It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:47 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ] 
 Pope Pius XII's Holy Week reforms. 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Pope Pius XII's Holy Week reforms.
Hello to all,

I was just wondering if anyone had read Fr. Cekada's relatively recent article on the Pius XII Holy week reforms at traditionalmass.org. I have been looking into Fathers claim that the reforms were merely a stepping stone to the Novus Ordo, and are therefore not binding. Would anyone care to give me their impressions of the article....critiques or praises?




In Jesus and Mary,
Bill


Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:27 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Bill,

I would urge you to read this thread which also dealt with the disciplinary laws of Pope Pius XII. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... c.php?t=55

I have the utmost respect for Fr. Cekada, but in this instance I respectfully disagree with him on this. What possible reason can there be to refuse obedience to a good law? The 1955 reforms of Pope Pius XII came from the Church, therefore, they are good, holy and incentives to piety.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:30 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 12:53 am
Posts: 49
Location: Red Bluff, CA, USA
New post 
Below is the body of an email I sent to Fr. Cekada about a month ago in response to his article. He responded saying he's been really busy, but will answer it when he can.
---------------------------------

Thank you for your article on the Pius XII Holy Week changes. This is a question I have had some difficulty with lately, with respect to how we can reject the liturgical laws of a true pope.

In your first point, on the transitory nature of the reforms, all of the quotes you gave were from Bugnini. But since a law is an act by a legislator, isn't it the legislator's intent that is relevant, and not the man who merely drafted the law or advised the legislator?

As to the second point, I don't understand what the changed circumstances are. If the circumstances are the modernists' intentions that this be the first step to a massive destruction of the Church, then the circumstances didn't in fact change. It already existed at the time the law was passed. And to say that these evil intentions can be attributed to the law itself would seem to say the devil slipped one past the Holy Ghost and used the Church's authority for evil.

So, my main difficulties are three:

1. What becomes of the indefectibility of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost if we assert that a heretic has used the authority of a true pope to promulgate a liturgy that is harmful to the Church?

2. How is this distinguishable from the SSPX's "pope sifting"? If we don't draw the line between true popes and false popes, then where do we draw it? It seems we could hardly criticize the SSPX for picking and choosing what they accept from their "pope". Even more frighteningly, must we make the same judgments about earlier popes? What about the liturgical laws of St. Pius X? St. Pius V?

3. How do we reconcile this with obedience to lawful authority? It seems we are questioning the wisdom of the legislation instead of accepting the judgment of the Church on it.


Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:38 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Thanks Mike,

I appreciate the discussion link. I'm wondering if the principles Father uses are sound. Namely:


1) That the reforms lacked "stability or perpetuity" and are therefore merely tranisitory. (and are therefore not binding)

2) The principle of "cessation". i.e. an ecclesiastical law being voided when it becomes harmful through a change of circumstances. (which seems to be a principle traditionalists use frequently)


It seems the main thrust of Fathers arguement lies in this idea of cessation. That the reforms were stepping stones to overtly heretical liturgical disciplines, and may therefore be legally ignored. Does anyone have any authorities for these principles? (I ask because I am genuinely ignorant of them. Not because I am questioning Father) Though I must say that I tend to agree with you Mike. Call me ole fashioned, but it seems rather simple...if the Pope says to do it.....do it.

In Jesus and Mary


Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:16 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Alessio Larrabee wrote:

Quote:
What becomes of the indefectibility of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost if we assert that a heretic has used the authority of a true pope to promulgate a liturgy that is harmful to the Church?


Is this (in bold) really what is being asserted? I do not believe that anyone has said that these liturigical changes were in and of themselves harmful to the Church.

I am unaware of any conflict between Traditionalists with respect to the the Mass of Pius X vs. the Mass of John XXIII or the pre/post 1955 Holy week rites. I believe that CMRI uses the 1962 Missal and the post-1955 holy week rites.


Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:22 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

I was hoping this topic wouldn’t be brought up. Because it is a subject that I respectfully disagree with Fr. Cekada, Bishop Sanborn, and Bishop Dolan. I do not like to outline what is different from us Catholics, but a thread was formed regarding this very topic.

My uneducated view of this distressing topic;

Why do I disagree with these respected clerics and accept the 1955 Holy Week Liturgy?

1. A true Pope signed the Decree, and as weighty theologians teach that the Church’s infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws — she “can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.”G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology (Westminster MD: Newman 1959) 2:91. And : Herrmann, Dorsch, Schultes, Zubizarreta, Iragui and Salaverri.

2. " Specifically, that the Church claims infallibility for herself in liturgical decrees is established by the law at the Councils of Constance and Trent solemnly enacted regarding Eucharistic Communion under one species." Salaverri. Sacrae Theologiae Summa 5th Edition 1:722,723

Upon reading the history, it does appear that this change was not the beginning of a Liturgical " renewal" or revolution, but rather its culmination. Pope St. Pius Xth did wish " to restore all things in Christ", thus his approval of childrens Holy Communion, etc. Prior to the 1955 Holy Week Restoration few if any laymen assisted at the Holy Week Liturgies.

Granted after the death of Pope Pius Xiith, what was completed in the 1955 Liturgy was then hijacked by the modernists.

Any way, the arguments I have heard raised by the anti-1955 Holy Week Catholics have mostly been weak arguments ( in my limited and humble few) Here are the arguments I am referring too;

* The Solemnity of St. Joseph was suppressed in the new Holy Week Rite.

False: March 19 is still St. Joesph's Feast Day, however, since it most always fell during lent the " Solemnity" was not celebrated. Pope Pius XII with the 1955 Holy Week Rite also added the Universal May 1st " Feast of St. Joseph the Worker" so his feast could be celebrated yearly with the proper solemnity.

* The new Holy Week Rite is heretical
False: see the citations above, and not to mention, there is nothing harmful, nor, heretical regarding the New Rite.

* One holy priest that is anti-1955 Rite, told me that receiving Holy Communion on Good Friday is heretical.. I could not find any citation to back that up. He also stated that Bugnini camped at Pope Pius XIIth bedside " inundating him with constant requests to ' sign the 1955 decree".. until in a moment of " weakness" ( for lack of sleep I suppose) The Holy Father singed it.........

Again, I could find nothing to back up this assertion either.


I hope I have not offended any of the " non-attending 1955 Holy Week Catholics on this forum. I just cannot in good conscience formed by the approved Theologians, reject a true Popes Decree on matters that fall firmly within his powers as Vicar of Christ.

In Christ our King,
Vincent


P.S. I love Fr. Cekada and hold him in the highest esteem as a Priest and Theologian, however, so far on this topic I cannot agree with him, and found his recent paper " non-convincing".


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:41 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Alessio Larrabee wrote:

Quote:
What becomes of the indefectibility of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost if we assert that a heretic has used the authority of a true pope to promulgate a liturgy that is harmful to the Church?


Is this (in bold) really what is being asserted? I do not believe that anyone has said that these liturigical changes were in and of themselves harmful to the Church.

I am unaware of any conflict between Traditionalists with respect to the the Mass of Pius X vs. the Mass of John XXIII or the pre/post 1955 Holy week rites. I believe that CMRI uses the 1962 Missal and the post-1955 holy week rites.


Robert,

The CMRI does not use any rite from John XXIII. They follow the 1955 revisions of Pope Pius XII, and for that matter follow all law until the death of Pope Pius XII.

The issue here is not about conflict between different traditional groups, rather, the real issue is what is the truth. I would hate to see such an issue cause division, and for the most part it has not, but I am aware of some exceptions to that unfortunately, with some Catholics who refuse to attend the revised rites approved by Pope Pius XII.

I think it is productive that this issue be discussed in charity, and it should be discussed, as the implications of this are very serious. Many people who reject the 1955 rites that I know of, have used the argument that Bugnini was responsible for it. But, we know that the rite was approved by the Pope, so Bugnini's involvement is irrelevant, as this is a universal disciplinary law of a pope.

I am not saying that Fr. Cekada is saying that, but many laypeople that I have spoken about this do say things such as that, and it is scandalous.

Also to Alessio, Vincent and Bill, I think you all have posted very edifying posts on this subject, to which I am in agreement with all of you on this. I put my trust in the Church, which cannot lead me astray, and which cannot lead me to impiety, and I will not question in any sense an approved rite of the Catholic Church. That is my position in a nutshell.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Reply to Mike
Mike, as you know, this is a subject on which my opinion lies between the two extremes.

I just wanted to question one part of your reasoning.

You say:

Quote:
The 1955 reforms of Pope Pius XII came from the Church, therefore, they are good, holy and incentives to piety.


I think this is ambiguous. The word "reforms" might mean the liturgy as it existed after the changes or it might mean the act of making those changes.

Now I agree we may not say that the revised Holy Week liturgy approved under Pius XII is harmful: we must admit that even after the reforms the Church's Holy Week liturgy was indeed good, holy and favourable to piety.

But I am not aware that the infallibility of universal liturgical laws requires us to believe that the liturgy after the reforms of Pius XII was as good, holy and favourable to piety as before. And I certainly don't think we are requred to believe that the decision to make those reforms was good, holy and incentive to piety.

As I understand it, popes may act unwisely in modifying law and it is perfectly permitted to entertain respectful regret with regard to some such changes.

And I do regret the Holy Week changes, both in themselves and on account of the fact that they facilitated the Vatican II reforms. Highly respected and orthodox priests expressed regret at the time and pointed out objectionable features of the changes made and I never heard it said that they were failing in their duties by expressing this view.

However I agree with you that the law is now the law and I find it hard to see a sufficient case for not obeying it.

As a layman, not bound by any preceptive rubrics, I prefer not to genuflect at the prayer for the Jews or to participate in the vernacular profession of faith or the communal Pater Noster of Good Friday, for instance, but if I were a priest I would grit my teeth and obey, offering the sacrifice (and there are priests who obey this law despite suffering intense pain at the changes) for the end of the crisis and that God may grant us a new pope who will judge whether the 1955 changes should be retained, amended or entirely annulled.

John


Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
John,

Thank you for pointing that out. What I should have said was the "Rite of Holy Week approved by Pope Pius XII," rather than using the word "reforms." My apologies for any confusion.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:34 pm
Profile
New post Pope Pius XII's Holy Week Reforms
It is my understanding, after reading the letter of "the nine" SSPX priests (Kelly, Cekada, Dolan, Sanborn, Jenkins, etc.) written to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1983, that is the reason they were "ejected" from the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre, because they refused to change saying the Mass of St. Pius X and say the 1962 Mass. The SSPX North-East District said the Mass of St. Pius X exclusively. They said that the 1962 Mass was the precursor of Vatican II. I don't remember seeing anything about their rejecting the 1955 changes. I also read that Pope Pius XII was quite ill during the time that Bugnini was doing his work "behind the scenes", and an old Traditionalist priest told me that those 1955 changes were not necessary and he felt that Piux XII was misinformed by Bugnini. At that point in time, much was done clandestinely, and in the 1950's the Church appeared to be prospering, with many vocations, etc. The Communist infiltration wasn't as apparent as it is in retrospect (per testimony of Bella Dodd).

Pat Beck


Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:55 pm

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
I fully understand why someone might have difficulty returning to the pre-1955 Holy week rites. So please understand where I am coming from on this issue. I also do not believe that anyone who has written on this subject either demands or implies that all Catholics must return to the pre-1955 rite. The fact that a few laymen have adopted this view is unfortunate; but there are a whole host of things that some traditional Catholic laymen do that are unfortunate. They are the exception and not the rule; although unfortunately, many of us will probably admit that at one time or another we ourselves have been the exception.

I find the arguments of Bp. Dolan and Fr. Ricossa quite convincing in that the revisions in the Holy week rites were a stepping stone to the later changes that were being planned by the same individuals involved in the 1955 changes. This in no way should be construed as saying that the post-1955 Holy Week rites were incentives to impiety or in some way evil.

Quote:
Granted after the death of Pope Pius Xiith, what was completed in the 1955 Liturgy was then hijacked by the modernists.


I can’t see that the evidence supports the above statement. The evidence appears to be that the changes were part of the modernist’s plans. Again, this should not be construed as saying that these rites were harmful in and of themselves. No, Pius XII did not approve something harmful to souls or an incentive to impiety and no one is claiming that except a few misguided individuals. It appears that the changes that followed these earlier changes truly were incentives to impiety. We all agree on that I presume.

May a Pope approve of a change that is somewhat less that what it replaced? I don’t know what would prevent this from occurring.

Does the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium prevent this from occurring?
I’ll quote Mr. Lane (and hopefully it applies...if it does not I petition him to correct me :) ) from a previous post, “In the case of the authentic magisterium Franzelin says that there can be no error which would endanger the Faith. In other words, there may be error, but the teaching will still be safe.”

Could the changes that resulted in the 1955 rites be “in error”, as something less than a good idea, but “safe” nonetheless?


Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:04 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
For the benefit of those involved in this discussion, I will post the full text of the decree promulgating the Holy Week Rites approved by Pope Pius XII. This text is not online, so, you may want to keep a copy of it. So as to not overwhelm this thread, I will post it on a separate thread.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:59 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Thanks Mike for posting that on the other thread. Keep in mind, that some writers during Pope St. Pius Xth lifetime accused him of being " liberal" as well, i.e.' lowering the age for First Communion, introducing the ' Dialogue" Mass etc.

In Xto,


Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:39 pm
Profile
New post Pope Pius XII's Holy Week Reforms
Pope St. Pius X did not introduce the Dialogue Mass - correct me if I am wrong, but I belive it was Pope Pius XII.

Pat Beck


Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:28 am

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post Pope Pius XII, Bugnini and Gradualism!
Dear Friends in Christ, Pax et Bonum.

I have been reading with interest this thread and cannot refrain from offering an act of gratitude to the forum members who are kind enough to give of their energy and thoughtful replies and inquiries and statements. Forum discussions have been most helpful, to say the least, but also somewhat confusing at times. :lol:

So, in gratitude, here is a powerful article by Dr. Thomas Droleskey, new to " The Four Marks" publication, but not new to Tradition. (I mentioned his G.I.R.M. Warfare - the Betrayal of the Body of Christ book on another thread.) Dr. Droleskey is even now writing a book on this very subject of Pope Pius XII and Bugnini's so-called "restoration." This "restoration" is based on the false representations made by Bugnini to Pius XII.

This article will clear up a lot of questions, hopefully. Do read it!
http://www.christorchaos.com/PresagingaRevolution.html

Here is an excerpt:
Quote:
The ceremonies for Holy Week are some of the oldest parts of the Church’s liturgy, which is why it is important to understand how the attack upon the integrity of the liturgy of Holy Week was an important part of the attempt by the likes of then Father Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M. and Father Annibale Bugnini, C.M., to introduce major changes into that liturgy so as to accustom Catholics for change and novelty as an ordinary fact of the liturgical life of the Church. The effort to destroy the integrity of the Holy Week liturgy was part of the “gradualism” of those who had coopted the Liturgical Movement and made it the vessel of their plan to Protestantize Catholic worship and doctrine.

One of the best places to find food for spiritual thought and an excellent description of the purity of the unreconstructed Holy Week ceremonies as they were codified in the Missale Romanum issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570 is Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year. A careful review of Dom Prosper Gueranger’s narrative will reveal how much was changed fifty years ago this year, when the “restored” Holy Week that had been approved by Pope Pius XII in November of 1955 was first offered, and why it is necessary for Catholics to seek the restoration of Missale Romanum issued by Pope Saint Pius V, who forbade any alterations whatsoever. Consider these telling words in Quo Primum:

“We likewise declare and ordain that no one whatsoever is to be forced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force. . . . Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should 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.”


May we find a refuge, a hiding place, within the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced for our salvation. Amen.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:45 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

I must make a correction, the Dialogue Mass was introduced in 1922. ( Mea Cupla ! )

Abba- I do not think we want to post " conspiracy " theories. The Church's is infallibility extend to the Liturgy. And Pope Pius XII made the 1955 Holy Week Law. It is not harmful to Souls, in fact it had the desired effect, more laymen assisting during the Holy Week Rites. Please read the decree Mike posted regarding the 1955 Holy Week Rite.

Most of the changes dealt with the additions, and time changes made in the Rite during the middle ages.

For one example- Was it a advantage to the faithful to have the Paschal fire lit in the middle of the day on Satruday? Or retrun it to its proper place at night?

In Xto,

Vincent


Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:02 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Vince wrote:
Quote:
Abba- I do not think we want to post " conspiracy " theories.


Dear Vince,

Huh? If you mean Bugnini, the term is apt! Otherwise, what did you mean?

BTW, Dr. Droleskey is a highly regarded Traditional Catholic. He knows more about the Church than many Traditional Catholics, and he is very careful in his sources. He has many of his articles vetted by Traditional Catholic priests who themselves are highly respected and well-informed in our Faith. He is the founder of Christ the King College, a professor, has a doctorate in Political Science and ran on the pro-life party's ticket for office in the State of New York.
He is a published writer of several Traditional Catholic books.

If you chose to criticize his writing, then offer some reason, Vince. But please don't just make one-sentence remarks with no explanation, and which leads others to think there is something seriously wrong with this article I recommended. Okay? (I would put a smiley here normally, but I consider your remark somewhat careless, in light of no explanation.)

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Quote:
One of the best places to find food for spiritual thought and an excellent description of the purity of the unreconstructed Holy Week ceremonies as they were codified in the Missale Romanum issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570 is Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year. A careful review of Dom Prosper Gueranger’s narrative will reveal how much was changed fifty years ago this year, when the “restored” Holy Week that had been approved by Pope Pius XII in November of 1955 was first offered, and why it is necessary for Catholics to seek the restoration of Missale Romanum issued by Pope Saint Pius V, who forbade any alterations whatsoever. Consider these telling words in Quo Primum:


Abba,

With respect to Dr. Drolesky, this is a very similar line of reasoning to others out there, and it follows the same fundamental error. He appeals to Quo Primum as though it was binding on a future pope's power over disciplinary laws, and in this case over the Holy Week rites. What Pope Pius XII did was perfectly lawful, and within his power as pope.

What is missing from his article is a statement saying clearly that the 1955 revision of the Holy Week rites are infallibly protected from any error or impiety, and are good and beautiful rites as they are from the Church. The Church cannot produce anything except that which is good, holy and pleasing to God.

All of the talk of Bugnini in relation to his involvement with the revised Holy Week Rites may be interesting, but it is totally inconsequential to the issue here. The only issue here is that these revised rites came from the Church.

Think of this another way, the entire Catholic clergy of the Roman Rite from Pope Pius XII himself, to the bishops and priests accepted and used the revised Holy Week rite beginning in 1956. This Holy Week rite approved by the pope was accepted universally by the Church in peace. The old pre-1955 rite was no longer used, and all priests were bound by law to the revised rite. The 1955 Holy Week rite was the universally used rite of the Catholic Church prior to the state of sedevacante. Therefore, it is the rite of the Church today, and the rite must be treated and spoken about with great respect as it is from the Church.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Dear Mike,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will approach Dr. Droleskey with your thoughts verbatim and ask him for a response since this is an important matter, imho.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Dear Abba,

I do like Dr. Drolesky, but keep in mind the following;

1. A true Pope signed the Decree, and as weighty theologians teach that the Church’s infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws — she “can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.”G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology (Westminster MD: Newman 1959) 2:91. And : Herrmann, Dorsch, Schultes, Zubizarreta, Iragui and Salaverri.

2. " Specifically, that the Church claims infallibility for herself in liturgical decrees is established by the law at the Councils of Constance and Trent solemnly enacted regarding Eucharistic Communion under one species." Salaverri. Sacrae Theologiae Summa 5th Edition 1:722,723


Dr. Drolesky is a non-sede, who writes in open criticism of the very people he thinks are true Pontiff's. His writing are replete with the theme true Popes can cause grave harm to Souls on matters of Faith and Liturgy.

Pope Pius XIIth was a true pontiff, therefore, I do not " doubt" nor criticize his decree on the 1955 Holy Week.

Since the Pope as Vicar of Christ cannot error on the Liturgy, the 1955 Holy Week is not harmful to the Faith. Bugnini’s involvement is in my view inconsequential , for example- as Judas was one of the 12. No harm was allowed to the purity of the Deposit of Faith.


Did you read the decree ?

In Xto,


Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Abba wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will approach Dr. Droleskey with your thoughts verbatim and ask him for a response since this is an important matter, imho.


Dear Abba,

I would be very happy to hear his reply. I also have an admiration for Dr. Drolesky, especially his tireless defense of the unborn and defense of the Social Kingship of Christ. I have heard him speak on this subject, and his zeal can stir your heart.

I also remember when he was running for public office in NY, I believe against Alphonse DeMato, for the U.S. Senator seat. If only he could have won, how much better our country would have been and would be today.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Vince,

Let's bear in mind that Dr Droleskey's position has recently undergone a pronounced development in the pro-sedevacantist direction. That being the case it would be churlish to reproach him past writings which he may no longer be entirely happy with himself. When a man realises he has been wrong about one or more points in the present crisis he has to review his convictions. A celebrated English film actor who converted to Catholicism, Sir Alec Guinness, memorably described this process as "rearranging the furniture of one's mind". It takes time.

Specifically in his recent article for The Four Marks Dr Droleskey's expressed the wish to see the Pius XII Holy Week reforms disappear down the memory-hole. I would maintain that there is nothing unorthodox or disrespectful to Pope Pius XII in this wish. A future pope could accomplish it by the stroke of a pen.

No doubt the infallibility of universal liturgical laws forbids us to see an intrinsically harmful liturgy in the new Holy Week. But we can still regret a great deal. And in the light of the subsequent Novus Ordo we can also consider the New Holy Week harmful in an accidental or extrinsic way.

The change of timetable for Masses in Holy Week is specifically stated to be obligatory even if for some reason if it is not possible to follow the rest. (Some priests in fact follow the old liturgy with the new timetable.)

But personally I in fact see a very grave objection even with the new timetable: the problem of Mass with public administration of Holy Communion in the afternoon and consequent abandonment of the requirement of the communion fast from midnight.

The change is lawful and has a good effect in making it possible for more people to assist and receive Holy Communion. But globally viewed it seems to me that Catholics would have retained a greater sense of reverence and a greater spirit of mortification as well as a greater fidelity to tradition if no exception has been made to the very ancient rule of fasting from midnight for Holy Communion.

As a matter of fact in Ireland, prior to the popularity of frequent communion under St Pius X it was commonplace to observe a total fast not only from midnight but throughout the entire day preceding the communion and sometimes longer. Catholics who lived like that were not about to succumb to Vatican II. Yes, we have lost something! But, no, that does not mean that the present 1955 law is not for the time being obligatory.

John


Last edited by John Daly on Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
I'm not sure if this is a valid analogy but, here goes:

The Holy week revisions, in a way, seem analogous to the time when Saint Pius V promulgated the Bull Quo Primum. He called for all rites newer than 200 years to cease and as I am sure you all know, codified the Mass we have today. This Missal was not new but was the Missal that was restored to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.

This makes me wonder if there were priests and lay people who were used to the missal they were using and were disenchanted with the "new" Missal. It seems to me that in 1570 there must have been a few people that were unhappy with the "changes." I would also like to inquire whether there were schisms on account of the "new" Missal.

I am sure the vast majority had no problem with the revised Missal but, it makes me think that there were some who liked their "old rite" and had a general dissatisfaction with the "new" one. Did these people commit any sin or were they in any way impious because they liked their "old" Mass more than the "new?" I don't think so, things like this sometimes can be a matter of taste and preference.

On a side note, I wonder if Saint Pius V observed the Dominican rite or the "new" rite?


Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:09 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Dear Mike, Pax et Bonum.

I did inquire of Dr. Droleskey and here is an excerpt from his thoughtful reply:

Quote:
[T]here was a clear effort on the part of Bugnini to change the Mass in order to presage the Novus Ordo Missae, as I indicate in my article. False representations were made to Pope Pius XII, the same false representations that were made to justify the Novus Ordo Missae.

Quo Primum means what it says. Father Perez is entirely correct when he talks about the "curse" of Quo Primum. We are suffering from the wrath of God and of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Pope Saint Pius V meant to close all future liturgical development, save for the addition of feast days.

I will deal with this somewhat in my next article, which will disucss the "improvements" in the Novus Ordo Missae.


I wish to also state that I know from reading almost every single article written by Dr. Droleskey for the past year that he has a great respect and much gratitude for the reign of Pope Pius XII. He quotes him often, too.

I understand that it can be difficult for some who have appreciation and devotion to good Pope Pius XII to hear the opinions of other Traditional Catholics, including sedevacantists, including priests and Bishops, who exclusively use the pre-1955 Missal of Pope Pius V, seeming to criticize His Holiness Pope Pius XII's judgment, acts, whatever was involved in the changes of the Missal.

However, Dr. Droleskey's article, IMHO, seems quite clear and reasonable as to his position.

The one thing I will not do is to debate in the name of Dr. Droleskey as this would be entirely unjust to him. I appreciate that you have not expected that of me, Mike. As for my own position, you have probably gleaned that I have preference for the Pope Pius V codification of Holy Week, and have no desire to participate in anything ala-Bugnini. I realize, too, that Father Bugnini was most likely not yet known - by Pope Pius XII nor contemporaries - for the scoundrel he was - a wolf in shepherd's clothing!

I do think that preferring the Pope Pius V Holy Week liturgy is a personal preference I am entitled to as a discerning Traditional Catholic. I read as much as I can if it is by someone theologically sound, and comprehend as best I can and as best as grace allows. I cannot "debate" in such a discussion as this, I can only offer an opinion based on hopefully sound resources. I can and have offered an opinion, along with a credible resource - Dr. Droleskey. I think that will be respected on this forum and I should not be under robust confrontation for my guileless views. I am also willing to read others' opinions and hold them in respect and not confront them as non-credible, unless they are blatantly against Catholic thought.

:arrow: Mike, I appreciate greatly your tone of gentlemanly exchange with a gentlelady - me! It goes a long way in helping one retain composure and peaceful thought in a discussion about something this important to so many members of this Forum. :D


May The Sacred Heart of Our Blessed Lord Jesus plead for all on this forum, that we may all happily meet in Heaven one day!
Through the Mercy of God, may the soul of Robert Plumb, and all the souls of the Faithful departed, rest in peace. Amen.

God Bless you, Ardith

p.s. John Daly's thought hereabove is edifying.


Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi,

Dear Abba,

. . .Did you read the decree ?

In Xto,



Yes. I offer my complete thought on this in the exchange with Mike. I appreciate your zeal in this matter. Please appreciate that I have a different opinion.

God Bless You, Ardith


Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !


Abba, many thanks for your thoughtful reply. However, if you or, Fr. Cekada, or Bishop's Dolan and Sanborn are waiting for the Church to decide on this matter ( i.e. 1955 Holy Week) it already has circa - Pope Pius XIIth.

What concerns me deeply is " IF" God grants us a Pope again in our lifetime this issue might become a source of schism. My fellow Catholics that are anti-1955 Liturgy appear to have convinced themselves that this Rite can and should be rejected. My humble view- Rome has spoken the matter is finished.

Keep in mind as John Daly has pointed out the 1955 Holy Week is Law. Not to mention, the majority of Traditional Catholics do accept the 1955 Holy Week. SSPX, CMRI, Indult attendee etc. This comprises a major share of the Traditional movement. I don't know the SSPV's position.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:51 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Abba wrote:
I can and have offered an opinion, along with a credible resource - Dr. Droleskey. I think that will be respected on this forum and I should not be under robust confrontation for my guileless views.


Dear Ardith,

You are running no risk whatsoever of being confronted "robustly" by any of us, for the reasons that you,

a) Own up to your source and don't pretend you worked it all out on your own, and
b) Express yourself diffidently and don't pretend to lecture others.

The few cases we've had here in which robust treatment was required were all examples which failed both of those tests (although failing either one would probably suffice). :)

I am a great admirer of Vince Sheridan, partly because he is such an all-round gentleman and an edifying example of Catholic fatherhood, but also because he is able (by some magic not yet communicated to me) to say perfectly clearly that he thinks that something has been settled by the Church without appearing to speak down to others or condemn those who might yet fail to agree with him. And he does this apparently quite effortlessly. Now I've no doubt embarrassed him but we could all learn something from his example.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Dear John, Pax et Bonum.

Thank you for your note. I respectfully remove myself from the forum. I wish you all well, and God speed. Keep your eye on the prize- Heaven. Please say an "Ave" for me.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:32 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Abba,

I agree with Vincent in his view that this issue could later lead to schism. The people that I have encountered who hold this view so very sure of themselves that a future pope will abolish the 1955 rite. I am not so sure of this. One question for starters that you should ask yourself is this: If a future pope states that the 1955 rite will be continued, will you readily submit to his decision? If you say that you will submit, that is good, but I am not sure of some others, who beleive the rite has been corrupted.

The other major problem in my view is this question: Can priests or laypeople during a long term state of sedevacante choose to not follow a papal law in force prior to the state of sedevacante? If so, where does it end? I also know of some other Catholics who will not follow Pope Pius XII's change in law on choirs, allowing mixed choirs under certain circumstances. They revert to the previous law under St. Pius X, and reject Pope Pius XII's law.

This all leads to one thing in my view, and that is a doubting of the Church's holiness. The Church can do nothing except that which is good for our souls. Since the 1955 rite came from the Church, it was a good law, so as I asked before, what possible reason can there be to not follow a good law?

The issue also is not just a matter of a personal loyalty to Pope Pius XII. I think he was a good pope, that is my opinion, I think others may differ, but I have never seen a well documented and scholarly case showing that he was not a good or effective pope.

This question may be one to ponder: Do you believe that Catholics in our time can review papal laws in force prior to the state of sedevacante, and decide which they will obey or which they will not obey? From my take on this, that is what these people are saying. They believe the 1955 was "corrupted" by Bugnini, therefore, they can reject it. What if other Catholics believe other laws were "corrupted?" Where does it end?

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:42 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Mike wrote:
I agree with Vincent in his view that this issue could later lead to schism. The people that I have encountered who hold this view so very sure of themselves that a future pope will abolish the 1955 rite. I am not so sure of this. One question for starters that you should ask yourself is this: If a future pope states that the 1955 rite will be continued, will you readily submit to his decision? If you say that you will submit, that is good, but I am not sure of some others, who beleive the rite has been corrupted.


Dear Mike,

I think in the absence of any strong evidence of a schismatic tendency, we need to confine ourselves to pointing out that whatever our view we must not hold it against the decision of the reigning Pontiff. Going further risks unnecessarily irritating the very souls you wish to assist, because it could be seen as an accusation that they are wedded to their opinion in a disordered manner. There is a question of justice here as well as charity.

Mike wrote:
This all leads to one thing in my view, and that is a doubting of the Church's holiness. The Church can do nothing except that which is good for our souls. Since the 1955 rite came from the Church, it was a good law, so as I asked before, what possible reason can there be to not follow a good law?


Mike, the teaching of the theologians is that the Church cannot issue a law which would be in itself harmful to souls because incompatible with sound doctrine of faith or morals. When Dylan reappears to answer my question regarding his assertion that this is de fide perhaps he will be so kind as to scan and post the entire section of Van Noort. It would be instructive for many, I think. My point here is to highlight that it is quite possible to affirm the intrinsic goodness of a law, considered in relation to sound doctrine of faith or morals, and yet also aver that a particular law was inopportune and that the Holy Father made a bad decision in issuing it. I hasten to add that only in the most extraordinary circumstances could one justly consider such a position, but it seems to me that the present circumstances are an example, because we have the benefit of hindsight. I agree that it is difficult to imagine a situation in which one could adopt such a view at the time a law is issued.

To my mind this is no different from the freedom with which the various authorities tackle the decision of Clement XIV to suppress the Jesuits. Likewise I think it is open to competent men to examine the reign of Pope Leo XIII particularly, to understand how it happened that following on the reigns of the outstanding popes Gregory XVI and Ven. Pius IX, such a catastrophic situation could grow up in twenty-five years that it took the genius and heroic virtue of Pope St. Pius X to rescue the Church from complete disaster.

Having said that, here is a sobering comment quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Suppression of the Jesuits: "Poor pope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we must keep silence, respect the secret judgment of God, and hold ourselves in peace". That from St. Alphonsus Ligouri, who really did believe what no traditional Catholic sedeplenist believes, which is that Our Lord Jesus Christ governs the Church through His vicars.

Mike wrote:
What if other Catholics believe other laws were "corrupted?" Where does it end?


The right terms must be deployed in the right way, otherwise you are quite right, there will be no end of mischief. And I certainly agree that we do not have the liberty to set aside Pope Pius XII's law. Any attempt to apply epikeia seems to me to invert the very principle invoked. But I could be wrong.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:08 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Whoa! Stay! Halt! Desist!

Of all the topics, in all the world, I would never have forseen that this one would have splintered the roof beam!

Can we not go a bit more slowly? There have been a few topics in Church history that have taken the best minds quite a long time to get right-side-up. Yet some of you want to cry "Enough!" and go sulking off into the weeds after three posts, two whimpers, and a morning coffee.

First of all, Abba (Ardith), get yourself back here this minute. You've said nothing that would convince us that we would do anything but miss your presence, so if you go missing, we're going to send out the St. Bernards.

:)

Secondly, apparently we've touched a hot button we didn't know we had here. I suggest we give it a little more time before we shoot anybody at dawn. And by " a little more time", I mean two full moons from now, or September of 2008, not three more posts.


Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:18 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Whoa! Stay! Halt! Desist!

Of all the topics, in all the world, I would never have forseen that this one would have splintered the roof beam!


Actually, I thought we were bouncing ideas around the room quite nicely with much good will and general cheer. I hope I'm not quite that unintuitive yet that I didn't notice the splintering roof-beam!

Geoff Tribbe wrote:
First of all, Abba (Ardith), get yourself back here this minute. You've said nothing that would convince us that we would do anything but miss your presence, so if you go missing, we're going to send out the St. Bernards.


Heel. :) Actually, Abba told me a couple of weeks ago she was wanting to reduce her time online and was intending to depart, so I don't think this discussion can be blamed.

And yes, let's not shoot anybody. Especially while those St. Bernards are wandering around out there. We don't want to hit one of them accidentally. Btw, are they carrying brandy?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:52 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

John Lane- many thanks for the very kind words. I consider it a high honor that you count me one of your mates.

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:13 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Vince,

The privilege is mine. Thank you. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:39 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
I find the entire “slippery slope” argument less than convincing here. Those who accept the “restoration” of the pre-1955 Holy Week rites are in no way headed down or towards any “slippery slope”...there is simply no evidence that this is occurring. If it does occur, then I will “jump ship” immediately.

I find the pre-1955 Holy Week rites quite beautiful and edifying and assist at them each year. It could very well be that many did not assist at these rites because they were not required to...and there must have been a great many lackadaisical Catholics in the 1950’s (and before) anyway...otherwise they would have never swallowed what came in the 1960’s “hook, line, and sinker”.


Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:31 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post 
Alessio Larrabee wrote:
Below is the body of an email I sent to Fr. Cekada about a month ago in response to his article. He responded saying he's been really busy, but will answer it when he can.
---------------------------------

Thank you for your article on the Pius XII Holy Week changes. This is a question I have had some difficulty with lately, with respect to how we can reject the liturgical laws of a true pope.

In your first point, on the transitory nature of the reforms, all of the quotes you gave were from Bugnini. But since a law is an act by a legislator, isn't it the legislator's intent that is relevant, and not the man who merely drafted the law or advised the legislator?

As to the second point, I don't understand what the changed circumstances are. If the circumstances are the modernists' intentions that this be the first step to a massive destruction of the Church, then the circumstances didn't in fact change. It already existed at the time the law was passed. And to say that these evil intentions can be attributed to the law itself would seem to say the devil slipped one past the Holy Ghost and used the Church's authority for evil.

So, my main difficulties are three:

1. What becomes of the indefectibility of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost if we assert that a heretic has used the authority of a true pope to promulgate a liturgy that is harmful to the Church?

2. How is this distinguishable from the SSPX's "pope sifting"? If we don't draw the line between true popes and false popes, then where do we draw it? It seems we could hardly criticize the SSPX for picking and choosing what they accept from their "pope". Even more frighteningly, must we make the same judgments about earlier popes? What about the liturgical laws of St. Pius X? St. Pius V?

3. How do we reconcile this with obedience to lawful authority? It seems we are questioning the wisdom of the legislation instead of accepting the judgment of the Church on it.


Fr. Cekada wrote a new article answering your exact questions in the email.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... &catname=6


Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:07 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 12:53 am
Posts: 49
Location: Red Bluff, CA, USA
New post 
Yeah, he emailed it to me in .doc format a few days ago, and I was trying to think how to post it. Nice to see it's online now.

It cleared things up in my own mind fairly well, especially on the "stability" point. I'm still a bit confused on the "changed circumstances" analysis, but I haven't formulated any follow-up questions yet.


Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:28 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Its in the decree
The 1955 Decree approved by Pope Pius XII authorizing the changes to the Holy Week specifically states the reasons for the change. The churches were "nearly deserted" during Holy Week, and as a good pastor of souls, Pope Pius XII approved the new rite, making it easier for Catholics of our times, i.e.. non-agricultural times, to attend the Holy Week Rites.

It is only the opinion of some that the rite lacks stability and perpetuity. The Holy See has not said this, as the See has been vacant, and we are bound to law prior to the state of sedevacante. There is no competent authority to make such a judgment on the 1955 Holy Week Rite, or any other law of the Church prior to the state of sedevacante, therefore, obedience to the law is obligatory.

Some may point out that in our times, it is necessary for the salvation of souls to apply the principle of epikeia to the law, and this is of course reasonable. But, in this case, some are stating on their own authority that the law no longer binds, and they are basing this mostly on the writings of a modernist, Fr. Bugnini. I would urge everyone reading this to re-read the post by John Lane with the excerpt from F.M. de Zulueta, S.J., http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... .php?t=136 to see a clear Catholic attitude towards the Church law.

Let us stick with the clear facts here:

1. Pope Pius XII was a lawful pope, with the power of binding and loosening the law. Everyone agrees on this fact.

2. Using his papal authority, the Pope in 1955 bound all priests of the Latin Rite to the new law as promulgated in the decree: Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... .php?t=112

3. During a state of sedevacante, it is unlawful for any changes in the law to be made, only the Pope has this power. It is also unlawful for priests or laymen to declare that a law no longer applies on their own authority.

4. Not everyone is agreed on the status of John XXIII or Paul VI. Only the Church can make a final declaration on their status, so the argument that if we accept Pope Pius XII's law, then we are then forced to accept laws from John XXIII or Paul VI is flawed. Since many of us have strong doubts of the lawfulness of the papal claims of John XXIII or Paul VI we are not bound by their laws, and we await a future pope to answer these questions for us. None of us however doubt the universally recognized fact that Pope Pius XII was a true and lawful pope, so there can be no question about obedience to his laws.

5. The Holy Ghost guides and protects the Church. It is impossible that the 1955 law was anything except for what God Willed for His Church, as this was a universal disciplinary law dealing directly with the liturgy.

6. The universal Church accepted this law in peace with the Roman Pontiff. The pope along with the bishops and priests of the world submitted to this law and obeyed it. The indefectibility of the Church would have prevented this revised rite from being anything but good, holy, pious and pleasing to God.

7. For these reasons, there should be no reason to question or doubt the goodness of this law, but to simply and humbly obey it in a spirit of docile obedience to the lawful authority of the Church.

8. The is law cannot be lumped in with the "liturgical revolution" of the 1960's as some say, due to the fact that this law came from the Church, therefore it is good and holy while the latter did not come from the Church.


Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:45 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: Its in the decree
Hello Mike,

Interesting post. Though I believe Father's piece addresses your major points of concern.

Mike wrote:
The 1955 Decree approved by Pope Pius XII authorizing the changes to the Holy Week specifically states the reasons for the change. The churches were "nearly deserted" during Holy Week, and as a good pastor of souls, Pope Pius XII approved the new rite, making it easier for Catholics of our times, i.e.. non-agricultural times, to attend the Holy Week Rites.


Yep.

Mike wrote:
It is only the opinion of some that the rite lacks stability and perpetuity. The Holy See has not said this, as the See has been vacant, and we are bound to law prior to the state of sedevacante. There is no competent authority to make such a judgment on the 1955 Holy Week Rite, or any other law of the Church prior to the state of sedevacante, therefore, obedience to the law is obligatory.


Well...it is only the opinion of some that the See is vacant.....or that the new mass is not valid....or that the new consecration rite for Bishops is null and void. The Holy See has not said these things, only "some" have. Your statement that there is "...no competent authority to make such a judgement...." rings true for all of these things as well as the "reforms" of 1955. We simply make the best decisions we can, informed by our Catholic faith, in light of the current crisis....and it is precisely because of this lack of a "competant authority" that we traditionalists sometimes invoke "epekia" in order to theologically justify setting aside certain laws. This is (I believe) Father's point in regards to the cessation of laws that through a change in circumstances becomes harmful to souls. His examples were....no longer requiring imprimaturs, permission to build churches, dismissorial letters; etc. In light of this, I believe it is a bit over-reaching to say, "...obedience to the law is obligatory." Well, of course it is....but our current situation makes that a bit difficult at times, hence the application of epekia.

Mike wrote:
Some may point out that in our times, it is necessary for the salvation of souls to apply the principle of epikeia to the law, and this is of course reasonable. But, in this case, some are stating on their own authority that the law no longer binds, and they are basing this mostly on the writings of a modernist, Fr. Bugnini. I would urge everyone reading this to re-read the post by John Lane with the excerpt from F.M. de Zulueta, S.J., http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... .php?t=136 to see a clear Catholic attitude towards the Church law.


Again, it seems to me that the "stating on their own authority" critique is liable to misuse. For example, the Novus Ordo crowd uses the same criticism of us. When confronted with this point, many traditionalists typically respond by pointing out that either the pre-Vatican II magestarium was wrong, or the post-Vatican II "magestarium" is wrong.....which magestarium do we choose? When we say we "choose" the former....are we "stating on our own authority"? I think not, and I daresay that Father would say the same thing. It seems to me that he's saying...."in light of the current situation, we are left with the judgements of canonists and theologians...who have repeatedly stated that a law ceases when it becomes harmful to souls. In absence of a living authority, we believe the 1955 reforms have "become" harmful, and have decided to embrace the old rites". (pardon my simplistic paraphrase) And please remember, Father has never said the "reforms" were in and of themselves harmful. He has repeatedly stated that they have "become" harmful through a change in circumstances.

Mike wrote:
Let us stick with the clear facts here:


Absolutely.

Mike wrote:
1. Pope Pius XII was a lawful pope, with the power of binding and loosening the law. Everyone agrees on this fact.


Yes.

Mike wrote:
2. Using his papal authority, the Pope in 1955 bound all priests of the Latin Rite to the new law as promulgated in the decree: Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... .php?t=112


Agreed.

Mike wrote:
3. During a state of sedevacante, it is unlawful for any changes in the law to be made, only the Pope has this power. It is also unlawful for priests or laymen to declare that a law no longer applies on their own authority.


I don't think Father is talking about a "change in the law"...but rather a "cessation" of a law. That's a huge difference. Your fact #3 would be valid if Father Cekada were trying to change the rubrics or insert and delete prayers. But this is not the case. He is stating that this law has become harmful, and therefore may be legally set aside. As to the "stating a law no longer applies on their own authority" point.....traditionalists have to do this often, but again, it's a bit "off" to say their simply doing it on there own authority, given the crisis of the church today.

Mike wrote:
4. Not everyone is agreed on the status of John XXIII or Paul VI. Only the Church can make a final declaration on their status, so the argument that if we accept Pope Pius XII's law, then we are then forced to accept laws from John XXIII or Paul VI is flawed. Since many of us have strong doubts of the lawfulness of the papal claims of John XXIII or Paul VI we are not bound by their laws, and we await a future pope to answer these questions for us. None of us however doubt the universally recognized fact that Pope Pius XII was a true and lawful pope, so there can be no question about obedience to his laws.


Father's point was that if your guiding principle is "follow whatever the last true Pope said"...then you may have to extend your "cut off" point further than you'd like.

Mike wrote:
5. The Holy Ghost guides and protects the Church. It is impossible that the 1955 law was anything except for what God Willed for His Church, as this was a universal disciplinary law dealing directly with the liturgy.


Well, I suppose God has "willed for his Church" to issue imprimaturs, and have papal mandates when consecrating Bishops. Yet, in light of out current situation, these things are not possible. The point being, God may indeed "will" something for his church, but the circumstances change, and dictates a cessation of a particular law. That appears to be the basis of epekia.

Mike wrote:
6. The universal Church accepted this law in peace with the Roman Pontiff. The pope along with the bishops and priests of the world submitted to this law and obeyed it. The indefectibility of the Church would have prevented this revised rite from being anything but good, holy, pious and pleasing to God.


Agreed. Father did not say the 1955 reforms were in any way evil or impious in and of themselves.

Mike wrote:
7. For these reasons, there should be no reason to question or doubt the goodness of this law, but to simply and humbly obey it in a spirit of docile obedience to the lawful authority of the Church.


Mike wrote:
8. The is law cannot be lumped in with the "liturgical revolution" of the 1960's as some say, due to the fact that this law came from the Church, therefore it is good and holy while the latter did not come from the Church.


It seems you and Father Cekada are "talking past each other". The debate is not wheather the "reforms" were evil or impious, but wheather the reforms have become harmful. Father is saying that the 1955 legislation has become harmful because it provides a stepping stone to the Novus Ordo. It substantiates the notion that the liturgy is an organic entitiy that can become something other than what it is. Given the statements of the architects of these reforms, and the ultimate outcome of the modernist liturgical revolution, I believe it's hard to deny the logical and historical progression from the Holy Week reforms to the Novus Ordo. Remember as well; it is indeed true that the church cannot give the faithful an evil law...but she can (if I remember Mr. Lanes quotations) give a law that is imprudent, or perhaps not the "best" choice given the circumstances or situations. The churches laws are infallibly "safe"....not infallibly "the best" or "most prudent". (Please correct me if I'm wrong here Mr. Lane) The real discussion to have is.....have the 1955 reforms become harmful?

I must say, Father's articles on the reforms have given me some food for thought. Thank you for the opprutunity to discuss this Mike.

In Christ,
Bill


Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:17 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

I wonder why we are still discussing a matter that is Law in the Catholic Church?

a. Pope Pius XIIth by his rightful authority approved the 1955 Holy Week Rite
b. Holy Week Rite experienced rubric changes even after 1570.

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:56 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Its in the decree
Hello Bill,

Quote:
Well...it is only the opinion of some that the See is vacant.....or that the new mass is not valid....or that the new consecration rite for Bishops is null and void. The Holy See has not said these things, only "some" have. Your statement that there is "...no competent authority to make such a judgement...." rings true for all of these things as well as the "reforms" of 1955. We simply make the best decisions we can, informed by our Catholic faith, in light of the current crisis....and it is precisely because of this lack of a "competant authority" that we traditionalists sometimes invoke "epekia" in order to theologically justify setting aside certain laws. This is (I believe) Father's point in regards to the cessation of laws that through a change in circumstances becomes harmful to souls. His examples were....no longer requiring imprimaturs, permission to build churches, dismissorial letters; etc. In light of this, I believe it is a bit over-reaching to say, "...obedience to the law is obligatory." Well, of course it is....but our current situation makes that a bit difficult at times, hence the application of epekia.


The position of sedevacante is a response that applies Catholic theology to our present situation. In this case we are making a private judgment prior to the public judgment given by the Church. You bring up the principle of epikeia, to which traditionalists have recourse to a benign interpretation of the law for a specific case. This is not what Fr. Cekada is arguing, he is stating that the universal law no longer applies, because in his view the law lacks stability and that changed circumsances have caused the law to become harmful. You have tried to reason out Fr. Cekada'a position using epikeia, but that is not his argument.

All of the examples that you mention, ie. buidling churches, dimissorial letters, printing without an imprimatur, etc., are all specific cases where epikeia is invoked due to the necessity for the salvation of souls and the common good. The 1955 revisions to the Holy Week, on the other hand are not harming souls, and a correct ecclesiology forces us to hold that that they were good for the Church.

Quote:
Again, it seems to me that the "stating on their own authority" critique is liable to misuse. For example, the Novus Ordo crowd uses the same criticism of us. When confronted with this point, many traditionalists typically respond by pointing out that either the pre-Vatican II magestarium was wrong, or the post-Vatican II "magestarium" is wrong.....which magestarium do we choose? When we say we "choose" the former....are we "stating on our own authority"? I think not, and I daresay that Father would say the same thing. It seems to me that he's saying...."in light of the current situation, we are left with the judgements of canonists and theologians...who have repeatedly stated that a law ceases when it becomes harmful to souls. In absence of a living authority, we believe the 1955 reforms have "become" harmful, and have decided to embrace the old rites". (pardon my simplistic paraphrase) And please remember, Father has never said the "reforms" were in and of themselves harmful. He has repeatedly stated that they have "become" harmful through a change in circumstances.


How do the revised Holy Week Rites become harmful? This universally used rite of the Catholic Church which absolutely cannot harm souls and came from the Church, has somehow become harmful due to a the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, a rite that is not from the Church and is harmful to souls. Huh?

There is a world of difference between that which comes from the Church and that which does not. The 1955 Holy Week Rite comes from the Church, therefore it cannot in any way be equated with the Novus Ordo.

Quote:
I don't think Father is talking about a "change in the law"...but rather a "cessation" of a law. That's a huge difference. Your fact #3 would be valid if Father Cekada were trying to change the rubrics or insert and delete prayers. But this is not the case. He is stating that this law has become harmful, and therefore may be legally set aside. As to the "stating a law no longer applies on their own authority" point.....traditionalists have to do this often, but again, it's a bit "off" to say their simply doing it on there own authority, given the crisis of the church today.

The 1955 law came from the Church, it cannot be harmful to souls, not in 1955, and not today. This is not a case where following the law can harm souls, and epikeia can be invoked such as the ordination of priests, performing solemn baptisms, hearing confessions, etc. In this case, there is no harm to the common good, no harm to souls, as the 1955 Holy Week Rite can only be an incentive to piety. The approved rites of the Catholic Church, and the 1955 rite of Holy Week is one of them, can never harm souls, and are always pleasing to God and acceptable to Him.

Quote:
Father's point was that if your guiding principle is "follow whatever the last true Pope said"...then you may have to extend your "cut off" point further than you'd like.


My guiding principle is adherence to the laws of the Church. In this case, Pope Pius XII bound the Church to this law. If I were in conscience convinced of the claim of John XXIII, then I would follow all law until his death.

Quote:
Well, I suppose God has "willed for his Church" to issue imprimaturs, and have papal mandates when consecrating Bishops. Yet, in light of out current situation, these things are not possible. The point being, God may indeed "will" something for his church, but the circumstances change, and dictates a cessation of a particular law. That appears to be the basis of epekia.


Yes, God has Willed that for his Church, through disciplinary laws of the popes. In ordinary times, it would be grossly unlawful to print works on the faith without an imprimatur or to consecrate a bishop without permission from the Pope. As stated before, these examples are ones that we use to justify actions for the salvation of souls and for the common good. We need to learn about the state of the Church, to help to us avoid modern errors, so it can be reasonably argued that epikeia can be applied in our times. We need priests and we need the sacraments, so we argue that the lawgiver would allow priests to be ordained without authorization.

If I found some book publishing the memoirs of a modernist who says that he was influential in Pope St. Pius X's reform of the Roman breviary, am I then allowed to determine that this was a harmful law as well?

How many traditional chapels have you attended where women sing in the choir? Are you aware that Pope Pius XII in 1955 also loosened this law as well, allowing mixed choirs. This was a major change, and a reversal of Pope St. Pius X's law allowing only men in the choir.

Pope Pius XII's lossening of the Eucharistic fast to three hours was also very significant. The law of antiquity has always held that the fast be from midnight forward. This was a major shift in the law, but are we to question this as well? Do we claim that this law has become harmful due to it being promulgated in the 1950's when Bugnini was operating in Rome behind the scenes?

The Catholic answer: Of course not, we follow the the laws as they stood prior to the state of sedevacante, and humbly submit to them.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Pope Pius XII - Mediator Dei
These principles taught by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei, may help with this discussion. The full text of the encyclical is here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/encyc ... 2MEDIA.HTM

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow -- keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact -- to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]

58. 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.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.


all emphasis is mine


Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Mike,

The entire debate centers on wheather the reforms have become harmful. You say they have not, Father says they have. My post was simply a reply to what I saw as a misunderstanding of Father's article. Some of the points you are making are simply off the mark, as Father is not argueing that the churches disciplinary laws can be inherantly harmful, or that Popes cannot "change" things up a bit. I would also like to see what authority you have that states the disciplinary laws of the church can never become harmful. I also think that the current "change in circumstances" are rather monumental. It's not just the intent of the modernists, or the promulgation of a phoney "mass". It's the loss of a living authority, which would ultimately decide this question for us. (the question being....are the reforms harmful)

As it seems that the "cessation of a law occurs when it brings harm" is a legitimate theological principle, the real quetion is then, are the reforms harmful? You say they cannot be...ever. I think they can, through a change in circumstances...and as I stated above, there has certainly been a few changes in our circumstances. I would also like to point out again, that the churches laws are infallibly "safe"...and when these laws are given to the faithful, they can have full assurance that these laws are not harmful. But that does not mean, that the laws are the most prudent or the "best" given the situation. There were legitimate concerns expressed when the reforms were promulgated, and these concerns were not counted as disobiediance or a sign of impiety.

This is not a question I'm going to sink my teeth into anytime soon. I've only ever attended the "New Holy Week Rites" and I have no intention af abandoning this practice. I think Father's claims that the reforms are harmful have to at least in part be supported by reality...and among the CMRI, SSPX, and all of the other traditionalists who use the reforms, I have not seen the negative fruits of these "harmful" rites. Though I know this cannot be the sole criteria to resolve this question. I can only say once again that I find Father's articles on this subject thought provoking, and I cannot deny the historical and logical connection between the reforms and the Novus Ordo.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion Mike.

In Christ,
Bill


Last edited by Bill on Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Mike wrote:

The onus of proving that a universal disciplinary law has become harmful is not on me but on the one who states that it has become harmful. Fr. Cekada argues that a received and approved rite of the Catholic Church has become harmful to souls based on the promulgation of a rite that was not approved by the Church in 1969 and also on the memoirs of the modernist Fr. Bugnini.


I tend to agree. Though I think Father's reasons for the reforms becoming harmful are a bit more nuanced.

Mike wrote:
Yes, my statement is clear, that a rite approved by the Pope for the universal Church, and accepted by the Church can never become harmful to souls. The rite is from the Church, therefore the indefectibility of the Church prevents this from ever happening. Interestingly enough, Fr. Cekada has defended this principle, and has used this very argument to demonstrate that the Novus Ordo could not have come from the Church. Here are some references that you requested, interestingly enough this was compiled by Fr. Cekada, http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... c.php?t=55


Sorry Mike. I just don't see any of these references saying that the church's disciplinary laws can never become harmful because of a change in circumstances. Besides, I thought this was a point you accepted with the examples of imprimaturs and dismissorial notes?

Mike wrote:
I stated that the rite was not harmful when it was put into use in 1956, and is not harmful to souls today. I base my argument on the infallibility of the universal disciplinary laws, and the fact that the Church cannot give anything except that which is good and pious in its liturgical laws.


Alright. Though I don't think the infallibility of the church's disciplinary laws are at question here. I think your taking something we both agree on, namely the infallibility of the church's disciplinary laws, and applying it to the situation of a law becoming harmful. The latter in no way detracts from the former.

Mike wrote:
Time is irrelevant to this. If you accept that Pope Pius XII was the last pope, then you must accept the fact that his laws are still in force. This being the case, the 1955 Holy Week rite is still in force, and is the current law of the Church and cannot be harmful to souls. The rite is in force today just the same as if Pope Pius XII were himself going to use the rite in St. Peters for next years Holy Week, as was used by the Church in 1956-1958 under the direct authority of the Pope and the bishops of the world.


Ok. We've already addressed this point.

Mike wrote:
If you do not see the danger in this, I do not know what else to say.


Mike, of course I see the danger in this. But let's face it, there is a danger in the entire traditionalist critique of the Conciliar Institution. We all tread dangerous ground, and we simply pray that all of our judgements are pleasing to Our Blessed Lord and are in accordance with the mind of the church. My point is, just because something is "dangerous", doesn't mean it's wrong.

Mike wrote:
Have you ever wondered why they have this problem in the first place? The easiest thing for a Catholic to do in our times, is just simply live in obedience to all laws passed down to us prior to the state of sedevacante. I can't figure out why they even want to go down this road to begin with.


Well, I think you know why they go down that road, you just disagree with their reasons. And I agree, the easiest thing for us to do is obey the laws of the church. Though this requires a bit more theological acumen than it did prior to Vatican 2.

Mike wrote:
Thank you also for the discussion.


Have you ever noticed the civility and politeness that permeates this forum? It's such a breath of fresh air. Thank you for contributing and helping me iron some things out Mike.

In Christ,
Bill


Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:08 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Mike wrote:
If an approved rite of the Catholic Church could become harmful, then it would be our duty as Catholics to continuously examine the rites to see if they are becoming harmful to souls. This is absurd and is directly at odds with the indefectibility of the Church.


Dear Mike,

I'm not sure that the word "rite" is sufficiently precise to convey the truth in this context. The Church could never compose a prayer which could become harmful, over time, agreed. But could there be a liturgical law which, because of a change of circumstances, became a cause of harm? Well, how about the law which permitted Holy Communion to be taken in the hand? That became an occasion of sacrilege and scandal and was changed as a result. The law was not per se evil, of course. But the change in circumstances rendered its effect harmful instead of good. It seems to me that this is why law must, occasionally, be modified. It is, at bottom, why the Church has a living government. If this weren't true, all she would need would be a Code of Canon Law, some ecclesiastical courts, and a police arm - the Holy Office.

I'm wondering if you have read your sources sufficiently carefully to be sure that Fr. Cekada is wrong in applying the doctrine of automatic cessation of law due to a change of circmstances. (It may be he is wrong for other reasons, of course.) So, is the word "rite" sufficiently precise in this context?

Anyway, as always, I'm interested in whatever you have to say. What do you think?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Hello again Mike,

Mike wrote:
If you notice, I did not say that a disciplinary law could not become harmful in a given situation, I said a received and approved rite of the Catholic Church could not become harmful to souls. For example, a sick man could be harmed by rigorously following the law on the Lenten fast, therefore epikeia would allow him to break the fast to consume what he needed for his health. The law in this case is harmful, and the clear intent of the lawgiver was not to intend harm on the poor man's body.


I did notice that, but then the references you gave all dealt with disciplinary laws (which includes liturgical laws). They said nothing about "received and approved rites" never being able to become harmful.

Mike wrote:
The indefectibility of the Church prevents a rite of the Church from becoming harmful to souls. This is impossible.


This is where we simply disagree. I think they can, as all disciplinary laws can seemingly "become" harmful, given an extraordinary situation. Though as always, I will happily change my mind if presented with material that dictates I do so.

Mike wrote:
If an approved rite of the Catholic Church could become harmful, then it would be our duty as Catholics to continuously examine the rites to see if they are becoming harmful to souls. This is absurd and is directly at odds with the indefectibility of the Church.


If we had a living authority, this question would be beyond dispute. The matter would be decided upon, and that would be the end of it. As Father stated in his article, if we did have an authority, we would be bound to obey, but we don't, so the question is now a bit different. Given this loss of authority, to whom do we turn to answer a controverted question? Certainly we don't look to ourselves as the final arbiter, but we look to the "canonists and theologians". Who, if nothing else will keep our "Catholic sense" about us, and keep us thinking with the mind of the Church. Given the progression from the 1955 reforms, to the Novus Ordo...and the clear intent of the liturgists who "designed" them, I find it at least reasonable to believe the new holy week rites have become detrimental. (though of course, one can be reasonable and wrong)

Mike wrote:
Now, am I arguing that there is never a case for justifying the use of the pre-1955 rite? No. In my opinion, and this is offered for what its worth, I would argue that if a priest sincerely believed that Rome would dispense him from the law due to a strong love and attachment to the former rite, while recognizing the lawfulness of the current rite, this may be a legitimate ground for continuing in the old rite.

In such a case, I would further argue that all scandal must be avoided, so the laity must be clearly informed that the use of the pre-1955 rite is only due to a perceived dispensation from the law, and that this in no way is an act of disobedience from the law. I am not aware of any dispensations being given in 1956, but that would be a good starting point for research for those who may want to discover the mind of the Pope in this matter.


Wow Mike, I must admit I'm a bit surprised by this, Given your forcefulness with regards to the issue. This really is what it all boils down to. Of course all of the people who reject the reforms believe Rome would ultimately dispense them, but even then, you just can't say..."well I don't like this and I think Rome will dispense me.". The key points are the loss of authority, and the liturgical disaster of which the reforms seemed to be a stepping stone. If one believes the refroms have become harmful, it appears there is a valid theological option of rejecting them. Hence, Father's use of the term "legality" in the titles of his articles. I don't think Father wanted to go down the "I think Rome would agree with me" road. That's why he prefaced the topic as a legal issue.

In Christ,
Bill


Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Hi John,

Unfortunately, many of my books are currently in storage, so I am heavily relying on my past reading of them, along with my general education on the Faith.

If I am wrong on this I will happily be corrected, but as of yet I have not seen this. Fr. Cekada argues that the law has ceased due to it having become harmful to souls. My point has been that a rite of the Church used by the Church cannot in and of itself become harmful to souls.

I base this on everything I have ever read about the Church, the sacraments, etc. Fr. Cekada has not provided any sources which state that a liturgical rite of the Church can become harmful to souls. I have never in any of my reading encountered such an idea that he is putting forward here.

I have also brought up the point that if the received and approved rites used in the administration of the Sacraments can become harmful to souls, then we by that fact would have the obligation of continuously reviewing them to be sure that our souls are not being harmed. This idea, as I brought up to Bill, would cause distrust of the Church and would be very dangerous.

This discussion all seems to center around one key issue as Bill mentioned: Can a liturgical rite of the Church become harmful to souls? I will leave off on this discussion until either myself, or someone else can find a theologian who will answer this for us clearly. As mentioned I do not have access to many of my books right now, so perhaps yourself, John Daly, Lance, or someone else on here, would be willing to look up this specific question. I will submit to the judgment of the theologians.

The second issue that needs to be resolved, is whether a priest or layperson, can on his own authority determine that a liturgical rite has become harmful to souls and on his own authority refuse to use it without the benefit of authority.

Third, in regards to Fr. Cekada's argument, he has not provided any clear proof that the 1955 rite of Pope Pius XII has become harmful to souls. If the other two questions can be worked through, then it needs to be shown clearly what specific part of this rite has become harmful to souls.

As stated, I will leave off here, and defer this to we can bring in the theologians to deal with this specific question.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:54 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Mike,

I just want to point out that you stated your objections to Father's ariticles were based upon the infallibility of the Church's disciplinary laws. Now your drawing a distinction between the disciplinary laws of the Church and her "liturgical "rites". You seem to be saying that the former may become harmful, and the latter may not. The problem is that the liturgical laws of the church are part of her disciplinary laws. They are not a separate and distinct "department" with a different set of rules and a different criteria for infallibility. If a disciplinary law can become harmful, then a liturgical law can become harmful.

Here is Van Noort from his section on infallibility under "Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church."

Van Noort wrote:
By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living."


Disciplinary laws include liturgical laws. Later in the same section we read:

Van Noort wrote:
The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely, or even useless, so that prudence may dictate it's abrogation or modification.


Now, who is it that has decided "imprimaturs" have become "harmful"? Well, individuals have.
The Church has not. Though, as you have already pointed out, the cessation of this law seems to apply given the state of the Church today. The point being that the nature of epikeia demands an individual judgement (especially in our day), in regards to a law, that states.."..prudence may dictate it's abrogation or modification". And these "prudent" judgements are needed now, given the crisis, more than ever.

If nothing else, I believe Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada to be "prudent" men. Not given to fits of fantasy or nostalgia. If they believe the reforms to be a detriment, then I will at least give an attentive ear. Given the circumstances, their position on the 1955 legislation looks to be theologically viable.

In Christ,
Bill

(P.S. thank you for posting the section on infallibility from Van Noort Mr. Lane)


Last edited by Bill on Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:08 am, edited 5 times in total.

Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

And it is another beautiful day here in the Pacific Northwest ! God is Good !

( Quote- If nothing else, I believe Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada to be "prudent" men. Not given to fits of fantasy or nostalgia. If they believe the reforms to be a detrimant, then I will at least give an attentive ear. And given the circumstances, their position on the 1955 legislation looks to be theologically viable. end qoute.

Indeed both men mentioned are highly educated, intelligent and pious Bishop and priest. However, in this sad time we live in, they are not ' the Church'.

For that reason, my humble view is to ' stay the course " of the LAW put in place, when the Church was operating with full jurisdiction, and the decision was made by a true reigning Pontiff. Just my 2 cents, which most of the time are worth much less then that :)


In Christ our King,
Vincent


Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Hello Vincent,

Vincent wrote:
Indeed both men mentioned are highly educated, intelligent and pious Bishop and priest. However, in this sad time we live in, they are not ' the Church'.


I absolutely agree. They are not the Church. I'm just stating that given their general character and respectability, I tend to listen when they speak.

Vincent wrote:
For that reason, my humble view is to ' stay the course " of the LAW put in place, when the Church was operating with full jurisdiction, and the decision was made by a true reigning Pontiff. Just my 2 cents, which most of the time are worth much less then that :)


Well, given the rather gentlemanly manner in which you've conducted yourself on this forum, I tend to listen when you speak as well. God bless you.

In Christ,
Bill


Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:28 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.