How the Feast of the Purification was Morphed into the Presentation
exsurgedomine.it

Lumen ad revelationem

Tu es qui restitues hæreditatem meam mihi. Ps 15:5 My eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of every people. With these words, the aged Simeon praises …
Susan Bromley
On the other hand, the feast of the Circumcision “morphed” into the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God and hence became another Marian holy day. “Mother of God”, how offensive is that to Protestants? And completely destroys ++Vigano’s anti-Marian, pro-Protestant conspiracy nonsense. 😂
Susan Bromley
The typical hysterical and conspiratorial fake news we’ve come to expect from Abp. Vigano (andnot withstanding the fact that ++Lefebvre approved the 62 missal, used it himself, and instructed all SSPX priests to use it).
It was always the case before VII: “The Canonical Hours, from Ancient Sources. By a Catholic Priest.” (1868)More
The typical hysterical and conspiratorial fake news we’ve come to expect from Abp. Vigano (andnot withstanding the fact that ++Lefebvre approved the 62 missal, used it himself, and instructed all SSPX priests to use it).

It was always the case before VII: “The Canonical Hours, from Ancient Sources. By a Catholic Priest.” (1868)
Sean Johnson
Well that’s a rather glaring error. I wonder where he got the notion? Hmm.
Susan Bromley
Brilliant! As always… 🙄
Sean Johnson
Telling that you still use female pseudonyms 😉
Susan Bromley
Total paranoia. You need to seek help.
Sean Johnson
Heightened awareness
Sean Johnson
This type of subversion is why we simply hold fast to the pre-Pius XII Holy Week rites.
The oft-repeated retort by 1962 apologists, quoting Lefebvre, that “if it is not against the faith, we must accept it” falls on deaf ears, because obviously this kind of subversion is clearly against the faith, even if not strictly heretical.
Those apologists making that argument are either ignorant of this …More
This type of subversion is why we simply hold fast to the pre-Pius XII Holy Week rites.

The oft-repeated retort by 1962 apologists, quoting Lefebvre, that “if it is not against the faith, we must accept it” falls on deaf ears, because obviously this kind of subversion is clearly against the faith, even if not strictly heretical.

Those apologists making that argument are either ignorant of this history (and therefore the evil purpose and motive of such reforms made against the faith), or are simply unthinking partisans. And I might add, it is often the former which creates the latter.