CathInfo.com

Imagine the mindset of someone who thinks that the issue is whether the Mass is in the morning or the evening.

and completely ignores the fact that the author of the new rites said it was a precursor to the novus ordo.

You really have to be drunk on sentimentalism or something.

That is only one of the issues, even if an important one. Dom Gueranger was no sentimentalist.

The bigger issue is that Divine Providence gave us a great, holy and learned man of the Church to lead us in this crisis. It is foolhardy to trust one's own judgement above his and Pope Pius XII's. That is for a future Pope.

Furthermore, we judge the liturgy on its own merits, not by conjecturing about where it came from and supposed malicious intentions of uncertain collaborators in its development. Perhaps you are too ready to believe the testimony of modernists? The reformed Holy Week certainly came from Pope Pius XII. That is what is certain. Even if there are regrettable changes amongst the good, how does that give you the right to refuse the liturgy the Church promulgates when it is not a danger to the Faith? Were Catholics free to refuse a Saturday morning Paschal Vigil when it was introduced because of a relaxation in the Lenten fast when it went against the tradition of the Church of a thousand years? What were the intentions of the Pope who introduced that change? Is that how a Catholic decides if he will accept or reject what comes from Rome?

We have seen the good fruits of Archbishop Lefebvre's work for many decades, and those who have profited from the apostolate of his faithful priests over the years will testify to the fact that the Pius XII Holy Week is the most sublime and edifying time of the liturgical year.

There can never be any peace and unity in Tradition when everyone sets himself up as his own pope.

That is only one of the issues, even if an important one. Dom Gueranger was no sentimentalist.

The bigger issue is that Divine Providence gave us a great, holy and learned man of the Church to lead us in this crisis. It is foolhardy to trust one's own judgement above his and Pope Pius XII's. That is for a future Pope.

Furthermore, we judge the liturgy on its own merits, not by conjecturing about where it came from and supposed malicious intentions of uncertain collaborators in its development. Perhaps you are too ready to believe the testimony of modernists? The reformed Holy Week certainly came from Pope Pius XII. That is what is certain. Even if there are regrettable changes amongst the good, how does that give you the right to refuse the liturgy the Church promulgates when it is not a danger to the Faith? Were Catholics free to refuse a Saturday morning Paschal Vigil when it was introduced because of a relaxation in the Lenten fast when it went against the tradition of the Church of a thousand years? What were the intentions of the Pope who introduced that change? Is that how a Catholic decides if he will accept or reject what comes from Rome?

We have seen the good fruits of Archbishop Lefebvre's work for many decades, and those who have profited from the apostolate of his faithful priests over the years will testify to the fact that the Pius XII Holy Week is the most sublime and edifying time of the liturgical year.

There can never be any peace and unity in Tradition when everyone sets himself up as his own pope.

It is not just the words of Bugnini but when combined with the changes, which you call "regrettable".

The whole point, which you are clearly missing, is that it was part of the overall neo modernist infiltration of the Church at time.

If any of us follow Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson it is because of what they said, rather than whether they gave us warm and squishy feelings inside when thinking of them.


It is a balanced decision to reject 62. The defect is to ignore the arguments altogether, but the excess would be to reject the reforms of St. Pius X and go back to St. Pius V. ( I know one priest who has actually done this) Taken into account also that Archbishop Lefebvre was the one who was picking and choosing between 62 and the reforms of 65 etc. etc. and you see that you could equally accuse Archbishop Lefebvre as being "his own Pope".


As Fr. Salenave said in his sermon recently, the one who is affected the most by changes in the liturgy is the priest. It is up to the priests to decide what to do and we can follow or not follow them as lay people.