Author Topic: The Resistance and the Pre-1955 Holy Week (and Missal): (Read 18352 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #50 on:** April 19, 2014, 08:52:04 PM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote
...he was not fooled into reforming the Holy Week, he supported it and praised the changes.

I prefer to believe Pius XII ignorant and deceived rather than the alternative. I would truly like to think he is not barking in hell with Bugnini and Montini.

Sincerely, does anyone believe St. Pius X was so daft that he couldn't see the necessity of "Reforming" Holy Week? I think not, he wouldn't have had anything to do with such a revolution.

The assumption in your post is that the Holy Week as approved by Pope Pius XII was bad. That is an unproven assumption. The liturgical changes as directed and approved by Pope St. Pius X through Pope Pius XII were good changes.

Pope Pope XII taught:

Quote

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.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #51 on:** April 19, 2014, 09:36:06 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The liturgical changes as directed and approved by... Pope Pius XII were good changes.

How pray tell is that a proven assumption?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #52 on:** April 19, 2014, 10:14:41 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

cantatedomino, the software won't permit me to give you a "thumbs up". Again, I agree with your posts ...

So do I.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #53 on:** April 19, 2014, 10:39:21 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

CARUSI: The bishops received these novelties in various ways, and, beyond the façade of triumphalism, there were not lacking laments over the introduction of these innovations, and indeed requests began to multiply for permission to retain the traditional rites. (9) But by now the machine of liturgical reform had been set in motion and to halt it in its course would have proven impossible and moreover inadmissible, as the events to follow would demonstrate.

OBSERVATION: And this is why it is so very important for Tradition not to make ++ABL and his SSPX the First Principle of counter-revolution.

The original SSPX was already tainted with modernism, in its praxis and in the rites it took to itself. It was never wholly and entirely traditional.

In his OP, Sean said that "the advent of the Resistance might provide an opportunity to recover that which was lost by Bugnini from 1951 (in the case of Holy Week) on."

The "Resistance" will only accomplish this if it can break orbital velocity to escape the modernist pull of the novus ordo SSPX and return to the ancient Faith.

Agree

Nobody · « **Reply #54 on:** April 19, 2014, 11:03:58 PM »

It looks as as if everyone here is trying to outdo everyone else in being critical and laying the blame. How far shall we go back ? I wonder why Padre Pio never spoke about out about these changes which will soon be traced back 2000 years ? Or are we to suspect he was a modernist too ?

It is this spirit of continual and unchecked criticism that makes conversions impossible, out of reach of little children.

Can one save ones soul with the 1962, 1950, 1954, 1950, 1902, 1845, 1721, 1611, .. rubrics/missal/.. ?

I see the pharizees are alive and kicking.

I think this is what Bishop Williamson was talking about in his latest EC.

PS : Only one down thumb, per user, per post, thank you !