54. Jahrgang Nr. 4 / Juni 2024
Datenschutzerklärung | Zum Archiv | Suche

1. EINSICHT quo vadis?
2. Darf der Papst den Ritus der Karwoche ändern?
3. Can the Pope Change the Rite of Holy Week?
4. Der Synodalweg
5. Kurze Einführung in die Ökodämonologie
6. Das geheime Komplott
7. Im Irrenhaus - ein Land versinkt im Wahn
8. Nachrichten, Nachrichten, Nachrichten...
9. Mitteilungen der Redaktion
Can the Pope Change the Rite of Holy Week?
Can the Pope Change the Rite of Holy Week?

By Fr Courtney Edward Krier
May 5, 2024
Feast of Pope Saint Pius V

A thorn in the Church, a tear in the Robe of Christ, a point of controversary amongst those attempting to uphold the faith and sacraments of the immaculate Bride of Christ is that of the resistance to the Restored Holy Week Liturgy under Pope Pius XII. It was not a topic of contention among the bishops and priests even in the 1960s when the resistance and rejection of Vatican II and with its Novus Ordo Missae was being introduced However, the Restored Holy Week Liturgy soon became a non serviam once the accusation that Annibale Bugnini, the one assigned as Secretary of the Liturgical Movement in 1948, and again, placed as Secretary of the Concilium for implementing the reform of the Mass and Liturgy of Vatican II, was a Freemason. Bugnini, in his book, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, gives only 7 pages of a 950 page book to the years 1948-1960. Why, because he did not directly participate and because the Pian Reform was substantially to be found completed in a 1960 edition of the Missale Romanum that simplified the rubrics—already stated in 1955, but not yet codified in a new Missale. Certainly, his praise for Giovanni Montini and Augustin Bea points to where his gratitude lies and the root of the Novus Ordo Missae. The Protestantized Canons (of the Mass) in the Novus Ordo find their authorship from Cipriano Vagaggini. The English translation of the Novus Ordo was from Frederick R. McManus.

Questions. (1) Is there a justification for rejecting the Restoration of the Holy Week Liturgy to a simpler form done under Pope Pius XII? (2) What are the implications in saying that Pope Pius XII promoted the Novus Ordo Missae and his Restoration was the first step?
To the former question, since a Pope cannot teach what is contrary to faith and morals, it would mean a complete rejection of everything Eugenio Pacelli did under guise of being a pope—because it would be against the infallibility of the Pope—taught and made a dogma under the Vatican Council of 1869-70—for a Pope to lead the Church into error in faith and morals. If one were to say that Pius XII is Pope but that one does not have an obligation to accept his authority, then one goes against all Church teaching and the Vatican Council of 1870, ascribing to the heresy of Gallicanism which erroneously teaches: Although the pope has the chief part in questions of faith, and his decrees apply to all the Churches, and to each Church in particular, yet his judgment is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church. (Declaration of the Clergy of France of 1682) As Dégert describes it in his article, Gallicanism, placed in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1909; New York: Robert Appleton Company.):

According to the Gallican theory, then, the papal primacy was limited, first, by the temporal power of princes, which, by the Divine will, was inviolable; secondly by the authority of the general council and that of the bishops, who alone could, by their assent, give to his decrees that infallible authority which, of themselves, they lacked; lastly, by the canons and customs of particular Churches, which the pope was bound to take into account when he exercised his authority.

To the latter question, through the centuries, since the time of Pope Saint Pius V, the Roman Missal, in which this Pontiff declared: We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure (Apostolic Constitution, Quo primum tempore, July 14, 1570) the Mass has seen changes in respect to her Propers but not the Mass itself. It remains the same Offertory, the same Canon, the same priestly Communion.
Now, certainly, if the interpretation of this Apostolic Constitution was such that one was required to use exact same Missale Romanum of 1570, the changes introduced immediately at the time of Pope Saint Pius V and thereafter would be a violation. Rather it must be understood what this Pope himself expressed: Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. (Ibid.) Therefore, as the Council of Trent decreed one rite for the celebration of Mass—unless an approved rite that had been celebrated for more than two hundred years (examples, Mozarabic and  Ambrosian Rites)—all were to follow the Roman Rite. Some Religious Orders retained their variations, such as the Franciscans, Dominicans and Cistercians—but otherwise followed essentially the formula of the Roman Rite. This consists of the Ordinary of the Mass, which is divided into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. The Mass of the Faithful is furthered divided into three parts: the Offertory, the Canon of the Mass, and the Communion. Placed within the Missale Romanum are the Propers: Propers for the Liturgical Year and Propers for the Feasts of Saints. The Propers, or changeable parts, were previously separated from the Ordinary of the Mass in a book called the Sacramentary. The Ordinary of the Mass in its own book as the Ordo or Ordines, but the two were eventually combined into one book—finalized in the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V as requested by the Council of Trent. [A bishop still uses an Ordo] This Council declared, even before the Missale Romanum was published:

And since it is fitting that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and this sacrifice is of all things the most holy, the Catholic Church, that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago, so free from all error [can. 6], that it contains nothing in it which does not especially diffuse a certain sanctity and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer it. For this consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs. (Cf. DB 942)

This was made a dogma in Canon 6: If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and should therefore be abrogated: let him be anathema [cf. DB 953].
Therefore, that which was presented in the decree of Quo primum must conform to that which was intended by the Pope Pius V in approving the reform of the Missal by the Council of Trent. What is clear, and no one disputes, the Canon of the Mass that had been said from time immemorial, except for the addition in the Hanc igitur by Saint Pope Gregory the Great, grant peace in our days, has remained unchanged—and Gihr notes that it may not have been an addition, but merely a correction:  

The three petitions, pro pace temporum et ereptione ab aeternis suppliciis et consortia Sanctorum obtinendo, were added by St. Gregory the Great (cf. Walafrid. Strab., chap. 23). Since in even earlier sacramentaries similar thoughts and expressions occur in this place, St. Gregory probably only made permanent the wording which until then had been changeable. (Gihr, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 659)

Gihr had already written:

St. Gregory I (590-604) completed the formula of the text of the Canon as we now have it.
"It is correct and a matter of fact to state that the text of the Canon of the present Roman Missal corresponds, in all that is essential, with that form in which it probably proceeded from the hands of Gregory I and in which it was handed down in the ancient manuscripts of the Roman Sacramentary. This fact, however, does not exclude the view that the development of the liturgy during the Middle Ages, which gradually encompassed the monumental edifice of the Gregorian-Roman rite of the Mass with the exuberant growth of numerous prayers, chants, and customs, did not stop entirely at the sanctuary of the Canon, but also here gave expression to the overflowing feelings by many well-meant, but not always appropriate, additions. The Roman Church has always cut down to right proportions at the proper time all the superfluous accessories produced by the piety of ages, and also, while preserving whatever possessed any durable value, to reform the liturgy in accordance with its ancient forms. Thus amid a wealth of prayers and rites she yet preserved that strictly logical clearness and preciseness which non-Catholics so greatly admire in the Roman liturgy. Hence the many changes and additions in the text of the Canon which were produced during the Middle Ages, have disappeared partly already since the thirteenth century, and wholly since the reform of St. Pius V in 1570." [Ebner, Quellen und Forschungen, p. 394.]
The Canon is, therefore, through its origin, antiquity, and use, venerable, inviolable, and sacred. If ever a prayer of the Church came into existence under the special inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it is assuredly the prayer of the Canon. It is permeated throughout by the spirit of faith and with the sweet odor of devotion; it is a holy work, full of force and unction. Its simple language, by its pithiness and its antique and Scriptural stamp, produces a touching effect on the mind of him who prays and offers the sacrifice; it charms the soul, just like the dimly lit, ancient, venerable basilicas of the Eternal City. It is a pleasure and a joy to the heart to still utter the very same words at the altar which so many devout and holy priests throughout the entire Church and in all ages have always used in praying and offering the sacrifice. Already in the times of the martyrs and in the chapels of the catacombs these prayers of the Canon of the Mass were recited and sanctified.
(Gihr, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 621-622)

The consistency in interpretation is found in the documents of the Popes and the Church afterwards. First, the Canon of the Mass has never been changed. Benedict XIV says: Canon is the same word as rule, the Church uses this name to mean that the Canon of the Mass is the firm rule according to which the Sacrifice of the New Testament is to be celebrated (De SS. Missæ Sacr., Lib. II, xii). Second, changeable parts (Propers) have seen a continuum of change. Third, whenever it was asked that the Mass be said in the vernacular the Popes and Councils have always condemned such a proposition.

Point 1: The Canon of the Mass has never been changed. This does not need arguing since until Angelo Roncalli put Saint Joseph in the Canon, it had not been changed in any way.

Point 2: Changeable parts of the Mass, Propers, have continued to be changed. Masses of Saints have been added, Sunday Masses have been suppressed, Feasts have been added, Prefaces have been added, Vigils instituted and suppressed.

Point 3:
The Ordinary of the Mass has never been allowed to be said by the priest in the vernacular by papal or Church permission.

Point 1 and 3, therefore are not in dispute, even regarding Pope Pius XII. Point 2 is disputed but without cause, because changeable parts (Propers) according to Church understanding have changed, as seen in her formal acts—and quite frequently—and seen in these following examples:

Pope Clement VIII decreed, Cum santissimum (July 7, 1604), and as placed in the Missale Romanum right after the Quo Primum of Pius V:

Not only have the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, always desired, and for a long time greatly striven to achieve, this aim, but above all Pope Pius V of happy memory undertook, in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent, to bring the Roman Missal into conformity with the old and purer pattern and to have it printed in Rome. Although he very severely forbade under many penalties that anything should be added to it, or that anything for any reason be removed from it, nevertheless, in the course of time, it has come to pass that, through the rashness and boldness of the printers, or of others, many errors have crept into the missals which have been produced in recent years. That very old (Latin) version of the Holy Bible, which even before St. Jeromes time was held in honor in the Church, and from which almost all the Introits, Graduals, and Offertories of the Masses had been taken, has been entirely removed; the texts of the Epistles and Gospels, which hitherto were read during the celebration of the Mass, have been disturbed in many places; different and utterly unusual beginnings have been prefixed to the Gospel texts; and finally many things have been here and there arbitrarily altered. All these changes seem to have been introduced under the pretext of conforming everything to the standard of the Vulgate edition of Holy Writ, as if it were allowable to anyone to do so on his own authority, and without the advice of the Apostolic See.

And the addition of new feasts, with a rite of greater double and addition of the Common of Non-virgins:

It happened, however, that in the carrying out of this task, as a result of an accurate comparison of ancient books, some things have been improved upon and, concerning the rules and rubrics, some points have been more fully and clearly stated. These improvements, however, flowing as it were from the same sources and principles, seem rather to represent and complete the meaning of the rules and rubrics than to introduce anything new.

This is followed by Urban VIII, with his Papal Bull, Si quid est (September 2, 1634), which revised rubrics along with corrections:

Wherefore, just as We have recently achieved the reform of the Breviary for the greater splendor of the Divine Office, so also, following this example, We have ordered that the Missal be corrected with a view to bestowing greater beauty and luster upon the Divine Sacrifice.
And since it is highly becoming that the wings, as it were, of the liturgy which the priest, like the cherubim of the old Mystical Tabernacle, daily spreads over the true Mercy seat of the world, should be twofold and fashioned exactly in the same shape and form, We have entrusted this task to learned and pious men who have carried it out so carefully as to leave nothing to be desired.
The rubrics which had been allowed to gradually degenerate from the old usage and rite, have been restored to their former pattern; those which did not seem to be easily intelligible to the readers, have been more clearly stated; and moreover, having compared the pertinent texts with the Vulgate edition of Holy Writ, the differences which had crept into the Missal have been emended according to this standard and norm.

The editions of Leo XIII in 1884 and 1900 would add further revisions to rubrics as also later allow a priest to say 2 Masses on All Souls Day in his Letter Dies secunda, May 25, 1898, to the Archconfraternity of Cluny.

On that day, precisely nine centuries ago, St. Odilon, Abbot of Cluny, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, prescribed that his monks should, by means of their pious supplications. hasten the access to heavenly happiness of their deceased brethren still making reparation for faults committed in this life. This pious practice, salutary and excellent, is in admirable conformity with Christian charity and in full agreement with the text of Machabees: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." Gods Church not only approved it, but voluntarily adopted it and wished that it should become practiced by Christians all over the Catholic world.

He had denied the request for universal permission in 1888 for a priest to say three masses on All Souls day as was already the custom in Spain, Portugal and Latin America. Benedict XV would grant the request in his Apostolic Constitution Incruentum altaris sacrificium (August 10, 1915) with the Masses added to the Missale.
Pope Benedict XV also re-introduced the Preface for the Dead removed by Pope  Saint Pius V and added the Preface of Saint Joseph in April of 1919. Pope Pius XI added the Preface to Christ the King in 1925 when he established the Feast itself and then added another to the Sacred Heart in 1929.
Just as his predecessors, Pope Saint Pius X had already approved of or initiated many reforms, mostly pertaining to the Breviary and Sacred Music. He raised the rank of Sundays so the Sunday Mass would be celebrated instead of it being replaced by a Saints Feast. He also insisted that the Gregorian Chant be used and profane compositions be suppressed. He allowed children to receive Holy Communion as soon as they could give a profession of faith (age of reason)—Decree, Quam Singulari, August 8, 1910. He wrote the Motu proprio, Abhinc duos annos, October 23, 1913:

Two years ago, in publishing Our Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu, We had especially in sight the recitation, as far as possible in its entirety, of the Psalter on weekdays, and the restoration of the ancient Sunday offices. But Our mind was occupied with many other projects—some mere plans, others already on the way to realization—relating to the reform in the Roman Breviary.
However, because of the numerous difficulties preventing Us from executing them, We had to postpone them for a more favorable moment. To change the composition of the Breviary to make it in accordance with Our desires, that is, to give it a finished perfection in every part, would involve:
—restoring the calendar of the Universal Church to its original arrangement and style, retaining meanwhile the splendid richness which the marvelous fruitfulness of the Church, the Mother of Saints, has brought to bear upon it.
–utilizing appropriate passages of Scripture, of the Fathers and Doctors, after having reestablished the authentic text;
—prudently correcting the lives of the Saints according to documentary evidence;
—perfecting the arrangement of numerous points of the liturgy, eliminating superfluous elements.

But in the judgment of wise and learned persons, all this would require considerable work and time. For this reason, many years will have to pass before this type of liturgical edifice, composed with intelligent care for the Spouse of Christ to express her piety and faith, can appear purified of the imperfections brought by time, newly resplendent with dignity and fitting order.
In the meantime, through correspondence and conversations with a number of bishops, We have learned of their urgent desire—shared by many priests—to find in the Breviary, together with the new arrangement of the Psalter and its rubrics, all the changes which already have come or which might come with this new Psalter.
They have repeatedly asked Us, indeed they have repeatedly manifested their earnest desire that the new psalter be used more often, that the Sundays be observed more conscientiously, that provision be made for the inconvenience of transferred offices, and that certain other changes be effected which seem to be justified.
Because they are grounded in objectivity and completely conform to Our desire, We have agreed to these requests and we believe that the moment has come to grant them.

By time Pope Pius XII accepted the papacy, the Liturgical Committee had already been set up. Changes in the Breviary had already been implemented and certainly it was much shorter than the edition under Pope St Pius V until Leo XIII. The Reforms under Pope Pius XII continued the work begun under Leo XIII and solidified under Pope Saint Pius X and furthered by Pope Benedict XV and Pius XI. The changes from a Catholic State to Secular States, the demands on priests in ever growing parishes and fewer priests, the lack of participation of the laity in Liturgical Functions—particularly as the long ceremonies became meaningless or contradictory to a better educated Catholic Congregation that had access to and able to read primary sources.
Here is addressed the three points of controversy with the Reforms of Pope Pius XII:

1.    Psalter
Pius XII did not do away with the Vulgate Psalter. The translating of the Psalter from the Hebrew or into classical Latin for the recitation of the Divine Office had been requested and attempted several times through the centuries, the last in the time of Leo XIII, but none of the translations were ever either completed or adopted—usually due to the death of the supporting pope.

331. The Psalms. There are two Latin translations of the psalms, which have been adapted to the requirements of the Roman Breviary and approved both for the public and the private recitation of the divine Office; either may be used at will. The first is the translation according to the Latin Vulgate Bible, which up to March 24, 1945 was the only one approved for use in the Roman Breviary. The second is the translation, which Pius XII in the Apostolic Letter In cotidianis precibus of March 24, 1945 approved for use in the Roman Breviary (AAS: xxxvii, 1945, pp. 65-67).—(Matters Liturgical, 1959, 614-615)

Many make it unpalatable to the laity by claiming its requirement and incompatibility. Neither are true, but rather the Antiphons do remain the same—just as the Itala Latin remains in the Roman Missal instead of only the Vulgate of Saint Jerome or the revision of the Vulgate under Pope Clement VIII. No priest had to adapt the New Psalter translated from the Hebrew. The 1945 Psalter was made optional by Pope Pius XII and not universally used—especially in houses where the Office was chanted—even though the antiphons were not changed. Unfortunately, the breviaries printed afterwards by the printing houses were all printed with only the new translated version.

We offer it with fatherly affection to all who have the obligation to recite the canonical Hours daily. After due consideration of all the issues involved. We hereby of Our own free choice (motu proprio) and upon mature deliberation permit them to use it should they wish to do so, in either private or public recitation as soon as it has been adapted to the psalter of the Roman Breviary and published by the Vatican Printing Office. (In cotidianis precibus, March 24, 1945)

2.    Eucharistic Fast
Those who would call the Fast “Apostolic” forget that Saint Paul complained that the Agape, the meal prior to the Holy Eucharist being celebrated, was being abused—which means there was no Apostolic Fast. The fast was introduced starting in the fourth century; the Agape did not cease completely until after the sixth century. (Cf. art. Agape in CE) With evening Masses becoming more common to meet the needs of the working people and with less people keeping the midnight fast as an obligation to receive Holy Communion (or going to the Christmas Midnight Mass inebriated after celebrating a Christmas Eve party), priests and laity welcomed a more proper manner of preparing for the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

3.    Restored Holy Week Liturgy

The Holy Week Liturgy, as noted in all commentaries on the early Church and regarding the Rite of Baptism, speak of the Easter Vigil being held in the night with the Catechumens being—after the readings and prayers—baptized and Holy Mass following in the early (Sunday) morning. The Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on February 9, 1951, informs the reasons for returning to the custom:

Since early times the Church solemnly celebrates the Easter Vigil, which St. Augustine calls "the mother of all the holy vigils" (Sermon 219) This vigil was celebrated during the early hours of the morning preceding the Resurrection of Our Lord. But in the course of centuries and for various reasons, the celebration was put ahead, first to the early evening, then to the afternoon, and finally to the morning of Holy Saturday; at the same time some modifications were introduced to the detriment of the primitive symbolism.
However our times, which are distinguished for development in researches on ancient liturgy, has witnessed the fulfillment of the ardent desire of bringing back the Easter Vigil to its primitive splendor and of assigning to it the time observed in the beginning, that is, the early hours of the night preceding Resurrection Sunday. In favor of such a return there is added a special motive of pastoral order: that of facilitating the presence of numerous faithful. In fact, as Holy Saturday is no longer a holyday, as it once was, the greater part of the faithful cannot assist at the sacred rite, if it takes place in the morning.

It is reported by Annibale Bugnini that seemingly Giovanni Montini and Augustine Bea reported the work done on of the Restoration of the Holy Week Liturgy to Pope Pius XII. It was Joseph Löw who did the work researching and revising the Holy Week Liturgy. (cf. The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, 1990, 9-10) If you look at the Holy Week Liturgy of the Missale Cisterciense of 1751, there are similarities, such as no preface for Palm Sunday and only four lessons on Holy Saturday. This expresses that the Holy Week Liturgy in the Latin Rite was not unified nor everywhere amplified.
As was mentioned previous to the Restored Holy Week, the Resurrection was celebrated on Saturday morning contrasting the Resurrection happening on Sunday morning. Because of the fast and the lengthy ceremonies, those obliged to celebrate the Liturgy introduced it earlier, as one could not communicate—according to the fasting laws since the Middle Ages—if one even drank some water. As it ceased to be a holy day, few participated in the Liturgy—attending only the evening sermons and devotions that replaced the Liturgy.
With the celebration returning to the night vigil, the liturgy would also need to reflect the time that it was celebrated—for even saying Vespers in the morning in the prior ceremony expressed that once it was celebrated in the evening, but was incongruent with the morning hour. Also, with the Divine Office being reduced (as pointed to above) because of the obligations of the clergy whose ranks did not increase in proportion to the Catholic population, the Restored Liturgy also reduced the readings to the earlier four readings. At the same time, other ceremonies that were added during the Middle Ages but had no meaning were removed, such as not genuflecting during the solemn prayers while praying for the conversion of the Jews. The biblical account does not say the Jews genuflected as they struck our Lord, rather it was the Romans who genuflected (Remember the passages of Mordechai in the Book of Esther). Since the meaning was lost, and the Church does nothing without purpose, it was appropriate that the faithful genuflect in supplication that the Jews come to the knowledge of the Truth.
Pope Pius XII approved the Decree Maxima redemptionis, by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, of November 16, 1955.

Every year from apostolic times, Holy Mother Church has been intent on celebrating in a special manner the memory of the greatest mysteries of Redemption, namely, the Passion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Above all she has commemorated the most telling hours of those mysteries, i.e., "the crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection" of Christ (St. Augustine, Ep. 55, 14.); later she added the solemn commemoration of the Institution of the most Blessed Eucharist; and, finally, on the Sunday immediately preceding the Passion came the liturgical celebration of the triumphant entry of our Savior, the messianic King, into the Holy City. From this resulted a special liturgical week, which, because of the excellence of the mysteries celebrated, was called "holy" and graced with the most splendid religious rites.
At the start these rites were celebrated on the same days and at the same hours in which these three mysteries took place. The institution, therefore, of the Blessed Eucharist was celebrated on Thursday evening with High Mass "in Cena Domini"; on Friday afternoon a special liturgical function took place in memory of the Passion and death of Our Lord, and on Saturday evening the solemn vigil began and ended the following morning with the joy of the Resurrection.
In the Middle Ages, however, the hour of the liturgical functions of those days was, for various reasons, anticipated, so that at the end of the same Middle Ages all those solemn celebrations were advanced to the early morning hours. This was damaging to the liturgical sense. The Gospel narration did not agree with the relative liturgical commemorations. The solemn Easter vigil, withdrawn from its own nocturnal place, lost its original significance together with the meaning of its formulas and symbols. Holy Saturday, then, taken up with an anticipated Easter joy, lost its character of mourning in remembrance of Our Lords burial.
In recent times took place another change, from the pastoral point of view even more serious. Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday were for many years numbered among holydays (free of work) with the aim of allowing all the faithful, free from work, to assist at the Sacred rites of those days. But in the 17th century, owing to the completely changed conditions of social life, the Sovereign Pontiffs were induced to diminish the number of holydays. It so happened that Urban VIII with the Apostolic Constitution "Universa per orbem" of September 24, 1642, was obliged to reduce to working days the sacred triduum of Holy Week.
From this fact the assistance of numerous faithful at these sacred rites was necessarily reduced and consequently their celebration was for a long time advanced to the morning, at a time when, all over the world, schools and offices are open and all business is transacted. Common and almost universal experience, in fact, teaches that often these solemn liturgical functions of the sacred triduum are celebrated by the clergy in almost deserted churches.
This is certainly deplorable. The rites of Holy Week have not only a special dignity, but they also possess a singular strength and sacramental efficacy to nourish Christian life; neither can they receive adequate compensation in those pious exercises of devotion commonly called "extra-liturgical" carried on in the evenings of the sacred triduum.
For all these reasons, eminent liturgists, priests in care of souls and in the first place the Bishops themselves have lately made insistent appeals to the Holy See, asking that the liturgical functions of the sacred triduum be put back, as they once were, to the early evening in order to permit the faithful to assist more easily at these ceremonies.

These Liturgical ceremonies were neither sacraments nor Divine institutions, but instituted by the Church and found in the ever-changing parts of the Mass—the Propers of the Liturgical Cycle.
Confronting the neo-Modernists and anti-Liturgists on one side who claim everything can be changed, there is on the other side those today who claim nothing can be changed despite the continual changes noted. Neither are correct in their conclusions. It is a question of what can be changed and what cannot be changed. This was seen in the proceedings of the Council of Trent and is also to be found in the early proceedings of the Second Vatican Council. Unfortunately, those Cardinals and bishops who pointed out what could and what could not were set aside, even the document that was approved at the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Councilium (December 4, 1963), the product, which was short lived was the 1964 Missale, that retained the Offertory, Canon and Communion in Latin in its entirety (with the exceptions already introduced in the 1962 Missale—changing the Communicantes)—as no true Catholic Bishop could conceive the possibility of changes in the Mass of the Faithful as it stood in the Ordinary (besides the Prefaces which were always in flux). Angelo Roncalli added Saint Joseph to the Canon in what today would be to termed “politically correct” or moved by the masses—rejecting the status quo. Even after petitions of hundreds of thousands of signatures, including bishops and religious superiors to have Saint Joseph added in the Canon in 1815 to the Congregation of the Sacred Rites and later to Pius IX, the only accession was to honor him with a Mass and later proclaim him universal patron of the Church by the decree Quemadmodum Deus of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, published on December 8, 1870. And even if, as the Pius X Society founded by Marcel Lebfevre published in their article St. Joseph: Protector of Universal Church, of March 18, 2015, is true that Popes Leo XII and Pius X signed such petitions as bishops, these Popes knew, as Popes, they could not add Saint Joseph—or they simply would have. When, as the story is repeated, the bishop of Mostar, Peter Čule, asked the Second Vatican Council to add the name of Saint Joseph and Cardinal Ruffini quickly rebuffed him, Roncalli and the anti-Liturgists saw their moment and on November 13, 1962, Roncalli came to the Council to announce he would add Saint Joseph—opening the door to changing what was unchangeable. Here, once again, one should remember the dogmatic decision of the Council of Trent: Canon 6: If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and should therefore be abrogated: let him be anathema (DB 953; cf. DB 942). Coupled with Pope Benedict XIV, who says: Canon is the same word as rule, the Church uses this name to mean that the Canon of the Mass is the firm rule according to which the Sacrifice of the New Testament is to be celebrated (De SS. Missæ Sacr., Lib. II, xii), this is what opened the Liturgical Revolution and the gates of Hell as seen by the resistance to change by the Fathers of the Council to the embrace of change—the kiss of Judas.
In conclusion, one can and one must except the changes to the Holy Week Liturgy under Pope Pius XII.

(c) 2004-2018 brainsquad.de