Author Topic: The Holy week reform of 1955 (Read 4301 times)

Fidelis servus · « **on:** March 28, 2016, 06:15:11 PM »

It is NOT a topic about sedevacantism...
many group use the ṕre 1955 Holy Week; many sedes, ICK, some of IBP, soçe of the SSPX some of the Resistance...

i would like to habe the advice of the qdvise readers of this forum.

all docuмents and complementary informations are welcome

I say the BETTER. I fully accept priests who have another position. it is not a question of condemning someone

BJ5 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 29, 2016, 08:21:40 AM »

I dislike the abbreviated form of the 1955 reform but I like bringing the new fire on the Pascal candle into a darkened church at night followed by midnight Mass as opposed to a Holy Saturday morning vigil following Tenebrae.

Cantarella · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2016, 03:51:55 PM »

Reject it because it is made by (freemason) Bunigni and is a preparation to the new liturgy.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2016, 04:19:50 PM »

With 73% of the votes in favor of rejecting the revised Holy Week, there are only a few possibilities:

A) Many members here would PREFER the old Holy Week, but (borderline hypocritically? compromisingly?) go to a chapel with the revised Holy Week anyhow

B) There are more sedevacantists than I thought on CathInfo, at least the vocal ones who vote in polls

C) A lot of Traditional Catholics have their opinions, and go with what sounds good, but they actually don't know what they're talking about. That is because most traditional chapels use the revised Holy Week. The fact that the SSPX (and the current neo-SSPX) uses it already equates to "most Traditional chapels", but the SSPX is not alone in this regard. The Resistance also uses it, as well as any groups "to the left" of the neo-SSPX, such as FSSP, ICK, Indult, etc.

That having been said, certain priests will keep certain "important" elements of the old Holy Week, such as the prayer for the Jєωs on Good Friday.

At Stella Maris Chapel a few days ago, Fr. Zendejas used the older "Perfidious Jєωs" form of the prayer for the Jєωιѕн people, and didn't do the genuflection ("flectamus genua") after that prayer either.

Just like the SSPX (and the Resistance) keeps the 2nd Confiteor, although it was technically removed from the 1962 Missale Romanum.

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2016, 04:29:29 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

A) Many members here would PREFER the old Holy Week, but hypocritically go to a chapel with the revised Holy Week anyhow

I have never been to a traditional Holy Week, either the traditional one before 1955 or the Bugnini 1955 one, but I would prefer the older one because even though I am not an expert and don't know about all of the changes I believe that the traditional one must be better than the one by Bugnini. But I go to an SSPX chapel and I guess that the priests who say Mass at my chapel say the Bugnini Holy Week. I take offense to you saying it is hypocritical for me to go to a chapel that uses the Bugnini Holy Week as if one has to agree with all the decisions mady by the priests at your chapel no matter what or else you are hypocritical. I think it is not only offensive to me and others like me, but also just plain wrong.

magdalena · « **Reply #5 on:** March 29, 2016, 05:12:07 PM »

Regardless of the stand one takes, it's worth reading about.

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

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2016, 05:48:04 PM »

One of the differences between the "old" and the "new" Holy Week: the older was much longer. Many more lessons to read.

And considering that only a small % of Trads attend Holy Week services as it is, I'd hate to see the turnout if more priests used the old Holy Week.

magdalena · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2016, 09:22:30 PM »

They weren't insignificant changes. I attended Holy Mass on Easter morning, but caught a pre-Bugnini Holy Saturday via the Internet live. Indeed, it was long. 5 hours. But it was well worth it. Once again, one needs to read the article to understand what was lost and the reasoning, and un-reasoning, behind the changes beginning with Palm Sunday.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2016, 11:58:47 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

They weren't insignificant changes. I attended Holy Mass on Easter morning, but caught a pre-Bugnini Holy Saturday via the Internet live. Indeed, it was long. 5 hours. But it was well worth it. Once again, one needs to read the article to understand what was lost and the reasoning, and un-reasoning, behind the changes beginning with Palm Sunday.

Sure, read about the changes (if you have time), but be careful to avoid becoming a home-aloner -- or even a Holy Week home-aloner once you have refined your taste in Holy Week Liturgy, and perhaps become something of a "Holy Week snob".

It would behoove us to keep things in perspective: The new Holy Week isn't bad like the Novus Ordo. I really love the entire Holy Week Liturgy. It is deep, beautiful, sublime, spiritually edifying, interesting, easy to pay attention, etc. Even the revised Holy Week.

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2016, 12:23:08 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

A) Many members here would PREFER the old Holy Week, but (borderline hypocritically? compromisingly?) go to a chapel with the revised Holy Week anyhow

Well, I truly believe the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, so I will refrain from staying home alone on Sundays. I do not think I am an hypocrite, I just have no other choice. However, that does not mean I like the 1955 Holy Week reform either. It just does not make any sense for Traditional Catholics to resist the Novus Ordo Missale while accepting the radical liturgical changes starting in 1955 during the reign of Pius XII and the 1962 Missale, considering that all these changes were master-minded by freemasons (Bugnini). After all, we are resisting infiltrated Jєω-Masonry within the Church, so why not go all the way?. This is just a simple personal opinion, of course.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2016, 12:34:35 AM »

Well, see my thread in the Crisis subforum about how there was no resistance to the 1962 Missal in 1962. None at all. Zero.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sedevacantism-before-1970

There was also zero "resistance" to the new Holy Week from anyone -- good, bad, or ugly -- in 1955. Did anyone start Trad chapels offering the "old Holy Week" before the Novus Ordo Mass was a thing?

Or was a "retro Holy Week" a bonus of sorts only offered AFTER Trad chapels had to be set up anyway to react to the Novus Ordo Mass?

Domitilla · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:26:36 AM »

Matthew, please read Dr. Carol Byrne's series on the "Dialogue Mass". You'll find that there was plenty of resistance to the revised Holy Week by Bishops around the world. All opposition was very successfully and quickly crushed by the nefarious reformers. Also, at that time, very few Catholics were prepared to understand that there were powerful forces arrayed to institute the reforms that have become the "norm" today. Tolle, lege!

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2016, 07:02:37 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

With 73% of the votes in favor of rejecting the revised Holy Week, there are only a few possibilities:

A) Many members here would PREFER the old Holy Week, but (borderline hypocritically? compromisingly?) go to a chapel with the revised Holy Week anyhow

B) There are more sedevacantists than I thought on CathInfo, at least the vocal ones who vote in polls

C) A lot of Traditional Catholics have their opinions, and go with what sounds good, but they actually don't know what they're talking about.

Actually, given that there have been, as of now, only 20 votes, I think that the statistics gleaned from the poll are useless and the fact is that most members simply will not vote in polls.

Perhaps there should have been a fourth option:

4. I really don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion.

I think there would have been a few people who select this option, but still, the number of respondents would have been incredibly low.

trento · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2016, 10:24:55 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

With 73% of the votes in favor of rejecting the revised Holy Week, there are only a few possibilities:

A) Many members here would PREFER the old Holy Week, but (borderline hypocritically? compromisingly?) go to a chapel with the revised Holy Week anyhow

B) There are more sedevacantists than I thought on CathInfo, at least the vocal ones who vote in polls

C) A lot of Traditional Catholics have their opinions, and go with what sounds good, but they actually don't know what they're talking about. That is because most traditional chapels use the revised Holy Week. The fact that the SSPX (and the current neo-SSPX) uses it already equates to "most Traditional chapels", but the SSPX is not alone in this regard. The Resistance also uses it, as well as any groups "to the left" of the neo-SSPX, such as FSSP, ICK, Indult, etc.

That having been said, certain priests will keep certain "important" elements of the old Holy Week, such as the prayer for the Jєωs on Good Friday.

At Stella Maris Chapel a few days ago, Fr. Zendejas used the older "Perfidious Jєωs" form of the prayer for the Jєωιѕн people, and didn't do the genuflection ("flectamus genua") after that prayer either.

Just like the SSPX (and the Resistance) keeps the 2nd Confiteor, although it was technically removed from the 1962 Missale Romanum.

The SSPX chapels that I attend still uses the older 'perfidious Jєωs' text.

BJ5 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2016, 10:25:56 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Well, see my thread in the Crisis subforum about how there was no resistance to the 1962 Missal in 1962. None at all. Zero.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sedevacantism-before-1970

There was also zero "resistance" to the new Holy Week from anyone -- good, bad, or ugly -- in 1955. Did anyone start Trad chapels offering the "old Holy Week" before the Novus Ordo Mass was a thing?

Or was a "retro Holy Week" a bonus of sorts only offered AFTER Trad chapels had to be set up anyway to react to the Novus Ordo Mass?

According to Bishop Sanborn, there was also generally favorable reaction by priests worldwide to the newly abridged Breviary that accompanied the 1962 Books.