Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on April 19, 2014, 07:39:03 AM
-
Question for anyone attending Holy Week at a Resistance chapel:
1) Did your priest use the traditional pre-1955 Missal, or did he use the modernized version of Pius XII?
2) Does your Resistance priest use the 1954 (or earlier) missal throughout the year?
3) If so to #2, does he honor its integrity (i.e., Does he edit out all the extra prayers, modify the calendar, etc to basically bring the 1954 into line with the 1962)?
I wanted to ask the question, beacuse, leaving all other issues aside, it seemed to me 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.
Yet I notice from the Resistance Chapel sub-forum, the Vigil for Holy Saturday performed by Fr. Pfeiffer will still be at 10:30PM, which shows the modernized version is still being said.
-
A summary of what was lost:
The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html
-
I wanted to ask the question, beacuse, leaving all other issues aside, it seemed to me 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.
:applause:
-
The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956: A translation of the study by Fr. Stefano Carusi IBP
After many delays, Rorate Caeli presents the following translation of Fr. Stefano Carusi's work on the reform of Holy Week under Pope Pius XII. This translation is the work of a U.S.-based priest who had spent much time in Rome and who wishes to remain anonymous. [UPDATE November 2, 2010: the translator has given permission for his name to be appended to this post: he is Fr. Charles W. Johnson, a U.S. military chaplain.]
The text has been scrupulously translated, but the formatting has been changed slightly by turning the bullet points in the original Italian text into numbers typed in boldface.
This text is posted with the intention of encouraging civil and constructive discussions on the roots of the liturgical reform. Rorate does not take the view that important theological and liturgical disputes even within the Traditional Catholic world ought to be swept under the rug. CAP.
From Disputationes Theologicae:
THE REFORM OF HOLY WEEK IN THE YEARS 1951-1956
FROM LITURGY TO THEOLOGY BY WAY OF THE STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN LEADING THINKERS (ANNIBALE BUGNINI, CARLO BRAGA, FERDINANDO ANTONELLI)
by Stefano Carusi
"It was felt necessary to revise and enrich the formulae of the Roman Missal. The first stage of such a reform was the work of Our Predecessor Pius XII with the reform of the Easter Vigil and the rites of Holy Week (1), which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking"
(Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969)
INTRODUCTION
In the course of recent years, the publication of numerous studies concerning the history of the theological and liturgical debate of the 1950's has cast new light on the formation and the intentions (which were not always openly declared at the time) of those who were the actual composers of certain texts.
As regards the work of the reform of Holy Week in 1955 and 1956, it is desirable to consider the declarations, finally made public now, of the well-known Lazarist Annibale Bugnini, and of his close collaborator and later secretary of the "Consilium ad reformandam liturgiam" Father Carlo Braga, and of the future-Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli, in order to establish whether or not their work of liturgical reform corresponds to a wider theological project and in order to analyze the validity of the criteria used and then reproposed in the reforms that followed. We shall consider the notes and minutes of the discussions of the preparatory commission, preserved mainly in the archives of the Congregation of Rites and recently published in the monumental work of the liturgical historian Msgr. Nicola Giampietro, which testify to the tenor of the debate.
In October of 1949 at the Congregation of Rites, a liturgical commission was named which would have as its object the Roman rite. (Actually, the commission was named on May 28, 1948, while the constitutive meeting of the commission was held on June 22 of the same year. See Fr. Thomas Richstatter's "Liturgical Law: New Style, New Spirit", Franciscan Herald Press 1977, p. 182. CAP.) It was to study whether eventual reforms should be adopted; unfortunately, the calm necessary for such a work was not possible on account of the continual requests by the French and German episcopates demanding immediate changes with the greatest and most precipitous haste. The Congregation of Rites and the Commission considered themselves bound to treat the question of the horarium of Holy Week in order to circuмvent the imaginative creations of certain "autonomous celebrations," especially in regard to the Vigil of Holy Saturday. In this context, it was necessary to approve "ad experimentum" a docuмent that permitted the evening celebration of the rite of Holy Saturday, i.e. the "Ordo Sabbati Sancti” [“The Order of Holy Saturday”] of January 9, 1951. (2) In the years 1948-1949, the Commission was erected under the presidency of its Cardinal Prefect Clemente Micara, replaced in 1953 by Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani; also present were Msgr. Alfonso Carinci, Fathers Joseph Löw, Alfonso Albareda, Agostino Bea, and Annibale Bugnini. In 1951 Msgr. Enrico Dante was added; in 1960, Msgr. Pietro Frutaz, Fr. Luigi Rovigatti, Msgr. Cesario d'Amato, and finally Fr. Carlo Braga. (3) This last-named was long a close collaborator of Annibale Bugnini; in 1955 and 1956, he participated in the work of the commission though not yet a member, and was moreover, along with the aforementioned Fr. Bugnini, the author of historical-critical and pastoral articles on Holy Week (5), which would eventually be revealed as "letters of transit," so to speak, for the changes which followed.
The Commission worked in secret and under pressure from the central European episcopates (6), though it is not clear if their pressure was meant to intimidate or encourage the Commission. So great was the secrecy that the unexpected and sudden publication of the "Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurati" ["On the Restored Rite of Holy Saturday”] on March 1, 1951, "came as a surprise to the very officials of the Congregation of Rites," (7) as commission member Annibale Bugnini has stated. This same Fr. Bugnini informs us of the singular manner in which the results of the Commission's work on Holy Week were conveyed to the Pope: the Pope "was kept informed by Msgr. Montini as well as weekly by Fr. Bea, Pius XII's confessor. Thanks to this link, notable results could be achieved even in the period when the Pope's illness prevented anyone else from approaching him." (8) The Pope was afflicted with a serious stomach malady that required a long convalescence; and so it was not the Cardinal Prefect of Rites, in charge of the Commission, who kept him informed but then-Msgr. Montini and the future-Cardinal Bea, who was to have a great role in the reforms to follow.
The labors of the Commission were protracted until 1955, when, on Nov. 16, the decree "Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria" [“The Greatest Mysteries of Our Redemption”] was published, which was to take effect at Easter of the following year. 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.
Despite the wish that the liturgists should sing, as it were, in unison—compounded by a certain monolithic attitude, which in the 1950's was meant to show unity of purpose—authoritative voices were raised in dissent but promptly constrained to silence despite their competence. Such was the case not only for certain episcopates but also for certain liturgists, such as Léon Gromier, who, notable for his well-docuмented commentary on the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, (10) was also a consultor for the Congregation of Rites and a member of the Pontifical Academy of the Liturgy. In July of 1960 in Paris, in a celebrated conference, he spoke his mind [on all of this] in a heated but well-reasoned manner. (11) Pope John XXIII himself, in 1959, at the celebration of Good Friday at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme followed the traditional practices, thus making evident that he was not in agreement with the innovations recently introduced and that he recognized the experimental nature of those changes.
Certain reforms introduced experimentally in 1955 and 1956 were clearly inserted into the fabric of the ritual in a clumsy manner, so much so that they were easily corrected in the reform of 1969. But that topic deserves a separate treatment.
In order to sketch the importance of the reform of Holy Week, both liturgically and theologically, mention must be made of the commentary provided by two of the greatest protagonists of this event, so that the intentions of those who labored over this project might be brought into focus. Father Carlo Braga, the right arm of Annibale Bugnini and for years at the helm of the authoritative review Ephemerides Liturgicae, defined the reform of Holy Saturday in bold terms, calling it "the head of the battering-ram which pierced the fortress of our hitherto static liturgy." (13) The future-Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli defined it thus in 1956: "the most important act in the history of the liturgy from St. Pius V until today." (14)
THE INNOVATIONS EXAMINED IN DETAIL
We now arrive at a detailed analysis which will cast in relief some of the more obvious changes brought about by the "Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus" [“The Restored Order of Holy Week”] of 1955-1956 and which will explain why this reform became the "head of the battering-ram" in the heart of the Roman liturgy and "the most important act since St. Pius V until now."
For each of the innovations cited there is given as well a commentary which relies as much as possible on the what the actual authors of the texts later stated; then there is also a brief sketch of the traditional practice.
PALM SUNDAY
1. Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae of 1955-1956 (hereinafter: OHS 1956): innovation of using the color red for the procession with palms but violet for the Mass. (15)
Commentary: In the archives of the Commission we read: "One thing that might perhaps be done ... the color red might be restored as was used in the Middle Ages for this solemn procession. The color red recalls the royal purple." A little further on: "In this way, the procession is distinguished as something sui generis." (16) One does not wish to deny that red might signify the royal purple, although the assertion that this was the medieval practice remains to be proven; but it is a peculiar way to proceed, this search for things that are sui generis [sic], and then the decision that red must have a positively determined symbolism on Palm Sunday, even though red in the Roman rite is the color of Martyrs or of the Holy Spirit. In the Ambrosian rite it is used on this Sunday to symbolize the Blood of the Passion and not royal status. In the Parisian rite, the color black was used for both ceremonies [procession and Mass--transl.]. In some dioceses it was foreseen that one color would be used for the procession and another for the Mass, a practice borrowed perhaps from the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, (17) and one which does not make much sense when applied to Palm Sunday, as Léon Gromier relates. This innovation must be attributed, not to a docuмented practice, but to an extemperaneous idea of a "professor of Pastoral Theology at a Swiss seminary." (18)
In the Missale Romanum of 1952 (hereinafter: MR 1952): there is the unvarying use of violet for both the procession and the Mass. (19)
2. (OHS 1956): Abolition of the folded chasubles and, consequently, the "broad stole" or stola largior. (20)
Commentary: This touches on one of the oldest customs, one which had survived from earliest antiquity until then and which showed forth the ancient nature of Holy Week, which no one had ever dared alter because of both the veneration with which it was regarded as well as the extraordinary nature of these rites and of the extraordinary sorrow of the Church during the days of Holy Week.
(MR 1952): Use of folded chasubles and the broad stole during the singing of the Gospel by the deacon. (21)
3. (OHS 1956): Novelty of blessing the palms while facing the faithful, with back turned to the altar, and in certain cases, turned to the Blessed Sacrament. (22)
Commentary: For the sake of the participation of the faithful, the idea is introduced of liturgical actions done facing the people, but with the back turned towards God: "Influential [in the reform] was the visibility of particular gestures in the celebration, detached from the altar and performed by the sacred ministers while facing the people." (23) A blessing was invented that was performed over a table which stood between the altar and the altar rail, while the ministers faced the people. A new concept was introduced of liturgical space and of orientation during prayer.
(MR 1952): The palm branches are blessed on the altar, on the Epistle-side "horn," after a reading, a gradual, a Gospel, and above all a Preface with a "Sanctus" that introduces the prayers of blessing. This is the extremely ancient rite of the so-called "Missa sicca." (24)
4. (OHS 1956): Suppression of the preface which speaks of Christ's authority over the kingdoms and powers of this world. (25)
Commentary: It is astonishing to note that the intention to proclaim solemnly Christ's kingship (26) is carried out by suppressing the preface which describe His kingship. This preface is declared superfluous in no uncertain terms and therefore to be eliminated: "Considering the little coherence of these prefaces, their prolixity, and, in certain formulations, their poverty of thought, their loss was of little relevance." (27)
(MR 1952): The Roman rite often uses, for certain great liturgical moments, e.g. the consecration of the oils or priestly ordination, the singing of a preface, which is a particularly solemn way of calling upon God; likewise for the blessing of the palms a preface was prescribed which spoke of the divine order of creation and its subordination to God the Father, i.e. the subordination of the created order, which is admonished through kings and governments to be duly obedient to Christ: "Tibi enim serviunt creaturae tuae quia te solum auctorem et Deum cognoscunt et omnis factura tua te collaudat, et benedicunt te Sancti tui: quia illud magnum Unigeniti tui nomen coram regibus et potestatibus hujus saeculi libera voce confitentur" ["For thy creatures serve Thee, because they acknowledge Thee alone as their origin and God, and all thy work praises Thee together, and thy Saints bless Thee: for they confess with unfettered voice the great Name of thy Only-begotten before the kings and powers of this world"]. (28) In a few elegant lines, the text of this chant reveals the theological foundation of the duty of temporal governments to be subservient to Christ the King.
5. (OHS 1956): Suppression of the prayers concerning the meaning and the benefits of sacramentals and the power that these have against the demon. (29)
Commentary: The reason for this--explains a note from the archives--is that these prayers are "replete ... with all the showy display of erudition typical of the Carolingian era." (30) The reformers agreed on the antiquity of the texts but did not find them to their taste because "the direct relation between the ceremony and daily Christian life was very weak, or rather [between the ceremony and] the pastoral-liturgical significance of the procession as homage to Christ the King." (31) It is apparent to no one how there is lacking a connection to the "daily life" of the faithful or to the homage to Christ the King in its full "pastoral-liturgical significance." Clearly, the plan was one of a kind of rhetoric that today appears dated, but at the time had a certain cachet. Though desiring a "conscious participation in the procession, with relevance to concrete, daily Christian life," (32) they relied on arguments that were neither theological nor liturgical.
The "concrete, daily Christian life" of the faithful is then indirectly disdained a few lines later: "These pious customs [of the blessed palms], although theologically justified, can degenerate (as in fact they have degenerated) into superstition." (33) Apart from the poorly concealed tone of rationalism, one should note that the ancient prayers are deliberately replaced with new compositions, which, according to their authors' own words, are "substantially a new creation." (34) The ancient prayers were not pleasing because they express too clearly the efficacy of sacramentals, and it was decided to come up with new prayers.
(MR 1952): The ancient prayers recall the role of sacramentals, which have an effective power against the demon ("ex opere operantis Ecclesiae" [“by the action of the Church as acting”). (35)
6. (OHS 1956): Novelty of unveiling the processional cross, (36) even though the altar cross remains veiled.
Commentary: We admit that the liturgical significance of this innovation completely escapes us; the change seems to be a liturgical "pastiche" born of the haste of the authors rather than something related to mystical symbolism.
(MR 1952): The altar cross is veiled as is the processional cross, to which is tied a blessed palm, (37) a sign once again on this day of the glorious Cross and the victorious Passion.
7. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the cross striking the closed doors of the church. (38)
Commentary: This rite symbolized the initial resistance of the Jєωιѕн people and the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem, but also the triumph of Christ's cross, which throws open the doors of heaven just as it is the cause of our resurrection: "hebraeorum pueri resurrectionem vitae pronuntiantes" ["the children of the Hebrews declaring the resurrection unto life"]. (39)
(It should be noted that despite the absence of this little rite from the post-1955 liturgical books of the Roman Rite, it continues to be inserted into not a few Palm Sunday processions celebrated according to either the 1962 or 1970 Missal. CAP.)
(MR 1952): The procession returns to the doors of the church, which are shut. A sung dialogue between one choir of cantors outside, alternating with another inside the church, precedes the opening of the church doors, which takes place after the foot of the processional cross strikes against them. (40)
8. (OHS 1956): Creation of a prayer to be recited at the conclusion of the procession, at the center of the altar, the whole of which is recited facing the people (“versus populum”).
Commentary: No one can decide where the missal is to be placed or who is to hold it while on the step, because in the haste for reform, no one took note of this lacuna, which required a further rubric—i.e., rubric “22a” or “22-bis”—which is more confusing than the one that precedes it. (42) Its insertion, in effect, “gums up” the preceding ceremonies thanks to its arbitrary nature: “At this point, i.e. to give the procession a precise termination, we decided to propose a particular Oremus [prayer].” (43)
Father Braga likewise openly admitted, fifty years later, that the creation of this oration was not a happy choice: “The element that is out of place in the new Ordo [of Holy Week] is the concluding oration of the procession, which disrupts the unity of the celebration.” (44) The “experimental” changes, motivated by a desire for innovations, have revealed with time their inadequacy.
(MR 1952): The procession ends as usual, and then the Mass begins, as always, with the prayers at the foot of the altar.
9. (OHS 1956): The distinction between the “Passion” and the Gospel is eliminated. Moreover, the last sentence of the Passion is suppressed (most likely due to a publishing error, as other explanations seem implausible). (45)
Commentary: The Passion had always been marked by a narrative style; it was divided among three voices and was followed by the Gospel, which was marked off by the fact that it was sung by a single deacon on a different tone, and was accompanied by the use of incense (but not torches). The reform confuses these two aspects. Passion and Gospel are melded into a single chant, while meretricious editing crops verses at the beginning and the end [of the passage]. In the end, accordingly, the Mass, as well as the deacon, is deprived of the Gospel properly so-called, which is, in effect, suppressed.
(MR 1952): The chanting of the Passion is distinct from that of the Gospel, which ends at verse 66 of Matthew, chap. 26. (46)
10. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the Gospel passage which connects the institution of the Eucharist with the Passion of Christ (Matthew 26: 1-36). (47)
Commentary: We now come to a pass that to us seems the most disconcerting, above all because it seems, as far as the archives reveal, that the Commission had decided not to change anything in regard to the Passion, since it was of the most ancient origin. (48) Nevertheless, we know neither how nor why the narrative of the Last Supper was expunged. It is hard to believe that for simple motives of saving time thirty verses of the Gospel would be struck out, especially considering the relevance of the passage concerned. Up till then, tradition desired that the narration of the Passion in the Synoptics always include the institution of the Eucharist, which, by virtue of the sacramental separation of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the herald of the Passion. The reform, with a single stroke aimed at a fundamental passage of Sacred Scripture, obscured the vital relation of the Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday, and the Eucharist. The passage on the institution of the Eucharist was eliminated as well from Holy Tuesday and Holy Wednesday, with the astounding result that it is nowhere to be found in the entire liturgical cycle! This was the result of a climate of hasty change, which disrupted centuries-old traditions yet was incapable of considering the entirety of Scripture read during the year.
(MR 1952): The Passion is preceded by the reading of the institution of the Eucharist, indicating the intimate, essential, theological connection between the two passages.
HOLY MONDAY
(OHS 1956): The prayer “Contra persecutores Ecclesiae [Against the Church’s persecutors]” is prohibited, as is the prayer for the Pope. (50)
Commentary: This move abetted the elimination of all references to the fact that the Church has enemies. The reformers’ “reason” desired to obscure, with euphemisms and the suppression of entire passages, the reality of the Church’s persecution at the hands of enemies both earthly and infernal, who struggle against the Church with both violence and the insinuation of heresy among the faithful. (So one reads in the suppressed prayer.) This same irenic attitude is encountered again on Good Friday, as Fr. Braga frankly admits. (51) In the same context, the concurrent suppression of the prayer for the Pope is decreed; and so begins the practice of reducing the presence of the name of the Roman Pontiff in the liturgy.
(MR 1952): The prayer “Against the Church’s persecutors” and the prayer for the Pope are recited. (52)
HOLY TUESDAY
(OHS 1956): Suppression of Mark 14: 1-31, thus shortening the Passion according to St. Mark. (53)
Commentary: Here is the second, disturbing elimination of the Gospel passage on the institution of the Holy Eucharist as placed in relation to the sacrifice of the Passion. The suppression of approximately thirty verses does not seem to have been solely for reasons of time, considering, once again, the importance of these verses.
(MR 1952): Mark 14: 1-31, the Last Supper and the Institution of the Eucharist, begins the reading of the Passion. (54)
HOLY WEDNESDAY
(OHS 1956): Suppression of Luke 22: 1-39, thus shortening the Passion according to St. Luke. (55)
Commentary: This is the third time one is struck by the elimination of the Gospel passage on the institution of the Eucharist in its natural connection with the sacrifice of the Cross. In this instance, as in the preceding, it is difficult to believe that for simple motives of saving time these thirty important verses were eliminated.
(MR 1952): The account of the Passion is preceded by the institution of the Holy Eucharist with which it is related by its nature. (56)
HOLY THURSDAY
1. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the stole as part of the choir dress of priests. (57)
Commentary: This is the beginning of the myth of concelebration on Holy Thursday. The bolder among the reformers wished to introduce it along with this reform, but resistance—especially from members of the Commission such as Cardinal Cicognani and Msgr. Dante—blocked this novelty. Father Braga writes: “As to the ‘participation’ of the priests, sacramental concelebration did not seem attainable (the mind-set, even of certain members of the Commission, was not yet prepared for it).” (58) In effect, there was a strongly hostile feeling against concelebration on Holy Thursday because it was not traditional: “Concelebration, whether sacramental or purely ceremonial, was to be excluded.” (59) To introduce the idea of concelebration, its proponents had to be content with the creation of the practice of having every priest present don a stole, (60) not at the moment of communion only but beginning with the start of the Mass.
(MR 1952): The priests and deacons wear the usual choir dress, without the stole, and put on the stole at the time of communion only, as is the usual custom. (61)
2. (OHS 1956): The practice is introduced of giving communion with only those hosts consecrated on this day. (62)
Commentary: It is incomprehensible why those present cannot communicate with hosts already consecrated previously. The Roman practice of the “Fermentum”—which is historically docuмented—was to communicate, in general, from a particle of the Eucharist from the Sunday prior, to show the communion of the Church throughout time and space, within the reality of the Body of Christ. This presence, being “real and substantial,” continues when the assembly departs and at the same time, with even greater logical coherence, precedes the reuniting of the assembly. With this [new] rubric, the idea is introduced of the Real Presence being tied to the day of the celebration, as well as the idea that one is obliged to communicate from hosts consecrated on the same day. It is as much as to say that those hosts are in some way different from those consecrated earlier. One should note that this obligation relates not merely to the symbolism of the tabernacle being empty before the Mass of Holy Thursday—which, at most, might have had some significance, albeit a novel one—since the text affirms that those who receive communion must receive only hosts consecrated on this day. (63) The underlying theology does not seem very solid, while the symbolism is debatable.
(MR 1952): There is no mention of this practice of giving communion with hosts consecrated on Holy Thursday. (64)
3. (OHS 1956): The washing of feet is no longer at the end of Mass but in the middle of Mass. (65)
Commentary: The reform appealed to a restoration of the “veritas horarum” [i.e., observance of the “true times” of the services], an argument used in season and out, like a veritable hobby horse. In this case, however, the chronological sequence given in the Gospel is abandoned. Rivers of ink flowed in order to convince others of the scandal of an horarium that was not in full accord with that of the Gospels, but in this case not only was a rite anticipated, or postponed, for practical reasons, but the chronological order of the Gospel narrative was inverted within a single ceremony. St. John writes that Our Lord washed the feet of the Apostles after the supper: “et cena facta” [“the supper having been finished”] (John 13: 2). It escapes understanding why the reformers, for whatever obscure motive, chose, arbitrarily, to put the washing of the feet directly in the middle of Mass. While Mass is being celebrated, consequently, some of the laity are allowed to enter the sanctuary and take off their shoes and socks. Apparently there was a desire to re-think the sacredness of the sanctuary and the prohibition of the laity from entering it during divine services. The washing of feet, therefore, is spliced into the offertory, an abuse whereby the celebration of Mass is interrupted with other rites, a practice founded on the dubious distinction of Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.
(MR 1952): The rite known as the Mandatum, or washing of the feet, is carried out after Mass and not in the sanctuary, after the stripping of the altars and without interrupting Mass or allowing the laity to enter the sanctuary during the service, and withal respecting the chronological sequence given in the Gospel. (67)
4. (OHS 1956): Omission of the Confiteor recited by the deacon before Holy Communion. (68)
Commentary: The third, despised Confiteor is done away with, without recognition of the fact that the confession made by the deacon, or the server, although borrowed from the rite for communion extra missam [outside of Mass], is a confession of the unworthiness of the communicants to receive the sacred Species. It is not a “duplication” of the confession made by the priest and ministers at the beginning of Mass, since at that point they have simply recited their own unworthiness to approach the altar and to celebrate the sacred mysteries. (Hence, at a sung Mass it is recited sotto voce.) This is distinct from one’s unworthiness to approach Holy Communion.
(MR 1952): The Confiteor is recited before communion. (69)
5. (OHS 1956): At the end of Mass, during the stripping of the altars, it is mandated that even the cross and candlesticks are to be removed. (70)
Commentary: It was decided that everything should be stripped from the altar, even the cross. The rubrics of the reformed Holy Thursday do not explain, however, what to do with the altar cross, but one learns this by accident, as it were, from the rubrics of the following day. In effect, the rubrics of Good Friday speak of an altar without a cross, (71) which one can deduce from the fact that it was taken away during the stripping of the altars, or perhaps in a more private manner during the night. (This and other problems arise when one changes a liturgy which has benefited from layers of tradition and which is all but intolerant of hasty alterations.) Perhaps, on the basis of a certain liturgical archeologism, the reformers wished to prepare souls for the spectacle of a bare table in the middle of the sanctuary—something which makes little sense theologically.
(MR 1952): The cross remains on the altar, veiled and accompanied by the candlesticks, enthroned there in expectation of being unveiled the following day. (72)
Sepulchre
GOOD FRIDAY
1. (OHS 1956): The name “Solemn Liturgical Action” is devised, (73) thus eliminating the very ancient names “Mass of the Presanctified” and “Feria Sexta in Parasceve.”
Commentary: The terminology of “Presanctified” underlined the fact that the sacred Species had been consecrated at an earlier ceremony and showed the connection with the return of the Eucharist, an important and ancient part of the rite. But the Commission despised this concept and decided to reform the name along with the rite itself: “[We need] to trim back the medieval extravagances, so little noted, of the so-called Mass of the Presanctified to the severe and original lines of a great, general communion service.” (74) The usage “in Parasceve” [i.e., Friday “in Preparation”] was no longer in favor, even though its Hebraic overtones indicate its great antiquity.
(MR 1952): The name is “Mass of the Presanctified” or “Feria Sexta in Parasceve.” (75)
2. (OHS 1956): The altar no longer has the veiled cross (and candlesticks -- CAP) on it (76)
Commentary: The cross, especially the one on the altar, has been veiled since the first Sunday of the Passion, so that it should remain where it naturally ought to stand, namely at the center of the altar, later to be unveiled solemnly and publicly on Good Friday, the day of the triumph of the redemptive Passion. The authors of the reform apparently did not like the altar cross and decided to have it removed to the sacristy on the evening of Holy Thursday, and not in a solemn way but in the containers used to carry away the altar cloths after the stripping of the altars, or perhaps during the night in some unknown way, about which the rubrics for Holy Thursday are silent. On the very day of greatest importance for the Cross, when it ought to tower over the altar even though veiled at the beginning of the ceremony, it is absent. The fact that it remained present for nearly fifteen days on the altar, though publicly veiled, makes for the logic of its corresponding public unveiling, instead of an a-liturgical return of the cross from the sacristy as though someone hid it there in a closet during the night.
(MR 1952): The cross remains veiled at its usual place, i.e. on the altar, stripped of its cloths, and flanked by the usual candlesticks. (77)
3. (OHS 1956): The reading of the Gospel is no longer distinct from that of the Passion.
Commentary: The entire passage is given a more narrative title: “The History of the Passion.” The motive behind this change is not clear, given that the Commission seemed to oppose such a change in the analogous case of Palm Sunday. (78) Perhaps the intention was, as elsewhere, to do away with everything that made reference to the Mass, such as the reading of the Gospel, and consequently to justify the suppression of the name “Mass of the Presanctified.”
(MR 1952): The Gospel is sung in a way distinct from the singing of the Passion, but on this day of mourning, without incense or torches. (79)
4. (OHS 1956): The altar cloths are no longer placed on the altar from the beginning of the ceremony; at the same time, it is decided that the priest is not to wear the chasuble from the start, but only the alb and stole. (80)
Commentary: The fact that the celebrant wears the chasuble even for a rite that is not, strictly speaking, the Mass witnesses to the extreme antiquity of these ceremonies, which the members of the Commission recognized as well. On the one hand, they maintained that the ceremonies of Good Friday were composed of "elements that (since ancient times) remained substantially untouched," (81) but on the other hand they desired to introduce a change that would separate the Eucharistic liturgy from the "first part of the liturgy, the liturgy of the word." (82) This distinction, in embryonic form at the time, was to be marked--according to Father Braga--by the fact that the celebrant wore the stole only and not the chasuble: "For the liturgy of the word [the celebrant] was left only the stole." (83)
(MR 1952): The priest wears the black chasuble, prostrates himself before the altar, while the servers, meanwhile, spread a single cloth on the bare altar. (84)
The question of the prayer for the Jєωs, though completely pertinent to the study of Holy Week, cannot be addressed except by a study that gives clarity to the philological misunderstanding relative to the erroneously interpreted words "perfidi" and "perfidia." (85)
5. (OHS 1956): For the seventh prayer, the name "Pro unitate Ecclesiae" ["For the unity of the Church"] is introduced. (86)
Commentary: With this expressive ambiguity the idea is brought in of a Church in search of its own social unity, hitherto not possessed. The Church, according to traditional Catholic doctrine, solemnly defined, does not lack social unity in the earthly realm, since the said unity is an essential property of the true Church of Christ. This unity is not a characteristic that is yet to be found through ecuмenical dialogue; it is already metaphysically present. In effect, the words of Christ, "Ut unum sint" ["That they may be one"], is an efficacious prayer of Our Lord, and as such is already realized. Those who are outside the Church must return to her, must return to the unity that already exists; they do not need to unite themselves to Catholics in order to bring about a unity that already exists. The aim of the reformers, however, was to eliminate from this prayer, says Father Braga, (87) some inconvenient words that spoke of souls deceived by the demon and ensnared by the wickedness of heresy: "animas diabolica fraude deceptas" and "haeretica pravitate." By the same logic, they desired to do away with the conclusion, which expressed hope for a return of those straying from the unity of Christ's truth back into His Church: "Errantium corda resipiscant et ad veritatis tuae redeant unitatem." At any rate, it was not possible to reform the text of the prayer but only the title, since at the time—laments Father Braga again—“unity was conceived in terms of the preconciliar ecuмenism." (88) In other words, in 1956 the unity of the Church was conceived of as already existing, and God was being beseeched to bring back into this already existing unity those who were separated or far off from this unity. In the Commission there were members with traditional ideas who opposed the work of doctrinal erosion, though powerless to stop the creation of theological hybrids, such as the choice to leave the traditional text but to give it a new title. Annibale Bugnini himself, about ten years later, acknowledged that to pray for the future unity of the Church constitutes a heresy, and he mentions this in an article for L'Osservatore Romano that found fault with the title of the prayer "For the unity of the Church" introduced ten years prior by the Commission of which he was a member. Praising the prayers recently introduced in 1965, he writes that the prayer's name was changed from "For the unity of the Church" to "For the unity of Christians," because "the Church has always been one," but with the passage of time they were successful in eliminating the words "heretics" and "schismatics." (89) It is sad to note that these shifting maneuvers were employed with the liturgy in order to bring in theological novelties.
(MR 1952): The text is the same as that of 1956, wherein it is prayed that heretics and schismatics would return to the unity of His truth: "ad veritatis tuae redeant unitatem," (90) but without the ambiguous title of the 1956 version: "Pro unitate Ecclesiae."
6. (OHS 1956): At this point, there is the creation of a return procession of the cross from the sacristy. (91)
Commentary: This time, the cross returns in a liturgical manner, i.e. publicly rather than placed into the hampers used to collect the candlesticks and flowers from the previous evening [the Mass of Holy Thursday]. In the liturgy, when there is a solemn procession of departure, there is a solemn return; this innovation makes for a solemn return of a symbol that, the evening before, was carried away together with other objects in a private form, placing it—in the best-case scenario—in a wicker basket. There seems to be, in fact, no liturgical significance for introducing this procession of the return of the hidden cross. Perhaps we are confronted with a maladroit attempt to restore the rite carried out at Jerusalem in the fourth and fifth centuries and made known to us by Egeria: "In Jerusalem the adoration took place on Golgotha. Egeria recalls that the community assembled early in the morning in the presence of the bishop ... and then the silver reliquary [theca] containing the relics of the true Cross were brought in." (92) The restoration of this procession of the return of the cross took place in a context that was not that of Mount Calvary of the early centuries but in the context of the Roman liturgy, which over time had wisely elaborated and incorporated such influences from Jerusalem into a rite handed down over many centuries.
(MR 1952): The cross remains veiled on the altar beginning with Passion Sunday; it was unveiled publicly in the precincts of the altar, that is in the place where it remained publicly veiled until that point. (93)
Pope John XXIII adoring the cross according to the rubrics in effect prior to the reforms
7. (OHS 1956): The importance of the Eucharistic procession is downplayed. (94)
Commentary: The procession with the cross is a new creation, but the reform decides to downgrade the return procession with the Body of Christ to an almost private form in an inexplicable inversion of perspective. The Most Holy Sacrament was carried out the day before in a solemn manner to the altar of the Sepulcher. (We deliberately use the name "Sepulcher" because all of Christian tradition calls it thus, including the Memoriale Rituum and the Congregation of Rites, even if the Commission members barely tolerated this term (95); it appears to us profoundly theological and suffused with that sensus fidei [sense of the Faith] that is lacking in certain theologians.) It seems logical and "liturgical" that there should be for a solemn procession like that of Holy Thursday an equally dignified return on Good Friday. After all, here there is a particle of the same Blessed Sacrament from the previous day, the Body of Christ. With this innovation the honors to be paid to the Blessed Sacrament are reduced, and, in the case of Solemn Mass [of the Presanctified], it is the deacon who is instructed to go to the altar of the Sepulcher to bring back the Sacrament, while the priest sits tranquilly resting on the sedilia. The celebrant graciously arises when Our Lord, in the form of the sacred Species, is brought in by a subaltern, and then goes to the high altar. Perhaps it was for this reason that John XXIII did not want to follow this rubric at the Mass celebrated at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and desired to go himself, as Pope and as celebrant, to bring back the Most Holy Sacrament.
(MR 1952): The Most Blessed Sacrament returns in a procession equal in solemnity to that of the preceding day. It is the celebrant who goes to bring It back, as is natural. Since one is dealing with Our Lord Himself, present in the Host, one does not send a subordinate to bring Him to the altar. (96)
8. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the incensing due to the consecrated Host. (97)
Commentary: There is no apparent reason why the honors rendered to God on Good Friday should be inferior to those rendered on other days.
(MR 1952): The consecrated Host is incensed as usual, although the celebrant is not incensed. (98) The signs of mourning are evident here, but they do not extend to the Real Presence.
9. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the people reciting the Our Father. (99)
Commentary: "The pastoral preoccupation with a conscious and active participation on the part of the Christian community" is dominant. The faithful must become "true actors in the celebration .... This was demanded by the faithful, especially those more attuned to the new spirituality.... The Commission was receptive to the aspirations of the people of God." (100) It remains to be proven whether these aspirations belonged to the faithful or to a group of avant-garde liturgists. It remains as well to specify theologically what this above-mentioned "new spirituality" and its "aspirations" were.
(MR 1952): The Pater [Our Father] is recited by the priest. (101)
10. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the prayers that make reference to sacrifice while the Host is consumed. (102)
Commentary: It is true that on this day, in the strict sense, there is no Eucharistic sacrifice with the separation of the sacred Species, but it is also true that the consuming the Victim, immolated the preceding day, is a part, though not an essential one, of the sacrifice. This is, in a certain sense, the sacramental continuation of the sacrifice, because the Body, when consumed, is nevertheless always the Body as immolated and sacrificed. Accordingly, tradition always speaks of the sacrifice in the prayers connected with the consuming of the Host. Some members of the Commission held that after so many years of tradition the time had come to correct errors and to declare that words such as "meum ac vestrum sacrificium" ["my sacrifice and yours"] were "completely out of place in this instance, since one is not dealing with a sacrifice but only with communion." (103) The decision was then taken to abolish these age-old prayers.
(MR 1952): The prayer, "Orate, fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium, etc." is recited, but, given the unique context, it is not followed by the usual response. (104)
11. (OHS 1956): Placing a part of the consecrated Host into the wine in the chalice is abolished. (105)
Commentary: Placing a particle of the consecrated Host (a rite also known in the Byzantine rite) into the unconsecrated wine obviously does not consecrate the wine, nor was that ever believed by the Church. Simply put, this union manifests symbolically, though not really, the reuniting of the fragment of the Body of Christ with the Blood, to symbolize the unity of the Mystical Body in eternal life, the final cause of the entire work of redemption, which is not unworthy of being recalled on Good Friday.
The “Memoire” preserved in the archives of the Commission affirm that this part of the rite absolutely had to be suppressed, because “the existence of a belief in the Middle Ages that the commingling of the consecrated bread [sic!] alone in the wine was sufficient to consecrate even the wine itself also brought about this rite; once the Eucharist was studied more profoundly, the lack of foundation for this belief was understood. But the rite remained.” (106) This affirmation is rendered scandalous by the absence of any historical foundation and by the scientific method; and it implies quite profound theological consequences. In addition, it remains to be proven historically that during the Middle Ages the belief under discussion was in currency. Some theologians may have held erroneous opinions, but this does not prove that in fact the Roman Church fell into error to the point that she made it part of the liturgy with this precise theological view in mind. (The belief that the wine is consecrated by mere commingling with the Bread of Angels was not unknown among medieval Catholics, and is still held by the Greek Orthodox, as shown by the rubrics of the Liturgy of the Presanctified as observed by the Greeks and by some Slavs. However, it was never officially accepted by Rome as a legitimate belief, and it is interesting to note that by and large the Russian Orthodox share the Roman stand. CAP.) In this context, one would be affirming that the Roman Church, conscious of the serious error, did not wish to correct it; one would be maintaining [in effect] that the Roman Church could change her view over the course of the centuries on a point that is so fundamental; and one would also be affirming that the she could err in relation to a dogmatic fact (such as the universal liturgy), and that for several centuries. Perhaps justification was sought for the work of reform already undertaken, which sought to correct all the errors that entire generations of Popes failed to detect but that the keen eye of the Commission had finally unmasked.
It is not pleasant to note that these affirmations are imbued with a pseudo-rationalism of a positivist stamp, the kind in vogue during the fifties. Often it relied on summary and less than scientific studies in order to demolish those deplorable “medieval traditions” and introduce useful “developments.”
(MR 1952): A part of the consecrated Host is placed in the wine, but, with great theological coherence, the prayer before consuming the Precious Blood is omitted.
12. (OHS 1956): The change of times for the service, which could have been accomplished in harmony with popular customs, ended up creating notable pastoral and liturgical problems.
Commentary: In the past, pious customs and practices were developed in a way that was consonant with the liturgy. A common example in very many places: from noon, even today, a great crucifix is set up, in front of which the Tre Ore [“Three Hours”] of Christ’s suffering is preached (from noon until three o’clock). As a consequence of the change in time for the service, one is confronted with the paradox of a sermon delivered before the crucifix at a time when the crucifix ought to remain veiled, because the Good Friday service is to be held in the afternoon. (108) Some dioceses even today are constrained to hold the “Liturgical Action” [of the Passion of the Lord] in one church, while in another the ancient pious practices are conducted, in order to avoid a too obvious visual incongruity. Numerous similar examples could be adduced. It is clear, though, that the “pastoral” reform par excellence was not “pastoral,” because it was born of experts who had no real contact with a parish nor with the devotions and piety of the people—which they often enough disdained.
According to the reformers, during the hours of the afternoon a “liturgical void” had been created, and an attempt to remedy this was sought “by introducing paraliturgical elements, such as the Tre Ore, the Way of the Cross, and the Sorrowful Mother.” (109) The Commission decided, therefore, to remedy this scandal using the worst “pastoral” method: namely writing off popular customs and paying them no mind. The disdain in this type of “pastoral” method forgets that inculturation is a Catholic phenomenon of long standing. It consists of a reconciliation, one as generous as possible, of piety to dogma, and not of a unilateral imposition of provisions by “experts.”
(MR 1952): The problem is not a question of times: liturgy and piety have developed over the centuries in a fusion of one with the other, without, however, coming into conflict in an antagonism as pointless as it is imaginary.
HOLY SATURDAY
1. (OHS 1956): A blessing of the Paschal candle is introduced using a candle that has to be carried by the deacon during the entire ceremony. (110)
Commentary: When this reform came into effect all the Paschal candlesticks in Christendom were rendered useless for Holy Saturday itself, even though some dated back to the dawn of Christianity. Under the pretext of returning to the sources, such liturgical masterpieces from antiquity became unusable museum pieces. The three-fold chanting of “lumen Christi” [“The light of Christ”] no longer has a liturgical reason to exist.
(MR 1952): The new fire and the grains of incense are blessed outside the church, but not the candle; the fire is passed to a reed, a kind of pole with three candles at the top, which are lit during the procession, successively with each invocation of “lumen Christi”; hence the three-fold invocation, one for each candle as it is lit. With one of these candles was lit the Paschal candle, which remained from the beginning of the ceremony on the Paschal candlestick. (In many early Christian churches, the height of the candlestick required the ambo to be built to the same height so that the candle could be reached.) [See the picture below. CAP.] The fire (the light of the Resurrection) was brought in on the reed with its triple candle (the Holy Trinity) to the great Easter candle (the Risen Christ), in order to symbolize the Resurrection as the work of the Most Holy Trinity. (111)
Ambo and Paschal candelabrum
2. (OHS 1956): The fabrication of placing the Easter candle in the center of the sanctuary after a procession with it in a church that is progressively lit up at every invocation of “Lumen Christi” [“The light of Christ”]; and at every invocation all genuflect toward the candle [sic!]; at the third invocation, the lights in the entire church are lit. (112)
Commentary: After the fabrication of a procession with the candle, it was decided to have it placed in the center of the sanctuary, where it becomes the reference point of the prayers, just as it was during the procession; it becomes more important than the altar and the cross, a strange novelty that shifts the orientation of prayer in successive stages.
(MR 1952): The candle remains unlit on its candelabrum, often (according to a rubricist I consulted, this should be "always". CAP) at the Gospel side; the deacon and subdeacon go up to it with the reed to light it during the singing of the praeconium [i.e., “Exsultet”]; until the singing of the “Exsultet,” the only candles lit from the “fire of the Resurrection” are those on the reed. (113)
The singing of the Exultet
3. (OHS 1956): A twisting of the symbolism of the “Exsultet” and of its nature as a diaconal blessing. (114)
Commentary: Some reformers wished to do away with this ceremony, but the love which the singing of the “Exsultet” was always enjoyed resulted in others opposing any change in the text: “the Commission, however, considers it opportune to preserve the traditional text, given that the passages to be eliminated are few and of little importance.” (115) The result was the nth pastiche of a traditional chant wedded to a rite now totally altered. Thus it happened that one of the most significant moments of the liturgical cycle became a theater-piece of astonishing incoherence.
In effect, the actions spoken of during the singing of the “Exsultet” have already been performed about a half-hour before in the narthex. For the grains of incense there is sung: “Suscipe, Pater, incensi hujus sacrificium vespertinum” [“Accept, Father, the evening sacrifice of this incense”], (116) but they have already been inserted into the candle for a good while. The lighting of the candle with the light of the Resurrection is elaborated with the words: “Sed jam columnae hujus praeconia novimus quam in honorem Dei rutilans ignis accendit” [“But now we know the tidings of this column which the flickering fire lights to the honor of God”], (117) but the candle has long been lit by then and a goodly amount of wax consumed. There is no longer any logic. The symbolism of the light is twisted even further when the order of lighting all the lights—the symbol of the Resurrection—is triumphantly chanted: “Alitur enim liquantibus ceris, quas in substantiam pretiosae hujus lampadis apis mater eduxit” [“For it is nourished by the flowing wax which the Mother bee has drawn out unto the substance of this precious Light”], (118) but it is sung in a church which for quite some time has been totally illuminated by the candles lit from the new fire.
This reformed symbolism is incomprehensible for the simple reason that it is not symbolic: the words being proclaimed have no relation to the reality of the rite. Furthermore, the singing of the Easter proclamation, in union with the actions that accompany it, constitutes the diaconal blessing par excellence. After the reform, the candle is blessed outside the church with holy water, but it was desired to retain a part of the ancient blessing since it had great esthetic beauty; unfortunately, this approach reduces the liturgy to theater.
(MR 1952): The singing of the “Exsultet” begins with the candle unlit; the grains of incense are fixed in it when the chant speaks of the incense; the candle is lit by the deacon and the lights in the church are lit when the chant makes mention of these actions. These actions, in union with the chant, make up the blessing. (119)
4. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the unbelievable practice of dividing the litanies in two, in the midst of which the baptismal water is blessed. (120)
Commentary: This decision is simply extravagant and incoherent. Never was it known that an impetratory prayer was split into two parts. The introduction of the baptismal rites in the middle is of an even greater incoherence.
(MR 1952): After the blessing of the baptismal font is finished, the litanies are sung before the beginning of Mass. (121)
5. (OHS 1956): Introduction of placing the baptismal water in a basin in the middle of the sanctuary, with the celebrant turned towards the faithful, his back to the altar. (122)
Commentary: Basically, it was decided to substitute the baptismal font with a pot placed in the middle of the sanctuary. This choice was dictated, once again, by the obsession that all the rites should be carried out with the “sacred ministers facing the people,” (123) but with their back towards God; the faithful, by this logic, become the “true actors of the celebration …. The Commission was receptive to the aspirations poured out by the people of God …. The Church was open to the ferment of renovation.” (124) These reckless decisions, founded on a pastoral populism that the people never requested, ended by destroying the entire sacred edifice, from its origins until the present.
At one time, the baptismal font was outside the church or, in succeeding ages, inside the walls of the edifice but close to the main door, since, according to Catholic theology, Baptism is the door, the “janua Sacramentorum” [“the door to the Sacraments”]. It is the Sacrament that makes those still outside the Church members of the Church. As such, it was symbolized in these liturgical customs. The catechumen receives [in Baptism] the character that makes him a member of the Church; therefore, he is to be received at the entrance, washed in the baptismal water, and thus acquire the right to enter into the nave as a new member of the Church, as one of the faithful. But, as a member of the faithful, he enters only the nave and not the sanctuary, wherein are the clergy, who are composed of those with the ministerial priesthood or who stand in relation to it. This traditional distinction was insisted on because the so-called “common” priesthood of the baptized is distinct from the ministerial priesthood and is distinct essentially, not superficially. They are two different things, not degrees of one single essence.
With the mandated changes, however, not only the baptized (as was already done on Holy Thursday) but even the non-baptized are summoned into the sanctuary, a place set aside for the clergy. One who is still “prey to the demon,” because still with Original Sin, is treated just like one who has received Holy Orders and enters into the sanctuary even though still a catechumen. The traditional symbolism, consequently, is completely massacred.
(MR 1952): The blessing of the baptismal water is given at the baptismal font, outside the church or near the entrance. Any catechumens are received at the entrance of the church, given Baptism, and then bid enter the nave, but not the sanctuary, as is logical, neither before nor after their Baptism. (125)
6. (OHS 1956): Alteration of the symbolism of the chant “Sicut cervus” [“Like the hart that yearns”] of Psalm 41. (126)
Commentary: After the creation of a baptistery inside the sanctuary, one is confronted with the problem of carrying away the baptismal water to some other location. It was decided, accordingly, to contrive a ceremony for carrying the water to the font after blessing it in front of the faithful and especially after conferring any baptisms as there might be. The transport of the baptismal water is accomplished while “Sicut cervus” is sung, i.e. that part of Psalm 41 which speaks of the thirst of the deer after it has fled from the bite of the serpent and which can only be slaked by drinking the water of salvation. At any rate, insufficient attention was paid to the fact that the deer’s thirst is sated by the waters of Baptism after the bite of the infernal serpent; for if Baptism has already been conferred, then the deer no longer thirsts, since, figuratively speaking, it has already drunk! The symbolism is changed and thus turned on its head.
(MR 1952): At the end of the singing of the prophecies, the celebrant goes to the baptismal font, to continue with the blessing of the water and to the conferral of Baptism as necessary; meanwhile, the “Sicut cervus” is sung. (127) The chant precedes, as is logical, the conferral of Baptism.
7. (OHS 1956): Creation ex nihilo of the “Renewal of Baptismal Promises.” (128)
Commentary: One is, in a certain sense, proceeding blind when devising pastoral creations that have no true foundation in the history of the liturgy. Pursuing the notion that the Sacraments ought to be re-enlivened in the conscience, the reformers thought up the renewal of the baptismal promises. This became a kind of “examination of conscience” concerning the Sacrament received in the past. A similar tendency was observed in the twenties of the last century. In a veiled polemic with the provision of St. Pius X concerning the communion of children, the singular practice of a “solemn communion” or “profession of faith” was introduced; children of around thirteen years had to “remake” their first communion, in a kind of examination of conscience on the Sacrament already received several years before. This practice—although without calling into question the Catholic doctrine of “ex opere operato” [“from the work performed”]—emphasized the subjective element of the Sacrament over the objective. The new practice eventually ended up obscuring and overshadowing the Sacrament of Confirmation. A similar approach will be encountered in 1969 with the introduction on Holy Thursday of the “renewal of priestly promises.” With this latter practice is introduced a linkage between sacramental Holy Orders and a sentimental, emotional order, between the efficacy of the Sacrament and an examination of conscience, something rarely encountered in tradition.
The substrate of these innovations—which have no foundation either in Scripture or in the practice of the Church—seems to be a weakened conviction of the efficacy of the Sacraments. Although not in itself a plainly erroneous innovation, it appears nonetheless to lean towards theories of Lutheran provenance, which, while denying that “ex opere operato” has any role to play, hold that the sacramental rites serve more to “reawaken faith” than to confer grace.
It is difficult, moreover, to understand what was actually being sought with these reforms, since in fact edits were made to shorten the length of the celebrations, but tedious passages were introduced which burden the ceremonies unduly.
(MR 1952): The renewal of baptismal promises does not exist, just as, in this form, it has never existed in the traditional history of the liturgy of either East or West.
8. (OHS 1956): Creation of an admonition during the renewal of promises, which can be recited in the vernacular. (129)
Commentary: The tone of this moralizing admonition betrays all too well the era in which it was composed (the mid-fifties). Today it already sounds dated, besides being a rather tedious adjunct. There is also the typical a-liturgical manner of turning to the faithful during this rite, a hybrid between homily and ceremony (which will enjoy great success in the years to follow).
(MR 1952): Does not exist.
9. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the Our Father recited by everyone present, and possibly in the vernacular. (130)
Commentary: The Our Father is preceded by a sentimental-sounding exhortation.
(MR 1952): Does not exist.
10. (OHS 1956): With no liturgical sense whatsoever, there is introduced here the second part of the litany, broken off at the half-way point prior to the blessing of the baptismal water. (131)
Commentary: Before the blessing of the baptismal water, the litany is recited kneeling; afterwards, a great number of ceremonies are performed, along with movements in the sanctuary; then there is the joy following the blessing of the baptismal water and any Baptisms that follow; and then the same impetratory prayer of the litany is resumed at the precise point where it was broken off a half-hour before and left hanging. (It would be difficult to determine if the faithful remember when they left this prayer half-finished.) This innovation is incoherent and incomprehensible.
(MR 1952): The litany, recited integrally and without interruption, is chanted after the blessing of the baptismal font and before Mass. (132)
11. (OHS 1956): Suppression of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Psalm “Judica me” (Ps. 42), and the Confiteor at the beginning of Mass. (133)
Commentary: It was decided that Mass should begin without the recitation of the Confiteor or the penitential psalm. Psalm 42, which recalls the unworthiness of the priest to ascend to the altar, was not appreciated, perhaps bec
-
"It was felt necessary to revise and enrich the formulae of the Roman Missal. The first stage of such a reform was the work of Our Predecessor Pius XII with the reform of the Easter Vigil and the rites of Holy Week (1), which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking"
(Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969)
Modus operandi.
(thanks for posting this in the Library SeanJ)
-
Here's another good article on the subject:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=37&catname=6
-
"It was felt necessary to revise and enrich the formulae of the Roman Missal. The first stage of such a reform was the work of Our Predecessor Pius XII with the reform of the Easter Vigil and the rites of Holy Week (1), which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking"
(Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969)
Modus operandi.
(thanks for posting this in the Library SeanJ)
Yes, it is interesting that their idea of "enrichment" is always synonomous with "impoverishment," and is always the prelude to significant and substantial excissions and reductions.
Prayers they dont like are termed as "medieval accretions," and chopped on this basis.
-
Here's another good article on the subject:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=37&catname=6
Excellent find!
Its primary value is to put the reforms into historical context.
Thank You!
-
Fr. Pfeiffer, when he was up here on Palm Sunday, used the old ritual.
I really think it depends on what is provided to them. If a Mass center provides Fr. Pfeiffer with the modernized Holy Week rituals, they'll do that, but if a Mass center would provide the old version, he would do that.
If the Mass centers would uniformly provide the old Holy Week ritual, by giving them the old missal (the 1945 missal is the one we have up here) they would provide us with the received and approved rites as it should be.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer, when he was up here on Palm Sunday, used the old ritual.
I really think it depends on what is provided to them. If a Mass center provides Fr. Pfeiffer with the modernized Holy Week rituals, they'll do that, but if a Mass center would provide the old version, he would do that.
If the Mass centers would uniformly provide the old Holy Week ritual, by giving them the old missal (the 1945 missal is the one we have up here) they would provide us with the received and approved rites as it should be.
Ah, that makes sense.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer, when he was up here on Palm Sunday, used the old ritual.
I really think it depends on what is provided to them. If a Mass center provides Fr. Pfeiffer with the modernized Holy Week rituals, they'll do that, but if a Mass center would provide the old version, he would do that.
If the Mass centers would uniformly provide the old Holy Week ritual, by giving them the old missal (the 1945 missal is the one we have up here) they would provide us with the received and approved rites as it should be.
Sean,
Thanks for posting this :
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html
it gives everybody excellent background material-- even those newer to tradition to help understand what all the 'fuss" is about.
To address the other question,
We need to bear in mind that the SSPX priests, including fathers Pfeiffer, Chazal, etc., have been "under the influence" of the accordistas for a long, long time. Thankfully, Bishop Williamson announced that he would be using the "pre-1962" liturgical books for Holy week. Father Pfeiffer, in Danbury, used the 19550-56 liturgy for Good Friday ( which was essentially, I believe, the same as the 1948 liturgies). Why he's following the new rites for Holy Saturday, I don't know. Hopefully, it will not depend on what his parishioners provide for him, because priests need to know to lead us. However, I can understand the comment. When I called one of the Resistance Mass centers' leaders and asked which Missal Father will follow for Good Friday, I was told "I don't know." Some in the resistance do not yet realize that we are in this battle because (in part) the Catholics simply did not care what was going on-- but we hope and pray that they are waking up to the serious nature of even "small, seemingly insignificant nature ( as your post explains) of the dastardly changes.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer, when he was up here on Palm Sunday, used the old ritual.
I really think it depends on what is provided to them. If a Mass center provides Fr. Pfeiffer with the modernized Holy Week rituals, they'll do that, but if a Mass center would provide the old version, he would do that.
If the Mass centers would uniformly provide the old Holy Week ritual, by giving them the old missal (the 1945 missal is the one we have up here) they would provide us with the received and approved rites as it should be.
Well then, we have our work cut out for us, don't we? But I would like to see them committed to the cause. Could one even imagine the graces poured out on them if they were to abandon the Bugnini Mass altogether?
-
If ever a question needs to be examined, it is this one.
Sean - thanks so much for getting behind this one!
-
"Suppose, dear friend, that Communism (one of "the errors of Russia" mentioned in the Message of Fatima) was only the most visible of the instruments of subversion to be used against the Church and the Traditions of Divine Revelation ..."
"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith, in Her Liturgy, Her Theology, and Her Soul ..."
"I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our Churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, "where have they taken Him?" (Quoted in the book. PIUS XII DEVANT L'HISTOIRE, pp 52-53, by Msgy Georges Roche)
Yes, the "ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith, in Her Liturgy, Her Theology, and Her Soul". Has not this sad Papal statement come to pass in our day? Kyrie Eleison.
Yesterday, a friend and I attended Good Friday Services according to the 1948 Missal (no Holy Communion for the faithful - as it should be!) It was beautiful!! Friends, we really have lost the beautiful treasures of our patrimony. Holy Week and Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal (Bugnini's innovations) are poor and weakened substitutions. Now is the perfect time to begin the restoration of our beautiful Holy Catholic Liturgy and fully open the channels of God's Grace upon us.
Our Lady of Fatima, please pray for us poor sinners!
-
I wanted to ask the question, beacuse, leaving all other issues aside, it seemed to me 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.
It is good to narrow the question, but it is also good to widen the question.
With the advent of the so-called resistance, the entire Deposit of Faith needs to be re-taught, re-stated, and re-embraced with the zealous certitude and the very freshness with which Jesus Christ - the Same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega - perfumes all the things that pertain to Him.
-
PAUL VI: . . . which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking.
OBSERVATION: This is the exact reason why we should refuse it.
-
CARUSI: As regards the work of the reform of Holy Week in 1955 and 1956, it is desirable to consider the declarations, finally made public now, of the well-known Lazarist Annibale Bugnini, and of his close collaborator and later secretary of the "Consilium ad reformandam liturgiam" Father Carlo Braga, and of the future-Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli, in order to establish whether or not their work of liturgical reform corresponds to a wider theological project and in order to analyze the validity of the criteria used and then reproposed in the reforms that followed.
OBSERVATION: He is intimating that if we scrutinize the thing, we will learn that this "reform of Holy Week" was Phase I of the implementation of the novus ordo. The novus ordo is not contained in the Council. It predates it, in both the speculative and practical orders.
As Mrs. Martinez has painstakingly reported, Pius XII was a novus ordo pope.
-
CARUSI: In October of 1949 at the Congregation of Rites, a liturgical commission was named which would have as its object the Roman rite. (Actually, the commission was named on May 28, 1948, while the constitutive meeting of the commission was held on June 22 of the same year. (See Fr. Thomas Richstatter's "Liturgical Law: New Style, New Spirit", Franciscan Herald Press 1977, p. 182. CAP.)
OBSERVATION: Interestingly the foundation of the rogue state of Israel is May 14, 1948, exactly two weeks prior to the date of the naming of this fake liturgical commission. Let us call to mind all that Mrs. Martinez reported about the activity of Pius XII in furtherance of the establishment of this imposture regime.
Novus ordo translates "new order."
Most certainly, the illegal creation of the rogue state - a joint co-operative work of the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., England, and the Vatican - ushers in the post-WWII nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
The establishment of the rogue state of Israel is the trumpet blast that calls into actuality the coup d'etat in the Church. It wakes up the sleeper agents who go to work to bring every lever of ecclesiastical power under subjection to the Beast.
Make no mistake - the post-conciliar Vatican in union with the communist/freemasonic republics constitute the entirety of the NWO: the new order of anti-Christendom, powered by a malicious inversion of the divinely constituted order and relationship of Church and State.
We believe ourselves to be a Tradition Preservation Operation. But our participation in the 1962 Missale, along with the earlier changes for Holy Week, places us under the yoke and subjection of our enemies. It places us squarely within the NWO.
Tradition sorely needs to re-identify itself by re-identifying its enemies.
We will know better what to do as a counter striking body when we apprehend in all of their fullness and implications, both the nature of the revolution (in its principles and in its agencies) and the nature of our silent acquiescence in it.
-
CARUSI: It was to study whether eventual reforms should be adopted; unfortunately, the calm necessary for such a work was not possible on account of the continual requests by the French and German episcopates demanding immediate changes with the greatest and most precipitous haste.
OBSERVATION: I wonder how many of those German and French bishops were crypto Jєωs and sleeper agents. Mrs. Martinez stated that both Pope Pius XII and Paul VI were Jєωιѕн. If the Jєωs had possession of the papacy by this time, it is reasonable to posit that the European episcopacies were also heavily infiltrated.
-
Completely agree with the above posts.
-
CARUSI: The Commission worked in secret and under pressure from the central European episcopates, though it is not clear if their pressure was meant to intimidate or encourage the Commission.
OBSERVATION: Self-evident.
-
A great book written in English, which puts the wider (deformed) liturgical movement into context:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Liturgical-Movement-Gueranger-Beauduin/dp/1892331144
-
CARUSI: So great was the secrecy that the unexpected and sudden publication of the "Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurati" ["On the Restored Rite of Holy Saturday”] on March 1, 1951, "came as a surprise to the very officials of the Congregation of Rites," (7) as commission member Annibale Bugnini has stated.
OBSERVATION: In other words, the usurper beast out-maneuvered the Church. And this was the pre-game, the overture for the outmaneuvering on steroids that took place at the Council.
In looking back on this, we will find only one thing: world communism/Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ/Jєωry making its long planned and long anticipated move.
When is Tradition going to wake up and start fighting like true soldiers of Christ?
-
CARUSI: This same Fr. Bugnini informs us of the singular manner in which the results of the Commission's work on Holy Week were conveyed to the Pope: the Pope "was kept informed by Msgr. Montini as well as weekly by Fr. Bea, Pius XII's confessor.
OBSERVATION: Montini is Paul VI, a Jєω according to Mrs. Martinez. Bea is a known Jєω and a sworn enemy of Christ, who confessed Pius XII, a Jєω according to Mrs Martinez.
The Vatican is occupied by the ѕуηαgσgυє of satan.
It is another Palestine.
-
Someone has gone through pages 4-5 on this thread and thumbed-down every post without explanation?
What is the point?
Those pages cover several issues, so nobody knows what you object to.
Additionally, I posted a great book by Fr. Bonne Terre which has received 2 thumb-downs.
The only explanation I can come up with is that there is a Novus Ordo supporter (or two) who is taking exception to the whole thread, or, someone who prefers the revised Holy Week has taken exception???
-
QUESTION: We traddies go all squeamish when we think of the fake, novus ordo Good Friday intercession for the Jєωs that BXVI tried to foist onto the Missale of 1962.
"I won't stand for it!" we bluster.
Yet why should we go all squeamish over that gnat whilst yet swallowing the Holy Week camel of Pius XII-Bugnini?
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
-
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.
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of.
Archbishop Lefebvre never tolerated the suggestion that the pope who wrote Humani Generis, Mystici Corporis Christii, and Sacramentum Ordinis was some kind of transitional pope, or some kind of closet liberal going soft on modernism.
He knew enough to reject the pleas of the modernists to call a council.
He was no modernist.
He was taken advantage of.
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of.
Both of you are serving idols - the memories of dead men!
Stop being sentimentalist and be objective about the Faith!
Under the watch of Pius XII, the enemies of God won their first and most decisive battle!
So what if he was sick! So what is he was 'nice?' So what?
Take the blinders off for once and for all!
You've got a war to win!
This is not an attack on Pius XII as a man; rather it is a stated observation about the revolution in the Church - accomplished in the practical order through infiltration and outright theft of ecclesiastical offices - terminating (not beginning!!!!) in his pontificate and in the pontificates of every one of his successors.
Use your metaphysics!! You know that over time the effects become more pronounced, but the cause is in every effect. If we see the effect in his pontificate - we see also the cause!
It is best not to start a line of discussion if you are not prepared to look at the can of worms you open!
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of . . . He was taken advantage of.
You do realize, my good man, that this is the same line of bull-hoax they give about "Saint JPII."
YUK!
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
I'm the only one squawking and I'm not resistance.
I speak as a Catholic.
Both SSPXBrand and the so-called resistance make the SSPX their First Principle.
I refuse to do that; wherefore you are misrepresenting the so-called resistance by lumping my statements in with their so-called position.
Be precise.
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of.
Both of you are serving idols - the memories of dead men!
Stop being sentimentalist and be objective about the Faith!
Under the watch of Pius XII, the enemies of God won their first and most decisive battle!
So what if he was sick! So what is he was 'nice?' So what?
Take the blinders off for once and for all!
You've got a war to win!
This is not an attack on Pius XII as a man; rather it is a stated observation about the revolution in the Church - accomplished in the practical order through infiltration and outright theft of ecclesiastical offices - terminating (not beginning!!!!) in his pontificate and in the pontificates of every one of his successors.
Use your metaphysics!! You know that over time the effects become more pronounced, but the cause is in every effect. If we see the effect in his pontificate - we see also the cause!
It is best not to start a line of discussion if you are not prepared to look at the can of worms you open!
:applause: A dozen thumbs up...
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of . . . He was taken advantage of.
You do realize, my good man, that this is the same line of bull-hoax they give about "Saint JPII."
YUK!
JPII's modernist writings are abundant, and span his entire career.
Pius XII has no modernist writings to support the contention he was a closet modernist, and intended to be a transitional pope.
Additionally, the biggest proof of his unquestionable orthodoxy was his refusal to call a Council, despite repeated pressure to do so by the modernists surrounding him (Bea, Antonelli, Montini, etc).
Yet, this would have been the easiest way for him to accomplish any secret modernist agenda.......just like his successors did.
As an aside, to continue down the path you are suggesting is a rabbit hole that leads all the way back to Peter:
1) Pius XII allowed an experimental breviary and revised the Holy Week, so we have to reject him as a modernist;
2) St. Pius X lowered the age for first communion, and endorsed frequent reception of communion (in addition to chopping down the Leonine Briviary), so we have to reject him as a modernist;
3) Leo XIII promulgated Rerum Novarum, and therefore (so they unjustly say), we have to reject him as being influenced by Marxism, and laying the groundwork for liberation theology.
4) and on and on and on....
-
Yes, the "ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith, in Her Liturgy, Her Theology, and Her Soul". Has not this sad Papal statement come to pass in our day? Kyrie Eleison.
Yes, both Pius XII and Paul VI have given very famous and oft-repeated quotes about the auto-demolition in the Church which they themselves authorized by the stroke of their very own quill pens.
-
JPII's modernist writings are abundant, and span his entire career.
Pius XII has no modernist writings to support the contention he was a closet modernist, and intended to be a transitional pope.
The entire copernican darwinian einsteinian evolution establishment can thank Pius XII for opening the door wide for them to enter the Church in droves.
But truly Sean, let's not go here because it will totally derail the thread.
Best to start a new thread to debate this one.
But, again, let's stay for now with this great topic that you started. This issue so needs to be resolved!
-
Some might find it very interesting to read a history of the inception of the Vatican Bank and the Pacelli Family, who came into prominence as the original Vatican Bankers. The claim has been made that the Pacelli Family were marranos and Rothchild agents.
Interestingly, Fr. Luigi Villa (RIP) claimed that Pius XII zealously promoted Msgr. Montini (another alleged marrano), treated him as a father would treat a beloved son, and never failed to defend him from his many enemies within the Vatican. It was Montini who brought Anibale Bugnini to Pope Pius' attention.
cantatedomino, the software won't permit me to give you a "thumbs up". Again, I agree with your posts ...
-
Some might find it very interesting to read a history of the inception of the Vatican Bank and the Pacelli Family, who came into prominence as the original Vatican Bankers. The claim has been made that the Pacelli Family were marranos and Rothchild agents.
Interestingly, Fr. Luigi Villa (RIP) claimed that Pius XII zealously promoted Msgr. Montini (another alleged marrano), treated him as a father would treat a beloved son, and never failed to defend him from his many enemies within the Vatican. It was Montini who brought Anibale Bugnini to Pope Pius' attention.
One day Catholics will once again be able to read history in real books.
History as a true science now lies as dormant as the Church as True Religion.
Well, I'm now off to my 1962 Easter vigil service!!!
Pray for me!
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
-
JPII's modernist writings are abundant, and span his entire career.
Pius XII has no modernist writings to support the contention he was a closet modernist, and intended to be a transitional pope.
The entire copernican darwinian einsteinian evolution establishment can thank Pius XII for opening the door wide for them to enter the Church in droves.
But truly Sean, let's not go here because it will totally derail the thread.
Best to start a new thread to debate this one.
But, again, let's stay for now with this great topic that you started. This issue so needs to be resolved!
With respect, you don't know what you are talking about.
Your posts reveal an almost complete ignorance of the writings of the liturgical innovators' memoirs.
If you read those, and had a wider understanding of how things came about, you would not focus your narrow gaze simply on "under whose watch did they come about."
If you want to take the time to read the memoirs of Bugnini, Casel, Beuaduin, etc, then we can have a conversation.
-
Some might find it very interesting to read a history of the inception of the Vatican Bank and the Pacelli Family, who came into prominence as the original Vatican Bankers. The claim has been made that the Pacelli Family were marranos and Rothchild agents.
Interestingly, Fr. Luigi Villa (RIP) claimed that Pius XII zealously promoted Msgr. Montini (another alleged marrano), treated him as a father would treat a beloved son, and never failed to defend him from his many enemies within the Vatican. It was Montini who brought Anibale Bugnini to Pope Pius' attention.
One day Catholics will once again be able to read history in real books.
History as a true science now lies as dormant as the Church as True Religion.
Well, I'm now off to my 1962 Easter vigil service!!!
Pray for me!
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
Nice to go to the "Vigil"... don't forget to go to Easter Sunday Mass as well. It is what St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Pius V, St. Pius X... and even Dom Gueranger would have done :)
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of . . . He was taken advantage of.
You do realize, my good man, that this is the same line of bull-hoax they give about "Saint JPII."
YUK!
To imply Pius XII and JPII are cut from the same cloth is so ridiculous a claim as to pre-empt the need to respond.
-
SJ, I have read the book on the Liturgical Reform that the SSPX published. There are a great many books out there with additional and more wide-ranging information. Pius XII is one of the Society's "sacred cows". Read Fr. Villa's books. You might find his perspective quite interesting. His entire clerical life was spent investigating freemasonic infiltration into the Vatican.
-
Some might find it very interesting to read a history of the inception of the Vatican Bank and the Pacelli Family, who came into prominence as the original Vatican Bankers. The claim has been made that the Pacelli Family were marranos and Rothchild agents.
Interestingly, Fr. Luigi Villa (RIP) claimed that Pius XII zealously promoted Msgr. Montini (another alleged marrano), treated him as a father would treat a beloved son, and never failed to defend him from his many enemies within the Vatican. It was Montini who brought Anibale Bugnini to Pope Pius' attention.
cantatedomino, the software won't permit me to give you a "thumbs up". Again, I agree with your posts ...
:stare:
Wow that explains a LOT!
And same about the thumbs up here too.
-
SJ, I have read the book on the Liturgical Reform that the SSPX published. There are a great many books out there with additional and more wide-ranging information. Pius XII is one of the Society's "sacred cows". Read Fr. Villa's books. You might find his perspective quite interesting. His entire clerical life was spent investigating freemasonic infiltration into the Vatican.
Yes, as I have stated to Cantate, you need to read the books of the innovators themselves.
Until someone does that, I will not waste time having a conversation on the subject with them.
To read the maneuvers of Beauduin, Bugninui, etc is shocking for both the tactical brilliance, and the unfortunate effectiveness of them.
To lay it at the feet of Pius XII is scandalous and ignorant.
Might as well blame Pope St. Pius X for pushing modernism underground while we are at it.
After all (tongue in cheek), wasn't it him that destroyed the Leonine breviary, and encouraged frequent communion?
-
Well, SJ, overlooking your condescension is a never ending exercise. There are a number of us who are rather well read on this subject and have drawn conclusions at variance with yours.
PS My library contains at least 25 books on this very subject. You're always welcome to borrow a few ...
-
Some might find it very interesting to read a history of the inception of the Vatican Bank and the Pacelli Family, who came into prominence as the original Vatican Bankers. The claim has been made that the Pacelli Family were marranos and Rothchild agents.
Interestingly, Fr. Luigi Villa (RIP) claimed that Pius XII zealously promoted Msgr. Montini (another alleged marrano), treated him as a father would treat a beloved son, and never failed to defend him from his many enemies within the Vatican. It was Montini who brought Anibale Bugnini to Pope Pius' attention.
cantatedomino, the software won't permit me to give you a "thumbs up". Again, I agree with your posts ...
The software is "managed" by the moderator.
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of . . . He was taken advantage of.
You do realize, my good man, that this is the same line of bull-hoax they give about "Saint JPII."
YUK!
To imply Pius XII and JPII are cut from the same cloth is so ridiculous a claim as to pre-empt the need to respond.
This is the fruit of this schismatic tree. I am pleased that you defend Pope Pius XII, but make no mistake about this: he was not fooled into reforming the Holy Week, he supported it and praised the changes.
The 1955 Holy Week Law was a good law and should never be criticized. There is nothing evil or leading to impiety in the rite. There is no reason to disobey Pope Pius XII's law.
God Himself accepts this rite, but apparently man will not.
-
Well, SJ, overlooking your condescension is a never ending exercise. There are a number of us who are rather well read on this subject and have drawn conclusions at variance with yours.
PS My library contains at least 25 books on this very subject. You're always welcome to borrow a few ...
My response to you was directed at Cantate.
-
...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.
-
Yes, the "ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith, in Her Liturgy, Her Theology, and Her Soul". Has not this sad Papal statement come to pass in our day? Kyrie Eleison.
Yes, both Pius XII and Paul VI have given very famous and oft-repeated quotes about the auto-demolition in the Church which they themselves authorized by the stroke of their very own quill pens.
We all know the Church was sold out long before Vatican II.
Is Pius XII guilty? In conscience, it is hard to imagine otherwise.
-
...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:
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 liturgical changes as directed and approved by... Pope Pius XII were good changes.
How pray tell is that a proven assumption?
-
cantatedomino, the software won't permit me to give you a "thumbs up". Again, I agree with your posts ...
So do I.
-
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
-
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 !
-
The liturgical changes as directed and approved by... Pope Pius XII were good changes.
How pray tell is that a proven assumption?
We have the testimony of Pope Pius XII that the liturgical actions of the Popes from St. Pius X to Pope Pius XII were movements of the Holy Ghost in His Church.
Pope Pius XII taught:
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.
Also:
The contributions which are brought to the liturgy by the Hierarchy and by the faithful are not to be reckoned as two separate quantities, but represent the work of members of the same organism, which acts as a single living entity. The shepherds and the flock, the teaching Church and the Church taught, form a single and unique body of Christ. So there is no reason for entertaining suspicion, rivalries, open or hidden opposition, either in one’s thought or in one’s manner of speaking and acting. Among members of the same body there ought to reign, before all else, harmony, union and cooperation. It is within this unity that the Church prays, makes it offering, grows in holiness. One can declare therefore with justice that the liturgy is the work of the Church whole and entire.
(Quotes from Pope Pius XII taken from: Address of Pope Pius XII to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, Sept. 22, 1956, translation of the original: AAS (October 29, 1956), 48: 711-725; found online HERE (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=425) )
The duty of a Catholic is to trust the Pope that he is leading the Church as God wants it led. The Pope is also clear that there is no reason for " entertaining suspicion, rivalries, open or hidden opposition, either in one’s thought or in one’s manner of speaking and acting." Our duty as Catholics is to be nourished and fed by the liturgy, and trust the Pope who has been given the authority by God to guard and regulate Divine Worship.
Secondly, Pope Leo XIII taught:
In this question, have all in mind that in Church´s government, excepting the fundamental obligations the Apostolic ministry imposes to the Popes, each Pontiff is free to follow the way he thinks is the most appropriate, according to the times and other circuмstances. This competence is exclusive of the R. Pontiff, becuase he has for these cases an special light of the gift of counsel, and he has a more complete vision of the situation of the whole Church, in order to give an answer according to his apostolic providence. It is he who takes care of the common good of the Church, to which subordinates the particular utility of her different parts. Everybody else, without exception, must cooperate with the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and follow his plans.
If this doctrine would fall into oblivion, the reverence, trust and respect due to the guide given by God would be lost. The bond of loving obedience would be relaxed, bond that keep together faithfuls with their Bishops, and them with the Pope...
Also, a great division among Catholics would follow, becuase of the death of concord, which must be always be considered as a characteristic of the followers of Jesus Christ, and in all times, and most above all now, when so many enemies get otgether, must be the supreme law for all..."
(Pope Leo XIII, "Epistola Tua", cf. Leonis XIII Acta (Romae 1891 ss),), original text in Latin and translation found HERE (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8086#p8086)
In short, one must trust that the Pope, led by special light of the gift of counsel has led the Church correctly, and must submit himself to the judgment of the Pope in his decisions for the Church.
In application to Pope Pius XII, a Catholic is bound to trust that he by the special light of the gift of counsel, led the Church correctly in his official acts regarding the liturgy.
-
I hope the Resistance resists the temptation to attack Pope Pius XII or the Holy Laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by him.
Agreed.
Most of what was accomplished under his nose was done by deception, rather than promotion.
He was also quite ill for the last several years, and therefore easy to take advantage of . . . He was taken advantage of.
You do realize, my good man, that this is the same line of bull-hoax they give about "Saint JPII."
YUK!
To imply Pius XII and JPII are cut from the same cloth is so ridiculous a claim as to pre-empt the need to respond.
This is the fruit of this schismatic tree. I am pleased that you defend Pope Pius XII, but make no mistake about this: he was not fooled into reforming the Holy Week, he supported it and praised the changes.
The 1955 Holy Week Law was a good law and should never be criticized. There is nothing evil or leading to impiety in the rite. There is no reason to disobey Pope Pius XII's law.
God Himself accepts this rite, but apparently man will not.
Ambrose-
But just for the sake of argument, here is what one of your fellow sedevacantists says regarding the non-binding nature of the revised holy week:
Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms "Illegal"?
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Q. I I was just wondering how you justify rejection of the Holy Week "reforms" under Pius XII. If the principle of "epikeia" is invoked, it would seem this does not apply given the validity of the reigning Pontiff, and his rightful authority to make such "changes". I was under the impression that epikeia only applied when a law began to work against the common good and needed to be ignored. I would appreciate your insight. Thank you for your fantastic work and time
Q. Thank you for sending me these links to your wonderful web-site and for the beautiful ceremonies presented in the pictures. Regarding the 1955 Holy Week Changes: in reading the arguments from 1955 for the reasons in the changes, the "innovators" talked of "returning to earlier traditions" and of "simplification of the ceremonies", etc.: the same arguments made later for the entire Novus Ordo. Admittedly, the whole thing stinks of Bugnini. Annibale admitted in his memoirs that this was an important step towards the liturgical anarchy he later created with Paul VI and all their protestant friends and bishops. I have no doubt in my mind that the 1955 changes should have been thrown out (like the rest of Bugnini's "innovations").
However, I have two main questions: what does this say to us of Pope Pius XII in those latter years for permitting and utilizing this new ceremony, and also, since we have been Interregnum since 1958, what justifications do we utilize to individually celebrate the older ceremonies which were replaced before 1958 without making it appear that we are "picking and choosing" which ceremonies we want to utilize. Is it because of the belief that Pope Pius XII would never have agreed with the changes if he knew what occurred afterwards like we do know? Is it because he never really promulgated the changes (as some believe)? Or is it simply because Bugnini was behind it all? I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this as this topic has puzzled me for quite some time.
A. Over the years we have been repeatedly asked this question. The answer is quite simple, and is based on the common-sense principles that underlie all the Church’s legislation.
The laws promulgating the Pius XII liturgical reforms were human ecclesiastical laws, subject to the general principles of interpretation for all church laws. As such, they no long bind on two grounds:
I. Lack of Stability (or Perpetuity). Stability is an essential quality of a true law. The 1955 reforms were merely transitional norms; this is self-evident from subsequent legislation and contemporaneous comments by those responsible for creating them.
In his 1955 book on the changes, The Simplification of the Rubrics, Bugnini himself makes this abundantly clear in the following passages:
• “The present decree has a contingent character. It is essentially a bridge between the old and the new, and if you will, an arrow indicating the direction taken by the current restoration.…”
• “The simplification does not embrace all areas which would deserve a reform, but for the moment only the things that are easiest and most obvious and with an immediate and tangible effect… In the simplification, being a ‘bridge’ between the present state and the general reform, compromise was inevitable…”
• “This reform is only the first step toward measures of a wider scope, and it is not possible to judge accurately of a part except when it is placed in its whole.”
In a 1956 commentary on the new Holy Week rite (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Lit. 25, p.1.), Bugnini says:
• “The decree ‘Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria,” promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 16 November 1955 [and introducing the new Holy Week] is the third step towards a general liturgical reform.”
Such norms (as we now realize), thus lacked one of the essential qualities of a law — stability or perpetuity — and are therefore no longer binding.
2. Cessation. A human ecclesiastical law that was obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circuмstances after the passage of time. When this happens, such a law ceases to bind. (I have written several articles that touch upon this topic.)
Traditionalists apply this principle (at least implicitly) to a great number of ecclesiastical laws, and it applies equally to the 1955 reforms.
The many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter harmful, because such a use promotes (at least implicitly) the dangerous error that Paul VI's "reform" was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy.
Indeed, this is the very lie that Paul VI proclaimed in the first two paragraphs of Missale Romanum, his 1969 Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Novus Ordo.
It makes no sense to support this deception by insisting that the 1955 legislation still binds — especially when we now know that it was all part of a long-range plot by Annibale Bugnini's modernist cabal to destroy the Mass.
Here, from his 1955 book, The Simplification of the Rubrics, is Bugnini announcing the long-term goal of these changes:
• “We are concerned with ‘restoring’ [the liturgy]… [making it] a new city in which the man of our age can live and feel at ease…”
• “No doubt it is still too early to assess the full portent of this docuмent, which marks an important turning point in the history of the rites of the Roman liturgy…”
• “Those who are eager for a more wholesome, realistic liturgical renewal are once more — I should say — almost invited, tacitly, to keep their eyes open and make an accurate investigation of the principles here put forward, to see their possible applications…”
• “More than in any other field, a reform in the liturgy must be the fruit of an intelligent, enlightened collaboration of all the active forces.”
And here is Bugnini describing how his “reform” commission got the liturgical changes approved by Pius XII:
“The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini [Paul VI, the modernist who would promulgate the Novus Ordo] and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea [half-Jєω, modernist, and premier ecuмenist at Vatican II], confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him.” (The Liturgical Reform, p.9)
Thus, the Mason’s liturgical creations were presented to the sick pope for his approval by the two scheming modernists who will be major players in destroying the Church at Vatican II.
Bugnini in his memoirs, indeed, entitles the chapter on his involvement with the pre-Vatican II changes as "The Key to the Liturgical Reform." It prepared the ground for what would follow.
I devote two weeks of my seminary liturgy course on the "Modern Era" to an examination of the pre-Vatican II antecedents to the later "reforms." The problems outlined in the articles by Bp. Dolan and Fr. Ricossa on our web site thus far are only the tip of the iceberg.
Traditionalists rightly set aside as inapplicable many other ecclesiastical laws. A fortiori, they should ignore liturgical laws that were the dirty work of the man who destroyed the Mass.
(Internet, 27 April 2006)
-
When we see a proper declaration that the resistance, so called, is returning to a truer form of the liturgy in toto, we can then hope that there might come a change in the ABL accommodation and position.
And so we must wait to see if the leaders have the foresight and fortitude to seize upon this opportunity.
I wish all a most blessed and most fruitful Easter in the joy of our Risen Lord.
God Bless
-
"It was felt necessary to revise and enrich the formulae of the Roman Missal. The first stage of such a reform was the work of Our Predecessor Pius XII with the reform of the Easter Vigil and the rites of Holy Week (1), which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking"
(Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969)
Modus operandi.
(thanks for posting this in the Library SeanJ)
No kidding. " adapting to the contemporary way of thinking"? No thanks, we have seen the fruits of that tree.
-
"It was felt necessary to revise and enrich the formulae of the Roman Missal. The first stage of such a reform was the work of Our Predecessor Pius XII with the reform of the Easter Vigil and the rites of Holy Week (1), which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking"
(Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969)
Modus operandi.
(thanks for posting this in the Library SeanJ)
No kidding. " adapting to the contemporary way of thinking"? No thanks, we have seen the fruits of that tree.
An assertion by the public heretic Paul VI does not make it true.
-
Sean,
A happy Easter to you. I will give you my thoughts on Fr. Cekada's article. I will only deal with the core of his argument, the rest is non-essential.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
I. Lack of Stability (or Perpetuity). Stability is an essential quality of a true law.
True
Fr. Cekada wrote:
The 1955 reforms were merely transitional norms; this is self-evident from subsequent legislation and contemporaneous comments by those responsible for creating them.
This remains unproven and in my opinion is incorrect. There is no evidence that Pope Pius XII, the lawgiver, intended that the 1955 rite was transitional.
The decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites made no mention of the rite being transitional. The immense work that the Sacred Congregation put into this reform with the Pope's full approval also would imply that the Pope was looking for permanence, not a transitory rite. Lastly, if this reformed Holy Week rite was experimental, they would have said so, as they did with the Easter Vigil in 1951.
Fr. Cekada appears to be exclusively relying on the writings of Annibale Bugnini to prove his assertion. That is not a valid way of proving that the rite was transitional. Bugnini was not the lawgiver. To make such a claim, one must look to the official docuмents of the Sacred Congregation of Rites or to the statements of Pope Pius XII. There is not even a hint of the 1955 Rite being a transitional rite.
I find it interesting that the entire basis of the rejection of a papal law is grounded on the writings and opinions of a known modernist, Annibale Bugnini. Is Bugnini's private assertions now given full trust and confidence that we may use them to form grave decisions regarding the practice of our Catholic Faith by using it in judgment of the stability of Papal law?
Fr. Cekada wrote:
2. Cessation. A human ecclesiastical law that was obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circuмstances after the passage of time. When this happens, such a law ceases to bind. (I have written several articles that touch upon this topic.)
Where exactly is the harm? As the law of Pope Pius XII went through time, at what point did it become harmful? It clearly was not harmful at the beginning, and Pope Pius XII publicly praised the 1955 reformed rite, so when exactly did the harm begin?
It appears to me that no harm has been noticed among Catholics that go to SSPX, CMRI or in other places that use the rite approved by Pope Pius XII. It also seems to me that many Catholics have benefited by the Pius XII Holy Week in that it is more accessible for Catholics of our age, and this pastoral approach by the Pope only helped Catholics to facilitate their attendance at the rite rather than harming them.
The assertion that the rite has become harmful is just that an assertion. It remains unproven, and in my opinion, it is false. Fr. Cekada's continued use of Annibale Bugnini's writings to prove his case also shows me that he is solely relying on the private writings of a known modernist as the only evidence of his assertions.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Traditionalists rightly set aside as inapplicable many other ecclesiastical laws. A fortiori, they should ignore liturgical laws that were the dirty work of the man who destroyed the Mass.
This ignores the fact that Bugnini did not give us this law, Pope Pius XII promulgated the law.
-
We had every opportunity to assist at our Resistance Vigil Saturday (post-'56), and decided to trek to the nearest SV chapel instead. This was our usual practice before any resistance. I hated to leave a lapse in support of the good priests, but given only a choice between an eviscerated vigil and the option of reading the true rite from my Missal at home, I'd take the latter.
It really is that important..
-
Fr. Ringrose faithfully offers the pre-55 Missal 365 days a year.
-
Fr. Ringrose faithfully offers the pre-55 Missal 365 days a year.
Does he insert Bergoglio in the Canon?
-
Fr. Ringrose faithfully offers the pre-55 Missal 365 days a year.
God Bless Father Ringrose!
All those who pray, along with modernists, heretics, animists, syncretists, moslems, protestants
and Jєωs, using the liturgical books of Bugnini and John XXIII, are doomed to destruction-- they are purposely allowing the blinders of faith to be set upon their eyes-- a blindness from which they will not escape absent a miracle of the good Lord.
When Father Ringrose saw the light and came to tradition, one could almost see his interior union with the will of Our Lord-- and he has faithfully guided his flock ever since. The people in his section of Virginia are singularly blessed. Woe unto those other Virginians following the masonic mammals into the SSPX' taj majal of the conciliar church-- which will be producing novus ordo
Pres-by-ters licensed by the sspx to "fake" the tridentine mass.
-
Fr. Ringrose faithfully offers the pre-55 Missal 365 days a year.
Does he insert Bergoglio in the Canon?
Since he does not pray the Canon out loud, I can't answer that question and I have never asked him. He does pray for the Pope before every sermon, so I assume Francis is the Pope he prays for. He is not a sede.
-
At minute 20:30 of the video link, Fr. Pfieffer shares his stance on this topic(there are a lot of things that are worrying about his response).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQiKKBYkzxA
I have seen video of the St. Andrew 1945 missal in Fr. Pfeiffer's hands during a sermon, and also the Fr. Lasance pre 55 missal. I have asked Fr. Hewko and Fr. Giroard about St. Joseph being added to the canon. Fr. Hewko uses the 62 and follows Abp. Lefebvre policy that there is nothing wrong pre V2. More alarming is Fr. Giroard(who I am fond of); he told me in email that he likes St. Joseph being added to the canon - so he uses the 62.
When I met Fr. Pfieffer, our discussion(30-45 minutes) was about geocentrism and the errors of Pius XII. I am quoting Fr. Pfieffer who initiated the subject, saying to me "nobody wants to talk about the errors of Pius XII". He recognizes that Pius XII's approval of birth prevention is not traditional(I add or catholic), but he does not want to do the math(the ghost of abp. Lefebvre might haunt him for departing sspx tradition).
-
In Honour of St. Peter Canisius' Feast Day April 27th.
An absolutely beautiful prayer translated yesterday from German by a dear friend as a little tribute to that great Saint and Apostle whose Feastday will be desecrated by apostate rome.
PRAYER OF SAINT PETER CANISIUS TO THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
Heavenly Spirits, servants of God, the proud, envious, obstinate and cunning evil spirits have conspired for our damnation. And so we call upon your assistance, that this great number of overweening, sly and powerful adversaries may neither in life nor in death be victorious over us.
Stand by us, Holy Angels, day and night, and fight faithfully for us in this perpetual warfare. Especially I appeal to that holy Angel to whom I have been entrusted by the goodness of God.
I ask thee to lead me in my blindness, teach me in my ignorance, strengthen me in my weakness, protect me in my unworthiness, lead me back when I stray, spur me on when lazy, awaken me when I sleep, help me when I walk.
Most especially assist me in that last, hard battle against the evil spirits, which stands before me at the hour of my death, that there may be for me a happy outcome, so that my soul after the accomplished victory may in the fellowship of the Holy Angels joyfully sing: “The snare is broken and we are delivered” (Ps. 123, 7)
Holy Mary, Queen of Angels, send Thy faithful servants upon this earth that they may thrust the hellish powers back into the darkness, in order that so many mortals who are trapped in the net of Satan may be freed and in the light of Mercy may be lead to Thy Divine Son.
AMEN
-
At minute 20:30 of the video link, Fr. Pfieffer shares his stance on this topic(there are a lot of things that are worrying about his response).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQiKKBYkzxA
I have seen video of the St. Andrew 1945 missal in Fr. Pfeiffer's hands during a sermon, and also the Fr. Lasance pre 55 missal. I have asked Fr. Hewko and Fr. Giroard about St. Joseph being added to the canon. Fr. Hewko uses the 62 and follows Abp. Lefebvre policy that there is nothing wrong pre V2. More alarming is Fr. Giroard(who I am fond of); he told me in email that he likes St. Joseph being added to the canon - so he uses the 62.
When I met Fr. Pfieffer, our discussion(30-45 minutes) was about geocentrism and the errors of Pius XII. I am quoting Fr. Pfieffer who initiated the subject, saying to me "nobody wants to talk about the errors of Pius XII". He recognizes that Pius XII's approval of birth prevention is not traditional(I add or catholic), but he does not want to do the math(the ghost of abp. Lefebvre might haunt him for departing sspx tradition).
There were no errors of Pope Pius XII, so if anyone wants to talk about them, no words will be said.
-
At minute 20:30 of the video link, Fr. Pfieffer shares his stance on this topic(there are a lot of things that are worrying about his response).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQiKKBYkzxA
I have seen video of the St. Andrew 1945 missal in Fr. Pfeiffer's hands during a sermon, and also the Fr. Lasance pre 55 missal. I have asked Fr. Hewko and Fr. Giroard about St. Joseph being added to the canon. Fr. Hewko uses the 62 and follows Abp. Lefebvre policy that there is nothing wrong pre V2. More alarming is Fr. Giroard(who I am fond of); he told me in email that he likes St. Joseph being added to the canon - so he uses the 62.
When I met Fr. Pfieffer, our discussion(30-45 minutes) was about geocentrism and the errors of Pius XII. I am quoting Fr. Pfieffer who initiated the subject, saying to me "nobody wants to talk about the errors of Pius XII". He recognizes that Pius XII's approval of birth prevention is not traditional(I add or catholic), but he does not want to do the math(the ghost of abp. Lefebvre might haunt him for departing sspx tradition).
There were no errors of Pope Pius XII, so if anyone wants to talk about them, no words will be said.
Having Bugnini tinker with the Mass was a splendid idea.
-
At minute 20:30 of the video link, Fr. Pfieffer shares his stance on this topic(there are a lot of things that are worrying about his response).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQiKKBYkzxA
I have seen video of the St. Andrew 1945 missal in Fr. Pfeiffer's hands during a sermon, and also the Fr. Lasance pre 55 missal. I have asked Fr. Hewko and Fr. Giroard about St. Joseph being added to the canon. Fr. Hewko uses the 62 and follows Abp. Lefebvre policy that there is nothing wrong pre V2. More alarming is Fr. Giroard(who I am fond of); he told me in email that he likes St. Joseph being added to the canon - so he uses the 62.
When I met Fr. Pfieffer, our discussion(30-45 minutes) was about geocentrism and the errors of Pius XII. I am quoting Fr. Pfieffer who initiated the subject, saying to me "nobody wants to talk about the errors of Pius XII". He recognizes that Pius XII's approval of birth prevention is not traditional(I add or catholic), but he does not want to do the math(the ghost of abp. Lefebvre might haunt him for departing sspx tradition).
There were no errors of Pope Pius XII, so if anyone wants to talk about them, no words will be said.
Having Bugnini tinker with the Mass was a splendid idea.
Bugnini was a powerless underling during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Propping up Bugnini will not make him bigger.
-
Pius xii approved of observance of rythm for "grave reasons".
Fr. Fahey - "the catholic church condemns the sin of birth prevention".
-
There were no errors of Pope Pius XII, so if anyone wants to talk about them, no words will be said.
Having Bugnini tinker with the Mass was a splendid idea.
Bugnini was a powerless underling during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Propping up Bugnini will not make him bigger.
That assertion is just plain ridiculous. What Bugnini did to the Mass in the '60's was an absolute continuation of what he did to Holy Week, demonstrating beyond any shadow of doubt that his power to do this existed from the start of his public Acts. He was enabled and protected by the "convert" Augustin Bea since 1950, if not before.
The fact that he was a principle functionary in the "reforms" of Holy Week, is also a matter of incontrovertible Record. See Fr. Carusi's excellent work, quoting Bugnini's OWN PERSONAL NOTES from the archives regarding this destruction.
-
Pius xii approved of observance of rythm for "grave reasons".
Fr. Fahey - "the catholic church condemns the sin of birth prevention".
Pope Pius XII taught:
Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical <Casti Connubii>, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.
This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.
-
There were no errors of Pope Pius XII, so if anyone wants to talk about them, no words will be said.
Having Bugnini tinker with the Mass was a splendid idea.
Bugnini was a powerless underling during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Propping up Bugnini will not make him bigger.
That assertion is just plain ridiculous. What Bugnini did to the Mass in the '60's was an absolute continuation of what he did to Holy Week, demonstrating beyond any shadow of doubt that his power to do this existed from the start of his public Acts. He was enabled and protected by the "convert" Augustin Bea since 1950, if not before.
The fact that he was a principle functionary in the "reforms" of Holy Week, is also a matter of incontrovertible Record. See Fr. Carusi's excellent work, quoting Bugnini's OWN PERSONAL NOTES from the archives regarding this destruction.
Bugnini was a secretary of a committee, he was not in a position of authority during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Cardinal Cicognani, had the authority over the work being done in the Congregation that was governed by him. It was Pope Pius XII who promulgated the 1955 Holy Week law, and it was this same Pope that publicly supported the reformed rite.
So there is no confusion, I am not saying that Bugnini was an underling during the reign of Antipope Paul VI. He was most certainly very active and influential in the creation of the Novus Ordo Missae. I am only referring to his position under Pope Pius XII.
-
Ambrose - War can change a man(and a Pope). And, do you have with amnesia? We have been into this before on the forum; you 100% agreed that he approved of rhythm for grave reasons(and you accepted it).
-
Ambrose - War can change a man(and a Pope). And, do you have with amnesia? We have been into this before on the forum; you 100% agreed that he approved of rhythm for grave reasons(and you accepted it).
I do not have amnesia, but thanks for your concern about my health.
Regarding the teaching of Pius XII, yes, I agreed that he taught the lawful use of the sterile times for grave reasons. This is a matter of public record, so anyone with the ability to read, and access to his teaching will agree on what he taught.
That is not the same as saying in a vague manner that he taught birth control, as you implied.
-
Ambrose - 2+2=4. 2+2 cannot = 4 and = 5!
"which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral"
A new "aim" is now allowed(for "grave reasons")!
The latter came later, and Pius xii died in the latter!
-
Ambrose - 2+2=4. 2+2 cannot = 4 and = 5!
"which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral"
A new "aim" is now allowed(for "grave reasons")!
The latter came later, and Pius xii died in the latter!
I agree, 2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 5
-
So, the question remains as to whether the "resistance" will take advantage of this opportunity to dispense with the Conciliar extraordinary missal and adopt an earlier and unquestionably sound and Catholic missal?
I do not believe that they should feel bound to ABL's accommodation to the Conciliarists nor should they feel compelled to make the same compromise to what is clearly an apostate entity.
Let us see what they are made of, and if they are willing to resist something beyond Bishop Fellay.
-
So, the question remains as to whether the "resistance" will take advantage of this opportunity to dispense with the Conciliar extraordinary missal and adopt an earlier and unquestionably sound and Catholic missal?
I do not believe that they should feel bound to ABL's accommodation to the Conciliarists nor should they feel compelled to make the same compromise to what is clearly an apostate entity.
Let us see what they are made of, and if they are willing to resist something beyond Bishop Fellay.
Interestingly, this was one of the points of contention of the original "Resistance," the Nine, in their 1983 letter to the Archbishop: (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48&catname=12)
3. Liturgical Changes
The First General Chapter of the Society, held at Econe in 1976, adopted the principle that the Districts and the Houses of Formation should follow the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics which were customary at that time. This decision was never rescinded or even discussed at the Second General Chapter held last year at which your successor was selected.
In the case of the United States, we have always followed the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of our holy patron, Pope St. Pius X, which practice was sanctioned by the First General Chapter. Of late, however, an attempt has been made to force all the priests and seminarians in the United States to accept the liturgical reforms of Pope John XXIII on the grounds of uniformity and loyalty to the Society, thereby implying that adherence to the non-reformed traditional Rites of St. Pius X constitutes disloyalty.
Can it be that the Society has come to look upon loyalty to tradition as disloyalty to the Society?
Most recently, to our shock and dismay, a newly-ordained priest was given an ultimatum — either to accept the reforms of John XXIII and to begin saying Mass according to the John XXIII missal or to leave the Society.
Is it possible that the Society which has been persecuted because of its loyalty to tradition now persecutes priests for their loyalty to tradition? What has happened? Can it be that the Society now uses the same tactic which the reforming hierarchy used to impose the reform that has destroyed our people and our churches? Is not this, in the light of recent history, beyond belief? Would we not be far more guilty in accepting this first step than the priests of twenty years ago who did not have the historical precedent that we have before our eyes?
As you well know, John XXIII made his original changes as merely temporary steps in preparation for Vatican II. Father Kelly wrote to you of this matter last year when it was announced that you would strive to introduce the reforms of John XXIII in the United States. To quote from Father Kelly's letter of March 23, 1982:
It seems to me that the very nature of Rubricarum Instructum is a temporary one, and, of course, it only remained in vigor for four years. Thus in its text, John XXIII said that his reform of July 25, 1960 was made with the understanding "that the more important principles governing a general liturgical reform should be laid before the members of the hierarchy at the forthcoming ecuмenical council," which he said he decided to convene "under the inspiration of God." It is not difficult, then, for it to be seen as the type of gradualism which eventually embraced the reform.
Our people would be shocked by any liturgical change. To introduce a change in the direction of the Council would be seen as one step toward the changes of the 1960's. We simply could not stand up in front of our congregations and tell them that we were abandoning the Missal, Calendar and Breviary of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X, for that of John XXIII — one, the greatest pope of the century, the other, the originator of the aggiornamento whose effects remain with us today.
In our opinion, for us to accept the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of John XXIII would be to accept the first steps toward the "liturgical reform" of Vatican II, which steps lead gradually to the New Mass, and such would the way the laity in America would interpret it.
Furthermore, and with all due respect, religious superiors do not, under the canons and traditions of the Church, have any power to legislate in liturgical matters. Such power belongs to the Roman Pontiffs who are themselves limited. For though the power of a pope is very great, it neither arbitrary nor unrestricted. "The pope," as Cardinal Hergenroether once said, "is circuмscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficial use of the duties attached to his privileges.... He is also circuмscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy—to 'feed'—...." (Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. XII, “Pope,” pp. 269-270)
Thus obedience in matters liturgical belongs to a religious superior only insofar as what he demands is demanded by the Church and the legitimate demands of a Roman Pontiff.