|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 25, 2024 9:12:44 GMT -5
I've been taking a break for Lent, trying to focus more on prayer and getting to mass more frequently, so please excuse my absence. I am breaking with my silence today to remind all on here that Pope Pius XII changed the Holy Week law in the 1950's and no matter what disobedient men may say to you, your duty is to obey the law of the Church, not men telling you otherwise. Many of the these men and women have developed a justification for their fomenting of disobedience based on their opinion that these laws led to to the Novus Ordo. That is all this is, it's just an opinion, nothing more, and their opinion is by the way radically against Catholic teaching as taught by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, and further expounded upon in his 1956 Address on the Liturgy. The duty of Catholics is to trust the Church and to trust the Pope, not privately judge the Church's laws and to judge that the Pope was duped and gave bad laws that led to evil. There is absolutely nothing against the Faith in any law approved in the 1950's! Further, it is for the Pope to judge the direction of the Church to which he is leading it. Pius XII taught that the Holy Ghost is leading the Church in its changes to the Liturgy. Our duty is to trust him, and realize that this direction was the right one, that Our Lord's Vicar, using his binding and loosening power that he had through his office, bound the Church to obey. All of these laws are infallibly protected. Regarding the bogus arguments put forth by the late Fr. Cekada to justify this disobedience, I responded to each in these posts: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2488/contra-cekada-cessation-applicable-holytradcath.proboards.com/thread/2482/contra-cekada-1955-stable-perpetuityIn both cases, Fr. Cekada is misapplying the principles, and I would urge anyone influenced by his writing on this to read my responses. I won't go over it again here, as it's all in the posts linked above, but I will say this was yet another example in which I caught him manipulating the texts in such a way that the reader would come across believing the text presented said something that it did not. In this case, Fr. Cekada argued that the 1955 Holy Week was transitory, and used the text from another decree to support his idea, even though the other decree was dealing with something different, the simplification of rubrics, which was a transitory law, not the Holy Week, which was not transitory, yet be blended them both together giving the reader the impression that both were transitory! It's all documented in the response above.
|
|
|
Post by FrCJSpray on Mar 25, 2024 17:18:37 GMT -5
This topic comes up every year, and at this point, it is really quite tiring.
I celebrate the pre-55 Holy Week, and I have my reasons for that I do not apologize for them. Others follow the reformed Holy Week. They have their reasons, and that is fine.
Even many FSSP, ICKSP, and diocesan groups also celebrate the pre-55.
Pre-55 or post-55, if you even have the option of attending either form, consider yourself lucky and be thankful.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 25, 2024 17:44:32 GMT -5
This topic comes up every year, and at this point, it is really quite tiring. I celebrate the pre-55 Holy Week, and I have my reasons for that I do not apologize for them. Others follow the reformed Holy Week. They have their reasons, and that is fine. Even many FSSP, ICKSP, and diocesan groups also celebrate the pre-55. Pre-55 or post-55, if you even have the option of attending either form, consider yourself lucky and be thankful. There is only one law and that is the law approved by Pope Pius XII. I agree, it's tiring, and personally I am sick of it, and just wish Catholics would begin obeying the Church and end this mess. St. Peter's successor has bound us, now we are bound. If anyone doesn't like it, they should offer it up and remain in silence, while obeying the Church.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Mar 25, 2024 19:31:07 GMT -5
This topic comes up every year, and at this point, it is really quite tiring. I celebrate the pre-55 Holy Week, and I have my reasons for that I do not apologize for them. With all due respect, no-one wants you to apologise. They want you to do your duty and submit to the Authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and Christ's Infallible teaching authority. The Church is infallible in general discipline which includes her liturgy. If you recognise Pius XII to have been a true Pope then you must submit to his rule whether you prefer the old Holy Week or not. God doesn't reward disobedience and if we want another Pope then we need to start obeying his authority and not supplanting it with our private judgement. Private judgements which in this case have largely been demonstrated to have either been false in themselves or based upon incorrect or false information and thus incorrect as a result. The public can be taught that previous positions were erroneous and in doing so you will in fact strengthen their faith in Holy Mother Church, rather than undermine it as those that reject the Pius XII Holy Week presently do. If you believe the Church to be infallible in her liturgy, then back it by your actions and submit. Moses was forbidden from entering the promised land for a single act of disobedience. We must all pray for the grace to do God's will in all things and not our own. Even many FSSP, ICKSP, and diocesan groups also celebrate the pre-55. Everyone else behaving incorrectly doesn't excuse our own incorrect behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by FrCJSpray on Mar 25, 2024 21:07:37 GMT -5
Yet John XXIII continued using the pre-reformed rites himself as pope, and many sedevacantists DO consider him to have been a valid pope.
Nevertheless, I have nothing further to say.
|
|
|
Post by John Lewis on Mar 26, 2024 2:49:02 GMT -5
Yet John XXIII continued using the pre-reformed rites himself as pope, and many sedevacantists DO consider him to have been a valid pope. Nevertheless, I have nothing further to say. John XIII was also “suspect of modernism.” [Rude comment deleted]
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 26, 2024 9:59:25 GMT -5
Yet John XXIII continued using the pre-reformed rites himself as pope, and many sedevacantists DO consider him to have been a valid pope. Nevertheless, I have nothing further to say. I've seen this asserted about John XXIII, but not proven. There is a 1959 photo of him venerating the crucifix as found in the law prior to the 1955 Pius XII law. If he did one thing not found in the rubrics, does that mean he rejected the entire rite? What was the local custom at the time in Rome? I also don't know the context of it either. Did he venerate the crucifix before the rite, during the rite or after the rite? Who knows? No one asserting these things ever provides any clear documentation explaining it. If he did it before or after, then he didn't deviate from the rite at all. There are many unanswered questions on this, just lots of unsupported assertions. John XXIII certainly believed himself to be the pope. With one stroke of a pen, he could have abrogated the 1955 law if he was opposed to it, yet it remained the law. The old books would certainly still have been around, and all priests would have known the old rite as well, so it wouldn't have been that difficult to just go back as the Pius XII rite began in 1956 and John XXIII was elected in 1959, so it was around for just three years at that time. By 1962, the Pius XII Holy Week was incorporated into the newly published missal approved by John XXIII. He didn't reverse things to pre-55 at all, and kept the Holy Week law approved by Pius XII. The proof that John XXIII was not against the Pius XII law was that he left it alone, and under him, the universal Church continued to use it. He didn't do anything to reverse the Pius XII liturgical changes.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 29, 2024 17:52:14 GMT -5
Yet John XXIII continued using the pre-reformed rites himself as pope, and many sedevacantists DO consider him to have been a valid pope. Nevertheless, I have nothing further to say. John XIII was also “suspect of modernism.” ....... Cool your jets...this man is a personal friend..dont be rude to him or any one in this forum. Consider yourself warned. I go to a pre 55 latin mass because its all we have. Father is correct...we are in a crisis and a warzone. I find it funny sedes demanding such things. There are great many things we are incapable of doing right now. This smacks of nuc ism
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 29, 2024 17:54:37 GMT -5
Bishops have ruled its not canonically correct for Roman Catholics to attend Eastern rites if a Roman rite is available. I wouldnt be condemning folks for attending...further Bishops have authority over laity too
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 29, 2024 17:56:06 GMT -5
Survivors in a warzone make strange bedfellows at times. In Charity remember that.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Mar 30, 2024 2:16:37 GMT -5
Hi Voxx,
Rest assured I am quite calm and no rudeness was intended. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of using the supposed actions of John XXIII to justify a position that calls into question the infallibility of the universal discipline of the Church.
I mean no disrespect, but it is the NUC groups that promote the pre-55 liturgy so I’m not convinced that your attempt to label what has been written as “like-NUCism” is a useful comparison in this case.
I understand that this is your forum, but we are talking about Catholic Doctrine here. There isn’t room for personal opinion here. We know it is our duty is to defend Catholic truth and Pacelli has done so as have I.
Respectfully yours in Christ,
JL
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 30, 2024 7:55:36 GMT -5
Thank you John...so yes then debate it...dont say...we dont need to hear anything else from you. I go to a non sede Independent mission in PA pre 1955 and they are adamantly so. NUC ism like in this sense..."if your pre 1955 then your wrong...end of story." I respect Pacelli and love him...but I think his adamant position is unnecessarily strident. Imho...I literally know next to nothing about the issue and frankly dont care. Get to true masses that is the whole of the law ( to borrow a phrase rhetoricly not theologically) in this time of crisis. Look around the world is in a satanic deluge and we are clinging to our rubber dingys for our very lives...sharks swimming all around. This isnt medieval Europe ( or even post ww2) anymore. Save your Souls children...leave the theological tussles to the Hierarchy
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 30, 2024 7:59:19 GMT -5
Yet John XXIII continued using the pre-reformed rites himself as pope, and many sedevacantists DO consider him to have been a valid pope. Nevertheless, I have nothing further to say. I've seen this asserted about John XXIII, but not proven. There is a 1959 photo of him venerating the crucifix as found in the law prior to the 1955 Pius XII law. If he did one thing not found in the rubrics, does that mean he rejected the entire rite? What was the local custom at the time in Rome? I also don't know the context of it either. Did he venerate the crucifix before the rite, during the rite or after the rite? Who knows? No one asserting these things ever provides any clear documentation explaining it. If he did it before or after, then he didn't deviate from the rite at all. There are many unanswered questions on this, just lots of unsupported assertions. John XXIII certainly believed himself to be the pope. With one stroke of a pen, he could have abrogated the 1955 law if he was opposed to it, yet it remained the law. The old books would certainly still have been around, and all priests would have known the old rite as well, so it wouldn't have been that difficult to just go back as the Pius XII rite began in 1956 and John XXIII was elected in 1959, so it was around for just three years at that time. By 1962, the Pius XII Holy Week was incorporated into the newly published missal approved by John XXIII. He didn't reverse things to pre-55 at all, and kept the Holy Week law approved by Pius XII. The proof that John XXIII was not against the Pius XII law was that he left it alone, and under him, the universal Church continued to use it. He didn't do anything to reverse the Pius XII liturgical changes. Of course he wasnt against it...it was the foundation he and his modernist monstrosity needed.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Mar 31, 2024 2:51:45 GMT -5
I've seen this asserted about John XXIII, but not proven. There is a 1959 photo of him venerating the crucifix as found in the law prior to the 1955 Pius XII law. If he did one thing not found in the rubrics, does that mean he rejected the entire rite? What was the local custom at the time in Rome? I also don't know the context of it either. Did he venerate the crucifix before the rite, during the rite or after the rite? Who knows? No one asserting these things ever provides any clear documentation explaining it. If he did it before or after, then he didn't deviate from the rite at all. There are many unanswered questions on this, just lots of unsupported assertions. John XXIII certainly believed himself to be the pope. With one stroke of a pen, he could have abrogated the 1955 law if he was opposed to it, yet it remained the law. The old books would certainly still have been around, and all priests would have known the old rite as well, so it wouldn't have been that difficult to just go back as the Pius XII rite began in 1956 and John XXIII was elected in 1959, so it was around for just three years at that time. By 1962, the Pius XII Holy Week was incorporated into the newly published missal approved by John XXIII. He didn't reverse things to pre-55 at all, and kept the Holy Week law approved by Pius XII. The proof that John XXIII was not against the Pius XII law was that he left it alone, and under him, the universal Church continued to use it. He didn't do anything to reverse the Pius XII liturgical changes. Of course he wasnt against it...it was the foundation he and his modernist monstrosity needed. Hi Voxx, In the most humble and polite manner, I find your comment repugnant to my sensus Catholica. The Catholic Church is a Divine Institution founded by Christ. Its liturgy is of divine origin. The Novus Ordo offertory prayer comes from the Talmud, a satanic text that contains curses against Christians. The Catholic Church is not the foundation of the Modernist Sect. The modernist sect is a parasite on the Catholic Church. When men like Bugnini linked the Paul VI liturgical "reform" to Pius XII's and called the former a bridge to the latter, they were simply trying to sell Catholics snake oil by associated the poison with something authentically good. They had to do so because there was nothing authentically good about the Novus Ordo Mass and it wouldn't sell itself. When I wrote that "there is nothing more to write on the matter" in response to Fr Speray, I was mirroring what he had already said. As a matter of fact he is quite correct that there is nothing more to say on the matter. The Church, the infallible teaching authority of Christ on this earth has already declared that she is infallible in her general discipline which includes her liturgy. There is nothing to debate and it would be wrong for us to do so. There is only a duty to submit to Christ's authority. In the future if you have a problem with anything I've written please PM me and check whether your interpretation of what was written was the one intended. Unwarranted censorship is the death knell of every online community and I am quite capable of apologising if I've done anything wrong myself if given the opportunity. I hope you have a Happy and Holy Easter 😎 JL
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 31, 2024 6:23:28 GMT -5
Please dont tell me how to run my forum. You publically insulted a fellow member I could not let it stay.This thread is locked.
|
|