Author Topic: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week? (Read 2954 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** April 07, 2023, 07:02:23 AM »

His meditation implies it (in the bolded words, since in the Pian Good Friday rite, the celebrant is not only bringing back the host for the priest, as mentioned, but a full ciborium for the faithful as well):

https://gloria.tv/post/irE2iw3tJ9XG4o6HErsGsr1SK

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: REGNAVIT A LIGNO DEUS: God reigns from the Cross

Vexilla regis prodeunt, fulget crucis mysterium:

The insignia of the King advance, the Mystery of the Cross shines forth.

These are the words of the hymn which we have sung during the moving liturgical celebration of Good Friday, when the Blessed Sacrament is carried from the Sepulcher to the altar for the Communion of the priest. And these same solemn words were adopted in 1793 as the hymn of the Vendéean Army during the heroic Catholic uprising against the French Revolution.

At that time too, in the face of the antichristic fury that raged against Catholic Kingdoms and against the Church, the faithful people rose up to oppose the destruction of the Christian Civilization. And at that time too – as later happened in Mexico with the Cristeros against the liberal Masons or in Spain against the Communist atheists – only a few rose up, and among them were many who fell as martyrs. It is the destiny of the pusillus grex, of the little flock, of the remainder, the remnant. The destiny of the Holy Maccabees. But what a fate, to fight under the insignia of Christ!

Those who fight the good fight today – and you are among these – find themselves facing a no-less tremendous enemy: rebel governments, institutions devoted to evil, conniving judges, hordes of fanatics who hate Christ, just as has always happened throughout the course of History. The enmity between the offspring of the Woman and the offspring of the serpent invariably recurs, and every attempt to impose a forced coexistence between Good and Evil is destined to fail. Our Lord has said this: Whoever is not with Me is against Me (Lk 11:23). Because even the choice not to do good is some way a help to those who do evil. One cannot be neutral in the war between God and Satan.

In America – but also in many other Western Nations whose governments are in the hands of emissaries of the subversive elite of NATO, the UN, and the World Economic Forum – a war is underway against Christ and against Christians: not only against the Catholic Church, but also against any Christian denomination that still preserves the principles of the Gospel and the Natural Law. A war that wants to cancel – just as in the Vendée, Mexico, Spain, Communist Russia, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia – any trace whatsoever of the Good, even to the point of affecting life itself with abortion, gender mutilation, euthanasia, and genetic manipulation. The present is cancelled for those who want to live honestly following the Commandments; the past is cancelled in order to tear people away from their Christian roots and history; and the future is cancelled by indoctrinating our children in perverse and corrupting ideologies. And what is most painful is that in this infernal work of establishing the Kingdom of the Antichrist there is even a part of the Catholic hierarchy actively cooperating, betraying the mandate received from Christ and abandoning souls to damnation.

We feel powerless, just as Our Lord’s disciples felt helpless during the terrible days of the Passion; just as the Martyrs massacred before the pagan crowd in the circus felt powerless; just as the Cristeros or the Spanish Catholics shot by the Masonic army felt, or the Orthodox believers who were exterminated by Stalin.

And yet, look at what remains of Herod, Nero, Diocletian, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Robespierre, and Pol Pot: nothing. They are all dead, and along with them their ideologies and their armies. While the followers of Christ are still here, and with them the Church that Christ has founded on earth as the one Ark of Salvation. They continue suffering, enduring, dying: seeing their churches burned, their Creed derided, their pastors persecuted. But they are always there, as the Mystical Body of Christ, completing in their flesh what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings for the good of His Body which is the Church (Col 1:24).

At the foot of the Cross, which we have adored in the silence of Good Friday, we lift up our eyes to the Lord who offers His life to the Father for us. We do not listen to the shouts of the crowd, the cries of his enemies, the offenses of the Sanhedrin: that God who seems defeated, in the darkness of the Ninth hour, as he breathes his last breath; He who precisely because He is the Son of God does not descend from the Cross, because he wants to fulfill the Father’s will even unto death, resurrect from the dead three days later, triumph over Satan who believed that he had defeated Him on Calvary, ut qui in ligno vincebat, in ligno quoque vinceretur, that he who seemed to conquer by the Tree would by the Tree be defeated.

Let us therefore celebrate, dear Friends, this Holy Easter of the Resurrection with the certainty of the victory of Christ. A victory that the more impossible it seems – and it certainly is impossible to resurrect someone who is dead – will be all the more dazzling and total. Because that victory is accomplished on the Cross: regnavit a ligno Deus, God reigns from the wood of the Cross, which is His throne of glory, the same throne that we will see shine forth on the Day of Judgment, as Saint John describes in the Apocalypse.

George Soros will also die, as will Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and all those who today seem to be powerful and invincible, but who cannot add a single moment to their lives. And when their corpses are resurrected on the Day of Judgment, they will find themselves before the terrible and tremendous Face of Christ the Judge, and the abyss of unquenchable fire prepared for them will open before them, if they remain obstinate in their sins.

Let us ensure that the radiant Face, the same one that illuminated the Dawn of the Third Day, will find us worthy of the Glory of Heaven after following the Divine Master along the Way of Golgotha. And let us remember that the first person to whom the Risen Lord wanted to reveal Himself was the Magdalene: a great consolation for those who, like us, are sinners and seek the Lord in order to anoint His Body with the balsam of penance and the spices of repentance.

Mors et vita duello conflixere mirando, we will sing during the eight days of Easter: death and life have contended in a terrible duel. Dux vitæ mortuus regnat vivus: the Lord of Life, who died, reigns alive. And so may it be.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
9 April 2023
Dominica Resurrectionis

St Giles · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2023, 07:57:14 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 07, 2023, 07:02:23 AM

His meditation implies it (in the bolded words, since in the Pian Good Friday rite, the celebrant is not only bringing back the host for the priest, as mentioned, but a full ciborium for the faithful as well):

So, what's wrong? Should the faithful not receive on Good Friday?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2023, 08:09:33 PM »

Quote from: St Giles on April 07, 2023, 07:57:14 PM

So, what's wrong? Should the faithful not receive on Good Friday?

Correct.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2023, 08:57:52 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 07, 2023, 08:09:33 PM

Correct.

In the Eastern Rites they only have Pre-Sanctified Mass during the week throughout Lent, and regular Mass only on Sundays. They might consider the Roman practice inappropriate.

Do you have some details about why it's theologically inappropriate to receive Holy Communion on Good Friday? Of course, Our Lord was not alive on earth during this time until Easter, but since the Resurrection, He's always been alive, even if we commemorate His Passion on Good Friday. I'm ambivalent about this practice. On the one hand, being deprived of Holy Communion inspires the mindset of gratitude for His "return" on Eastern Sunday and replicates His "absence" from Good Friday through Easter Sunday, but it is a Liturgical re-enactment and not necessarily mandatory theologically. Certainly if someone needed Last Rites between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, it would be permitted. So there's no absolute prohibition.

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

Kazimierz · « **Reply #4 on:** April 07, 2023, 09:52:49 PM »

Pure theological speculation here.....

Maundy Thursday, Our Lord is still alive, and so the Disciples partake of His Flesh and Blood.

Good Friday...Christ is crucified - the literal Body and Blood of Christ - as it concerns the Disciples (which later becomes members of the Catholic Church) do not have access to Our Lord as He is in His sepulchre.

Only on Easter Sunday morning with the Resurrection, do all have access yet again in a greater sacramental way, to the Body and Blood of Christ.

The theological reality of the priest being an alter Christus would allow for said priest to Communicate on Good Friday. How exactly? Good question!

The ole Thomistic cylinders would really have to firing to work that out!

Again, pure speculation.

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.

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.

Cornelius935 · « **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.

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.

canis · « **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.

canis · « **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.

NIFH · « **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.

SeanJohnson · « **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.

Author Topic: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week? (Read 2954 times)

SeanJohnson

+Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

St Giles

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

Ladislaus

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

Kazimierz

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?

Ladislaus

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

Cornelius935

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

canis

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

canis

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

NIFH

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Using Pre-1956 Holy Week?