Author Topic: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week (Read 2252 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2022, 08:54:26 AM »

Let me get this straight --

The INSTITUTE OF CHRIST THE KING and the FRATERNITY OF ST. PETER, Indult groups which are technically not Trad*, are offering the untainted pre-Bugnini Holy Week, whereas the SSPX and even Resistance is offering the new Holy Week tainted with Modernism, all the changes of which have a Modernist reasoning and direction (like the Novus Ordo) -- just because +ABL happened to approve of it?

Isn't that a bit unexpected, and dare I say backwards?

* using an objective definition of "Traditional Catholic" which covers one cohesive movement going back to 1970 (Indulters fail on the third point "without permission" or "knowing they don't need permission" -- keep in mind that in the early days of Tradition, there WAS no question of getting permission from Rome! There were ZERO indults of any kind)

The objective definition is, roughly:
1. Complete aloofness from the Conciliar Church: not following daily politics, *never* attending the Novus Ordo or even darkening the door of a Novus parish, etc.
2. Seeking out priests/bishops who will offer the Tridentine Mass *and sacraments* -- with no scruples about jurisdiction for marriage, confession. If no suitable Mass can be found, one STAYS AT HOME and sanctifies the day, rather than attend the Novus Ordo.
3. Without seeking or begging permission from any authorities, knowing that these authorities have over-stepped their authority, and at any rate no one has to ask for permission to save his soul, or remain Catholic.

Matthew · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2022, 09:06:13 AM »

I knew very little about the changes before I read Sean Johnson's postings this year on Holy Week. I must say I'm shocked. Reading the reformers' "reasoning" and rationale for each of the changes, it absolutely reminds me of studying what happened to the Mass at Vatican II -- yes, I'm talking about the Novus Ordo.

"We should do this because it's more ancient" (read: practice archaeologism, condemned by the Church)
"We should do this because the old way is so outdated, doesn't make sense to modern man"
"We should do this because we want to avoid superstition" (read: concrete expression or practice of the Faith)

Sean Johnson calling the revised Holy Week "The Novus Ordo of Holy Week" is NOT an exaggeration, mere rhetoric, or clickbait.

I understand +ABL was a great source of unity when he was alive -- but it's difficult to continue to use him as such. Today, like it or not, Trads are going to go with what is "better" or "true" -- while some will go with authority/obedience, when there is a conflict. Hence the breach of unity that we see in all quarters. Whether you cling to +ABL or not, there is already a pretty good split in say, the Resistance: a big chunk want the old Holy Week (some of whom have left for Sedevacantism, so they could have it!) and the rest sticking with the new Holy Week because of loyalty to +ABL and others.

I just don't see any option that magically heals the rift and puts everyone on the same side in this debate. So why not just go with what is clearly better? Heck, if everyone did that, we would actually have unity on this point!

I mean, we have hindsight. Not every pioneer in the Trad movement had that. We can forgive them. We don't have to abjure them or smash them. We can still hold them in high regard, pray for them, and pray to them. But in the meantime, why not cast out *every* reform that had Modernism for its driving engine? It's not rocket science. There's not a lot of grey area here.

Reading the reasons behind each of the Holy Week changes, and knowing that I *attended* that revised Holy Week countless times, gave me the creeps.

I have a particular love for Holy Week, especially all the ancient untouched elements. Now I find out that my favorite parts were the "survivors" that didn't get suppressed, and other parts I relished were actually NOVELTIES made up by the same reformers who brought us the New Mass! Like I said: gave me the creeps, and left me quite disturbed.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2022, 06:40:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 09, 2022, 08:05:01 AM

This isn't really the correct argument. If you were a priest in 1959, you wouldn't have had the right to say the pre-55 Holy Week. Church is not a free-for-all as some R&R have made it out to be.

Well said Ladislaus!

In the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to the American seminarians, previously posted by some good soul on this forum:
"What is the first principle to know what we must do in this circuмstance, in this crisis in the Church? What is my principle? The principle of the Church is the principle of St Thomas Aquinas. It is not my choice, it is not my favor, it is not my personal desire... When can we refuse something from the authority of the Church?... ONLY WHEN THE FAITH IS IN QUESTION. Only in this case. Not in other cases."

He goes on to say "You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Roman Missal, and... what is in these books of Pope John XXIII that is against the Faith? Nothing! And so, I cannot refuse this book, because he is the Pope, and the Pope gave me this book. It is quite another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI..."

It is not true that the R&R position makes the Church a free-for-all, since it is based on this principle of St Thomas that our faithful Archbishop, Lefebvre, impressed upon us. But it is true, as you say Ladislaus, and much to be lamented, that SOME R&R, priests and faithful, have set themselves up as mini-popes, picking and choosing what parts of the Liturgy they think should or should not be retained.

Unity of worship is important. It is important in Tradition, just as it has always been important in the Church. The Good God raised up this great churchman in ABL to teach us the way of the Church and we must not depart from it. Let the Carol Byrnes of this world do their research and write their books. But let us leave it to the Church, in better days, to judge on these matters. In the meantime, let the Resistance not give scandal and cause further division by advocating something contrary to what our dear Archbishop bequeathed us, based on solid Catholic principles.

His words again "It is not my choice... It is not my personal desire..."

epiphany · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2022, 08:43:20 PM »

Yesterday my sspx priest did not say the gospel according to my 1957 Marian missal. Did the gospel change for palm sunday?

Emile · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2022, 08:52:35 PM »

Quote from: epiphany on April 11, 2022, 08:43:20 PM

Yesterday my sspx priest did not say the gospel according to my 1957 Marian missal. Did the gospel change for palm sunday?

It should have been the Passion according to St. Matthew. However the 1962 Missal has the option of a very short excerpt, Matthew 27:45-52, if the Priest has said the full Gospel (Matthew 26:36-75; 27:1-60) at an earlier Mass. (Pre 55 uses Matthew 26:36-75; 27:1-66)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2022, 11:03:18 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 11, 2022, 06:40:42 PM

Well said Ladislaus!

In the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to the American seminarians, previously posted by some good soul on this forum:
"What is the first principle to know what we must do in this circuмstance, in this crisis in the Church? What is my principle? The principle of the Church is the principle of St Thomas Aquinas. It is not my choice, it is not my favor, it is not my personal desire... When can we refuse something from the authority of the Church?... ONLY WHEN THE FAITH IS IN QUESTION. Only in this case. Not in other cases."

He goes on to say "You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Roman Missal, and... what is in these books of Pope John XXIII that is against the Faith? Nothing! And so, I cannot refuse this book, because he is the Pope, and the Pope gave me this book. It is quite another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI..."

It is not true that the R&R position makes the Church a free-for-all, since it is based on this principle of St Thomas that our faithful Archbishop, Lefebvre, impressed upon us. But it is true, as you say Ladislaus, and much to be lamented, that SOME R&R, priests and faithful, have set themselves up as mini-popes, picking and choosing what parts of the Liturgy they think should or should not be retained.

Unity of worship is important. It is important in Tradition, just as it has always been important in the Church. The Good God raised up this great churchman in ABL to teach us the way of the Church and we must not depart from it. Let the Carol Byrnes of this world do their research and write their books. But let us leave it to the Church, in better days, to judge on these matters. In the meantime, let the Resistance not give scandal and cause further division by advocating something contrary to what our dear Archbishop bequeathed us, based on solid Catholic principles.

His words again "It is not my choice... It is not my personal desire..."

Hello PV-

Perhaps you didn't notice the following:

1) The SSPX retains the abolished 2nd confiteor;

2) The SSPX retains the aboloshed rubric of bowing to the crucifix after saying "oremus," rather than to the book;

3) The SSPX still retains the abolished rubric of incensing the priest after the deacon chants the Gospel at sung Masses.

The point being that, by holding out this "principle" of +Lefebvre, you make him (and his sacerdotal progeny) fall upon their own knives, since picking/choosing is exactly what they are doing..."like R&R mini-popes," as you say.

The same could be said regarding the decision to use the 1962 Missal over the 1963 or 1965 transitional missals (which were no more stable in the history of the Church than the 1956 Holy Week rites, which existed for a mere 14 years).

Moreover, the faith of many was shaken by the new Holy Week Ordo, as recounted here:

"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)

But, disregarding warnings about the consequences of changing long-established patterns of worship – the new rites would endanger the habitual, ingrained attitudes to the faith of devout Catholics – Pius XII issued his new liturgical laws and instructions in Maxima Redemptionis in 1955, and made the traditional rites illegal:

“Those who follow the Roman rite are bound in the future to follow the Restored Ordo for Holy Week… This new Ordo must be followed…” (10)
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f089_Dialogue_14.htm

But what you and Ladislaus have missed (or in Ladislaus's case, flatly and erroneously denied and rejected) is that permission for the true Holy Week does not primarily come from a decree by any authority, but from immemorial tradition, and no pope can abolish or abrogate it. Even Benedict XVI acknowledged this powerlessness when he stated in Summorum Pontificuм:

"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

To quote Martin Mosebach on this point: "One could conclude that here we find a fixed, insuperable limit to the authority of a pope. Tradition stands above the pope. The old Mass, rooted deep in the first Christian millennium, is as a matter of principle beyond the pope’s authority to prohibit."
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/07/mass-and-memory

Obviously, what is true of the whole (i.e., the TLM) is true of the parts (i.e., Holy Week): They can regulate it. They can tweak it. But they can't snuff it out.

Even Pope St. Pius V's oft-cited Quo Primum is not what gave that Missal its permanent authority. Pius V merely explicated the authority that Missal already had, and would ALWAYS have, no matter who tries to suppress it (pope or prince).

Conclusion: The liceity of the immemorial rites of Holy Week endures, and will endure forever, since none have the authority to suppress them.

This is the great principle we should be planting out flags upon, not gettting caught up in inapplicable legalistic minutiae, which serves only to destroy, and not to build the Church and Faith.

For a succinct talk on this topic, see here beginning at 53:30 - 1:05:28:

Kazimierz · « **Reply #21 on:** April 12, 2022, 03:47:03 AM »

Palm Sunday, with respect to the procession with the palms, was a bit of a clusterfloof at our little neosspx chapel.
These included the omission of many prayers done during pre-Mass, and the order of said prayers. As I was responsible for parts of the chant and hymns, I had to keep flipping through my Liber Usualis to see where things were going.
Mass was not fully sung, and this brings the confusion and unfortunate abuse of having a Dialogue Mass in parts.

How great it would be to have the pre 1955 liturgical ceremonies in their completeness, I petition Heaven once again.
It would require getting a different priest than those who serve us presently.

Does anyone here have the opportunity to attend any of the Tenebrae at their chapel/parish? I at least do the readings at home as I learn to chant at least The Lamentations.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2022, 07:21:54 AM »

Hi Sean,

Good to have your enlightening comments back again, I've been missing them during Lent!

I don't think the Archbishop is falling on his own knife with not following the updated rubrics that you reference. They are smaller details in the larger framework of accepting the updated Missal. I know with the Confiteor before Holy Communion it was precisely through applying this principle that the Archbishop retained it. Doing away with it, he believed, seriously undermined faith in the Holy Eucharist.

I do not know enough about the principle of 'immemorial custom' and how it ought to be applied. However, we are dealing here not with customs just of particular communities etc, but with the common usage of the entire Roman Church. If one could claim this as justification for not obeying the Pope, it would mean no Pope would ever be able to compel the Church to follow any reforms in the liturgy. The Archbishop's words certainly do not support such a view.

Archbishop Lefebvre was better placed than most to judge whether or not the Pius XII/John XXIII reform unsettled the faith of Catholics, having been Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers and travelling widely during this time. It is clear that he was the Good Shepherd raised up by God to lead us in these troubled times, and what a marvelous Shepherd he was. Who will we take as our guide if not him? Will we all make our own decisions and do our own thing? It doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't seem Catholic.

The Archbishop is my guide. He always has been and always will be. I've never yet discovered a reason not to follow him. I know his voice, it is the voice of the Good Shepherd. Perhaps before too long, the Good Lord will raise up another living Shepherd to take his place...

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** April 12, 2022, 08:16:49 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 11, 2022, 06:40:42 PM

He goes on to say "You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Roman Missal, and... what is in these books of Pope John XXIII that is against the Faith? Nothing! And so, I cannot refuse this book, because he is the Pope, and the Pope gave me this book. It is quite another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI..."

The bolded was determined by good priests pre-Archbishop Lefebvre, at least in my neck of the woods, the good Archbishop merely succinctly explained the reasoning. When the SSPX "took over," nothing changed as far as which Missal was used.

Perhaps the old priests offering the Holy Sacrifice to pioneering trads before SSPX were wrong? I don't know for sure, but I also don't know that there's a worthy argument against what he says above.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2022, 08:37:33 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 12, 2022, 07:21:54 AM

The Archbishop is my guide. He always has been and always will be. I've never yet discovered a reason not to follow him. I know his voice, it is the voice of the Good Shepherd. Perhaps before too long, the Good Lord will raise up another living Shepherd to take his place...

This sounds like a member of a cult of personality.

God reward him, but +ABL is dead and has been for over 30 -- THIRTY -- years. Accept it; get over it. He never WAS a living rule of faith and acting like he was (and still is so many years after his death) is more than a little detached from reality and healthy Catholic thinking/practice.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2022, 01:32:55 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 12, 2022, 07:21:54 AM

Hi Sean,

Good to have your enlightening comments back again, I've been missing them during Lent!

I don't think the Archbishop is falling on his own knife with not following the updated rubrics that you reference. They are smaller details in the larger framework of accepting the updated Missal. I know with the Confiteor before Holy Communion it was precisely through applying this principle that the Archbishop retained it. Doing away with it, he believed, seriously undermined faith in the Holy Eucharist.

I do not know enough about the principle of 'immemorial custom' and how it ought to be applied. However, we are dealing here not with customs just of particular communities etc, but with the common usage of the entire Roman Church. If one could claim this as justification for not obeying the Pope, it would mean no Pope would ever be able to compel the Church to follow any reforms in the liturgy. The Archbishop's words certainly do not support such a view.

Archbishop Lefebvre was better placed than most to judge whether or not the Pius XII/John XXIII reform unsettled the faith of Catholics, having been Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers and travelling widely during this time. It is clear that he was the Good Shepherd raised up by God to lead us in these troubled times, and what a marvelous Shepherd he was. Who will we take as our guide if not him? Will we all make our own decisions and do our own thing? It doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't seem Catholic.

The Archbishop is my guide. He always has been and always will be. I've never yet discovered a reason not to follow him. I know his voice, it is the voice of the Good Shepherd. Perhaps before too long, the Good Lord will raise up another living Shepherd to take his place...

Greetings PV-

Thank you for your sentiment and kind words.

I do not undervalue the merit or contributions Archbishop Lefebvre made to the preservation of Tradition. In fact, if I am criticized on this point, it is usually in the opposite vein. I believe he will one day be regarded as the greatest Confessor of the Church since perhaps St. Athanasius. And I further agree with your statement that following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre is normally a reliable roadmap in traversing these confusing issues.

But as regards the permissibility of saying/participating in the true Holy Week, it also seems clear to me that no Pope has the authority to suppress altogether the immemorial rite, and instead substitute transient/transitional rites which have no connection to the organic development of the Mass, and were soon dissolved (by design) into the Novus Ordo Misssae.

Never would I have the effrontery to presume to correct the Archbishop, but neither can I ignore the statement of Pope Benedict XVI (cited in my previous post from the Letter to the Bishops accompanying SP), who said the Church can't suppress the immemorial rite of the Church. I also quoted Martin Mosebach, stating this prohibition on suppressing the immemorial rite of Mass represents a limit upon papal authority.

The following excerpt from an older article by Fr. Paul Leonard might help explain why:

"The traditional Roman Rite of Mass is the universal and perpetual custom of the Church, rooted in Apostolic Tradition. It cannot ever be lawfully suppressed. The proposition that the established customary ceremonies and rites of the Roman Church can be suppressed and replaced by the innovations and inventions of bureaucrats is contrary to the doctrine of the Faith. The Roman Rite, as we have seen, is the most ancient rite of Mass; and, as Jungmann points out, it grew out of the apostolic traditions. Concerning the Canon of that rite, the Council of Trent declared, "it is made up from the words of Our Lord from apostolic traditions, and from devout instructions of the holy pontiffs."

Very clearly, the ancient Roman Rite of the Mass is not something that a Pope instituted or decreed into existence. It is the sacred patrimony of the Roman Church, and it cannot be lawfully suppressed. St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church, wrote in his Summa Doctrinae Christianae: "It behooves us unanimously and inviolably to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether codified or simply retained by the customary practice of the Church." We see the same teaching set forth by St. Peter Damien, also a Doctor of the Church: "It is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church...Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." This doctrine is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, and therefore it must be believed with divine and Catholic Faith, since it is set forth is the Profession of Faith of Pius IV:

I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions and all other observances and institutions of the said Church...I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/status.htm

From this perspective, the real question for me becomes not whether we are permitted to participate in rites which the Pope and Church have no power to suppress, but, whether the faithful and clergy have any right to refuse them (in favor of a flash in the pan which vanished after only 14 years in the Church, and was an important intermediate stage in the destruction of the Roman Rite).

Author Topic: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week (Read 2252 times)

Matthew

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

Matthew

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

Plenus Venter

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

epiphany

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

Emile

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

SeanJohnson

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

Kazimierz

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

Plenus Venter

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

Stubborn

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

gladius_veritatis

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week

SeanJohnson

Re: No Permission Needed for Pre-1955/6 Holy Week