Latin Rite. He also contends that Pope Pius XII would certainly not have accepted the changes to Holy Week had he truly known the purposes for implementing them.

Personally, I find all these reasons for rejecting the 1955 Holy Week changes to be less than compelling. On the other hand, I can understand the thought process behind the ideas.

I regard this as a debate that is best kept at the episcopal level. The traditional bishops (and priests) should debate this issue amongst themselves and away from the public eye. I would unhesitatingly participate in the Holy Week rites from either the pre or post 1955 Missals according to the determination of the priest at whose Mass I attend. When there is a true pope, the issue will be, at some point, resolved.

On the other hand, if a traditional priest were to declare any other traditional priest anathema because he does not use the particular Missal he uses, I would regard that as schismatic. I have listened to traditional priests from each side of the debate discuss this issue and it seems that it is one issue in which both sides seek to convince the other while not condemning their opponents.

You state the situation well. But because the laity are aware of the difference they naturally seek an answer and Priests, when asked, IMO should give their opinion on it as their opinion. I don't think anyone can condemn the those who disagree with them on the issue. I wouldn't dare condemn one for obeying the last valid Pope even when considering all the hindsight we have now.

But IMO the pre-1955 liturgy is the safest and least tarnished and I believe I have a right to that opinion as I do not see where such an opinion has been condemned.

But the anti-SVs do indeed use this as a way to divide the SVs though some none-SVs I have no doubt are truly interested in the topic itself. It is not a topic to hang your hat on either side while condemning the other side.

A valid Pope can do what Pius XII.

A valid Pope cannot do what Paul 6 did.

That is the bottom line. When deciding on the plausibility of SV the Holy Week changes should not enter into the debate as nothing was approved that a valid Pope could approve.

Even the changes made by John 23 [apart from inserting Saint Joseph into the canon?] were changes a valid Pope could make. Even the changes make by Paul 6 in 1964 were something a valid Pope could do. But when it comes to messing with the consecration formula an uncrossable line is crossed. We bid such a fool adieu.

Ambrose · « **Reply #7 on:** May 08, 2014, 02:47:48 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I happen to attend a chapel that uses the pre-1955 Missal. The bishop has explained the reasons why he does not use the Pius XII Missal with the changes in Holy Week. In short, he contends that these were the first of the Bugnini changes to the Mass and views them has Bugnini's "test run" to see if the world would accept the changes that he had planned for destroying the traditional Latin Rite. He also contends that Pope Pius XII would certainly not have accepted the changes to Holy Week had he truly known the purposes for implementing them.

Personally, I find all these reasons for rejecting the 1955 Holy Week changes to be less than compelling. On the other hand, I can understand the thought process behind the ideas.

I regard this as a debate that is best kept at the episcopal level. The traditional bishops (and priests) should debate this issue amongst themselves and away from the public eye. I would unhesitatingly participate in the Holy Week rites from either the pre or post 1955 Missals according to the determination of the priest at whose Mass I attend. When there is a true pope, the issue will be, at some point, resolved.

On the other hand, if a traditional priest were to declare any other traditional priest anathema because he does not use the particular Missal he uses, I would regard that as schismatic. I have listened to traditional priests from each side of the debate discuss this issue and it seems that it is one issue in which both sides seek to convince the other while not condemning their opponents.

You have a very tactful approach and I admire that.

I do not restrict such debates to traditional priests as they have no more authority in the Church than laymen. Catholics have a right and a duty to the truth. If distrust of the Holy Week rites is being pushed by some, Catholics have a right and a duty to understand the issue.

I would not say that Catholics cannot go to the pre-55 rite, but if they choose to do that, they must realize that it must not be in opposition to the law, and should be done respectfully in regards to Pope Pius XII's reforms.

As far as I see it, this distrust of the laws of Pope Pius XII comes from a flawed theology that developed in regards to the distrust and rejection of Paul VI's laws. It seems that Catholics have come to assume that the same principle that applies to Paul VI applies universally in the Church: namely that the priest and laity, and not the Pope are the highest authority in the Church.

The only reason it works with Paul VI was because he was an antipope. The laws of true Popes are bound in Heaven and earth, and cannot be "vetoed" by priests and laymen. The Catholic Church is not a cafeteria, that we pick and choose the laws that most appeal to us.

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** May 08, 2014, 09:52:33 PM »

The Missal of Pius V can be used without any scruple of conscience in perpetuity. All priests have that permission.

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** May 08, 2014, 10:55:25 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

The Missal of Pius V can be used without any scruple of conscience in perpetuity. All priests have that permission.

A pope cannot bind a future pope. This is very basic. When a Pope binds the Church to a new law, all are bound. When Pope Pius XII promulgated liturgical laws all were and are bound.

Matthew 16:18

Quote

18 *Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2014, 07:49:11 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

A pope cannot bind a future pope. This is very basic.

Agreed. This is yet another one of those false Traditionalist arguments.

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:39:48 AM »

Quote

Ambrose said:
A pope cannot bind a future pope. This is very basic.

Basic but untrue, a pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline.

Ambrose · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2014, 01:02:17 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
Ambrose said:
A pope cannot bind a future pope. This is very basic.

Basic but untrue, a pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline.

False. You really need to learn more before writing. This is a basic staple of law, an equal does not bind an equal.

You can start by reading the commentaries on Canon 22, (1917 Code).