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.    

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:

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.  

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.

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 docuмented 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.

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.

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 docuмent 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.