Author Topic: Regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week (Read 19295 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #45 on:** April 06, 2012, 01:26:07 AM »

Hobbledehoy said:

Quote

This is about the whole inconsistency of the "movement" itself, of which the lack of ecclesiastical discipline is but a manifestation.

If the sedes weren't inconsistent, then it would be even worse for us, because it would mean there was never any point to having a Pope at all :dancing:

God protects His church and, at least when what sits in Rome was the Church, He didn't let Bugnini go too far. It's a case of the scribes and the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat, do what they say and not what they do. Sort of like how Caminus or others in the SSPX think of the Vatican II church, that it just barely scrapes by and meets the conditions of being the true Church; that is how I feel about the papacy of Pius XII. God was restraining the fall from happening but just barely; it was already incredibly rotten.

I'm afraid, Cupertino, that you are the one using bluster and rhetoric and emotion here. No one is saying the changes are a vast improvement, but they did come from the true Church. So it makes more sense to accept them for now, for the reasons Hobbledehoy points out.

SJB · « **Reply #46 on:** April 06, 2012, 03:42:12 AM »

Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino

Unfortunately, anytime you have a true pope approve of a liturgical practice, even tacitly, it is considered to be approved by "the Catholic Church". That is the holiness of the Catholic Church. Either the Novus Ordo liturgy is from the Church and perfectly good, or else the man approving of it is not a true pope.

Canute · « **Reply #47 on:** April 06, 2012, 06:57:52 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

I also brought up about the CMRI and the 55+ changes. Note well that they perform the mandatory changes, but they leave off the optional things from the late 50's (Fr. Cekada lists them and the average traditionalist today winces at them). We could argue likewise that the optional things were "good" at that time, then why do the CMRI entirely avoid them? For instance, the CMRI don't implement the "dialogue Mass" for the very same reason Fr. Cekada, et al, don't do the ones considered mandatory in the late 50's - because they offend against traditional Catholic sensibilities since and because the circuмstances changed drastically in the 60's.

This is a very balanced insight, and I wish Raoul and Hobbledhoy would give it some serious consideration.

The circuмstances HAVE changed from when the changes were promulgated, and it's not unreasonable to believe that this should lead us to look us upon them in a different way.

SJB · « **Reply #48 on:** April 06, 2012, 08:15:23 AM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: Cupertino
I also brought up about the CMRI and the 55+ changes. Note well that they perform the mandatory changes, but they leave off the optional things from the late 50's (Fr. Cekada lists them and the average traditionalist today winces at them). We could argue likewise that the optional things were "good" at that time, then why do the CMRI entirely avoid them? For instance, the CMRI don't implement the "dialogue Mass" for the very same reason Fr. Cekada, et al, don't do the ones considered mandatory in the late 50's - because they offend against traditional Catholic sensibilities since and because the circuмstances changed drastically in the 60's.

This is a very balanced insight, and I wish Raoul and Hobbledhoy would give it some serious consideration.

The circuмstances HAVE changed from when the changes were promulgated, and it's not unreasonable to believe that this should lead us to look us upon them in a different way.

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino

Unfortunately, anytime you have a true pope approve of a liturgical practice, even tacitly, it is considered to be approved by "the Catholic Church". That is the holiness of the Catholic Church. Either the Novus Ordo liturgy is from the Church and perfectly good, or else the man approving of it is not a true pope.

Canute · « **Reply #49 on:** April 06, 2012, 08:38:41 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

"Safer course"?

C'mon, SJB, your own priest, Fr. Ramolla, uses the old Holy Week!

A "safe" course IS a sufficient norm, so if you brought up your "safer course" theory to him, Fr. Ramolla would have just one question for you:

http://movieclips.com/fMhF-marathon-man-movie-is-it-safe/