Author Topic: Latin Rite Holy Week:  (Read 2521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Reputation: +4002/-1317
  • Gender: Male
Latin Rite Holy Week:
« on: November 23, 2012, 02:42:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Forum-

    Magdalena tipped me off to this most excellent article, comparing the ancient Latin Rite Holy Week (1952) vs the reformed/modernized 1956 version.

    I knew about some of these changes, but this article lists at least 50-100 I never knew about.

    Seemed worthy of its own thread:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

    Ps: Almost afraid to ask if anyone knows whether there were modernizations between 1948-1951, which I think is when Bugnini started destroying?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline magdalena

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2047
    • Reputation: +1805/-38
    • Gender: Female
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #1 on: November 23, 2012, 07:49:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    Forum-

    Magdalena tipped me off to this most excellent article, comparing the ancient Latin Rite Holy Week (1952) vs the reformed/modernized 1956 version.

    I knew about some of these changes, but this article lists at least 50-100 I never knew about.

    Seemed worthy of its own thread:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

    Ps: Almost afraid to ask if anyone knows whether there were modernizations between 1948-1951, which I think is when Bugnini started destroying?


    Ultrarigorist posted the link on page 8 of your thread "Which Missal for the Resistance?"  I passed the link on to a few others who I thought would be interested, and who I hadn't seen a reply from in the thread.  I thought that I had given credit to him in my PM's.  If not, I apologize. And you are right, Seraphim, Ultrarigorist's link deserves a thread of its own.    
    But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.
    Luke 10:42


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #2 on: November 24, 2012, 02:04:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A member of this forum posted an excellent and impressive article a while back on the Pope Pius XII Holy Week.  

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Regarding-the-Restored-Order-of-Holy-Week

    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4429
    • Reputation: +4002/-1317
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #3 on: November 24, 2012, 05:57:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    Forum-

    Magdalena tipped me off to this most excellent article, comparing the ancient Latin Rite Holy Week (1952) vs the reformed/modernized 1956 version.

    I knew about some of these changes, but this article lists at least 50-100 I never knew about.

    Seemed worthy of its own thread:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

    Ps: Almost afraid to ask if anyone knows whether there were modernizations between 1948-1951, which I think is when Bugnini started destroying?



    Rather than just giving a gratuitous thumbs-down, it might be more constructive to hear your defense of the 1956 modernized Holy Week (which is the only reason I can think of for someone thumbs-downing this article). :confused1:
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline magdalena

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2047
    • Reputation: +1805/-38
    • Gender: Female
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #4 on: November 24, 2012, 07:53:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    A member of this forum posted an excellent and impressive article a while back on the Pope Pius XII Holy Week.  

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Regarding-the-Restored-Order-of-Holy-Week



    Yet no permission is necessary to use the Missal of Pope St. Pius V.  (Quo Primum).  Isn't that what the SSPX has been operating on all these years?  And isn't that the reason that the Moto Propio and the "lifting" of the "excommunications" was deemed superfluous?  The link provided is a study.  And it is well worth reading.  
    But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.
    Luke 10:42


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #5 on: November 24, 2012, 08:18:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: magdalena
    Quote from: Ambrose
    A member of this forum posted an excellent and impressive article a while back on the Pope Pius XII Holy Week.  

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Regarding-the-Restored-Order-of-Holy-Week



    Yet no permission is necessary to use the Missal of Pope St. Pius V.  (Quo Primum).  Isn't that what the SSPX has been operating on all these years?  And isn't that the reason that the Moto Propio and the "lifting" of the "excommunications" was deemed superfluous?  The link provided is a study.  And it is well worth reading.  


    I agree that it is good to understand what the modernists were up to even in the 1950's but make no mistake about one thing:  It was the Pope who gave us the Holy Week Rites of the 1950's and by that fact, the rite was good, holy and pleasing to God.  Bugniini did not give us the revised 1956 Holy Week Rite, Pope Pius XII did.

    If you read the link I gave you, it provides and excellent study on this by Hobbledoy, a well respected poster on this forum, who I do not know, but whom I respect greatly from his writings on this forum.  

    I would also urge a reading of the discussion which follows the article, it provides more information and resources.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1227
    • Reputation: +1176/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #6 on: November 24, 2012, 09:15:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ironic that Hobblehoy uses the argument that more recent rites are just as deserving of respect, because Maxima Redemptionis says the Restored Holy Week is supposedly going back to antiquity (thanks to the arguments of the Modernist liturgical experts), and discarding the so-called "more recent rites" of the pre-1955 rite! This is the disconnect of Pope Pius XII (though it must be excused because of his poor health and his tendency to believe everything that Cardinal Bea and Bugnini told him) between Mediator Dei and Maxima Redemptionis. Condemning antiquarianism, and yet sanctioning it in the restored Holy Week! Who are you to believe?

    Not that I'm a sede, but nonetheless I greatly believe the liturgical reform to be a mess, and the basis of any future reform should be the pre-1955 Missal.
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this

    Offline ultrarigorist

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +801/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #7 on: November 24, 2012, 09:27:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: magdalena
    Quote from: Ambrose
    A member of this forum posted an excellent and impressive article a while back on the Pope Pius XII Holy Week.  

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Regarding-the-Restored-Order-of-Holy-Week



    Yet no permission is necessary to use the Missal of Pope St. Pius V.  (Quo Primum).  Isn't that what the SSPX has been operating on all these years?  And isn't that the reason that the Moto Propio and the "lifting" of the "excommunications" was deemed superfluous?  The link provided is a study.  And it is well worth reading.  


    I agree that it is good to understand what the modernists were up to even in the 1950's but make no mistake about one thing:  It was the Pope who gave us the Holy Week Rites of the 1950's and by that fact, the rite was good, holy and pleasing to God.  Bugniini did not give us the revised 1956 Holy Week Rite, Pope Pius XII did.

    If you read the link I gave you, it provides and excellent study on this by Hobbledoy, a well respected poster on this forum, who I do not know, but whom I respect greatly from his writings on this forum.  

    I would also urge a reading of the discussion which follows the article, it provides more information and resources.  


    Yes, read it. The Congregation of Sacred Rites ...was “charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.” It's been well demonstrated that these changes to Holy Week were "spurious innovation" if they were anything at all.
    The decree Maxima Redemptionis could possibly have been an authentic decree, had it not falsely claimed a papal mandate instead of that of its author, ++Cicognani (who technically speaking had the authority, except foisting novelty on the Church was out-of-scope). http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=112 So, no, Pius XII didn't give us the reformed Holy Week. In essence, Hobbledehoy's post could just as easily serve to justify the no-Mass. Ambrose, if as I suspect you're unfamiliar withe the "unreformed" Sacred Triduum, may I suggest you do whatever it takes to assist at same next year. Until then, it's liable to be just so much dull theory.


    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1227
    • Reputation: +1176/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #8 on: November 24, 2012, 09:59:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another thing: Pope John XXIII celebrated the Holy Week according to the pre-1955 Missal, defying Maxima Redemptionis.

    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this

    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #9 on: November 24, 2012, 11:38:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I got some hate-mail today, and now I know why: the notes I wrote regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week have resurfaced.

    I don't know why the notes I wrote were mentioned in this discussion, since Seraphim is speaking of the question regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week within the context of the SSPX understanding of the crisis presently afflicting Holy Mother Church, or at least that is what I assume since he is not a sedevacantist and is not necessarily addressing sedevacantists.

    The notes do not make sense to non-sedevacantists because it was not written for them, but rather to disabuse such people as Fr. Cekada, Dr. Droleskey, Bp. Sanborn, &c., of their erroneous theories regarding the subject in question.

    I just hope that whatever position one takes regarding this important question is substantiated by approved sources and not contingent on conspiracy theories and garbage from Morrison's Traditio site or the shabby scholarship of untrained acephalous sedevacantists Priests who only have ad hominems as a reply to the queries I raised. Rev. Fr. Stefano Carusi's article cited by Seraphim is the best documented article I have seen regarding this question.



    Some points:

    1) The "recognize-and-resist" traditional Catholics who eschew sedevacantism and follow the typical editions of the Roman Missal and Breviary prior to the promulgation of the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII are not the object of my critiques because they are informed by a different ecclesiological orientation. I have not studied enough the seminal texts and the present day discourse of their circles to enable me to write anything substantial regarding their stance, but (as I have written before) their liturgical praxis appears to be consistent with their understanding of the ecclesiastical question. I cannot blame them for rejecting the reforms of Pope Pius XII when they recognize Benedict XVI as the Supreme Pontiff and yet act as if he is not at Rome.


    2) The exigencies of conscience compelled me to present "the other side" of the issue in current discourse of sedevacantist polemics. It is not a secret that the "liturgical question" has been abused and manipulated as a strategic tool employed and devised with the purpose to attract those of the faithful who have been betrayed and disenfranchised by certain clerics (SSPX, Fraternity of St. Peter, the Novus Ordo, etc.), only assure themselves their minds, hearts and wallets. The lack of unity amongst the sedevacantist clerics themselves substantiates that this is indeed the reality of the question.

    I earnestly desire and pray that the betrayal of Bp. Fellay may not push you who have been troubled and afflicted by the current crisis within the SSPX into some "traditionalist/sede" version of Jonestown.


    3) I know most traditionalists (regardless of their opinion regarding "sedevacantism") disagree with me regarding this question, and vehemently so. However, what concerns me is not whether other Catholics agree with whatever my personal opinions may be, but that they may have access to information from approved sources so that they may arrive at informed and orthodox conclusions, guided by prayer and holy grace. The faithful should at least see both sides of the question before they decide what Chapels to attend, and such other things.

    Ultimately we indeed disagree to only agree because we all want the same thing: the freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother Church.

    Whatever position one takes, it is worthless and even noxious unless one leads a better interior life because of it: giving oneself over to works of piety, charity and penance; perseveringly practicing interior and exterior mortification; frequenting the holy Sacraments and seeking the spiritual direction of a devout and learned Priest; and abandoning oneself with filial confidence unto the designs of Divine Providence, whilst consecrating completely all that one is and has to Mary Most Holy, so that she may jealously preserve us by her benign tutelage and maternal patronage as Mediatress of All Graces.



    Post script: Please use good scholarship as your foundation, such as that of Rev. Fr. Stefano Carusi, rather than trash from conspiracy theorists who use unsubstantiated claims as their sole reasoning.
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #10 on: November 24, 2012, 11:40:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
    Ironic that Hobblehoy uses the argument that more recent rites are just as deserving of respect, because Maxima Redemptionis says the Restored Holy Week is supposedly going back to antiquity (thanks to the arguments of the Modernist liturgical experts), and discarding the so-called "more recent rites" of the pre-1955 rite! This is the disconnect of Pope Pius XII (though it must be excused because of his poor health and his tendency to believe everything that Cardinal Bea and Bugnini told him) between Mediator Dei and Maxima Redemptionis. Condemning antiquarianism, and yet sanctioning it in the restored Holy Week! Who are you to believe?

    Not that I'm a sede, but nonetheless I greatly believe the liturgical reform to be a mess, and the basis of any future reform should be the pre-1955 Missal.


    Fair enough, as long as that future reform comes from the Pope.  When a Pope comes again, I will happily follow his judgment and law on whatever he does with Pope Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week.  If he keeps it, fine, and if goes back to the older rite that is fine as well.  But, until a Pope comes again, it is not for us to go against the law of Pope Pius XII.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #11 on: November 25, 2012, 01:06:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I don't know why the notes I wrote were mentioned in this discussion


    Hobbledoy,

    I am sorry you got hate mail over this.  I have read your notes, and I believe that they provide a Catholic answer to how Catholics react to sacramental rites given by the Pope.  

    It was me who posted the link to your notes, and I will answer you as to why since you mentioned it.  I believe the time has come for Catholics to stop adopting incorrect ideas about how to react to the crisis.  Catholics need sound theology in the same way that a starving and man needs food.

    I also realize that some Catholics are coming at this from a much different perspective than the sedevacantists  But, in my opinion they have a right to the truth, whether they accept it or not is up to them.

    Like yourself, I have studied the same issue of the sacramental rites, and this includes the Pius XII holy week rites.  I came to the same conclusion as you long before I read your paper, and used the same reasoning that you used in forming myself on the matter.

    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #12 on: November 25, 2012, 02:18:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The decree Maxima Redemptionis could possibly have been an authentic decree, had it not falsely claimed a papal mandate instead of that of its author, ++Cicognani (who technically speaking had the authority, except foisting novelty on the Church was out-of-scope). http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=112 So, no, Pius XII didn't give us the reformed Holy Week. In essence, Hobbledehoy's post could just as easily serve to justify the no-Mass. Ambrose, if as I suspect you're unfamiliar withe the "unreformed" Sacred Triduum, may I suggest you do whatever it takes to assist at same next year. Until then, it's liable to be just so much dull theory.


    You do not understand how law in the Church is communicated.  The Cardinals are the official witnesses of the Pope, and they attest to the fact that the Pope approved the document and then sign as his witnesses.   That is the form the Church uses.  If you look up any law given by the Church you will see this same form used, including even the 1917 Code itself.

    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline ultrarigorist

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +801/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #13 on: November 25, 2012, 03:54:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote
    The decree Maxima Redemptionis could possibly have been an authentic decree, had it not falsely claimed a papal mandate instead of that of its author, ++Cicognani (who technically speaking had the authority, except foisting novelty on the Church was out-of-scope). http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=112 So, no, Pius XII didn't give us the reformed Holy Week. In essence, Hobbledehoy's post could just as easily serve to justify the no-Mass. Ambrose, if as I suspect you're unfamiliar withe the "unreformed" Sacred Triduum, may I suggest you do whatever it takes to assist at same next year. Until then, it's liable to be just so much dull theory.

    You do not understand how law in the Church is communicated.  The Cardinals are the official witnesses of the Pope, and they attest to the fact that the Pope approved the document and then sign as his witnesses.   That is the form the Church uses.  If you look up any law given by the Church you will see this same form used, including even the 1917 Code itself.

    Granted. But if you read M.R. regarding the manner in which they witness, it says: "When all these matters had been individually reported to the Holy Father by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, His Holiness deigned to approve the recommendations of the Most Eminent Cardinals."
    I'm no Canon lawyer, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either. So when reading a claim worded like this I can say beyond doubt that someone was being hoodwinked.
    It comes down to whether it was possible for an aged and ailing pope to be surrounded by evil men who conspired to "manage" him in the manner of a mushroom. I believe that this could, and the evidence says that it did, happen.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2423/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Latin Rite Holy Week:
    « Reply #14 on: November 25, 2012, 04:44:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ultrarigorist wrote:

    Quote
    It comes down to whether it was possible for an aged and ailing pope to be surrounded by evil men who conspired to "manage" him in the manner of a mushroom. I believe that this could, and the evidence says that it did, happen.


    You are making quite a few assumptions here.  Pope Pius XII was of advanced age towards the end of his life, but he was in his right mind, and was actively running the Church.  

    In 1954 Pope Pius XII was very sick, and his death appeared imminent, and it was at this time that Our Lord appeared to him, and in what has all the appearances of a miracle, he regained his health and his vitality, and pressed on with a very busy schedule for several more years.  If you need proof of Pius XII's very active schedule in the last years of his life, I have several biographies of him, and would be happy to demonstrate that point.  

    Shortly after approving the new Holy Week Rites, the Pope gave a very lengthy speech before thousands and I posted the relevant excerpt below.  Take careful note of the boldfaced section in which the Pope praises the new Holy Week Rites he had just approved the year before.  

    Pope Pius XII, taken from  his Address on the Liturgy, September 22, 1956.  You can read the entire address here:  http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=425

    Quote
    If the position of the liturgical movement today is compared to that of thirty years ago, undeniable progress in its extent and in its depth becomes evident. Interest in the liturgy, practical accomplishments, and the active participation of the faithful have undergone a development which would then have been difficult to anticipate.

    The chief driving force, both in doctrinal matters and in practical applications, came from the Hierarchy and, in particular, from Our saintly Predecessor, Pius X, who gave the liturgical movement a decisive impulse by his Motu Proprio of October 23, 1913, “Abhinc duos annos.” (1)

    The faithful received these directives gratefully and showed themselves ready to comply with them. Liturgists applied themselves to their task with zeal and, as a result, many interesting and rewarding projects were soon under way, although, at times, certain deviations had to be corrected by the Church’s authority.

    Of the many documents 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.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16