Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7

Author Topic: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?  (Read 3486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cornelius935

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2023, 02:35:10 PM »
Quote from: Kazimierz on April 07, 2023, 09:52:49 PM
After the last umpteenth neosspx 1962 Holy Week/Pascal Triduums - having now studied the pre 1955 liturgies - may I live long enough to partake of the latter. I would pray that the Resistance would take up the mantle and return to using the pre1955, the neosspx having long since become milquetoast.:facepalm:
Blessed Easter!

When the Ecclesia Dei groups were allowed by Rome to use the pre-1955 Holy Week (in 2018/2019?), Menzingen sent out a communique to all Society priests that they should NOT use it. Source: my SSPX priest at the time.

In the Resistance, as far as I know, all priests trained by Fr. Chazal celebrate the old rite at least on Good Friday, although not necessarily on other days in Holy Week. But there is a small number of priests who already celebrate the entire Holy Week in the old rite. I'm sure there are many others who are/will be willing to do it, if they can get the resources and help they need. Although some groups within the Resistance may reach the realization later than others, I think it's only a matter of time that the newer Holy Week will be wiped out, leaving only the SSPX and some sedevacantists still using it.

I'm very grateful that a priest of the Resistance celebrated the entire Holy Week at our chapel this year using the truly traditional rites, untouched by the Consilium. It was his first Holy Week as a priest too. Many of us cannot bear “going back” to the new Holy Week now, so we really pray that in the years ahead if we have a priest during Holy Week, that he uses the old rite. On the practical side, we did provide the priest with whatever help is needed, including getting a missal made. For the altar servers, it is actually much easier to serve the old Holy Week than the new.

It has been very edifying to attend the old Holy Week this year, I thank God and pray that more traditional Catholics will have this experience every year.
Logged

Offline canis

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2023, 01:18:03 AM »
The Eastern rites, I believe universally, completely removed any Communion service, including for the priests, for their Good Friday and Holy Saturday liturgies since the 12th century. In fact, the Roman rite became the notable exception in which the celebrant still received Communion in the Friday Mass of the Presanctified.

It isn't correct to say the Eastern Friday liturgies only focus on the burial of Christ; that applies to their Vespers. But they too have Matins and the other hours, in which they read the entire Passion narratives from all four Gospels including the institution of the Eucharist, and they display special icons of the Passion, crucifixion, and death of our Lord.

Given the universal, traditional absence of receiving Communion on Good Friday, its reintroduction by modernists under false pretenses is all the more conspicuous. The destruction of the Presanctified rite, the systematic disconnect within the Holy Week liturgies between the institution of the Eucharist and the sacrifice of Calvary (including the removal of the Palm Sunday missa sicca Epistle that lays out a symbolic map for Holy Week, linking the double gathering of manna, i.e. Eucharist, on the sixth day with the double consecration on Holy Thursday in order to have the Mass of the Presanctified on the sixth day, Good Friday), the removal of the institution narratives from all Passion accounts (meaning that in the 1956-62 missal, there is absolutely no Gospel account of the institution of the Eucharist whatsoever), the introduction of the communal Our Father etc. all point to a Protestantized "meal" communion service.

Were Christians, both in East and West, inferior because for 800+ years they refrained from Communion on this day? It seems, rather, they were superior to us, who have the benefit of even daily Communion.
Logged

Offline canis

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2023, 01:29:24 AM »
Quote from: Cornelius935 on April 09, 2023, 02:35:10 PM
Blessed Easter!

When the Ecclesia Dei groups were allowed by Rome to use the pre-1955 Holy Week (in 2018/2019?), Menzingen sent out a communique to all Society priests that they should NOT use it. Source: my SSPX priest at the time.

And of course, the SSPX uses their bastardized, hybrid Holy Week liturgies, a mish-mash between the pre-reformed and reformed that follows neither rubrics faithfully and creates a Frankensteinian sphynx. Yet they say they use the Pius XII Holy Week because they are "obedient" to the pope's legitimate and authoritative reforms! I have never seen a SSPX priest faithfully and integrally follow neither the reformed Holy Week nor the 1962 rubrics. Even the older SSPX priests who prefer the pre-reformed Holy Week bow before the authority of Pius XII and Menzingen.

Now you have a most bizarre situation where those young traditional faithful raised in the SSPX believe this modernist experiment that only lasted 14 years (1955-1969), and not everywhere since there are many accounts of priests quietly refusing to adopt the changes, is the "traditional" Holy Week. It was in fact so radical that the Novus Ordo Holy Week undid some of the more egregious and erroneous changes introduced in the Pacellian Holy Week.

But the reformed Holy Week will only be wiped out anytime soon by a miracle. Because the SSPX carries the momentum for the traditional movement, and because of its ideological commitment to those reforms, it will remain as a norm just as the 1962 missal is the norm because of Msgr Lefebvre's decisions leading up to 1984.

Ironic that it is in Ecclesia Dei groups that a true re-evaluation of this period of radical liturgical innovation (1948-55) is occurring, yet unsurprising. They lack the political baggage of dealing with the Nine who left, and they are committed more to aesthetics than to doctrine.
Logged

Offline NIFH

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2023, 06:45:21 PM »
St. Thomas teaches we can only refuse an order from legitimate authority when the Faith is in question (IIa IIae, q. 33 art. 4 ad 2um).  No other motive is allowed.  Perhaps some things about the reformed Holy Week could be better, but clearly there is no danger to the Faith.  We must obey.  We refuse the Novus Ordo because it is a danger to the Faith, not because "we don't like it."

Indeed Bugnini was involved in the reform of Holy Week.  However he was not by that time President of the Liturgical Commission.  The President, Mgr D'Amato, was very traditionalist, later ousted by the Modernists.  He prevented the reformers of Holy Week from introducing dangers to the Faith.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2023, 08:45:03 PM »
Quote from: NIFH on April 10, 2023, 06:45:21 PM
St. Thomas teaches we can only refuse an order from legitimate authority when the Faith is in question (IIa IIae, q. 33 art. 4 ad 2um).  No other motive is allowed.  Perhaps some things about the reformed Holy Week could be better, but clearly there is no danger to the Faith.  We must obey.  We refuse the Novus Ordo because it is a danger to the Faith, not because "we don't like it.”

In that case, you place +Lefebvre in a quandary:

If the 1965 missal was not against the faith, on what basis could he discard it in favor of the 1962?

On the other hand, if the 1965 missal was against the faith, how can his initial preference for it be justified?

According to your take, +Lefebvre was in violation of St. Thomas Aquinas, but it was not really so.

The truth of the matter is that the 1951-1967 missals were all transitional, and as such lacked the requisite stability to bind (as Fr. Cekada pointed out). 

Additionally, and contrary to your contention, a strong argument can be made that the Bugnini-Pian experimental rites were in fact harmful, as the following questions could all gain affirmative responses:

Is the abrogation of centuries-old rites, and their replacement with a fabricated ritual destabilizing for the faithful or not?  Is it an attack on the Mass or not? Is it a major conquest in the furtherance of the revolution (as Bugnini claimed) or not?  Are it’s principles modernist and condemned or not?  Was failure to reject them responsible for what came later or not? Were the reforms an organic development of traditional liturgical theology, or the first serious steps toward an overthrow and rejection of same?

That the 1969 missal is even more harmful does not sanitize the 1951-1956 rites: Embezzlement is not OK because it’s not as bad as murder.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
« previous next »