However, I also understand why other sedes believe that, although lawful and not dangerous when promulgated, those laws became dangerous after Pius XII died (and should therefore be avoided). Here is Fr Cekada's writings on this matter to get a better understanding of that thinking:
RejectP12Illegal (traditionalmass.org)
My only nuance to Fr. Cekada’s excellent article would regard his contention that it was only subsequent circuмstances which made the Pian Holy Week harmful.
He seems to suggest the reform only became harmful once we later perceived it’s true purpose, whereas the truth is the reforms were objectively harmful whether we perceived their true purpose or not, the moment they were promulgated.
The problem with the whole sede vs Lefebvre polemic (on the subject of Holy Week) is that there seems to be a subjective application of prudence from which different men apprehend the danger/harmfulness differently, as though on a spectrum from little danger to grave danger (and on top of this, disagreeing about which is which):
Is the abrogation of centuries-old rites, and their replacement with a fabricated ritual destabilizing for the faithful or not? Is it an attack on the Mass or not?Is it a major conquest in the furtherance of the revolution (as Bugnini claimed) or not? Are it’s principles modernist and condemned or not? Was failure to reject them responsible for what came later or not? Were the reforms an organic development of traditional liturgical theology, or the first serious steps toward an overthrow and rejection of same?
These are the types of issues upon which judgment should be made.
But some men will concede all these points, but only to a small degree, to conclude that the overall danger is not so significant as to warrant a rejection of subsequent reform.
But then these become subjective arbiters, saying, “Well, the dangers and level of harm was acceptable until 1962, or 1965, or 1967, etc. But surely they must recognize that they can’t bind anyone else to endorse their subjective and arbitrary (however well reasoned) thresholds. Surely they can attract other like-minded individuals, and even declare that only such persons are welcome to join.
But is one to be declared an enemy and opponent because his own judgment comes to a different conclusion (particularly when he has Tradition on his side)?
Topic: Pre-1951 Holy Week vs 1951-56: Side x Side Comparison (Read 2405 times)