Author Topic: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison (Read 2408 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2023, 05:17:09 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 29, 2023, 11:34:26 PM

A reminder of what the great light of Tradition of the 20th Century, raised up by God to save His Church, taught:

They reject the liturgy which has always been used in the Society and consider it evil, the liturgy of Pope Pius XII, signed by Pope John XXIII, and so, the liturgy preceding the Council. They think and behave as if there is no Pope, suppressing all prayers for the Pope. In practice, they tend to hold almost all the sacraments of the new rites to be invalid.

This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society.

The basic principle of the Society’s thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II, II, q. 33, a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable. (Letter to American F&B 1983)

Remember where you got the Faith, Sean. It has nourished you till now. It is not the time now to be making changes - that will be for a future truly Catholic Pope, don't you think? You risk doing more harm than good. Do you really think, knowing who ABL was, having offered this Holy Week for so many decades, that he was unaware of the issues with the 'restored' Holy Week?

He was wrong.

Same with accepting the Dialogue Mass.

Soon the SSPX will accept a hybrid Mass, and the modernist principles accepted in these two novelties will have set the table for it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 on:** March 30, 2023, 06:13:17 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on March 30, 2023, 05:17:09 AM

Quote from: SeanJohnson 3/30/2023, 5:17:09 AM
The basic principle of the Society’s thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II, II, q. 33, a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable. (Letter to American F&B 1983)

Another note regarding Lefebvre’s application of this St. Thomas quote:

Lefebvre initially used the 1965 missal in Econe. He soon abandoned it, not because it was heretical, but because it was, he believed, insufficient for the formation of traditional priests.

So it seems to me inconsistent to wield the quote against using the fully Catholic Holy Week rites on the (disputed) basis that Bugnini/Pius XII’s novelty was not against the faith, when he himself discarded a missal which -he would argue- was not against the faith (if it was, he could not have used it in the first place).

Additionally, there are other principles which justify rejecting the anomalous rite, such as the absence of stability in an rite with only a 14 year existence in the Church; it’s experimental nature being another.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2023, 06:08:42 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on March 30, 2023, 05:17:09 AM

He was wrong.

Same with accepting the Dialogue Mass.

Soon the SSPX will accept a hybrid Mass, and the modernist principles accepted in these two novelties will have set the table for it.

"Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong"
"Archbishop Lefebvre set the table for a hybrid Mass soon to be adopted by the SSPX"

Wow! With friends like this, who needs enemies?
How often have we heard this sort of accusation since Archbishop Lefebvre first began his great counter-revolutionary work to save the Church and the priesthood? Archbishop Lefebvre is wrong! I know better! He's not infallible! He's only human!
There was hardly a year went by that some priest or group did not break with the Archbishop and go off to the left to broker a deal with modernist Rome, or defect to the right with the ridiculous spectacle of priests searching out bishops to consecrate them so they could save the Church. A fine idea of Divine Providence!
It is what we expect from our Sedevacantist friends on this forum who decades ago rejected the wisdom of the Archbishop.
But from a stalwart of the Resistance? I can hardly believe it!
It is similar to the issue of Sedevacantism. It is one thing to discuss theories and have an opinion, and another thing again to set that opinion up as a dogma and principle of action. It's fine to expose the conspiracy, the hijacking of the Liturgical Movement, to lament certain changes, to wonder about the legality of changing such ceremonies... But to be so certain as to set it up as dogma and a sure principle of action in opposition to the great Prelate that God so clearly raised up to guide us in these troubled times? Wow! That just beggars belief! For fifty years God has visibly blessed what Archbishop Lefebvre began. Now is not the time to be teaching the world how he ought to have done it. Surely, that will be for Rome in better times.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2023, 06:11:33 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 31, 2023, 06:08:42 AM

"Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong"
"Archbishop Lefebvre set the table for a hybrid Mass soon to be adopted by the SSPX"

Wow! With friends like this, who needs enemies?
How often have we heard this sort of accusation since Archbishop Lefebvre first began his great counter-revolutionary work to save the Church and the priesthood? Archbishop Lefebvre is wrong! I know better! He's not infallible! He's only human!
There was hardly a year went by that some priest or group did not break with the Archbishop and go off to the left to broker a deal with modernist Rome, or defect to the right with the ridiculous spectacle of priests searching out bishops to consecrate them so they could save the Church. A fine idea of Divine Providence!
It is what we expect from our Sedevacantist friends on this forum who decades ago rejected the wisdom of the Archbishop.
But from a stalwart of the Resistance? I can hardly believe it!
It is similar to the issue of Sedevacantism. It is one thing to discuss theories and have an opinion, and another thing again to set that opinion up as a dogma and principle of action. It's fine to expose the conspiracy, the hijacking of the Liturgical Movement, to lament certain changes, to wonder about the legality of changing such ceremonies... But to be so certain as to set it up as dogma and a sure principle of action in opposition to the great Prelate that God so clearly raised up to guide us in these troubled times? Wow! That just beggars belief! For fifty years God has visibly blessed what Archbishop Lefebvre began. Now is not the time to be teaching the world how he ought to have done it. Surely, that will be for Rome in better times.

And yet, not a single liturgical argument offered in rebuttal (which betrays the shallowness and sentimentality of your objection).

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2023, 06:13:59 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on March 31, 2023, 06:11:33 AM

And yet, not a single liturgical argument offered in rebuttal (which betrays the shallowness and sentimentality of your objection).

I don't regard myself that highly.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison (Read 2408 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison

SeanJohnson

Re: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison

Plenus Venter

Re: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison

SeanJohnson

Re: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison

Plenus Venter

Re: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison