Author Topic: The Resistance and the Pre-1955 Holy Week (and Missal): (Read 16856 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #60 on:** April 21, 2014, 01:57:38 AM »

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:

Quote

I. Lack of Stability (or Perpetuity). Stability is an essential quality of a true law.

True

Fr. Cekada wrote:

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #61 on:** April 21, 2014, 12:17:09 PM »

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..

VinnyF · « **Reply #62 on:** April 21, 2014, 12:21:13 PM »

Fr. Ringrose faithfully offers the pre-55 Missal 365 days a year.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #63 on:** April 21, 2014, 07:52:49 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Fr. Ringrose faithfully offers the pre-55 Missal 365 days a year.

Does he insert Bergoglio in the Canon?

hugeman · « **Reply #64 on:** April 22, 2014, 07:42:53 AM »

Quote from: VinnyF

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 jews, 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.

VinnyF · « **Reply #65 on:** April 22, 2014, 08:49:35 AM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: VinnyF
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.

PG · « **Reply #66 on:** April 23, 2014, 10:19:47 PM »

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).

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).

Ferdinand · « **Reply #67 on:** April 23, 2014, 10:58:08 PM »

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.

Quote

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

Ambrose · « **Reply #68 on:** April 24, 2014, 12:13:23 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

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).

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.

OHCA · « **Reply #69 on:** April 24, 2014, 12:36:44 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: + PG +
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).

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #70 on:** April 24, 2014, 12:40:15 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: + PG +
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).

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.

PG · « **Reply #71 on:** April 24, 2014, 01:54:12 AM »

Pius xii approved of observance of rythm for "grave reasons".

Fr. Fahey - "the catholic church condemns the sin of birth prevention".

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #72 on:** April 24, 2014, 06:54:46 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Ambrose

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #73 on:** April 26, 2014, 07:14:16 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

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:

Quote

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #74 on:** April 26, 2014, 07:47:06 AM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Ambrose

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.