SSPX, Louis Tofari, and the pre-1955 Holy Week

[Paul_D]

Can you specify any part of the new Holy Week ceremonies introduced by the reformers that came from the past? If you can, there's some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you!

Yes.

I'd like to see this proved by evidence. The earliest Sacramentary containing the full Holy Week contains everything the pre-1955 Holy Week has, with no "medieval" accretions.

[Stanley]

Stanley, it's clear that you really don't know what you're talking about when you say Holy Week was barely touched in the 1951/1955 reform. It's ironic that you reject the 1969 reform, but you defend the same people, who did both the 1955 and 1969 reforms, people like Antonelli, Bouyer, Braga, Lowe, Capelle, and other progressive reformers!

So you want to focus on people rather than principles?

You quote Carol Byrne. She thinks people shouldn't sing during a sung Mass. Nonsense of that sort threads throughout her series on TIA. She has no credibility concerning the liturgy.

With one stroke you ignore all the evidence of the reformers foisting their own untraditional principles onto the Mass. So what if Dr. Byrne gets wrong one thing, congregational singing?

Not one stroke. Nonsense of that sort pervades her writing.

It's understandable, though, seeing that the progressive reformers used it as their Trojan horse to introduce all kinds of novelties! Does she does it wrong concerning the reform of Holy Week?

And this is close to my point. She doesn't distinguish aspects of the liturgy or the liturgical movement, including holy week, so she won't recognize "good" things because someone "misused" them.

So you say change is possible. What about changing X? No, we can't do that, we've done that for 500 years. What about Y? Nope, a saint once wrote about that. What about Z? No, can't do that either because of some reason I made up. And so it goes, no particular change can pass muster. That's conservatism, not traditionalism.

And I think that's why you object to the breviary reform of St. Pius X, which didn't materially conserve all the details of the previous breviary. That doesn't make the reform not traditional.

[QuaeriteDominum]

I am reminded of an interview with Bishop Sanborn discussing the update of the breviary that accompanied the 1962 Missal. His comment was something to the affect that priests in that timeframe, in general, welcomed the revision because it shortened the time it took to say the office and priests were apparently very busy with Catholic schools and churches bursting at the seams.

There were probably a few antagonists who were not happy with the Pius X restructuring of the breviary.

I guess it comes down, once again, to obedience when it comes to changes.  If the changes are an aboration, like the Novus Ordo and Liturgy of the Hours, then one must decide based on faith.  As for the Pius X breviary update, the 1955 Holy Week, the 1962 books, I believe one has to consider whether disobedience to authority is warranted based on faith and morals pertinent to the change and not pertinent to the character of the various authors who may have been involved.

I am sure that even Pius X and Pius XII and every Pope since Peter have admitted publicly that they were sinners.

[Padraig]

Stanley, it's clear that you really don't know what you're talking about when you say Holy Week was barely touched in the 1951/1955 reform. It's ironic that you reject the 1969 reform, but you defend the same people, who did both the 1955 and 1969 reforms, people like Antonelli, Bouyer, Braga, Lowe, Capelle, and other progressive reformers!

So you want to focus on people rather than principles?

You quote Carol Byrne. She thinks people shouldn't sing during a sung Mass. Nonsense of that sort threads throughout her series on TIA. She has no credibility concerning the liturgy.

With one stroke you ignore all the evidence of the reformers foisting their own untraditional principles onto the Mass. So what if Dr. Byrne gets wrong one thing, congregational singing?

Not one stroke. Nonsense of that sort pervades her writing.

It's understandable, though, seeing that the progressive reformers used it as their Trojan horse to introduce all kinds of novelties! Does she does it wrong concerning the reform of Holy Week?

And this is close to my point. She doesn't distinguish aspects of the liturgy or the liturgical movement, including holy week, so she won't recognize "good" things because someone "misused" them.

So you say change is possible. What about changing X? No, we can't do that, we've done that for 500 years. What about Y? Nope, a saint once wrote about that. What about Z? No, can't do that either because of some reason I made up. And so it goes, no particular change can pass muster. That's conservatism, not traditionalism.

And I think that's why you object to the breviary reform of St. Pius X, which didn't materially conserve all the details of the previous breviary. That doesn't make the reform not traditional.

Of course the congregation shouldn't be singing during Mass.

Her series on TIA was excellent. If you managed to read it and still feel favorably towards the liturgical movement, you may be beyond hope.

[Paul_D]

Not one stroke. Nonsense of that sort pervades her writing.

Her quotes from the liturgical reformers concerning Holy Week are irrefutable, whatever else you may make of her arguments.

And this is close to my point. She doesn't distinguish aspects of the liturgy or the liturgical movement, including holy week, so she won't recognize "good" things because someone "misused" them.

So you say change is possible. What about changing X? No, we can't do that, we've done that for 500 years. What about Y? Nope, a saint once wrote about that. What about Z? No, can't do that either because of some reason I made up. And so it goes, no particular change can pass muster. That's conservatism, not traditionalism.

And I think that's why you object to the breviary reform of St. Pius X, which didn't materially conserve all the details of the previous breviary. That doesn't make the reform not traditional.

A bunch of non-sequiturs again! "Reasons I made up?!!" I'd like to hear these alleged made-up reasons! Concerning the Pius X reform, there were many changes made that don't make sense, like making 3 new antiphons for Sunday Vespers, ignoring older, traditional, and frankly better musically ones!  Also, Psalms were basically hacked into pieces, via the Neo-Gallican rites, making the ferial Psalter no longer Roman. That Psalter had been used from the beginning as far as manuscripts were concerned. The only change made in Trent, concerning the Psalter, was moving 5 Psalms from Sunday Prime, one to each ferial day of Prime, excepting Saturday. I admit Pius V made a radical change in the Matins readings. Nonetheless, the Psalter lasted all this time, to 1911, when the Roman Psalter was basically gutted! IMHO, there were better ways to have more of the ferial Psalter prayed than what happened in 1911. And unintentionally, it paved the way to the LOTH! Professor Lazlo Dobzsay has gone into detail about how the Pius X reform damaged the Breviary with his articles and books on the matter. And the improvements that came weren't really that much of improvements, especially since in many weeks there were still the festal Psalms said, instead of praying the whole Psalter in a week.

As for the pre-1955 Holy Week, I think it was rather bare compared to the medieval ceremonies of Sarum and others, which I hope would be put back in; the Tridentine reform, while good, was only tailored made for busy bureaucrats. On the other hand, I can't say I find any of 1955 to be an improvement. The same ideological principles behind 1969 were also behind 1955. The same sort of "laity are so stupid, so let's bring liturgy down to their level!" changes. As I said, your reasonings are very specious. And you sound like Louis Tofari: big on rhetoric, little on actually showing how the things changed were an improvement!

BTW, you only attack but never offer proof of your assertions concerning the supposed "improvements" to Holy Week or the alleged traditionalism of the Pius X Psalter and the new additions (NOTE: I only say Psalter, since mostly everything else was intact, minus the changes to rankings)! Nothing constructive on your end, though I offer lots of evidence concerning my positions.

[Paul_D]

BTW, Louis Tofari made another interview with Timothy Flanders, and Gregory DiPippo made a response to it.

More on Holy Week: My Interview with Timothy Flanders on The Meaning of Catholic

[Paul_D]

I am reminded of an interview with Bishop Sanborn discussing the update of the breviary that accompanied the 1962 Missal. His comment was something to the affect that priests in that timeframe, in general, welcomed the revision because it shortened the time it took to say the office and priests were apparently very busy with Catholic schools and churches bursting at the seams.

There were probably a few antagonists who were not happy with the Pius X restructuring of the breviary.

I guess it comes down, once again, to obedience when it comes to changes.  If the changes are an aboration, like the Novus Ordo and Liturgy of the Hours, then one must decide based on faith.  As for the Pius X breviary update, the 1955 Holy Week, the 1962 books, I believe one has to consider whether disobedience to authority is warranted based on faith and morals pertinent to the change and not pertinent to the character of the various authors who may have been involved.

I am sure that even Pius X and Pius XII and every Pope since Peter have admitted publicly that they were sinners.

There are even now priests being allowed to use the pre-1911 breviary. Even if you don't like it (being a sedevacantist as I suspect), the 1983 Code of Canon Law protects priests against disobedience, using the argument of venerable Tradition. Also, I being a layman have no beef in this kind of argument. If I were a priest, it would be different, but of course, I'm not, since I use the pre-1911 Breviary to pray the Divine Office.

Also, I find it very wrong to change a venerable Tradition like the Office for the sake of a few busy parish priests! Make an office suitable for them, sure, but to change for every single priest and cleric, even though it's not needed, leads, as I stated, ultimately to the LOTH!