A "Bugnini-Free" Holy Week

 

As of the publication of this post, we are less than two weeks away from Palm Sunday. Some Traditionalist priests and bishops will be telling you to have a "Bugnini-free" Holy Week. They proudly reject the Revised Order of Holy Week, promulgated in 1955 by Pope Pius XII and taking effect in 1956. The primary reason for the rejection of the changes lies in the fact that in 1948 there was a Commission for Liturgical Reform with Father Annibale Bugnini as Secretary; the man who would later become a primary composer of the Novus Bogus "mass" of 1969. 

Annibale Bugnini (1912-1982), was a priest and theologian. Ordained in 1936, he went on to get his Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) from the Angelicum University in 1938. He had a major role in drafting the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concillium, produced by the Robber Council Vatican II. In January 1964, Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) appointed Bugnini Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy. On February 13, 1972, Montini himself "consecrated" Bugnini as a  "bishop" according to the defective and invalid Rite the false pope approved in 1968. There is substantial evidence that Bugnini was a Freemason; a charge he denied. According to historian Yves Chiron, Bugnini is said to have replied, "I would never have taken that step." (See Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy, [2016], pg. 174). That reply is rather telling. Rather than a strong condemnation of a Satanic secret society, he makes it seem like he refrained from doing so for some "pragmatic reason." Even if , ad arguendo, Bugnini was not a Freemason, he was a rabid Modernist who hated the Catholic Faith, and had quite the reputation for being deceitful. 

The Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) along with Bishop Dolan, the late Fr. Cekada, and other Traditionalist clergy, make the claim that the Revised Order of Holy Week was the work of Modernist/Mason Bugnini. Bishop Dolan wrote an article entitled Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass, with the first subheading stating "Was it Pius XII and John XXIII? Or was it really Bugnini?"(See traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=36&catname=6). Roncalli (John XXIII) is of no concern because he was a false pope, and any changes he made to the liturgy should be ignored as he had no authority to change anything. However, unless you are a "Vacancy Pusher," (i.e., one who pushes the time of the papal vacancy pre-1958) then the Reformed Rites of Holy Week, enacted by a true pope (Pope Pius XII), should be accepted, right? 

What at first blush seems to be a no-brainer, is made into a hot point of contention by these clerics. They make several claims that the pre-Pian Order of Holy Week is to be used, to wit:

• Bugnini, the Modernist/Mason, was behind the Revised Order of Holy Week and crafted it

• The Revised Rites of Holy Week "led to" the abomination of the Novus Bogus

• The Revised Rites contain principles which "became harmful over time" and therefore "cease to bind"

• We can't appeal to "the last true pope" for guidance since we cannot be sure Roncalli and (early) Montini were not true popes, so if we appeal to the standard of "the last true pope"we wind up with more changes through early 1964. Those changes were destructive. 

• Epikeia tells us that if we had a true pope (Pius XII), or a true successor, they would abolish the Revised Rites in light of what we now know

• The Revised Rites "lack stability" necessary for a law to be maintained

• The Church has no authority to make changes to the liturgy, especially such noble Rites from antiquity

Not all of the above comes from Bishop Dolan or the SSPV, but it is a compendium of reasons I've heard and/or read from all those who reject the Pian Holy Week. The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), and other independent Traditionalist clergy accept the Pian Holy Week. If there is to be unity among Traditionalists so as to get back a true pope, I think agreeing on Holy Week is as good place to start. As Fr. DePauw told me, "We should accept everything in the Church as it was on October 9, 1958 [the day Pope Pius XII died] and reject all that came after." I think it is a good starting principle. In this post, I will demonstrate why the Revised Holy Week of Pope Pius XII should be accepted by Traditionalists. 

There is one consideration to be kept in mind; all the clergy who reject the Revised Rites of Holy Week accept Pope Pius XII as the last known true pope of the Roman Catholic Church who reigned from March 2, 1939 until his death on October 9, 1958. 

Can the Church Change the Mass and/or Other Liturgical Rites?

1. The Church cannot change the substance of the Sacraments.

It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments-- (See Pope St. Pius X, Ex Quo Nono, 1910). 

For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over “the substance of the Sacraments,” that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs... If it [the handing over of the instruments of sacrifice] was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.---(See Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, (1947), para. #1, and 3; Emphasis mine). 

2. What constitutes the "substance of the Sacraments"? 

According to theologian Leeming, "Whatever Christ Himself has instituted...by common consent of the theologians, a more specific definition must include the signification of the Sacrament, i.e., what the Sacrament is meant to do, what grace it gives; which signification must be expressed in some external rite." (See Principles of Sacramental Theology, [1956], pg. 424). 

Therefore, the Church could not change bread and wine for the Eucharist, or alter the Words of Consecration. Nor could She substitute milk for water in Baptism or replace the Trinitarian formula as the form.  

3. The pope has the authority to change all Rites as long as the substance of the sacraments remains untouched.

Canon 1257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that "Only the Apostolic See has the right to regulate the liturgy [i.e., the ritual of public worship] and to approve liturgical books. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 2:512).  

 It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.--(See Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, para. #58; Emphasis mine).

4. The Council of Trent did not rule out changes to to the Mass and liturgical ceremonies.

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

That canon in no way states or implies that by making changes, the Pontiff who makes such changes is thereby asserting that the former ceremonies, vestments, and signs were  deficient or incentives to impiety. 

5. Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V did not preclude future changes to the Mass. 

Fr. DePauw used to cite Quo Primum (1570) as a means of getting people away from the Vatican II sect. When the local Vatican II sect clergy would tell people to stay away from "schismatic, evil, and disobedient" Fr. DePauw, he would cite the Bull of St. Pius V to say "Every priest can offer the True Mass--Pope St. Pius V said so!" For simple Catholics with little theological formation and wanting to remain true to the Church--it put their mind at ease and they by and large ignored the traitorous clergy of the Vatican II sect. Fr. DePauw himself (as an approved pre-Vatican II canonist) knew that it did not mean that no changes could be made; only that non-Catholic changes are excluded as the Church always taught. The language of Quo Primum sounds foreboding:

... whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, 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...

Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

"Valid henceforth, now and forever..."does not mean it can not be changed in the future, nor does "no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition" mean that a future pope cannot change it. It is what we call in civil law "boilerplate language." It means that no cleric, except for Pope St. Pius V or a future pope can change it. How do we know this to be the case?

(a) No canonist or theologian ever taught that Quo Primum meant the Mass could never change. No one even gave that document a second thought until Fr. DePauw used it for a specific purpose as the Great Apostasy began.

(b) Pope Pius XII and the Code of Canon Law would be in error for teaching that the Supreme Pontiff can "recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification." However, they are not wrong because the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws, such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. (More on this aspect of infallibility later on). 

(c) In the very front of every pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum, after Quo Primum, is the decree Cum Sanctissimum of Pope  Clement VIII (1604). Only 34 years after Quo Primum, changes were made. Some assert these changes were merely "restorations" from accretions to the Missal and nothing was added. This is demonstrably false. To give but two examples of additions:

1570: The prayer of St. Ambrose, Summe Sacerdos, is not divided into parts.

1604: The Summe Sacerdos is divided into sections for various days of the week.

1570: The general rubrics are not numbered. Within the general rubrics there is no mention of ringing a bell, incense or torchbearers.

1604: The general rubrics are numbered. Ringing a bell, incense and torchbearers are included in the rubrics along with additions such as describing the preparation required for the altar.

(See Paul Cavendish, in an article for Altar No. 1, 1994 "The Tridentine Mass"). 

5. Doesn't this vindicate the Novus Bogus "mass"? Why oppose those changes?

It does nothing to legitimize the Novus Bogus for two reasons:

(a) It was not promulgated by a true pope and was based on the heretical decrees of a Robber Council with no authority, and;

(b)  there were changes to the substance of the sacraments and incentives to impiety. 

The Church is Infallible in Her Universal Disciplinary Laws

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls...The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Hermann, "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…" ( See Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae 1:258; Emphasis mine).

Therefore, to be infallible in this sense means that the Church cannot give that which is erroneous, evil, or an incentive to impiety. It does not mean that once a certain ceremony has been adopted by the Church it cannot change; rather, the new ceremony will also be infallibly guaranteed to be free from error, evil, and impiety.  Logical corollary: If the Pian Holy Week was approved by a true pope (Pope Pius XII), then it must be good, holy, and Catholic. 

Objection: Bugnini was behind those Rites, and Modernists/Masons are evil. 

Yes, Bugnini was one of the primary creators, but a true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from all error in promulgating universal disciplinary laws for Christian worship. ("Universal" means not limited to a particular territory, it does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. Hence, since the Revised Rites of Holy Week are binding on all Latin Rite Catholics everywhere, it is a universal or general law of the Church--See canonist Bouscaren, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, [1951], pg. 27). Not everything to come out from that Commission was approved. Bugnini was no doubt trying to put in some bad things with some good. Yet, the Holy Ghost would only allow that which was good to be promulgated.  If Pius XII was pope, the Holy Ghost protected all Pius did in the Liturgy. Bugnini can say 2+2=4 and he's not automatically wrong because he's a Freemason.

In his article The Pius XII Reforms: More on the Legal Issue, Fr. Cekada writes, "The 1950s liturgical legislation introduced these things here and there, and on a limited basis. Taken individually, none was evil in itself." 

(See traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P12MoreLegal.pdf). 

Then how do they become harmful as a whole? This is never even attempted to be explained by those rejecting the Pian Rites. Ironically, this comes after what amounts to a litany of charges as to what is seriously wrong and/or deficient in various aspects of the Revised Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. Fr. Ricossa, in his article Liturgical Revolution, has a bulleted list of twelve "other innovations" of the 1955 Holy Week, all of which were "used and taken advantage of [in] the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their [Modernists] revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy." Yet, none of these innovations, (we are assured) was "evil in itself." However, taken as a whole (we are once more assured), they became "evil over time." 

In his just referenced article, Fr. Cekada lists certain "false principles and practices," such as: the vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy, the priest’s role is reduced, lay participation must ideally be vocal, etc.--much like Fr. Ricossa. These were incorporated into the Novus Bogus of 1969. If a principle is wrong, it's always wrong, and does not become wrong. If the vernacular may never be an integral part of the liturgy, then it was wrong when Pope Pius XII introduced it, which is impossible, unless you want to say he wasn't pope. To give another example, if genuflecting on Good Friday for the Jews is false in principle, then how could it be "not evil in itself" in 1956, but the same exact practice somehow became evil in 1969? It could only be wrong when promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1955 (impossible unless you are a Vacancy Pusher), or it was never wrong. 

The application of the principle may be wrong, but not the principle itself.  Therefore, there was nothing that could have "become harmful." To use an analogy, praying to saints is good and laudatory. Certain "High Church" Anglican heretics, offer their invalid and heretical liturgy in honor of St. Thomas More as a "Martyr of the Reformation (sic)." The dishonoring of St. Thomas More through a false service that equates him with others who were Protestants in no way derogates from the principle that praying to saints is good, or that honoring St. Thomas More is in some way "rendered harmful" because of what some heretics have done.

Therefore, the Pian Holy Week could not be evil if promulgated by a true pope. Its detractors have also failed miserably in their attempt to prove it became "harmful over time."

Objection: Well, then what about the later changes of John XXIII and Paul VI? Roncalli might have been pope, and maybe even Montini prior to signing Lumen Gentium in 1964. Why not follow those changes?

I don't believe for one second that Roncalli or Montini ever attained to the papacy. Conceding, ad arguendo, they did, we nevertheless have good reason to doubt the validity of Roncalli's and Montini's election on several counts. As theologian Szal explains, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 2; Emphasis mine).  Since we can suspect the elections of Roncalli and Montini, we can safely disregard their "laws" at any stage. Not so Pope Pius XII. 

Objection: Pope Pius XII may not really have signed his approval. He was sick and perhaps not in his right mind or manipulated.

This is mere speculation without any evidence. Without evidence to the contrary, we should accept Pope Pius XII as in his right mind. Only a qualified psychiatrist  at that time could make such a determination. Moreover, there are two facts that weigh heavily against the idea that Pius was not in his right mind: (a) even the Revised Holy Week detractors admit the changes are not evil in themselves and (b) no Catholics were shocked or objected to them as was the case with the Novus Bogus in 1969. Had Pope Pius XII lost his use of reason, he couldn't function as pope and Bugnini would have put through changes that were evil per se. Finally, a true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost against manipulation in these matters. 

Did the Revised Holy Week "Lead To The Novus Bogus"?

Did the dogma of Purgatory lead to Protestantism? It's a ridiculous argument. Proper principles were misapplied. To help the people better understand the Sacred Mysteries of three days out of the year, the vernacular was used in some parts. This hardly translates to throwing out Latin and using only the vernacular all the time. Fr. Cekada produced a video in which he concedes that the changes made were not evil or heretical, but since Montini claimed they were the first step towards the Novus Bogus "mass," they should no longer be used because they give credibility to that notion. Pius agrees, and Fr. Cekada returns to 2018. The video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsEOsohZKM. Actually, the argument works the exact opposite to what Fr. Cekada states. Since the reforms of Pope Pius XII were not the first steps to the "new mass," Montini lied (no surprise there). By refusing to use those reforms, it makes their rejection seem to stem from the fact that they were the first steps to the Novus Bogus "mass"---why else would you reject them? Furthermore, please explain to me how a false mass of a false pope, created by a false sect came about from true reforms initiated by a true pope. It's nonsensical. 

Heretics routinely appeal to true teachings to justify their heresy. The wicked document Lumen Gentium of Vatican II contains the heretical ecclesiology that is the basis of the Vatican II sect. There are citations within that "document from Hell" to St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius XII, and Pope Leo XIII (to name but three orthodox Catholic authorities). Did the teachings of Aquinas, Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII somehow "lead to" the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II? The very idea is absurd. 

Did the Pian Rites "Cease to Bind"?

There are two reason given for the argument that the Revised Rites cease to bind: (a) they became harmful over time (I have already shown this to be false), and (b)they lack "stability" and were not meant to be permanent. The Code of Canon Law deals with laws that cease to bind intrinsically in Canon 21. According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "There should be in every law an element of permanence. But it is not necessary that a law should be perpetual...A law ceases to exist when it ceases to be reasonable...If not the whole purpose, but only the partial purpose of the law is defeated, the law survives..." (See The Sacred Canons, [1952]1:43-44).  Stability is something that a law should (not must) possess, and there is no express time set down. The Pian Holy Week was in effect for five years (1956-1960, inclusive) before Roncalli started doing real damage. Is five years enough to say it ceases to bind? There is no citation to any competent authority by the anti-Revised Holy Week clerics that sets up a definitive time. There is also no attempt to show the law is (a) unreasonable, or (b) lost its entire purpose.

Objection: What about epikeia as a basis of rejection?

According to canonist Bouscaren:

Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. It is evidently a very exception thing. It may be used with prudent discretion, and is justified, only in a particular case where: (a) the strict interpretation of the law would work great hardship; and (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may be prudently conjectured that, in this particular case, the legislator would not wish the law to be strictly applied. (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, [1951], pgs. 33-34). 

One must be careful when invoking epikeia, for as theologians McHugh and Callan note:

There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one’s ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now. (See Moral Theology [1924]1:141).

The burden of proof is clearly on those invoking epikeia to prove with reasonable certainty that Pope Pius XII wouldn't want his reforms to continue by virtue of great hardship or in view of the usual interpretation, he would want them to cease. I have seen no such evidence--only blind conjecture and speculation. 

An Examination of the Revised Holy Week: Truly Catholic 

1. Why Revise the Ancient Rites?

The Sacred Congregation of Rites put forth a document Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria, which set forth the Revised Order of Holy Week. It was approved and promulgated by His Holiness Pope Pius XII on November 19, 1955 and would take effect starting with Holy Week in 1956. 

It states:

In the beginning these rites were celebrated on the same days of the week and at the same hours of the day at which the sacred mysteries took place. Thus the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist was recalled on Thursday, in the evening, at the solemn Mass of the Lord’s Supper. On Friday a special liturgical service of the Lord’s Passion and Death was celebrated in the afternoon hours. Finally, on the evening of Holy Saturday the solemn vigil was begun, to be concluded the following morning in the joy of the Resurrection.

But in the middle ages, for various concomitant reasons, the time for observing the liturgy of these days began to be anticipated to such a degree that – toward the end of the middle ages – all these liturgical solemnities were pushed back to the morning hours; certainly with detriment to the liturgy’s meaning and with confusion between the Gospel accounts and the liturgical representations referring to them. The solemn liturgy of the Easter Vigil especially, having been torn from its own place in the night hours, lost its innate clarity and the sense of its words and symbols. Furthermore, the day of Holy Saturday, invaded by a premature Easter joy, lost its proper sorrowful character as the commemoration of the Lord’s burial.

While the Church must never conform to the world, She sometimes has to make it easier to reach those most in need of Her doctrines and sacraments. There were very few people in the increasingly pagan, modern world who could get the time off work to attend these grace-laden rights. People also need to get up for work on Friday, and even on Saturday, so some shortened prayers and ceremonies still are holy and convey the truth while meeting the needs of the people. It is also more solemn to celebrate Good Friday during the actual time Christ died for our sins. People could now attend Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday--maybe even taking just a half-day off work and make Good Friday services as well.

There is a tendency among Traditionalists to eschew any change as evil in reaction to the Great Apostasy and the Vatican II sect. It reminds me of the time in Church history during the 1940s, when exposure to different religions in America, combined with crypto-Modernists in the hierarchy, led to spreading the heretical idea that the Church wasn't really necessary to salvation and everyone was saved by some ersatz "Baptism of Desire." Going into heresy on the opposite side, Leonard Feeney and his evil followers denied the true teaching of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood in an overblown reaction. We must remember the axiom, In medio stat veritas---"In the middle lies the truth."

Pope Pius XII reduced the number of lessons recited from twelve to four, reverting to the practice of St. Gregory the Great. The holy pontiff extended the duration of Lent (and thereby the Lenten fast) until midnight when Holy Saturday becomes Easter Sunday. In so doing, there was a full 40 day fast, not 39 and one-half day fast. Abstinence for Holy Saturday was all day to midnight as well. It also ensured Holy Saturday retained its mournful character, as opposed to dressing in white and singing alleluias while Our Lord's Body lies in the Holy Sepulcher. 

In 1954, Pope Pius XII revised the Divine Office, omitting several prayers before the hours (Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and Credo), the preces at Lauds and Vespers (with some exceptions), etc. The purpose of these modifications, according to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, was "to reduce the complexity of the rubrics to a simpler form." Many of these changes had already been introduced into the Monastic Breviary by Pope St. Pius X (not exactly a "Modernist"). Through the influence of the Benedictines, Pope Pius XII extended those changes to all clergy, who welcomed them to more faithfully and devoutly fulfil their recitational duty. 

Pope Pius XII allowed the faithful to receive Holy Communion on Good Friday at the Mass of the Presanctified. Fr. Ricossa dares to (erroneously) assert that this change was condemned by Pope St. Pius X. In Father's article Liturgical Revolution, he writes:

 On Good Friday, communion was now distributed, contrary to the tradition of the Church, and condemned by St. Pius X when people had wanted to initiate this practice

The decree  Sacra Tridentina: On Frequent and Daily Reception of Holy Communion, promulgated on December 20, 1905, in no way says what Fr. Ricossa claims when read in context. Jansenism, a heretical movement beginning in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, discouraged frequent Communion. Pope St. Pius X referred to this problem in his decree:

Piety, however, grew cold, and especially afterward because of the widespread plague of Jansenism, disputes began to arise concerning the dispositions with which one ought to receive frequent and daily Communion; and writers vied with one another in demanding more and more stringent conditions as necessary to be fulfilled. The result of such disputes was that very few were considered worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist daily, and to derive from this most health-giving Sacrament its more abundant fruits; the others were content to partake of it once a year, or once a month, or at most once a week. To such a degree, indeed, was rigorism carried that whole classes of persons were excluded from a frequent approach to the Holy Table, for instance, merchants or those who were married. 

Jansenism required such rigorous standards of preparation because of its overall belief “that there are some commands of God which just men cannot keep, no matter how hard they wish and strive” as stated in one of the five propositions of Jansenism condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.

Pope St. Pius X wrote that several of his predecessors in the papacy had made statements against these rigorist views:

The poison of Jansenism, however, which, under the pretext of showing due honor and reverence to the Eucharist, had infected the minds even of good men, was by no means a thing of the past. The question as to the dispositions for the proper and licit reception of Holy Communion survived the declarations of the Holy See, and it was a fact that certain theologians of good repute were of the opinion that daily Communion could be permitted to the faithful only rarely and subject to many conditions. (Emphasis mine).

The saintly pope condemned those who (like Feeneyites would do) went to the opposite extreme:

They held that daily Communion was prescribed by divine law and that no day should pass without communicating, and besides other practices not in accord with the approved usage of the Church, they determined that the Eucharist must be received even on Good Friday and in fact so administered it.(Emphasis mine). 

What Pope St. Pius X condemned was the idea by some that daily Communion was demanded by Divine precept and for that reason, demanded (and gave) Holy Communion on Good Friday against the current discipline in the Church. The pope condemned "people [who]  had wanted to initiate this practice" because they held to the heretical notion of daily Communion mandated by Divine Law. Pope St. Pius X never condemned the idea of receiving Holy Communion on Good Friday per se. 

2. Other Wise Reforms

Evening Mass and Modified Eucharistic Fast

Pope Pius modified the Eucharistic fast because (a) he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator, and (b) there was good reason for it. With the increasing secularization of the world, people had to work on Holy Days of Obligation, and sometimes on Sundays (police officers, doctors in hospitals, etc.) with it being harder and harder to take off and make ends meet for their families. They had to miss Mass and say an extra Rosary that night and/or read devoutly from the missal. Pope Pius therefore allowed evening Masses. The ancient fast began at midnight. If I'm working and the Traditionalist Chapel near me has an 8pm Mass, I would need to go over twenty (20) hours without food. Many people due to infirmity, old age, or the need to keep their strength for work (especially in manual labor) would not be able to do it. They would have to go to Mass and abstain from Communion, or risk their health and job performance. With his decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus (referenced above), Pope St. Pius X encouraged frequent Holy Communion, not as a reward for the just but as the antidote to sin. The Saint said, "Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven." By mitigating the fast to three hours before Communion (water and medicine don't break the fast and may be taken at any time), Pope Pius XII was ensuring the will of His Predecessor was continued. I agree with some of my readers who say that, if you can do so without harm to your health or occupation, the midnight fast should be voluntarily kept as penance. Those who cannot do so (such as my now deceased mother who was sickly most of her life), should not be the least afraid to avail themselves of the modified fast. 

Pope Pius XII changed some feast days and made some changes in the Mass rubrics.

As I stated above, yes, he did, and he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator. He instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (August 22) and The Queenship of Mary (May 31). On May 1st, the day used by Communists as "May Day" to show the might of Marxism, Pope Pius made it the feast of St. Joseph the Workman. Here he clearly shows the proper understanding of labor exemplified by St. Joseph as opposed to the evil system of Karl Marx. With Cum hac nostra aetate (March 23, 1955), he slightly changed the rankings of feasts, eliminated some octaves and suppressed the Proper Last Gospels for the usual Last Gospel of St. John. None of the above makes him a promoter of heresy or evil. 

Please remember also that the Commission did not consist of Bugnini sitting by himself in a room and trying to get Pope Pius XII to sign things promoting evil or that could become evil. Many good, holy, orthodox clergy were on that Commission for Liturgical Reform and approved of the changes that were given to Pope Pius XII for his consideration to be promulgated. 

Conclusion

Traditionalists should rally around the Revised Rites of Holy Week, and keep all that was in place when the last known true pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, died on October 9, 1958. Does that mean it is wrong or sinful to attend the pre-1955 Holy Week of the SSPV, et al? Unlike some Traditionalist clerics, I realize I have no Magisterial authority and refuse to "make up sins." The pre-1955 Rites of Holy Week are just as beautiful, holy, and Catholic as the Pian Rites. Although I believe the Pian Rites should be followed (and this after much study), I am just a layman who runs a blog. Period. I possess no authority to make my opinions binding on anyone. 

If Pope Pius XII had been given a vision of the Great Apostasy by God, is it possible he wouldn't have made those changes? Is it possible he would not want them to bind us under today's circumstances? Not probable, but yes, possible. Therefore, as long as such is possible (and many clergy were now taught in the seminary the Pian Rites no longer apply), we should not call any clergy or laity "schismatic" for attending at SSPV or elsewhere where the pre-1955 Rites are used. Nevertheless, it is my hope that Traditionalists can all start to agree on 10/9/58 as our point of where we accept all Church practices. 

So during the week of March 28, 2021, whether you attend the Pian Holy Week, or the pre-Pian Holy Week, remember that a true pope promulgated those Rites. As such you can rest assured they are both Mason-free, Modernist-free, and, of course, "Bugnini-free."