As our people know, we reject the use of the new Holy Week rites which were designed by the freemason and archmodernist Annibale Bugnini, and, sadly, approved for use by Pope Pius XII.
We receive a good deal of heat for rejecting rites which were approved by a real pope. The reasons, however, are obvious. The Modernists planned the New Mass from the time of Benedict XV. They worked very gradually and quietly, step by step, spoon-feeding the hierarchy, clergy, and lay people with the implementation of minor but very significant changes.
In 1955, most of the clergy and people were not aware of the dastardly plot of the Modernists to overthrow the Catholic liturgy entirely. Hence the 1955 changes were accepted, although not enthusiastically by all. No one realized that, in adopting these changes, he was boarding a non-stop flight, so to speak, to the Novus Ordo.
Bugnini continued to reform the liturgy, little by little, through the 1950’s and 1960’s until he concocted the New Mass in 1969. This was the perfection of his work, and the culmination of the decades-old aspirations of the Modernists. They all knew that the New Mass would destroy traditional Catholicism. And so it did.
Freemason Bugnini even said that the 1955 Holy Week changes were a “bridge” to future changes in the liturgy. As the sorely missed Father Cekada commented: “If you don’t want to go to the other side, then why would you cross the bridge?” St. Thomas puts it more abstractly: He who consents to the beginning, consents to the end. In other words, you cannot consent to the liturgical principles in the 1955 liturgy without consenting implicitly to the New Mass, of which they are a preparation and a beginning.
The point is that the Bugnini changes in the 1955 Holy Week, in the light of what happened in 1969, now take on a relationship to the grotesque alteration of the Catholic liturgy known as the New Mass. Right reason and common sense, therefore, indicate that the 1955 changes need to be rejected.
What about the law promulgated by Pope Pius XII? First of all, we are not saying that the rites promulgated by Pope Pius XII are evil, pernicious, impious, or sinful to attend. We are saying, however, that they are inferior and that they do contain changes that point to future changes in the Novus Ordo, such as these: (1) the use of vernacular; (2) facing the people at an outdoor altar in the blessing of the palms; (3) facing the people for an oration; (4) distribution of Holy Communion on Good Friday, to mention only a few of the changes.
Consequently, when seen in the light of the Novus Ordo Mass, many of the changes in the 1955 Holy Week take on a direct and unmistakable relation to the changes of the Novus Ordo. They are harbingers of a future devastating reform, something that was unforeseeable by most in 1955.
It is a general principle of law that a law, good in itself, can become harmful if observed under certain circumstances. For example, the law of abstinence on Friday is a good law. It would become harmful to observe, however, if a person were seriously ill or starving and in need of nourishment. In the case where a superior cannot be contacted for a dispensation, the principle of epicheia could be used, which is to estimate the mind of the lawmaker in his absence. Indeed the entire apostolate of traditional priests operates on this principle, namely that in the absence of a true pope, it is licit to carry on an active and public apostolate, since it is the will of Christ as Head of the Church.
If our goal, then, is to preserve the traditional liturgy, then let us preserve it in its pristine state, before the freemason Bugnini got his hands on it.
Saint Pius V, in promulgating the Roman Missal in 1570, suppressed all of the rites in the West which had not been in existence for at least two hundred years. This he did as a precaution against any errors which could have crept into these liturgies. Likewise, as we gaze upon the devastation wrought by the Novus Ordo, let us return to the pre-Bugnini days.
Pope Pius XII. The next question is: How is it possible that Pope Pius XII could have approved of these changes?
Pope Pius XII was a person of very high character, piety, intelligence, dignity, and orthodoxy. Never since the Middle Ages had the papacy shined forth so much as under the reign of Pius XII. He accomplished his role with sterling majesty.
Nonetheless, like all of us, he had some faults. The first is that his education as a youth was somewhat liberal. The second is that his character, although virtuous, was weak. He was described by a fellow cardinal in 1929 as “weak-kneed and indecisive,” which proved to be true. The third is that, through no fault of his own, he was absorbed almost immediately as a young priest into the Vatican diplomatic corps. This influence made him use diplomacy in ecclesiastical matters where a stronger approach was necessary. (This same fault was seen in Archbishop Lefebvre, who, although very firm against the Modernists in his words, used diplomacy with them in order to achieve a niche for tradition in the Modernist system). Pius XII also had a great admiration for modern science and research. While there was nothing wrong with this in itself, it led him to trust excessively the input of modernist leaning persons who were intellectuals in their field, such as Bea and Bugnini. He made a number of abominable appointments as bishops, particularly of the known leftist Montini as Archbishop of Milan and another known pro-modernist Roncalli as Cardinal Patriarch of Venice. In so doing, he gave them both a direct path to the papacy, and indeed, they both were elected to this position after Pius XII died. He also failed to take sufficient measures to repress the modernist theologians, such as Rahner, Ratzinger, Küng, Teilhard de Chardin, and many others, who later emerged at Vatican II as the mentors and architects of the heretical direction which it took. Pius XII also surrounded himself with Modernists in the Vatican, such as Bea, Montini, and Bugnini. Finally, he was incredibly naive about the United Nations and the attempt to unite the world under one government. In 1958, he said this:
Our century witnesses a progressively greater and organic development of the idea of “one” humanity, in which each of the parties should look forward to a transition, in the near future, from the status of alliance to that of a community in the strict sense of the word, a living and working community.(Discourse to the Marian Congregations of Italy, April 26, 1958)
He also said:
The institution of a community of nations, such as has now been partially realized, but which is to grow and be strengthened to a more elevated and more perfect degree, represents an upward movement, that is to say, from a plurality of sovereign States to a higher unity.(Discourse to the Fifth Assembly of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists, December 6, 1953)
It is not to be forgotten that the United Nations was founded by the convicted communist agent Alger Hiss and by the communist loving Eleanor Roosevelt.
When one considers all these factors together in the assessment of Pius XII’s reign, it is easy to conclude that despite his impeccable orthodoxy in his teachings, there was nonetheless a serious weakness of action against the Modernists, a serious lack of prudence in regard to the appointment of bishops, and a serious naiveté in regard to the pernicious origins and goals of the modern world.
I say these things only to explain how the liturgical changes crept in during the 1950’s. In short, Pius XII had no clear vision of what was necessary to protect the Church from the onslaughts of both ecclesiastics and politicians who were bent on creating a dogma-less humanitarianism, and an ecumenical New World Order to replace Catholicism, a perfect preparation for the Antichrist. We should not be surprised, then, that Pius XII displayed a certain weakness in regard to Bugnini’s Holy Week changes. Roman Pontiffs are protected from promulgating error, but they are not protected from imprudence.
In summary, Pius XII was no Pius X.