Author Topic: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week? (Read 3484 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2023, 10:31:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 07, 2023, 08:57:52 PM

Do you have some details about why it's theologically inappropriate to receive Holy Communion on Good Friday?

[...]

I haven't received on Good Friday in years, but I'm undecided about whether it's "wrong".

Its not that its wrong in se to receive Communion on Good Friday (i.e., it was the custom of the primitive Church), as much as it is that the reformers/innovators, in their quest to redirect the lex orandi toward a future ecuмenical liturgy, had to suppress/eliminate the Mass of the Presanctified in favor of a rite more savoring of a Communion service.

Hence the reintroduction of receiving Communion on Good Friday.

And of course, to accomplish this, they wielded their favorite weapon: Archaeologism (a weapon exclusively used to attack Tradition, both doctrinal and liturgical).

Here's a couple links with some information about it:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f134_Dialogue_53.htm

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f135_Dialogue_54.htm

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2023, 06:15:50 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 07, 2023, 10:31:13 PM

Its not that its wrong in se to receive Communion on Good Friday (i.e., it was the custom of the primitive Church), as much as it is that the reformers/innovators, in their quest to redirect the lex orandi toward a future ecuмenical liturgy, had to suppress/eliminate the Mass of the Presanctified in favor of a rite more savoring of a Communion service.

Hence the reintroduction of receiving Communion on Good Friday.

And of course, to accomplish this, they wielded their favorite weapon: Archaeologism (a weapon exclusively used to attack Tradition, both doctrinal and liturgical).

Here's a couple links with some information about it:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f134_Dialogue_53.htm

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f135_Dialogue_54.htm

Thanks. This is what I was leaning toward but really wasn't sure.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2023, 07:24:55 AM »

Ultimately, on Good Friday the Church mourns the Real Loss, rather than celebrating the Real Presence.

Consequently, it is fitting that the faithful likewise mourn, and not receive the Communion of the unbloody sacrifice on the same day that Our Lord gave us his bloody sacrifice.

For some interesting discussion of this issue, see here: https://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2016/01/communion-on-good-friday.html

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2023, 07:35:59 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 08, 2023, 07:24:55 AM

Ultimately, on Good Friday the Church mourns the Real Loss, rather than celebrating the Real Presence.

Consequently, it is fitting that the faithful likewise mourn, and not receive the Communion of the unbloody sacrifice on the same day that Our Lord gave us his bloody sacrifice.

For some interesting discussion of this issue, see here: https://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2016/01/communion-on-good-friday.html

Yes, I understand. Part of me would want to have the intimate union of Holy Communion to join as closely as possible to Our Lord while commemorating His Passion, but then Our Lord Himself suffered the sense of total abandonment by God the Father. So there are probably pros and cons to both. I feel that I could be more closely united with Him in His Passion by receiving Holy Communion, but then the sense of being deprived of God would more closely resemble what Our Lord Himself experienced.

With regard to "unbloody", the reason that it's unbloody is because Our Lord is alive and is in fact no longer going through his bloody Passion. That's where the ambiguity comes from for me. Just as the sacrifice is unbloody, can't we partake of it even while commemorating the bloody sacrifice of the past? I think we could in theory, and I go back and forth on this particular question. Is there enough benefit to souls from being deprived of Holy Communion to offset the loss of the graces that could be had from actually receiving Holy Communion?

In the Eastern Rites, the faithful can partake of Holy Communion at Masses of the Pre-Sanctified, but on Good Friday there's no Mass of Pre-Sanctified either, just some Psalms and a Liturgy involving the Burial Cloth of Christ. I actually find it lacking that there's no Liturgy there associated with Our Lord's Crucifixion and Passion either, just the aftermath, the Burial.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2023, 08:12:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 08, 2023, 07:35:59 AM

Yes, I understand. Part of me would want to have the intimate union of Holy Communion to join as closely as possible to Our Lord while commemorating His Passion, but then Our Lord Himself suffered the sense of total abandonment by God the Father. So there are probably pros and cons to both. I feel that I could be more closely united with Him in His Passion by receiving Holy Communion, but then the sense of being deprived of God would more closely resemble what Our Lord Himself experienced.

With regard to "unbloody", the reason that it's unbloody is because Our Lord is alive and is in fact no longer going through his bloody Passion. That's where the ambiguity comes from for me. Just as the sacrifice is unbloody, can't we partake of it even while commemorating the bloody sacrifice of the past? I think we could in theory, and I go back and forth on this particular question. Is there enough benefit to souls from being deprived of Holy Communion to offset the loss of the graces that could be had from actually receiving Holy Communion?

In the Eastern Rites, the faithful can partake of Holy Communion at Masses of the Pre-Sanctified, but on Good Friday there's no Mass of Pre-Sanctified either, just some Psalms and a Liturgy involving the Burial Cloth of Christ. I actually find it lacking that there's no Liturgy there associated with Our Lord's Crucifixion and Passion either, just the aftermath, the Burial.

The problem with the otherwise legitimate and laudable yearning you describe (i.e., Communion could more closely unite us to Christ on the Terrible Day he was murdered and abandoned), and which every decent Catholic shares, is threefold:

1) Sentire cuм ecclesia: If we are thinking with the Church, She has wanted us to mourn and be deprived of Christ as a wholesome devotion on this day (which is contradictory to uniting sacramentally with Him).

2) The innovators used and capitalized upon this yearning as a pretext, but for an altogether evil motive (i.e., to overturn the organic development of the Roman rite, and redirect it in another direction, to achieve an ecuмenical liturgy*).

3) The principle upon which all this is justified (i.e., archaeologism) is condemned, and ironcically codified by the same pope who condemned that principle.

The reintroduction of the long-abrogated practice of faithful receiving Communion on Good Friday is therefore an attack upon the Mass (regardless of any laudable motives which could otherwise be adduced in its favor).

To defend it is unwittingly to defend the attack, and implicitly to support the reasons the reformers adduced for cleaving the old practice (i.e., accretions, corruptions, returning to the purity of the early Church, etc.), all of which attack Tradition, the Mass, and soon, even Christological doctrine.

Consequently, devolving to a Communion service (a necessary corruption as a bridge toward the exagerration of the Mass as a communal meal, and the demotion of the priest as altar christus) was a corruption, and not a reform.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week? (Read 3484 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

Ladislaus

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

Ladislaus

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?