-
If the Novus Ordo is rejected in part by many because it was novel, Protestant or a product of Mason's, by what basis is the 1955 Holy Week accepted if the same men who produced it also produced the Novus Ordo?
-
You accept it because a valid pope (Pius XII) told you to. Secondarily, the evil intent of modernism is only a sin for those who implemented it. The actual Holy Week changes are not evil in themselves. Are they 100% Traditional? No. Are they perfect? No. Heretical/evil? No.
-
I think sedes should celebrate the revised holy week, while non-sedes should celebrate the old one. Similarly, I think sedes should celebrate St. Joseph the Worker, while non-sedes should not.
But Pax, I thought you were not a sede?
-
You accept it because a valid pope (Pius XII) told you to. Secondarily, the evil intent of modernism is only a sin for those who implemented it. The actual Holy Week changes are not evil in themselves. Are they 100% Traditional? No. Are they perfect? No. Heretical/evil? No.
But every non-sede here thinks the Vatican II popes are true and valid. Why aren't they accepting their Novus Ordo liturgy?
-
Holy Week was included in the 1962 missal and is binding/law, being a lawful revision of Quo Primum. The 1969 missal is neither binding nor lawful, being at odds with Quo Primum and also, secondarily, the 1969 law does not command anyone attend/say the new mass. But all this has been discussed before...
.
The true question is, why does a sede think that Pius XII wasn't the pope? Or why didn't he have the authority to slightly change Holy Week?
-
The true question is, why does a sede think that Pius XII wasn't the pope?
Perhaps he wasn't a true pope because he believed in evolution. Grasping for straws. If you reject the Novus Ordo, you can reject other changes as well. However, it is hard to know where to draw the line. You yourself do not believe the answer is the will of the Pope.
-
Holy Week was included in the 1962 missal and is binding/law, being a lawful revision of Quo Primum. The 1969 missal is neither binding nor lawful, being at odds with Quo Primum and also, secondarily, the 1969 law does not command anyone attend/say the new mass. But all this has been discussed before...
.
The true question is, why does a sede think that Pius XII wasn't the pope? Or why didn't he have the authority to slightly change Holy Week?
I thought that Quo Primum forbid the introduction of New Rites into the existing Missal. The new Holy Week is exactly that. It is as much against the law as what you state about the 1969.
Pius XII did not "slightly change" Holy Week. From Palm Sunday to Easter Vigil, it was massively altered.
-
Pius XII did not "slightly change" Holy Week. From Palm Sunday to Easter Vigil, it was massively altered.
Yes, I caught that also. I thought it was a sign that Pax either never learned about the changes or is of bad will. I am not an expert but I remember reading about the changes in traditional articles and thinking that they were a big deal.
-
I thought that Quo Primum forbid the introduction of New Rites into the existing Missal. The new Holy Week is exactly that. It is as much against the law as what you state about the 1969.
Pius XII did not "slightly change" Holy Week. From Palm Sunday to Easter Vigil, it was massively altered.
1. I do not intend to start an anti-sede feud. Most people on this thread (at least 2Vermont should know because we've debated many times) that I'm partial to many sede arguments. So i'm making an honest attempt at civil debate.
.
2. "Massively altered" is not the same thing as "essentially" altered. Pope St Pius X massively altered the breviary but the essence of it was not changed. The new Holy Week, in the opinion of many Trad clerics, is not perfect but it's also not substantially different.
.
3. An argument can be made that the Holy Week rites are more human/church created than divinely inspired (i.e. they aren't the mass). The liturgy (outside of the essential, Apostolic parts of the Mass) organically developed over the centuries. It can be changed quite a bit, in theory.
-
It can be changed quite a bit, in theory.
Pius XII was the embryo, John XXIII was the newborn child Paul VI was the young adult.
-
Holy Week was included in the 1962 missal and is binding/law, being a lawful revision of Quo Primum. The 1969 missal is neither binding nor lawful, being at odds with Quo Primum and also, secondarily, the 1969 law does not command anyone attend/say the new mass. But all this has been discussed before...
.
The true question is, why does a sede think that Pius XII wasn't the pope? Or why didn't he have the authority to slightly change Holy Week?
99% of sedes think he was pope and most still follow his liturgical reforms. Those that do not follow his reforms see these reforms as the beginning of the Novus Ordo (since they too come from Bugnini). I happen to follow his reforms and do not consider them evil because he is a true and valid pope.
If Paul VI was also a valid pope like Pius XII, then his liturgy shouldn't be heretical/evil.
But you're right: we have been through this before (and I'm not interested in arguing about it). I just thought it odd that you started with (essentially) "Well, you have to because he is a valid pope". In my mind, it stops there.
-
Perhaps he wasn't a true pope because he believed in evolution. Grasping for straws.
You believe he was pope or not. That's a big decision. The Holy Week decision flows from the first decision. Not the other way around.
-
If Paul VI was also a valid pope like Pius XII, then his liturgy shouldn't be heretical/evil.
There's many reasons to doubt Paul 6 being valid. But, even if he was valid, I debate HOW he LEGALLY issued his new missal. But we've been over this. Don't want to rehash it...
-
You believe he was pope or not. That's a big decision. The Holy Week decision flows from the first decision. Not the other way around.
I do not think you are being consistent unless you are a sede. However on examination I bet most of our positions are not consistent.
-
The question of Holy Week is separate from the question of the New Mass. 2 different popes, 2 different liturgical changes, 2 different legal docuмents. If you can't answer the 1955 liturgical question without referencing a different liturgical question, then your reasons/arguments aren't strong.
-
The question of Holy Week is separate from the question of the New Mass. 2 different popes, 2 different liturgical changes, 2 different legal docuмents. If you can't answer the 1955 liturgical question without referencing a different liturgical question, then your reasons/arguments aren't strong.
They were both massive changes done by the same committee of modernists headed by a Freemason imposed top-down by the Pope and largely hated by many of the laymen who attended those services. Your argument in favor of the 55 holy week can be used just as strongly in favor of the Novus Ordo if you are not a sede. All it is is "the pope said so" while for the Novus Ordo you reject the same argument that "the pope said so" except you add the dishonesty of saying, "well, the Pope did not really say so legally so we can ignore the fact that the Pope said so, imposed the Novus Ordo in a draconian way on the whole church, and persecuted those who were attached to the old mass. Paul VI did not dot every I or cross every T so we can ignore what he said and did."
-
1. I do not intend to start an anti-sede feud. Most people on this thread (at least 2Vermont should know because we've debated many times) that I'm partial to many sede arguments. So i'm making an honest attempt at civil debate.
.
2. "Massively altered" is not the same thing as "essentially" altered. Pope St Pius X massively altered the breviary but the essence of it was not changed. The new Holy Week, in the opinion of many Trad clerics, is not perfect but it's also not substantially different.
.
3. An argument can be made that the Holy Week rites are more human/church created than divinely inspired (i.e. they aren't the mass). The liturgy (outside of the essential, Apostolic parts of the Mass) organically developed over the centuries. It can be changed quite a bit, in theory.
Pax, I mean no disrespect, but do you have any idea of what was changed? It is was profoundly altered! I started a thread recommending a book I just finished, Born of Revolution by Dr. Carol Byrne. I have read many books on the changes of the common Mass, but this book goes through minute detail of the changes in Holy Week, and it is astonishing. Comparing Pope St Pius X's changes to this is dismissive without knowing the real differences of the two examples. It was without a doubt substantial in difference.
There has been a significant movement from quite a few camps to the pre 1955. The only sedes that accept the 1955 are the CMRI and very few independent priests. All of the SSPV, all the SGG, all of the ICKSP, some of the FSSP, and quite a few independent priests, 2 of which I receive the sacraments from from time to time (non sede), say the pre 1955.
The acceptance of the 1962 missal is an accident of history. It was decided by +Lefebrve as a concession to the conciliar hierarchy. The 1962 missal was only in official use for about 2 years. Most of the SSPX outside of France before the 1980's said the pre 1955.
-
Matto,
The similarities you cite are circuмstantial. The differences in gravity are huge. The 1955 changes neither affect the mass nor any sacrament. The new mass affects both the mass and the sacrament. The true question comes down to liturgical law and sacramental theology. Since the 1955 changes don't affect sacramental theology, the question only comes down to liturgical law.
-
but this book goes through minute detail of the changes in Holy Week, and it is astonishing.
Ok, but it's not a change to the missal nor a sacrament. So, it's not a change to anything of Divine origin. So, it's a change to a human part of the liturgy, which the Church is allowed to do (for better or worse). Christ gave St Peter the power to "bind and loose". In all things non-Divine, the pope can change things. Just like Pope St Pius X massively overhauled the breviary (in all non-essential, non-divine areas).
-
Ok, but it's not a change to the missal nor a sacrament. So, it's not a change to anything of Divine origin. So, it's a change to a human part of the liturgy, which the Church is allowed to do (for better or worse). Christ gave St Peter the power to "bind and loose". In all things non-Divine, the pope can change things. Just like Pope St Pius X massively overhauled the breviary (in all non-essential, non-divine areas).
Wow...just.. wow....
-
I thought that Quo Primum forbid the introduction of New Rites into the existing Missal. The new Holy Week is exactly that.
We have a winner!
-
The question of Holy Week is separate from the question of the New Mass. 2 different popes, 2 different liturgical changes, 2 different legal docuмents. If you can't answer the 1955 liturgical question without referencing a different liturgical question, then your reasons/arguments aren't strong.
Hogwash:
Same process of liturgical destruction began initially with Dialogue Masses; same liturgists; same suppression of immemorial rites; same invention of shotty replacement rites.
From Dialogue Mass to experimental Holy Week to Novus Ordo = one continuous process and ʀɛʋօʟutιօn.
PS: The Pian/Bugnini Holy Week rites were only around for 14 years by the time the Novus Ordo came around.
-
I thought that Quo Primum forbid the introduction of New Rites into the existing Missal. The new Holy Week is exactly that. It is as much against the law as what you state about the 1969.
Pius XII did not "slightly change" Holy Week. From Palm Sunday to Easter Vigil, it was massively altered.
The Holy Week changes were not a "New Rite". It was a change to an existing rite.
-
Pax, I mean no disrespect, but do you have any idea of what was changed? It is was profoundly altered! I started a thread recommending a book I just finished, Born of ʀɛʋօʟutιօn by Dr. Carol Byrne. I have read many books on the changes of the common Mass, but this book goes through minute detail of the changes in Holy Week, and it is astonishing. Comparing Pope St Pius X's changes to this is dismissive without knowing the real differences of the two examples. It was without a doubt substantial in difference.
Should someone ask if you are you aware of the changes in the breviary?
This topic has been discussed at least once a year for decades. I'm sure everyone with some interest in the liturgy, including Pax, knows what was changed in holy week. (I get the impression not everyone knows what was changed in the breviary, though.)
The acceptance of the 1962 missal is an accident of history. It was decided by +Lefebrve as a concession to the conciliar hierarchy.
No, "concession" is not the right word. The archbishop used the revised holy week because 1) the pope required it, and 2) it was not a danger to the faith.
In contrast, the archbishop did not accept the N.O.M. because it was a danger to the faith.
-
Interesting excerpt from a longer article of Michael Davies rebutting a priest, who claimed a pope can altar the 1570 missal, just as several other popes had:
"I have already accepted that Quo Primum did not preclude subsequent popes from revising the Missal, but not one of the popes cited by Father Hinwood introduced a single change which affected the ethos of the traditional Missal in any way at all. On the eve of Vatican II the Missal used within the Roman Rite was clearly and unmistakably the Missal of St. Pius V [even Holy Week?], the Ordinary of the Mass was identical, final blessing included! I own a Missal printed in 1577 and have verified this. I have already analyzed the alleged revisions mentioned by Father Hinwood; they are cited frequently by apologists for the liturgical ʀɛʋօʟutιօn (PPNM, pp. 10-13). I have also included the full texts of the more important docuмents in Appendix II to Pope Paul's New Mass.
Father Hinwood cites the "reform" of Pope Clement VIII as a precedent for changing the missal. Read the Brief cuм Sanctissimum and you will find that this Pope's principal concern was that changes made in the Missal in defiance of Quo Primum should be corrected, and that, apart from some minor rubrical improvements, the Missal should be restored in every respect to the text authorized by St. Pius V. He commanded that Missals which deviated from the text published by St. Pius V "be banned and declared null and void and that their use be disallowed in the celebration of the Mass, unless they be entirely and in everything emended according to the original text published under Pius V." How can Father Hinwood possibly expect to be taken seriously after citing Pope Clement VIII's reform of the Missal as a precedent for the ʀɛʋօʟutιօn of Pope Paul VI? He presumes, no doubt, that few if any of his readers will so much as heard of, let alone read, cuм Sanctissimum, or any of the docuмents relating to his list of "revisions." I suspect very strongly that he has not read them himself. "Pope Pius X brought in revisions," he claims. Quite true—he changed the musical notation! "Pope Leo XIII added the prayers to be recited at the end of a said Mass." He did, indeed, but this did not affect the text of the Mass in any way at all. Does Father Hinwood seriously expect us to accept that the recitation of the Leonine Prayers after a Low Mass provides a legitimate precedent for the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary onslaught upon the Roman Missal which gave Father Gelineau ample justification for claiming that the Roman Rite had been destroyed?" http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=741
Question regarding the bolded font above:
Did Pius XII/Bugnini "introduce a single change which affected the ethos of the traditional Missal in any way at all."
Many (such as Fr. Stefano Carusi) would affirm the drastic and ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary nature of the changes, such as: Introducing the versus populum posture; introducing the vernacular; introducing carrying the sacred action into the body of the church; washing the feet of laymen; moving the vigil from daytime to evening; introducing congregational prayer; Communion on Good Friday; and doing all this on the basis of an archaeologism which Pius XII had just condemned a few years earlier.
-
The Holy Week changes were not a "New Rite". It was a change to an existing rite.
Nope.
It was a Novus Ordo.
Anyone attending Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, or the Easter Vigil until 1951 would have been very confused in 1956 (and would have missed the Vigil altogether).
-
Question regarding the bolded font above:
Did Pius XII/Bugnini "introduce a single change which affected the ethos of the traditional Missal in any way at all."
Many (such as Fr. Stefano Carusi) would affirm the drastic and ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary nature of the changes, such as: Introducing the versus populum posture; introducing the vernacular; introducing carrying the sacred action into the body of the church; washing the feet of laymen; moving the vigil from daytime to evening; introducing congregational prayer; Communion on Good Friday; and doing all this on the basis of an archaeologism which Pius XII had just condemned a few years earlier.
Bravo.
-
No, "concession" is not the right word. The archbishop used the revised holy week because 1) the pope required it, and 2) it was not a danger to the faith.
In contrast, the archbishop did not accept the N.O.M. because it was a danger to the faith.
Not so sure the changes to Holy week were not a danger to the faith. In this article, Dr. Byrne cites cardinals and the famous novelist Evelyn Waugh as making precisely that argument:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f089_Dialogue_14.htm
Divisive reforms
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F089_LeonG.jpg)
Msgr. Leon Gromier, a bitter and outspoken enemy of the 1955 Holy Week reforms
It is not generally appreciated just how controversial the 1951-1955 Holy Week reforms were in their day. Historical records exist to show that they were vehemently criticized by many Bishops, priests and lay people on account of the radical nature of the changes then initiated.
Among the most outspoken critics was Msgr. Léon Gromier, a distinguished Prelate of the Papal Household and a Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica. As a consulter to the Congregation of Rites since the time of Pope Pius X, he was in a position to speak with authority on the Holy Week ceremonies. His knowledge was legendary on all liturgical subjects from bugia to buskins and falbalas to faldstools, which made him the strongest of advocates for arguing the case for the traditional rites.
Msgr. Gromier, who had been publicly criticizing the Liturgical Movement since 1936, gave a conference in Paris in 1960. (5) (See here (http://www.kristkonung.se/gromier.html)) In it he excoriated the 1955 Holy Week reforms, exposing the false liturgical science and the false reasoning behind them.
He did not hesitate to describe them as an “act of vandalism,” “an immense loss and an outrage to history,” “the negation of reasoned principles” and the product of a “pastoral mentality impregnated with a populist attitude, unfavorable to the clergy.” With reference to the liturgists who produced the reforms, he lamented that their “discretionary powers are vast, as are the abuses.”
Objections from Bishops (6) to the interim Holy Week changes of 1951 poured into the Vatican with requests to leave the traditional rites intact. The final and obligatory reform of 1955 was vigorously opposed by more Bishops, for instance Card. Francis Spellman of New York and Arch. John Charles McQuaid of Dublin (on the grounds that it might destabilize the faith of the Irish people). (7)
Among the laity, the Catholic newspapers of 1955-1956 were rife with objections. (8) The novelist, Evelyn Waugh, who had converted to Catholicism, considered the changes ruinous to his spiritual life and a danger to the faith itself, particularly among simple folk. (9)
-
Nope.
It was a Novus Ordo.
Anyone attending Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, or the Easter Vigil until 1951 would have been very confused in 1956 (and would have missed the Vigil altogether).
I agree that there were changes, but it's not like the whole missal was revamped into a New Rite ...like the 1969 Rite.
When I say New Rite, I'm talking about a New Rite like the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (compared to the Old Rite).
-
I agree that there were changes, but it's not like the whole missal was revamped into a New Rite ...like the 1969 Rite.
When I say New Rite, I'm talking about a New Rite like the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (compared to the Old Rite).
OK, well I guess we will disagree again.
I simply note that it is not so much the visible changes in a missal which signify the emergence of a new rite, but the liturgical principles which undergird the changes.
I note that the Dominican and Latin rites are very similar, yet comprise distinct rites.
Conversely, according to you, the pre-1951 and 1955/6 holy week rites are the same rite, but with some changes.
But if I analyze the liturgical principles underpinning the changes to the revised holy week (and the fact these rites had first to gain covert approval, than provisional approval as an experiment, with changes concocted on the spot (or appealing to condemned archaeologism), I begin to perceive that what in fact is attempting to pass as the same rite is in fact another rite altogether, with these modernist principles being the very same antiliturgical principles which formed the Novus Ordo (it was just hidden under Latin and incense):
Introducing the vernacular; introducing the versus populum posture; introducing congregational vocal prayer; carrying the liturgical action into the body of the church; washing the feet of laymen (we are priests too!); changing vigils from daytime to evening; the suppression of vestments (broad stole); introducing communion on Good Friday; etc. All of this betrays a liturgical thinking which is quite at odds with the Missal of 1570.
For these reasons, I say Bugnini/Pius XII introduced a Novus Ordo of holy Week.
-
For these reasons, I say Bugnini/Pius XII introduced a Novus Ordo of holy Week.
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.
Also, POPE Pius XII (accepted even by most Sedevacantists) was not Bugnini. His name was Eugenio Pacelli. Regardless of the Freemasonic pedigree of Bugnini, Pope Pius XII signed off on the changes, so he took responsibility for them. Ergo, you can't push it off on Bugnini. It's Pope Pius XII you have a problem with.
I have a few questions for you though --
Why did +ABL go along with the new Holy Week? Why did he never speak out against the new Holy Week, such that his Society used the new Holy Week exclusively? Was +ABL afraid of censure? A slave to human respect? An imbecile?
If you were transported to late Lent 1960, and had to spend a few weeks there, would you go to Mass on Sunday? There would be no Trad chapels yet -- only your local parish. Would you stay home on Sunday, to protest this evil new "Novus Ordo" Holy Week?
-
The true question is, why does a sede think that Pius XII wasn't the pope? Or why didn't he have the authority to slightly change Holy Week?
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.
-
For these reasons, I say Bugnini/Pius XII introduced a Novus Ordo of holy Week.
Sure, that much is clear. But if the Church created the liturgy of Holy Week (i.e. it's a human creation), then the Church can change it. Is the Holy Mass on Holy Thursday altered? No. And there's no mass on Good Friday/Holy Saturday, so again, the mass isn't changed. Nothing of Divine origin is changed. As much as we recognize the changes are modernist, such changes are not an essential change to the essential parts of the liturgy/faith.
-
Another contention I find plausible is that Pius XII was very ill by around 1955 and was not able to govern the Church, letting the Curia handle most matters. Some have argued that he was being slowly poisoned.
-
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.
It's making a mountain out of a molehill, imo. Sure, the changes are modernist but that doesn't mean they're heretical. And, being that I think Pius XII was valid, I don't feel comfortable disobeying a liturgical law without a better argument.
-
Not so sure the changes to Holy week were not a danger to the faith. In this article, Dr. Byrne cites cardinals and the famous novelist Evelyn Waugh as making precisely that argument:
Your texts don't say what was allegedly wrong with the rite.
Can you state what specifically in the revised Roman holy week is a danger to the faith?
-
Several years ago I read an article, or essay by Rama Coomaraswamy (yes a very controversial figure in tradition) in it he showed a side by side comparison the changes made to Holy Week. At the time I was shocked how much was cut from the original, long and involved ceremonies. Absolutely beautiful content btw, and I have since hoped for the opportunity to attend them as they were done before the changes.
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.
I wish I could locate that article by Rama but I can’t find it anywhere online as of yet. Rama’s opinions mean nothing if you can see the comparison for yourself.
I personally don’t judge the pope and his decisions on it, but it is sad to see how much was removed from Holy Week. I hope to see it restored someday during my lifetime.
-
It's making a mountain out of a molehill, imo. Sure, the changes are modernist but that doesn't mean they're heretical. And, being that I think Pius XII was valid, I don't feel comfortable disobeying a liturgical law without a better argument.
They didn't say the changes were "heretical" just that they were harmful and that, were a legitimate Pope in power, he would roll back the 1955 Rites.
-
from Wikipedia about Pope Pius XII:
Late years of Pope Pius XII
A long illness in late 1954 caused the Pope to consider abdication. Afterwards, changes in his work habit became noticeable. The Pope avoided long ceremonies, canonizations and consistories and displayed hesitancy in personnel matters. He found it increasingly difficult to chastise subordinates and appointees such as his physician, Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi, who after numerous indiscretions was excluded from Papal service for the last years, but, keeping his title, was able to enter the papal apartments to make photos of the dying Pope, which he sold to French magazines.[262] Pius underwent three courses of cellular rejuvenation treatment administered by Paul Niehans, the most important in 1954 when Pacelli was gravely ill. Side-effects of the treatment included hallucinations, from which the Pope suffered in his last years. "These years were also plagued by horrific nightmares. Pacelli's blood-curdling screams could be heard throughout the papal apartments."
…
With frequent absences from work, Pope Pius XII had come to depend heavily on a few close colleagues, especially his aide Domenico Tardini, his speechwriter Robert Leiber, and his long-serving housekeeper Pascalina Lehnert.
So he was gravely ill in 1954 and was increasingly "checked out" from that time forward, delegating a lot of his duties to others. That would be the perfect time for a Modernist to swoop in and roll out the changes.
-
It's making a mountain out of a molehill, imo. Sure, the changes are modernist but that doesn't mean they're heretical. And, being that I think Pius XII was valid, I don't feel comfortable disobeying a liturgical law without a better argument.
No, I think you're the only one here who considers the 1955 Rites a "molehill".
Regardless, the premise is a sedevacantist one, that the See is currently unoccupied and there is no lawgiver. Consequently, they're operating on what they think a lawgiver WOULD do under the circuмstances.
-
Why did +ABL go along with the new Holy Week? Why did he never speak out against the new Holy Week, such that his Society used the new Holy Week exclusively? Was +ABL afraid of censure? A slave to human respect? An imbecile?
Not that this helps much but I did ask Fr Hewko this question years ago after reading about the significant changes to Holy Week, and his response was that ABL had to compromise on some things at the time and Holy Week changes were not a hill he was meant to die on.
I cannot say this as a direct quote from Fr because it was approx 3 years ago, but it is what I took from our conversation about it at the time.
-
If was different times. We always obey the commands of the Pope and the Bishops. Go back to the times when the 1955
Holy Week Liturgy was implemented, was there any protests. I do not remember any. We just OBEYED.
-
No, I think you're the only one here who considers the 1955 Rites a "molehill".
Regardless, the premise is a sedevacantist one, that the See is currently unoccupied and there is no lawgiver. Consequently, they're operating on what they think a lawgiver WOULD do under the circuмstances.
No, Pax isn’t the only one. See Matthew’s ignorant/idiotic post at the top of the page.
He must have flunked their liturgy class we were in together.
-
They didn't say the changes were "heretical" just that they were harmful and that, were a legitimate Pope in power, he would roll back the 1955 Rites.
I am fairly certain that they do not say they were harmful at the time/in and of itself but that continued use of them post Novus Ordo is harmful.
-
the See is currently unoccupied and there is no lawgiver. Consequently, they're operating on what they think a lawgiver WOULD do under the circuмstances.
To me, that logic only applies to situations which happen AFTER the last legitimate lawgiver died. Whatever. ...But your post about Pius XII being sick and having to delegate many things makes a lot of sense. Modernists would have taken advantage of that situation to the nth degree!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951.html
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2015/04/Easter-Vigil-at-night.html?m=1)
-
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsEOsohZKM
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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).
-
...and he did it to be diplomatic.
No truer statement about the Archbishop has ever been said.
-
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 (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.
-
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).
-
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).
-
Excerpt: https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f088_Dialogue_13.htm
mєdιαtor Dei: a compromise docuмent
A careful reading shows that mєdιαtor Dei (1947) is a “political” docuмent which takes both sides of the debate, so that reformers and traditionalists can find support for their point of view and argue endlessly over which side best represents the thinking of the Pope.
It is true that Pius XII reprimanded various liturgical abuses, but in the same docuмent he also gave the reformers room to move, to make progress on their agenda of “active participation.” Most dismayingly of all for traditionalists, he praised the party of reform and demonstrated his commitment to the Liturgical Movement with these words:
“The movement owed its rise to commendable private initiative and more particularly to the zealous and persistent labor of several monasteries within the distinguished Order of Saint Benedict.” (2) And, “We derive no little satisfaction from the wholesome results of the movement just described.” (3)
Misplaced praise for a misbegotten movement
But was the outcome really so splendid? And were the liturgical leaders so admirable? To answer yes would be historically inaccurate and intellectually incoherent.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F088_collosus.jpg)Dom Beauduin presided over the liturgical movement like a brooding Appennine Colossus
By 1947, the new breed of Biblical scholars, theologians and liturgists had been engaged in liturgical experimentation on their own initiative for decades.(4) They had also succeeded, largely unmolested by ecclesiastical hierarchy, in propagating their ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary agenda in books, reviews, lectures, liturgical centers, study weeks and conferences.
And it was from the Benedictine monasteries that these “new ideas” first spread to country after country around the world, with the towering figure of Dom Lambert Beauduin presiding over the movement like a brooding colossus. (5)
Pius XII seemed to be suggesting that the Liturgical Movement, purged of its abuses, was praiseworthy. That is the same argument used today in relation to the Novus Ordo. But, there could be no good outcomes, no “wholesome results” from reforms that were not rooted in the faith and tradition of the Church. (6)
Besides, it is only the merest fancy that there existed a liturgical “movement” before Beauduin appeared on the scene to claim that he was fulfilling the aims of Pope Pius X. Wherever the Catholic faith flourished, this was due to sound catechesis and the correct spirit and practice of the liturgy as taught by Pius X, who never considered himself part of anyone’s “movement.”
If we join the dots, the full picture emerges
There is a general reluctance among traditionalists to acknowledge that the liturgical reforms of Pius XII are part of a continuum from the inception of the Liturgical Movement in 1909 at the Benedictine Abbey of Mont-César to the creation of the Novus Ordo 60 years later. Yet these were the words of Paul VI when he promulgated the New Mass on April 3, 1969:
“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, which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking.” (7)
It is not without significance that a future Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Order, Dom Rembert Weakland, who inherited the avant-garde ideas of Beauduin’s Liturgical Movement, would be one of Paul VI’s personal consultors with regard to the Novus Ordo. (8) This demonstrates that the official reforms of Pius XII, no less than those of Paul VI, were tarred with the same brush, tainted from their Benedictine sources.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F088_Portland.jpg)
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F088_LittleFlower.jpg)In the U.S. the liturgical reforms were also applied in the 1940s: above, St. Francis of Assisi Church in Portland, OR, and Little Flower Shrine in Royal Oak, MI; below, St. Paul's Priory Chapel in Keyport, NJ, and St. Mark's Church in Burlington, VT
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F088_NJersey1.jpg)
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F088_Vermont1.jpg)
It follows that Pacelli and Montini must bear the ultimate responsibility – each in his own way – for the unprecedented changes to the Roman Rite that they signed into law.
Liturgical anarchy
In the early part of the 20th century, unauthorized liturgical experimentation was conducted in secret, among a select few, in the crypt of Maria Laach Abbey, at monastic retreats, in university chaplaincies and societies of youth groups, among soldiers on active duty during World War I, on seafaring missions or among radical groups such as The Catholic Worker.
Subversive ideas were spread in samizdat publications distributed from hand to hand or by word of mouth in small-scale conferences held behind closed doors.
But by 1940, the movement gradually spread around the world into parishes with the open or tacit approval of Bishops, who were won over in increasing numbers to the “new ideas.”
Let us not forget that this was Beauduin’s original stratagem. He had a clear, long-term goal in mind as cynical as it was malicious – to win support from Bishops and Prelates so that his ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary agenda would be imposed by “legitimate” authority, (9) (see here (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Snap/f088_Dialogue_13_1.pdf), p. 21) while the practice of traditional Catholicism would one day be turned into a prohibited activity by the same authorities. Prophetic, demonic or what?
But what about Pius XII’s criticisms in mєdιαtor Dei of liturgical abuses and the faulty theology that inspired them? As these mildly expressed rebukes did not reveal a resolve to deal appropriately with the offenders (who either ignored or denied them), they were taken to be a display of weakness – as if to say the Church did not take too seriously her own liturgical laws.
mєdιαtor Dei thus sent a clear signal of supine capitulation and, further, an invitation to side-step the system. (Bugnini would later boast that the incredible success of the reformers vindicated the adage that “Fortune favors the brave.”) (10)
The ease with which the reformers could get away with breaking the law was a huge incentive behind the Liturgical Movement. In the absence of tough-minded measures against the dissidents, it became clear to them that the possibility of a far more drastic reform of the liturgy was being opened up under Pius XII than had hitherto been dreamed of.
In fact, as we shall see in the next article, the 10 years following mєdιαtor Dei saw the Pope steadily succuмbing to their demands and entrenching some of their reforms in the Church’s liturgy. They would soon gain everything they had been fighting for, and much more besides, after Vatican II.
It was Pius XII’s profound ambivalence that made effective control of the Liturgical Movement impossible. Whose side was he really on? Opposing factions claimed victory.
But the claim for the traditionalist party rang hollow when they found themselves abandoned to the tender mercies of Bugnini who was given the executive role on the 1948 Commission for the General Reform of the Liturgy by none other than Pius XII himself.
-
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f087_Dialogue_12.htm
Pius XII hoisted the white flag
In 1943, the following demands were made to the Holy See by Card. Adolf Bertram on behalf of the German Bishops:
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F087_Betram.jpg)
Card. Bertram, second left, an adept of Hitler,
and also of progressivist changes in the liturgy
Pius XII must have been aware that these abuses were already in vogue in Germany, as in addition to Archbishop Gröber’s analysis, strong objections had been published by conservative priests representing the concerns of the laity. (5) Nevertheless, Card. Bertram hoped to put pressure on Pius XII to authorize these reforms, and, as events have shown, his hopes were fulfilled.
He received an immєdιαte reply from the Vatican permitting the High Mass (Deutsches Hochamt) to be sung in German by the congregation. So what had been illicitly done in defiance of Canon Law up to 1943 suddenly became an approved practice.
It was the same principle under which Paul VI would capitulate to pressure for Communion in the hand, Mass facing the people, laicization of priests etc. Regulations were being widely flouted, so why bother trying to maintain the rules?
A ‘roll your own’ liturgy
As for the other demands, the following concessions were readily made:
1943 will go down in history as the year in which the Church at last gave in to the Zeitgeist or spirit of Progressivism that had been threatening to engulf her since the time of Pius X. The German Bishops were demanding the freedom to “do their own thing.” And so the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the sacredness of the traditional liturgy had to be set aside to accommodate a changing and worldly liturgy said in the vernacular, which would enshrine the Cult of Man.
Let us not forget about the impact of these papal concessions on the traditionally-minded Catholics of Germany: The rug was pulled from under their feet as they found themselves disavowed by their Holy Father.
Fishing in dangerous waters
The whole enterprise was an ecclesiastical disaster in the making. The Pope tried to control the German Episcopal Conference by reprimanding liturgical abuses, imposing shambolic restrictions and experimental periods. But the German Bishops tossed them all aside to indulge in unlimited freedom to regulate their own liturgies.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F087_pius.jpg)An apparent conservative Pius XII capitulated to the German Bishops
It is obvious that these papal actions against dissident reformers, while tolerating their abuses, were totally illogical: The message was fatally mixed. If infringing Canon Law and disobeying papal commands could be so easily tolerated in Germany, why should progressivists elsewhere be targeted for papal criticism? And if using the vernacular in the German-speaking lands was widely permitted, why should the inhabitants of other countries be prevented from using their own languages in the liturgy?
Even though Latin remained “officially” the language of the liturgy, the situation quickly descended into farcical chaos. There followed a concerted effort in the 1940s to storm the Vatican. Overwhelmed with requests from many countries, Pius XII increasingly permitted the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. (7) For those who decided to short-circuit the system and not bother to ask permission, no action would be taken against them for breaking the law.
The same scenario would be repeated after Vatican II with permission for altar girls, Communion under both species etc. when Popes rewarded disobedience and encouraged contempt of ecclesiastical law.
A French and German pincer movement
The 1940s were also a time when national hierarchies – particularly the French and German – were rallying their combined forces to mount an all-out assault on Roman control of liturgy. It may seem to some people surprising or a trifle hyperbolic that the language of battle should be employed to characterize the situation, but it cannot be denied that the pre-Vatican II reformers saw their mission in these terms.
One of Dom Beauduin’s companions in arms, Fr. Pie Duployé, stated in 1951 after attending the First International Liturgical Week at the German Benedictine Abbey of Maria Laach: “If they knew in Rome that Paris and Trier [the centres of the French and German reformist movements] were marching together, that would be the end of the hegemony of the Congregation of Rites.” (8)
These are certainly fighting words, revealing the intention of the Liturgical Movement to wrest control of the liturgy from the Holy See, yet they were not matched by any joint action or correspondingly militant spirit of opposition from the Vatican. There was no one there to fight the battles that needed to be fought.
Faced with mounting pressure from the leaders of various liturgical cabals, Pius XII would blow an “uncertain Tɾυmρet” (9) in mєdιαtor Dei and follow a policy of appeasement.
-
[It is little known among casual traditionalists that JPII had a reason for choosing Assisi for his abominations: It was one of the epicenters of the ecuмenical liturgical movement before the council -SJ]
Liturgical Anarchy Increases under Pius XII
Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f100_Dialogue_21.htm
From 1955, it was becoming clear that Pope Pius XII was yielding ground to a “managerial” caucus of liturgical experts who saw themselves as indispensable organizers of a new liturgy for the Church. From random beginnings in various countries under the leadership of notable personalities such as Dom Lambert Beauduin, Ildefons Herwegen, Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini, Virgil Michel and Annibale Bugnini, they coalesced into organized pressure groups with some episcopal support.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F100_Pius-2.jpg)
Pius XII surrounded by liturgical reformers: Left, top to bottom, Beauduin, Parsch & Michel; right, Guardini & Herwegen
Pius XII was evidently aware early in his pontificate that a liturgical ʀɛʋօʟutιօn was being planned, for he reprimanded some deviations from tradition in mєdιαtor Dei (1947).
We must not lose sight of the fact that these deviations were taking place precisely because of lack of ecclesiastical control. Pius XII’s verbal reprimands were not matched by corrective actions to prevent recurrence. He did not take steps to remove from office Bishops who were involved in liturgical ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, replace them with more worthy candidates and require them to discipline radical priests.
It is simply inconceivable that he could not have mustered adequate support from among the world’s conservative Bishops – it was after all the age of Ultramontanism – to neutralize the effects of the Liturgical Movement. Despite his public breast-beating, the problem was that liturgical anarchy was inexorably increasing under his watch. And as he failed to give a firm and consistent signal of a united effort to defeat such dissident tactics, the progressivists became emboldened and gradually gained the upper hand. Anti-traditional challenges to authority went unchecked
Their radical agenda was expressed in internationally known journals (1) and also at international congresses held in the early 1950s: at Maria Laach (Germany), Mont Sainte-Odile (France), Lugano (Switzerland), Mont-César (Louvain, Belgium) and Assisi (Italy).
It is not an exaggeration to say that these congresses were characterized by a climate of seething mutiny against the Church’s sacred liturgical traditions. It was as if a simmering cauldron was slowly coming to the boil, the fire beneath it fueled by animosity to centuries of liturgical tradition.
At Maria Laach (1951)
The following points, unanimously accepted by the delegates, were among 12 resolutions to be forwarded to the Holy See:
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F100_laach.jpg)
An historic liturgical meeting at the Benedictine Maria Laach Abbey in the Rhineland, Germany
- Reform of the priest’s silent prayers (including the Offertory) during Mass;
- Significant changes to the Roman Canon; (2)
- Suppression of the prayers at the foot of the altar (citing the Easter Vigil reform as a precedent);
- All of the Mass up to the Preface to be said away from the altar denuded of sacred vessels;
- A longer cycle of scriptural readings, all in the vernacular only;
- Introduction of bidding prayers with vernacular responses by the faithful;
- Less frequent recitation of the Credo;
- Elimination of the Confiteor before Communion;
- Suppression of all prayers after the Blessing i.e. the Last Gospel and the Leonine prayers. (3)
At Mont Sainte-Odile (1952)
This meeting largely continued the requests made at Maria Laach with some additions:
- Elimination of some of the celebrant’s genuflexions, Signs of the Cross and kissing of the paten;
- Simplification of the formula of Communion of the faithful to “Corpus Christi”;
- Increased opportunities for the faithful to join in the singing of the Mass, especially by newly composed melodies in the vernacular at Communion time.(4)
The Lugano Congress (1953)
The following resolutions were approved by the entire assembly which included Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Frings of Cologne, 15 Archbishops and Bishops and hundreds of priests:
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F100_Ottaviani.jpg)
At the Lugano Congress Card. Ottaviani (https://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_096_Ottaviani_Betray.html) celebrated Mass facing the people
- Increased “active participation” of the laity, supported by a message from Mgr Montini in Rome;
- The laity to “pray and sing in their own tongue even during a Missa Cantata;” (5)
- All Scripture readings to be in the vernacular;
- Revision of all ceremonies of Holy Week in line with the recently revised Easter Vigil.
There were two notable features of the Congress. First, a signed message from Pope Pius XII, dated September 9, 1953, was read out giving his heartfelt encouragement to the deliberations and his blessing to “each and every participant.” (6)
He did not seem to mind that the Congress had been organized by the Liturgical Institute of Trier and the Centre de Pastorale Liturgique to further their ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary agendas; or that among the participants were those who sought to destroy Tradition e.g. Bugnini, Bishop Albert Stohr of Mainz and Bishop Simon Landersdorfer of Passau (the latter two jointly head of the Liturgical Commission appointed by the German Episcopal Conference to represent all the dissident reformers of the German-speaking lands including Guardini and Pius Parsch.)
Second, Cardinal Ottaviani (famous for his Intervention), celebrated Mass facing the people – a particularly prophetic gesture foreshadowing his defeat by the progressivists at Vatican II.
The Mont-César Conference (1954)
The meeting featured two themes:
- A more extended cycle of scriptural readings at Mass;
- A new rite of concelebration.
One of the participants noted that, in the course of the meeting, “a telegram was received from Msgr. Montini announcing the papal blessing imparted to all participants, and expressing the Holy Father’s satisfaction that these two actual themes were being competently studied and discussed from the historical, theological and pastoral points of view.” (7)
Assisi Congress (1956)
As the whole ground plan for the future Novus Ordo was already drawn up in the previous congresses, the Assisi participants simply put the finishing touches to their radical agenda. The Congress descended into a self-congratulatory “smugfest” with participants preening themselves on the righteousness of their cause and on their success in wresting so many concessions from the Pope.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_b-f/F100_Assisi-1956.jpg)
At the Congress of Assisi in 1956 a group of Americans with Fr. Godfrey Diekmann at the head of the table
In their papers read out at the Congress, they lavished the highest praise on the Holy Father for his “admirable initiatives in the field of pastoral liturgy.” (8) Who would have thought that Pius XII would become the toast of the liberals?
From Assisi, the Congress moved to Rome where it concluded with the Pope’s address to the participants. In it, Pius XII stated that the Liturgical Movement was “a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time, of the movement of the Holy Ghost in the Church.”
Thus, he helped to build a positive image of the Liturgical Movement for public consumption, with the result that what had once been a hole-in-the-corner activity and an isolated phenomenon lacking any great prestige, was put firmly on the map and made ready to become a mainstream activity.
Bugnini’s cock-a-doo of victory
Bugnini crowed with delight: “Who would have predicted at that time that three years later the greatest ecclesial event of the century, Vatican Council II, would be announced, in which the desires expressed at Assisi would be fulfilled, and this by means of the very men who were present at Assisi?” (9)
He was right in one respect – many of the Assisi delegates would later exert enormous influence in determining the course of Vatican II and creating the content of some of its docuмents. (10) However, his powers of prediction seemed to have deserted him when he declared that the event “was, in God’s plan, a dawn announcing a resplendent day that would have no decline.” (11)
Summoning the Apocalypse
The summons of the Assisi participants to Rome to be greeted by the Pope can be seen as a papal endorsement of their agenda. Fr. Löw of the Sacred Congregation of Rites stated that the organizers of the Assisi Congress “were the four centers of liturgical effort in Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland.” (12)
He might as well have said the Four Horses of the Apocalypse because of the chaos, anarchy and destruction that reigned as a result of the Liturgical Movement and Vatican II.
Continued (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f101_Dialogue_22.htm)
-
Perhaps he wasn't a true pope because he believed in evolution. Grasping for straws. If you reject the Novus Ordo, you can reject other changes as well. However, it is hard to know where to draw the line. You yourself do not believe the answer is the will of the Pope.
All Pius said was that a Catholic can accept the Theory of Evolution on condition that God is not sidelined. It was very short of believing in it.
The Commissio Piano was the creator of the reformed Holy Week. Mgsr Bugnini CM acted as he Secretary he was supporting their work, but never taking a leading role. Other work like simplifying rubrics for Mass and Vespers has faded as approved societies like ICRSS and FSSP revert to earlier custom like Confiteor immediately before Communion. Honestly if Pius had lived longer, something like some of the iterations of the 'transitional' Missal which prevailed for most the sixties would have been a likely outcome. The Novus Ordo Missae was the result of a Pope (Montini) who was even more radical than his pet liturgist Bugnini. Now, this might have meant little of a traditionalist movement to oppose the many errors beyond liturgy.
-
All Pius said was that a Catholic can accept the Theory of Evolution on condition that God is not sidelined. It was very short of believing in it.
That was what I thought until I read him going on and on about how the universe was created billions and billions of years ago as a fact in one of his speeches to the pontifical academy of the sciences. Perhaps one might say he believed the universe was billions and billions of years old but there was no evolution and the animals and man were created seven thousand years ago, but that does not make sense to me and seems a ridiculous hybrid of beliefs so I thought it much more likely he just believed the fashions of his day.
-
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).
Byrne can't seem to recognize that Pius X wanted the faithful to sing parts of the Mass (Kyrie, etc.)
Byrne can't really be taken seriously.
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).
+Lefebvre tolerated many things, but he expected his priests to follow orders. An American priest questioned an assignment because at the new assignment, they didn't say the mass the way the priest wanted. +Lefebvre DID object to THAT.