Author Topic: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?  (Read 363 times)

Anonimus

Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« on: December 04, 2017, 04:14:47 PM »
Adopting a Protestant-Inspired Rite

by

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f144_Dialogue_62.htm



It is noteworthy that, before 1956, the Renewal of Baptismal Promises was never part of the official liturgy of the Roman Rite, but only a semi-private “para-liturgy” conducted among special groups in retreats, missions, anniversaries of one’s Baptism and at the First Communion of children. An important factor is that these ceremonies were introduced on the initiative of individual pastors at the local level. Not all of them were performed in church. There was no set formula of words. And as their occurrence was only sporadic, they did not constitute anything approaching a universal custom.

The heretic Erasmus first proposed the renewal of baptismal vows.

When the Renewal of Baptismal Promises was first introduced experimentally at the Easter Vigil in 1951, it was presented as an ancient liturgical tradition that had fallen into disuse and needed to be restored. But, like so many of the reformers’ spurious claims of liturgical “restoration,” the historical basis for this claim is tenuous and lacking in contextual detail.

Historically, the Catholic Church had always discouraged attempts to give the Renewal of Baptismal Promises a place in the liturgy. One brief but indicative example was when Erasmus proposed a ritual in 1522 for adolescents to renew their baptismal vows; his suggestion was censored by the foremost Scholastic theologian of the day, Noël Beda, (1) and his book placed on the Index by Pope Paul IV in 1559. (2)

It was, therefore, a major innovation when Pius XII, acting at the behest of his 1948 Commission, (3) suddenly imposed the rite by force majeure on the whole Church in 1956. It was also something of a coup for the Liturgical Movement, which had been agitating for its inclusion in the liturgy. (4)

Only one of the consultors of the papal Commission, however, had misgivings about the appropriateness of this rite in the Easter Vigil. Dom Bernard Capelle, to grant him his due, was opposed to this reform and expressed his disagreement in forceful terms:

-Its introduction was unnecessary (“nulla habetur necessitas”);

-It gave primacy to the theme of Baptism over the Resurrection, thus compromising the theological meaning of the Vigil;

-It was a total novelty (“ex toto novorum”) lacking any historical claim to liturgical usage;

-It should not be used at the Easter Vigil as a substitute for Baptism. (5)

But his objections were brushed aside, and the new Vigil went ahead on an experimental basis in 1951 with the approval of Pius XII, before being imposed universally in 1956.
 

A rite inspired by Protestantism

As a liturgical rite, the Renewal of Baptismal Promises emerged from the “Reformation”; it was first recorded in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (6) as part of the Protestant “confirmation” rite. (7)

The ritual is conducted in both the Protestant and revised Catholic liturgies on similar lines. The Bishop or priest faces the people, gives a short address and conducts a “dialogue” in the vernacular with the whole congregation. It is not surprising, therefore, that this ceremony, alien to any Catholic concept of the lex credendi would clash egregiously with the lex orandi. This is glaringly obvious both in its outward form and in its ambiguous theological import.

This was the first time in the History of the Church that a ceremony of Protestant inspiration and ethos was officially incorporated into the liturgy, but, as the Novus Ordo would amply demonstrate, it was not the last.


Muddying the waters of Baptism

Fr. Antonelli explained that the Renewal was among those practices “to be restored if their reintroduction would truly render the rites more pure and more intelligible to the minds of the faithful.” [8] But, how intelligible is it? And what exactly is renewed?

We need to consider and ask: In what sense can one “renew” permanent vows as distinct from temporary vows that can be renewed periodically? To do so liturgically could easily give the impression that Baptism is ephemeral, as if the original vows had passed their expiry date and needed to be, as it were, “topped up” for another year.

It makes sense to recall our baptismal vows, to ponder how far we have fallen short of them, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent recommended, (9) to reaffirm our adherence to the Faith, and to renew our efforts to progress in the spiritual life with the aid of the Mass and the Sacraments.

That much is crystal clear. What is not so clear is the term “Renewal” of Baptismal Promises. It may be interpreted in the traditional sense outlined above, but it is potentially dangerous in its lack of precision, rendering it unsuitable for inclusion in the liturgy. For, Baptism is the renewal, whereby one goes into the church unbaptized and comes out a Christian. One can never be in that unique position again and, although baptismal grace can be lost, the force of the original vows remains unchanged. They cannot, therefore, be said to stand in need of renewal.

In the next instalment, we shall see how the new ritual further destabilized the Easter Vigil by changing its theological focus from Christ to the people, all for the sake of their “active participation.”

(To be continued)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 04:23:53 PM by Anonimus »
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen, annamack, Vinny Zee

Vinny Zee

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2017, 06:19:46 PM »
I'm not aware of any such practice in the Byzantine Rite today that practices the renewal of baptismal vows at Easter.  I am not sure if any other Eastern Catholics have a thought, but the east does not practice this that I am aware of.
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen

Anonimus

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2017, 09:35:32 PM »
PS: The OP is just 1 of 62 installments excerpted from a larger study of the corrupted liturgical reform, which had lost its sensus catholicus by about 1920.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 09:42:04 PM by Anonimus »
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen

TKGS

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2017, 09:30:42 AM »
PS: The OP is just 1 of 62 installments excerpted from a larger study of the corrupted liturgical reform, which had lost its sensus catholicus by about 1920.
This is interesting.  Can you post an example of how the the liturgy was corrupted in 1920?
 

Anonimus

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2017, 04:34:33 PM »
PS: The OP is just 1 of 62 installments excerpted from a larger study of the corrupted liturgical reform, which had lost its sensus catholicus by about 1920.
This is interesting.  Can you post an example of how the the liturgy was corrupted in 1920?

I said the liturgical reform was corrupted by 1920.

Here is just 1 of 62 installments giving some examples; you are more than capable of looking up the rest:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f081_Dialogue_9.htm

PS: For a list of all 62 installments, go here: http://sodalitium-pianum.com/tracking-the-history-of-liturgical-corruption/
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 04:37:27 PM by Anonimus »
 

Anonimus

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2018, 10:27:08 PM »
A slightly different approach:

Here is Fr. Cekada's position on how the Pius XII Holy Week changes can be avoided

-Even if Pius XII was a valid Pope

-And even if none of the particular rubrical changes were evil in themselves:

"If the rites were not evil in themselves, on what basis could one now criticize them or refuse to follow them?

The answer is to be found in the general principles of canon law. Canonists and moral theologians (e.g., Cocchi, Michels, Noldin, Wernz-Vidal, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Zalba) commonly teach that a human ecclesiastical law can become harmful (nociva, noxia) due to changed circumstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.

This, I contend, is exactly the case with the 1951–1956 Holy Week rites.

One cannot therefore maintain that the application of this principle (cessation of law) to the Holy Week changes contradicts the teaching of dogmatic theology that the Church is infallible when she promulgates universal disciplinary laws.

On this point, therefore, there is no inconsistency whatsoever in the sedevacantist position."

http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2010/07/an-important-article-on-the-1951%E2%80%931956-holy-week-reform-appears/
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 08:34:44 AM by Anonimus »
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

Anonimus

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2018, 10:01:44 PM »
A slightly different approach:

Here is Fr. Cekada's position on how the Pius XII Holy Week changes can be avoided

-Even if Pius XII was a valid Pope

-And even if none of the particular rubrical changes were evil in themselves:

"If the rites were not evil in themselves, on what basis could one now criticize them or refuse to follow them?

The answer is to be found in the general principles of canon law. Canonists and moral theologians (e.g., Cocchi, Michels, Noldin, Wernz-Vidal, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Zalba) commonly teach that a human ecclesiastical law can become harmful (nociva, noxia) due to changed circumstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.

This, I contend, is exactly the case with the 1951–1956 Holy Week rites.

One cannot therefore maintain that the application of this principle (cessation of law) to the Holy Week changes contradicts the teaching of dogmatic theology that the Church is infallible when she promulgates universal disciplinary laws.

On this point, therefore, there is no inconsistency whatsoever in the sedevacantist position."

http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2010/07/an-important-article-on-the-1951%E2%80%931956-holy-week-reform-appears/

Incidentally, the following study shows that John XXIII refused Pius XII's concocted Holy Week rites in 1959, and used the traditional Catholic rites instead:

"Pope John XXIII himself, in 1959, at the celebration of Good Friday at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme followed the traditional practices, thus making evident that he was not in agreement with the innovations recently introduced and that he recognized the experimental nature of those changes."

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen

OmegaTrad

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2018, 09:51:58 AM »
A slightly different approach:

Here is Fr. Cekada's position on how the Pius XII Holy Week changes can be avoided

-Even if Pius XII was a valid Pope

-And even if none of the particular rubrical changes were evil in themselves:

"If the rites were not evil in themselves, on what basis could one now criticize them or refuse to follow them?

The answer is to be found in the general principles of canon law. Canonists and moral theologians (e.g., Cocchi, Michels, Noldin, Wernz-Vidal, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Zalba) commonly teach that a human ecclesiastical law can become harmful (nociva, noxia) due to changed circumstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.

This, I contend, is exactly the case with the 1951–1956 Holy Week rites.

One cannot therefore maintain that the application of this principle (cessation of law) to the Holy Week changes contradicts the teaching of dogmatic theology that the Church is infallible when she promulgates universal disciplinary laws.

On this point, therefore, there is no inconsistency whatsoever in the sedevacantist position."

http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2010/07/an-important-article-on-the-1951%E2%80%931956-holy-week-reform-appears/

That's kind of a slippery slope, isn't it? 
 

Anonimus

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2018, 08:10:25 PM »
A slightly different approach:

Here is Fr. Cekada's position on how the Pius XII Holy Week changes can be avoided

-Even if Pius XII was a valid Pope

-And even if none of the particular rubrical changes were evil in themselves:

"If the rites were not evil in themselves, on what basis could one now criticize them or refuse to follow them?

The answer is to be found in the general principles of canon law. Canonists and moral theologians (e.g., Cocchi, Michels, Noldin, Wernz-Vidal, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Zalba) commonly teach that a human ecclesiastical law can become harmful (nociva, noxia) due to changed circumstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.

This, I contend, is exactly the case with the 1951–1956 Holy Week rites.

One cannot therefore maintain that the application of this principle (cessation of law) to the Holy Week changes contradicts the teaching of dogmatic theology that the Church is infallible when she promulgates universal disciplinary laws.

On this point, therefore, there is no inconsistency whatsoever in the sedevacantist position."

http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2010/07/an-important-article-on-the-1951%E2%80%931956-holy-week-reform-appears/

That's kind of a slippery slope, isn't it?

Well, if you take this argument in conjunction with the fact that John XXIII himself (whom many sedes hold to have been a true pope) deferred to the pre-Bugnini/Pius XII innovated rites, I do not think the argument in favor of the traditional rite can be dismissed.
 

ClemensMaria

Re: Is the 1956 Easter Vigil Protestant?
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2018, 09:46:13 PM »
Who cares what the fake pope J23 did?  He probably liked the reforms but he wanted to convince people he possessed authority so he did stuff that only a pope could do legitimately.  Now if Cardinal Siri had refused the P12 reforms then that would really be something.  Could be a signal that he was the true pope.