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

Author Topic: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?  (Read 3974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LeDeg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 785
  • Reputation: +543/-136
  • Gender: Male
  • I am responsible only to God and history.
Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2021, 09:26:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Carissima on February 11, 2021, 07:02:54 PM


    I did discuss this with someone else after reading it, I forget who, and they suggested that possibly they were streamlining Holy Week due to decreased attendance, and perhaps to get more to come back and attend the ceremonies that were now shortened significantly.

    Dr Byrne talks about how the innovators used this excuse to change it when in reality, it was not true at all. She cites newspaper articles from all over the world from the early 1950's and from Palm Sunday through Easter it was very well attended. Some accounts showed how churches were busting at seams. Imagine that compared to today.
    Logged
    "You must train harder than the enemy who is trying to kill you. You will get all the rest you need in the grave."- Leon Degrelle

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47267
    • Reputation: +28008/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #46 on: February 12, 2021, 09:39:41 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on February 11, 2021, 06:38:36 PM
    Cute, but it sounds an awful lot like you're saying the Crisis in the Church proper started before Vatican II. That goes against the common opinion of most Traditional Catholics.

    I'm convinced that the Crisis in the Church started WELL before Vatican II.  Bishop Williamson traces it all the way back to the Renaissance.  But then, you qualify it with crisis "proper".  Even with that, I would say that the crisis proper goes back to the saga of Father Feeney at least, and I would include the Holy Week Rites, as Bugnini, Masonic inventor of the NOM was also behind the Holy Week Rites.

    Pius XII was, alas, the watershed pope to the Crisis:
    1) failed to consecrate Russia according to the terms of Our Lady, which could have averted this
    2) allowed Father Feeney to be punished for defending Catholic ecclesiology and EENS dogma while the heretic Cushing remained untouched
    3) opened the door to "evolution"
    4) opened the door to NFP as Catholic birth control
    5) started Bugnini on his way with the liturgical reckovation
    6) sanctioned some of the earliest ecuмenical conferences
    7) appointed, during his lengthy reign, nearly ever bishop who brought us the glories of Vatican II
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47267
    • Reputation: +28008/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #47 on: February 12, 2021, 09:42:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: LeDeg on February 12, 2021, 09:26:54 AM
    Dr Byrne talks about how the innovators used this excuse to change it when in reality, it was not true at all. She cites newspaper articles from all over the world from the early 1950's and from Palm Sunday through Easter it was very well attended. Some accounts showed how churches were busting at seams. Imagine that compared to today.

    Well, if length was the issue, they could have just truncated the Liturgies, the Holy Saturday in particular, by simply having fewer readings from the Old Testament, or make the readings shorter, and then perhaps have fewer sung Psalms between them.  But they did a lot more than just shorten them.  So, yes, that speaks to it being merely an excuse.
    Logged

    Offline FlosCarmeli13

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 417
    • Reputation: +255/-6
    • Gender: Female
    • Remember the Poor Souls!
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #48 on: February 12, 2021, 11:06:27 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • THE REFORM OF HOLY WEEK IN THE YEARS 1951-1956
    FROM LITURGY TO THEOLOGY BY WAY OF THE STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN LEADING THINKERS (ANNIBALE BUGNINI, CARLO BRAGA, FERDINANDO ANTONELLI)

    by Stefano Carusi

    "It was felt necessary to revise and enrich the formulae of the Roman Missal. The first stage of such a reform was the work of Our Predecessor Pius XII with the reform of the Easter Vigil and the rites of Holy Week (1), which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking"
    (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969)
    INTRODUCTION
    In the course of recent years, the publication of numerous studies concerning the history of the theological and liturgical debate of the 1950's has cast new light on the formation and the intentions (which were not always openly declared at the time) of those who were the actual composers of certain texts.

    As regards the work of the reform of Holy Week in 1955 and 1956, it is desirable to consider the declarations, finally made public now, of the well-known Lazarist Annibale Bugnini, and of his close collaborator and later secretary of the "Consilium ad reformandam liturgiam" Father Carlo Braga, and of the future-Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli, in order to establish whether or not their work of liturgical reform corresponds to a wider theological project and in order to analyze the validity of the criteria used and then reproposed in the reforms that followed. We shall consider the notes and minutes of the discussions of the preparatory commission, preserved mainly in the archives of the Congregation of Rites and recently published in the monumental work of the liturgical historian Msgr. Nicola Giampietro, which testify to the tenor of the debate.

    Logged
    Surge, Domine, et dissipentur inimici, et eos qui oderunt te, a facie tua!  
    St Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle!
    +J M J+

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #49 on: February 12, 2021, 09:49:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Into the 1950's into the 1960's Catholics were getting more secular and worldly in their lifestyles. A Family Rosary was a
    rarity.  Advent of Television and all the commercials did much harm.   What would appear as a non harmful TV program
    was actually harmful and it gradually pealed away our spiritual life where in many cases prayer life gradually disappeared. 
    Many in my parochial schools were recent converts, parents came into the Catholic Church after World War 2.
    The temptation to fall back into Protestantism, agnosticism, and unbelief was powerful. Especially when the changes
    came in starting in 1964.
    When I attended my High School 30th Reunion in 1996 I could not fine one single Catholic. They either had no religion
    or renounced their Catholic Baptism and joined a Evangelical protestant sect.
    The 1955 Holy Week Rite acceptance without any protests was part of the turmoil to come that invaded the Church
    with a vengeance ten years latter and still with us today.  
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47267
    • Reputation: +28008/-5228
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #50 on: February 12, 2021, 10:38:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I do however agree with moving Holy Saturday Liturgy back to its proper time.

    Plus the Pius XII psalter was widely rejected by religious who sang the office.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #51 on: February 13, 2021, 07:13:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 12, 2021, 10:38:58 PM
    I do however agree with moving Holy Saturday Liturgy back to its proper time.

    Aside from the condemned anti liturgical principle of archaeologism you are implicitly advocating in such a statement, the notion that a vigil and/or fire must be at night time is a mistaken understanding of the term “vigil” in the Catholic sense, which means “watch,” and applies to the whole day before a feast, not just evening.  That the Church permitted daytime services on the Vigil for a thousand years evinces this is how She understands the word.  So for someone to later come along and claim it makes no sense to have a paschal fire or vigil in the daytime (Braga; Bugnini; Antonella) only evinces their own ignorance.  Actually, they weren’t ignorant at all, but subversive, and capitalized on the fsithful’s ignorance, whom they knew would easily be deceived into thinking in secular rather than liturgical terms, that you should only have a fire at night.

    The daytime vigil and fire was a legitimate liturgical development, not a corruption.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #52 on: February 13, 2021, 07:37:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • An excellent pro-morning vs pro-evening vigil article.  Though the author sides with the pro-evening crowd, he conceded many fine arguments by the pro-daytime crowd:

    http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2015/04/Easter-Vigil-at-night.html?m=1
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5855
    • Reputation: +4697/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #53 on: February 13, 2021, 08:48:27 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 11, 2021, 06:50:38 PM
    Sedes argue from the legal principle of epikeia.  Since there is currently no lawgiver, they suppose that a legitimate lawgiver would have rolled back the changes once realizing that they were transitional to the NOM.
    Father Cekada presented this argument here:


    This is one of the issues that divide Catholics.  This is clearly one of those issues in which Catholics can hold differing opinions that can be held legitimately, has good arguments on each side of the controversy, and can only be definitively settled by the unifying force of the Church--a true pope.

    I have attended both services.  Speaking strictly as a layman, I can say that I think the pre-1955 Missal is more aethetically pleasing and that I think the best of both worlds would be to return to the pre-1955 rites to be celebrated at the times prescribed by the post-1955 rites.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #54 on: February 13, 2021, 11:39:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 13, 2021, 07:13:54 AM
    Aside from the condemned anti liturgical principle of archaeologism you are implicitly advocating in such a statement, ...

    Pope Pius XII approved the changes to holy week, including the timing. Apparently, Pius XII did not think these changes fell under his condemnation of "archaeologism" in M.D.

    I have to say I find it amusing that people who allegedly follow +Lefebvre nevertheless reject what +Lefebvre said about the liturgy some 35 years ago, and instead rally to views of the Nine who opposed him.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #55 on: February 13, 2021, 11:53:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on February 13, 2021, 11:39:55 AM
    Pope Pius XII approved the changes to holy week, including the timing. Apparently, Pius XII did not think these changes fell under his condemnation of "archaeologism" in M.D.

    I have to say I find it amusing that people who allegedly follow +Lefebvre nevertheless reject what +Lefebvre said about the liturgy some 35 years ago, and instead rally to views of the Nine who opposed him.

    According to Dr. Byrne, Pius XII caved in to pressure of the modernist liturgists and contradicted his own teaching of only a few years prior.
    https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f090_Dialogue_15.htm

    As far as Lefebvre is concerned, he never claimed the 1956/1962 liturgical books were superior to the traditional missals, but rather implied the opposite in choosing the 1962, which he considered the most modern one he could follow (and he did it to be diplomatic).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5855
    • Reputation: +4697/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #56 on: February 13, 2021, 12:58:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 13, 2021, 11:53:55 AM
    ...and he did it to be diplomatic.
    No truer statement about the Archbishop has ever been said.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #57 on: February 13, 2021, 01:02:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 13, 2021, 11:53:55 AM
    According to Dr. Byrne, Pius XII caved in to pressure of the modernist liturgists and contradicted his own teaching of only a few years prior.
    https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f090_Dialogue_15.htm

    As far as Lefebvre is concerned, he never claimed the 1956/1962 liturgical books were superior to the traditional missals, but rather implied the opposite in choosing the 1962, which he considered the most modern one he could follow (and he did it to be diplomatic).
    Byrne argues against Pius XII's Mediator Dei and is also opposed to congregational singing and chant. Therefore her liturgical ideas are suspect. But even the page you cite doesn't say what you affirm. 

    And +Lefebvre, in dismissing the Nine, gave the reason he had choosen 1962, and it wasn't "to be diplomatic". You're following the Nine, Sean.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #58 on: February 13, 2021, 01:06:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on February 13, 2021, 01:02:18 PM
    Byrne is opposed to congregational singing and chant and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously in any liturgical discussion.
    And +Lefebvre, in dismissing the Nine, gave the reasons he had chosen 1962, and it wasn't "to be diplomatic". You're following the Nine, Sean.
    I find a lot of similarities between the Nine's concerns with ABL in 1983 (in their Letter to the Archbishop) and the Resistance's concerns with the SSPX (and the Nine do not bring up sedevacantism in that letter; in fact some of those who signed were not even sede yet).  
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1955 Holy Week-Why accept it?
    « Reply #59 on: February 13, 2021, 01:38:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on February 13, 2021, 01:02:18 PM
    Byrne argues against Pius XII's mєdιαtor Dei and is also opposed to congregational singing and chant. Therefore her liturgical ideas are suspect. But even the page you cite doesn't say what you affirm.

    And +Lefebvre, in dismissing the Nine, gave the reason he had choosen 1962, and it wasn't "to be diplomatic". You're following the Nine, Sean.

    Every right-thinking traditionalist should be opposed to Protestant congregational singing (a corruption of "active participation" which is itself a concept Pius X may never actually even have called for).

    Here is Byrne showing Pius XII capitulating to the German and French (modernist) bishops, revising holy Week, approving dialogue Masses, introducing vernacular, etc:

    https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f087_Dialogue_12.htm

    Mediator Dei is the fruit of that pressure.

    PS: Lefebvre did not dismiss the 9 because they wanted the traditional holy week (the proof of this is that most of the anglo priests used that missal before the battle with the 9, and Lefebvre did not object).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
    « previous next »