It is currently Tue May 26, 2020 7:56 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Cam wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I detest the accusations of those who attack the "recognise and resist" position as non-Catholic. Their position, explained properly (n.b. it often isn't explained properly, just as sedevacantism is very often explained improperly by sedevacantists) and circumscribed within proper limits, is a Catholic position.


If the "R&R" position is Catholic then as I said, why be a "sede" - why even contemplate going down that road?

I would suggest that most "sedes" came to their current convinctions because the "R&R" position was, at the very least, untenable.


That could be true, but I doubt it. My own observation is that some recent "converts" to sedevacantism arrived via that route, but the older mass of sedes got there by thinking that Montini, or Wojtyla, simply couldn't be popes, since they didn't act like Catholics, let alone like popes. Popes don't destroy the Church.

But you seem to treat the question in a utilitarian manner. We're not sedes because we think we have no choice. Or at least, neither myself nor my friends are sedes for that reason. We're sedes because we think Benedict's not the pope, so that the question you ask could easily be, "Why even contemplate treating him as pope?"

I am not even sure there were any arguments at work in many or most cases. Any more than there's an argument at work when we recognise our natural father, or recognise that every other man is not our natural father. We just see what we see. I don't recognise Benedict as a pope. I find the idea immediately and viscerally unacceptable, absurd. Then I stand back and consider the matter, and see many reasons which support the fact. In that sense, the arguments come afterwards.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John Lane wrote:
Cam, can you explain why it is unlawful today to refuse the New Mass whilst believing that Paul VI was pope, if it's lawful to reject Pius XII's Holy Week reforms?


I would like to point out that I know of one traditional bishop who claims that the Holy Week reforms of Pius XII were put in place ad experimentum and, therefore, were to be in use for no longer than 20 years unless later confirmed. Well, twenty years after the Holy Week changes, Paul 6 was implementing the decrees of Vatican II and working on changing all of the sacraments of the Catholic Church which included publishing a Novus Ordo Missae. He says that, since the Holy Week reforms of Pius XII were not confirmed during that 20 year experimental period, they should have been discarded and the prior law is now in effect.

By the way, he does not regard the 1962 Missal as being a valid confirmation of the Holy Week reforms since it was promulgated by John 23, whom he regards as an anti-pope.

I know of no way to confirm or dispute this assessment, but it does explain why it is lawful to reject the Holy Week reforms of Pius XII who was undoubtedly the pope while refusing the New Mass of Paul 6 would be unlawful for those who are convinced he also was pope.


Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:31 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Quote:
We really ought to have the various decrees available, in English, here.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi,

Quote:
Your conclusion would only follow on the assumption that Paul VI made a law binding on somebody other than the Vatican Press regarding his Novus Ordo Missae. Since he didn't, and loads of sedeplenist writers have pointed this out, there's no obligation to do anything about it, except the prior obligation to offer Holy Mass according to the Tridentine missal.


I would think a deeper question would be- why did even the traditional minded bishops, circa 1969, act to suppress the Mass of 1962, and replace it wholesale in their diocese with the new mass?

In Xto,


Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:35 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John Lane wrote:
We're not sedes because we think we have no choice.

Actually, I submit that we really do not have any "choice" in this matter at all.

John Lane wrote:
Any more than there's an argument at work when we recognise our natural father, or recognise that every other man is not our natural father. We just see what we see. I don't recognise Benedict as a pope. I find the idea immediately and viscerally unacceptable, absurd.

Yes. Exactly.

John Lane wrote:
Then I stand back and consider the matter, and see many reasons which support the fact. In that sense, the arguments come afterwards.

Again, yes....exactly.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:47 am
Posts: 17
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Cam wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Cam, can you explain why it is unlawful today to refuse the New Mass whilst believing that Paul VI was pope, if it's lawful to reject Pius XII's Holy Week reforms?


I'm not sure that it is - perhaps you should take it up with Cekada and/or Sanborn.


Someone did, and Fr. Cekada responded in his usual manner:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/03/31/ ... holy-week/


Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:56 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:47 am
Posts: 17
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
How the Faithful of the Sedevacantist Persuasion Ought to Regard the Restored Order of Holy Week

Prefatory Remarks

It is to be known that the simple layman who has written the following notes does not intend to pretend to have the canonical training that is proper to Priests --- much less the education prerequisite for the licentiates and doctorates that had enabled clerics to officially teach in oral or written discourse as theologians, canonists and rubricists of happier ages—knowing well that he is bereft of the competence to issue definitive declarations and the authority to bind individual consciences thereto, which prerogatives are proper to the Apostolic See alone. However, if it was the harlot Rahab whom our Lord God chose as the instrumentality by which the children of Israel took possession of the Promised Land (Josue cap. ii-vi; Heb. cap. xi., 31; S. James cap. ii., 25) and so was found worthy to be mentioned in the sacred Genealogy of our Lord (St. Matt. cap. i., 5), so may this vilest amongst sinners, with the help of holy grace and the loving patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sedes sapientiæ,[1] help the servants and handmaidens of Jesus and Mary to attain to some clarity and equilibrium regarding these matters, relying solely on divine assistance and presuming not on any defective faculties proper to himself.

It would be better for the reader to be forthwith cognizant of the conclusion whereto the following notes arrive: the safest and most decorous course of thought and action for an individual Catholic to take in these tumultuous times is that of prayerful humility and obedience to the doctrinal teachings and disciplinary decrees of Holy Mother Church. To place individual and private opinions and sentiments as normative principles in preference to legislation promulgated by lawful authority --- especially in matters of great moment --- would be antithetical to the sensus Catholicus that schismatics and heretics scruple not to violate in the excess of pride and vainglory. Such a course of thought and action would not only be repugnant to the Lord God --- Who in the multitude of His ineffable loving-kindnesses established for our sakes the holy Apostles together with their successors, subject to the supreme primacy and guided by the dogmatic infallibility of St. Peter and his successors, as rulers and Pastors of Holy Mother Church[2] --- but it may also bring about a very great peril for souls, as demonstrated by the histories of the schismatic and heretical sects that have plagued Christendom throughout the ages. The reader, therefore, would do well to be mindful of the fact that there need be no apology against polemicists and critics for adhering to the legislation promulgated by authority of the Roman Pontiff: indeed, for a Catholic the very idea of defending filial obedience to the Apostolic See against other Catholics is a bewildering absurdity.

In order to arrive at a correct understanding of this conclusion as it applies to the esteem Catholics of the sedevacantist persuasion are to entertain for the Restored Order of Holy Week, the reader must consider the nature and the binding force of the General Decree that promulgated the Restored Order of Holy Week in the light of the dogma of the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the principles of liturgical law. It has been a great misunderstanding of these matters that has primarily contributed to the multiplicity and gravity of the errors that traditionalist polemicists have committed and propagated in the controversies that have arisen regarding the reforms of the late Pope Pius XII, particularly the Restored Order of Holy Week.

The exigencies of circumstance and the paucity of time prevent the author from treating these important matters in their appropriate depth and detail. For the present time, these few notes will have to suffice, leaving to better minds and hearts the task of composing and publishing treatises more worthy of this sublime and grave matter.

The Nature and Binding Force of the General Decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria of the Sacred Congregation of Rites

The Restored Order of Holy Week was promulgated by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites Liturgicus Hebdomadae Sanctae ordo instauratur (Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria) together with the Instruction De ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae instaurato rite peragendo (Cum propositum) on 16 November 1955.[3] This very fact alone should have obviated any controversy or confusion regarding the question raised by certain traditionalist polemicists of whether or not to observe the Restored Order of Holy Week. For the principles of liturgical law --- that is, “that part of Divine and Canon Law that concerns the Sacred Liturgy, i.e., the worship of God by the Church”[4] --- forbid any individual to pronounce opinions involving any interpretation or application of principles of Canon Law contrary to this and all other General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

The Authority of the Roman Pontiff in Matters Liturgical

The Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917),[5] declares that “it belongs to the Holy See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy as well as to approve liturgical books.”[6] It is to preserve the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy that the Apostolic See has been given supreme authority over it, as Pope Pius XI teaches in the Apostolic Constitution Divini cultus (20 December 1928):[7] “Since the Church has received from her founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of course after preserving the substance of the sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chants --- by which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action.”[8] Citing the above-mentioned Canon in his celebrated Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (20 November 1947),[9] Pope Pius XII makes it clear 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.”[10] This is because the Roman Pontiff “is the shepherd and teacher of the faithful, and has by divine right and delegation the primacy of jurisdiction, being successor de jure and de facto of S. Peter, so that he is the supreme lawgiver in the Church, jurisdiction being the power of ruling subjects in matters over which the Superior has control.”[11] It is as Pope Eugenius IV had taught in the Bull Laetentur coeli (6 July 1439): “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church.”[12] Moreover, regarding the supreme and absolute primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the sacred Vatican Council in its fourth session (18 July 1870) defined that “the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church.”[13] Those who have the audacity to deny this have been solemnly anathematized by the same holy Council,[14] for it is “the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”[15] The Code of Canon Law has affirmed this absolute and universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff in the selfsame words that the Vatican Council employed to define this dogma.[16]

The Authority of the Congregation of Sacred Rites

Although at times availing himself of this authority directly through such documents as an Encyclical Letter or a Motu Proprio, the Roman Pontiff ordinarily legislates in liturgical matters through the Roman Congregations, particularly through the Congregation of Sacred Rites (Sacrorum Rituum Congregatio).[17] Pope Pius XII, in his above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, states that his predecessor Pope Sixtus V in the Apostolic Constitution Immensa aeterni (22 January 1588) established the Congregation of Sacred Rites “when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics [of the 16th Century Protestant revolt] and further spread their errors” and it was therefore “charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.”[18] This Sacred Congregation, according to the Code of Canon Law, “has the right of watching over and determining all that immediately concerns the sacred rites and ceremonies of the Latin Church” and “is its concern, especially, to see that the sacred rites and ceremonies are diligently observed in celebrating Mass, in administering the Sacraments, in the carrying out of the divine offices, in fine, in all that regards the worship of the Latin Church.”[19] The decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, “when drawn up in due form and duly promulgated,” have the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “even if they had not been referred to him.”[20] When a decree is “drawn up in writing and signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and its Secretary, and furnished with the seal of the Congregation” it is considered authentic, and therefore possessed of binding force.[21] Furthermore, when a decree, both in its content and form, concerns the entire Latin Church, it is a formally general decree, which is of obligation for all who follow the Roman Rite.[22]

The Authority of the General Decree Promulgating the Restored Order of Holy Week

The General Decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria, together with its accompanying Instruction Cum propositum, fulfills the requisites of an authentic decree, being signed by His Eminence Gateano Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and by His Eminence Alfonso Cardinal Carinci, titular Archbishop of Seleucia in Isauria, and Secretary of the same Roman Congregation. It is clear that the Decree is formally general as its very text demonstrates: “Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound in the future to follow the Restored Order of Holy Week, set forth in the original Vatican edition.[23] All things to the contrary notwithstanding.”[24] Not only is the General Decree of 16 November 1955 binding on all who follow the Roman Rite by reason of its authentic and formally general nature, but the fact that it is endowed with the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is made abundantly clear by the fact that it was promulgated by express command of the late Holy Father himself: “by special mandate of Our Most Holy Lord the Pope, by Divine Providence, Pius XII, the Congregation of Sacred Rites decrees that which follows.”[25] This is to be expected, since the endeavor to restore the Rites of Holy Week was conceived by the paternal solicitude of this same Holy Father, as the General Decree states: “Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius XII commanded the Commission for the Restoration of the Liturgy, established by the same Most Holy Lord, to examine this question of restoring the Order of Holy Week and propose a solution.”[26]

Considering all these things, together with the principles of liturgical law and in light of the ecclesiastical primacy and sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council and declared by Canon Law, there can be no doubt that the rites of Holy Week as found in the old Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum have been abolished. Furthermore, those who are bound to the Roman Missal and Breviary by virtue of the Bulls Quo primum (14 July 1570) and Quod a nobis (9 July 1568) of Pope St. Pius V and by the Bull Divino afflatu (1 November 1911)[27] of Pope St. Pius X cannot lawfully avail themselves of them as they are bound in conscience to observe the rites of Holy Week as found in the typical edition of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus.

Present Day Abuses of Clerics Exceeding their Competence in this Matter

Since the Apostolic See has exclusive and absolute authority over liturgical matters, no Ordinary in virtue of his own authority and competence can presume “to abrogate, dispense from, or give an authentic interpretation of, such laws.”[28] On the contrary, as the Code of Canon Law states and as Pope Pius XII has reiterated in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, the Ordinaries “have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.”[29] “Private individuals, therefore,” continues the late Roman Pontiff in his celebrated Encyclical Letter, “even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters” and, moreover, “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 the Catholic faith itself.”[30] This is especially pertinent to the present-day traditionalist clerics, being bereft of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction together with its concomitant privileges and prerogatives. All that the present-day “independent” clerics can claim is supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora, solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia— lest they risk exacerbating their problematic Canonical predicament wherein they have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office since they lack the requisite Canonical mission.[31] The clerics of the present day, therefore, may not in any way presume to deviate from the disciplinary decrees that have been promulgated by the late Holy Father and the Roman Congregations that availed themselves of his supreme authority, especially considering that lawfully appointed Ordinaries had been forbidden such measures. That the clerics of the present day presume to do that which was forbidden to the Ordinaries who had lawfully governed dioceses and communities by the authority of the late Pope is as perplexing as it is disheartening.

Those clerics of the present day who pertinaciously advocate the observance of the abolished rites of Holy Week as found in the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum can be said to be rebuked by Pope Pius XII in the words of his abovementioned Encyclical Letter: “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 reproof.”[32] Moreover, the late Supreme Pontiff declares that “ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.”[33] “The more recent rites,” continues the Holy Father, “likewise deserve reverence and respect. They too owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world [S. Matt. ch. xxviii., 20]. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of men.”[34] Just as no Catholic in his right mind would reject “the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas of the Church […] because it pleases him to hark back to old formulas,” so “as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical, would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of Divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstance and situation.”[35] Such a course of thought and action, as the Holy Father teaches, ultimately leads clerics, together with the layfolk who follow them, “to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise,” and succumb to the grave errors that “tend to paralyze and weaken the process of sanctification by which the sacred Liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father for their souls’ salvation.”[36] Sadly, this calamity, of which the late Pope attempted so earnestly to warn clerics and layfolk in his paternal solicitude and loving-kindness, has become the harrowing reality of the present age amongst the majority of traditionalist clerics and faithful.[37]

“Let no one,” the late Pope Pius XII declares, “arrogate himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will.”[38] For the Apostolic See alone is the Iuris Liturgici suprema moderatrix, the supreme moderatress of liturgical law.[39] The authority that promulgated the Restored Order of Holy Week is none other than that of the Apostolic See, that of the Supreme Pontiff himself, which no Christian can refuse to obey if he wishes to profess inviolate the Catholic faith. It would be most apt to remind the reader of the solemn words of Pope Boniface VIII: “Furthermore, We declare, say, define and pronounce as entirely necessary for salvation for all human creatures to be subject unto the Roman Pontiff.”[40] Those who advocate disobedience and rejection of the decrees promulgated by the authority and express command of the late Holy Father ought to carefully consider and meditate upon these words, that they may discern what spirit animates their zeal for the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A

All clerics of the Roman Rite are bound in conscience to adhere to the Restored Order of Holy Week promulgated by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria with its accompanying Instruction Cum propositum. It would be absurd to argue the contrary from the principles of customary law and precedents of usages contra legem. Establishing a real custom contrary to existing liturgical legislation is difficult “because of the resistance of the Holy See, owing to its desire for uniformity in matters liturgical.”[41] Furthermore, the Congregation of Sacred Rites in its decisions “admits the force of custom only in minor matters and for particular cases” and “it seldom approves of a general usage contrary to the rubrics.”[42] Moreover, those decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites “which expressly oppose existing usages, at once abolish these (and this even if they are immemorial) for they prevent the consent of the legislator which alone can change a usage into a custom.”[43] Such abuses did indeed exist before the present crisis of Holy Mother Church: “Not infrequently, in practice, usages contrary to the rubrics are defended on the ground that they are ‘customs.’ Quite often such usages are not only not customs& --- for they do not possess the qualities which are required to create customary law, i.e. , reasonableness and the requisite age, together with the absence of resistance on the part of the legislator --- but are abuses which should be suppressed.”[44] There can be no Catholic possessed of reason and sense who can seriously entertain the notion that the observance of the abolished Holy Week Rites as found in the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum during the present interregnum (that is, according to the understanding of the sedevacantists) can lawfully constitute a custom, nor can anyone pretend that the clerics of our age have the authority to sanction such an abuse in any other way.

Appendix B

Whosoever were the clerics in the Liturgical Commission whose recommendations contributed to the latest liturgical reforms is of no consequence whatsoever. What is of consequence is that the Sacred Congregation of Rites has the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in liturgical matters. Just as no one seems to care about the fact the reformed Roman Psalter of Pope St. Pius X was not actually his, but the schema of the forgotten and unsung Rev. Father Paschal Brugnani, so Catholics should not pay mind to the fact that the above-mentioned Roman Congregation availed itself of the services of certain clerics who later were found to be modernists and who worked to establish a pseudo-liturgy antithetically opposed to the divine Offices of Holy Mother Church. To believe that a band of covert heretics can be so successful in implementing their novelties in the Sacred Liturgy of the Roman Rite to the detriment of faith, morals and the spiritual welfare of the faithful, is essentially to deny the moral inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of ecclesiastical discipline.

Appendix C

It is absurd to base one’s decisions, especially if they are of great moment, on future contingencies which can never be the proper object of a created intellect. The argument set forth in certain tracts that the late Holy Father would have rescinded his liturgical reforms had he known their supposed consequences, and that clerics are thereby allowed to return to the abolished rubrics and ceremonies of the reformed liturgical books, betrays an ignorance of catastrophic magnitude — it is ultimately an irresponsible and ignorant historiography, based upon contingencies absolutely incognoscible to created intellects. Ultimately, one must conclude that the machinations of subversive clerics working in the Liturgical Commission of Pope Pius XII were foiled because the Roman Rite never became what they intended to make of it: whatever happened after the death of the late Pope Pius XII should be of no consequence whatsoever to the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion, as all such acts are null and void by reason of the vacancy of the Apostolic See according to the opinion of these same Catholics. The august dignity and divinely-bestowed authority of the Supreme Pontiff is such that these historical details are reduced to mere footnotes and have no importance or relevance to the matter. The intention of certain modernistic clerics notwithstanding, the infallibility of the Apostolic See guarantees that the latest liturgical legislation is free from all moral and theological error.

The burden of writing apologias and of constructing ingenious arguments falls upon those who advocate rejection of the decrees promulgated by the Apostolic See. The above notes did not intend to address any particular missive of this category, or any author thereof. Those clerics who have advocated disobedience and rejection of the most recent liturgical reforms promulgated by the Apostolic See present a very quizzical problem. Although their position is erroneous, and even scandalous and pastorally devastating when considered in itself, particularly when these clerics err grievously in the interpretation and application of principles of Canon Law as well as when they avail themselves of expressions which are impudent and puerile, the reader would do well to assume that they are animated with a zeal, although misguided, for the integrity of the Roman Missal and Breviary and therefore are to be considered as erring in good faith. However, those clerics who are neither canonically fit nor trained and those whose Orders are of dubious origin, as well as lay-folk exceeding the competence proper to their station in writing about matters they are incapable of understanding without the necessary guidance that such clerics are unable to provide, who attack the decrees of the Apostolic See with an ignorance and arrogance that betray a schismatical and heretical mentality, are to be confuted and rebuked with a salutary severity, yet ever moderated by charity and purity of intention.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum: Responses to Father Cekada's Critique of the Above Notes.


The Reason Why the Notes Were Published

The chief reason why I published the notes in the original post was because I myself had scruples about the Restored Order of Holy Week back when I assented to Fr. Cekada's conspiracy theories, and the consequences were devastating insofar as the interior life was concerned. I know there are others facing similar difficulties. It is for them that I published the notes, and to show that the Restored Order of Holy Week is Catholic, precisely because the Apostolic See promulgated it.

Moreover, certain persons are seeing the inconsistencies in the sedevacantist clergy's praxis and doxis and they are leaving back to the modernist sect or are defecting from the faith altogether, as they are beginning to be scandalized at the fact that the sedevacantists have made of Holy Mother Church the very thing of which the Prophet Jeremias complained in his Lamentations, the verses thereof having been chanted at the First Nocturn lessons of Matins throughout the Sacred Triduum.

The question is how much can a cleric invoke epikeia and still retain Catholic praxis? Ultimately there seems to be no unicity of ecclesiastical discipline in the sedevacantist movement, and this just leads to more grave questions regarding Apostolicity and how this indispensable note of the Church can be reconciled with the phenomenon of acephalous clerics, the lack of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, the present identity of the Ecclesia docens, etc.

These are the things that Father Cekada does not seem to understand. The problem here is that certain clerics make imperious, categorical declarations regarding their liturgical praxis, and make it seem as if it is imperative for one to adopt their interpretation of pertinent principles. If they had just observed the abolished rites without making an issue out of it, everything would have been fine. But they have written for decades on how they are not only right but that they represent "traditional" Catholicism.

The general ecclesiastical discipline of the Church is to be chosen in preference to the private opinions of any cleric, his learning or personal sanctity notwithstanding. Even if every sedevacantist cleric chooses to disobey the decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, it would still be wrong. Perhaps this has been the problem with the "movement" all along. We have accused others such as the SSPX of "picking and choosing" and "Pope-sifting," yet we have done it ourselves in diverse manners.

Have we lost the notion of the respect and obedience that we owe to the august office of the Supreme Pontiff? Have we lost the true notion of the Apostolicity and Sanctity of the magisterium of Holy Mother Church?

Errors of Father Cekada and their Troubling Implications

His arguments against the reforms of Pope Pius XII are absurd and puerile. If one is to discard the Restored Order of Holy Week, because it was supposedly the "precursor" to the Novus Ordo anti-liturgy, why retain the mitigated fast, which could be discarded using the same arguments, according to the reasoning of those who refuse to obey the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites? Was the same Roman Pontiff, who is alleged by some cranks to have been too bedeviled or too demented or too sick to validly promulgate the liturgical reforms, also fooled by modernists or too crazy to validly promulgate the mitigated Eucharistic Fast with the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem (A.A.S., vol. xlix., pp. 177-178)?

One reason why there can be no solid argument invoking the principles of cessation of law regarding the recent liturgical reforms of the Holy See is the fact that the reforms were universally accepted (and with acclaim) by the whole of Christendom in the Roman Rite. Eventually the other Rites applied for the lawful adoption of the reforms, such as the Benedictines, the Carmelites, etc.

The same arguments posed by Fr. Cekada regarding the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII could be applied to Divino afflatu, since the reforms of the Roman Breviary were never finalized, as can be seen in the following from the tome The New Psalter and Its Use by Rev. Frs. Edwin Burton and Edward Myers (pp. 43-44; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912):

Quote:
"On the publication of the new Psalter Pius X announced that a Commission would take in hand the complete reform of the Breviary. According to Mgr. Piacensa this will involve:

(i) A reform of the Calendar and the fixing of criteria of admission of feasts of saints into the Calendar of the Universal Church.

(ii) The critical revision of the historical lessons of the Breviary.

(iii) The removal of spurious patristic lessons and the correction of the text of the rest.

(iv) The remodelling of the General Rubrics.

(v) The institution of a common of many confessors and a common of many holy women in order to facilitate the lessening of the number of feasts of saints without injuring devotion to the saints."


Only the fifth objective listed above was accomplished, and even then these Common Offices were conceded only to certain localities: never did they form part of the Roman Breviary itself. The previous four objectives were never accomplished. Even the General Rubrics were left untouched, and a supplement to them was inserted with the new rubrics promulgated by Pope St. Pius X and the Congregation of Sacred Rites availing itself of his authority.

Are we then free to invoke epikeia and revert to the typical editions of the Roman Breviary published during the reign of Pope Leo XIII? Or maybe that's not far back enough...

It was Pope St. Pius X who made the most revolutionary change in the Roman Breviary (op. cit., 44-45):

Quote:
"The advisers of Pius X, however, have gone to the root of the problem and have eliminated one of the great causes of the interference of the festal office with the ferial office, viz. the undue length of the ferial office which on certain days made its recitation very burdensome, and by redistributing the Psalms have rendered possible the frequent realization of the liturgical ideal of the weekly recitation of the Psalter. One cannot but rejoice in the restoration to its place of honour in the prayers of the Church of the book on which the piety of generations of her sons has been been nourished. Many, no doubt, will regret to see the old Roman arrangement of the Psalms disappear after having survived so many reforms, but their regret will be tempered by the thought that practically it had already disappeared, since its use had become so rare."


Where are the "many" who regretted the loss the ancient Roman Psalter now? Did they react to the new Psalter of Pope St. Pius X as Father Cekada et al. are reacting to the reforms of Pope Pius XII?

Father Cekada goes on to write:

Quote:
"We traditionalists endlessly reaffirm our determination to preserve the traditional Latin Mass and the Church’s liturgical tradition. To my way of thinking, it makes no sense whatsoever to preserve the liturgical “tradition” of Holy Week ceremonies invented in 1955, transitional Breviary rubrics, and “reforms” that lasted for all of five years" [emphasis mine].


This is all merely his opinion. If he had stopped at that, it would have been fine, but he is arguing as if the Restored Order of Holy Week is indeed infected with "modernism," which conflicts with the fact that the Church cannot err against faith and morals in her general ecclesiastical discipline, especially Sacred Liturgy.

Father Cekada also wrote:

Quote:
"Since the 'last true pope' principle leads to other problems, what then? The answer is simple: Follow the liturgical rites that existed before the modernists started their tinkering."


On the contrary, the answer is not simple at all. Exactly who has the competence and authority to determine exactly what liturgical rites ought to be followed by those who would avoid the modernists' "tinkering." The Saint Lawrence Press, Ltd., seems to think the answer would be 1939, since their Ordines are based on the typical editions of the liturgical books that were in force that year. At Saint Gertrude's, the Feast of St. Pius X is observed, but not that of St. Joseph the Workman. So at what year, at what typical edition of the Roman Missal and Breviary, do we stop?

The question is: who exactly gets to be the one to determine what rubrics and what decrees to observe, and by what criterion can this person arrive at his conclusion?

Father Cekada writes that

Quote:
"The Catholic liturgy we seek to restore should be the one redolent of the fragrance of antiquity — not the one reeking with the scent of Bugnini."


Again, who gets to determine what exactly is this "Catholic liturgy" which is the one "we seek to restore" and "one redolent of the fragrance of antiquity"? In order for Sacred Liturgy to be Catholic the authority of Holy Mother Church is indispensable, otherwise it is all just rubricated theatre, like what the Anglo-Catholics had.

Besides, he is not as clerics of the past, who had a Canonical mission and office, or as the past scholars who were formally trained in Pontifical Universities and awarded licentiates and doctorates in Sacred Theology, Canon Law, etc., for their scholarly research and tested learning. Father Cekada is not a theologian, nor a Canonist, nor casuist, strictly speaking: in fact, no one is in the sedevacantist movement; we're just trying to help each other get through this crisis and arrive at real solutions, or at least that should be the case.

What I found particularly insulting was the fact that Father Cekada in his blog did not correct the error in his "inquirer's" message:

Quote:
"I personally am undecided on the matter, though given the anecdotes regarding the physical and mental condition of the Holy Father following his illness in 1954, I consider there to be at least significant doubt as to their validity, or the degree to which his hand was actually involved at all" [emphasis mine].


Father Cekada did not correct this error, and one may thereby be led to believe that he tacitly tolerates, or that he himself espouses such lies. Since when did conspiracy theories and private speculation suffice to disobey the decrees of Holy Mother Church? And to do so with such air of authority?

The Sacred Canons menace certain serious penalties against such arrogance. One may conclude that Canon 1399, no. 6, and Canon 2334, as well as the Decree issued on 29 June 1950 by the Sacred Congregation of the Council (A.A.S., vol. xlii., pp. 601 seq.) condemn Father Cekada, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, etc,. for undermining the ecclesiastical discipline of the Church in their rants against the reforms of Pope Pius XII, attacking the person of the Supreme Pontiff in writing, and inciting the laity to defy and vilify the authority of the Church. Probably, their writings and missives would be put in the Index for these reasons alone.


Ultimately...

Objectively speaking, the case is as the notes I have posted say, but whether or not the present-day clerics who disobey the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites are to be imputed any culpability in this regard at the subjective level is another question: it is a matter of casuistry, and one for each individual cleric to discuss with his Spiritual Director.

However, there is no reason whatsoever to impute culpability on those sedevacantist clerics who do obey the reforms of Pope Pius XII, nor to denigrate them in any way whatsoever. Their course is safer because it is more orthodox and consistent: it is simply Catholic.

I have posed various questions which have been answered with ad hominems and what outsiders may rightfully name "cult propaganda."

Yes, "cult propaganda," because either you obey Holy Mother Church or are part of a cult, just like a soul cannot be simultaneously in the state of sanctifying grace and in the state of mortal sin: for the question is whether or not the clerics who seem to be doing as they please are striving to preserve the Church of Christ, or are they endeavoring to propagate their own ideas. None of the present day clerics in the sedevacantist movement can say that they form part of the Ecclesia docens, so what is to guide the clerics themselves in their apostolates if not filial and reverent obedience to the decrees of the Roman Congregations, duly promulgated by authority of the Supreme Pontiff?

I don't know how anyone else cannot see the profound and immensely problematic ramifications of such a course of thought and action. It's pretty terrifying.


Conclusion

Perhaps I should have been more mild. However, I am tired of coddling so-called "apologists" merely because of their celebrity (whether well-merited or misplaced) or for their ornately decorated bibliographies and intimidating rhetorical devices. Nor is it of little consequence that I would be doing a great disservice to these clerics in being remiss in correcting their errors. The fact that I am a layman should not even be mentioned, since none of the clergy are formally trained as theologians, rubricists, etc., as I have written above.

The mirage has dissipated; the illusion broken. It is no longer the 1980's or 1990's.

The problem with the sedevacantist "movement" is that in some places it has practically ceased to be an endeavor to preserve the profession and practice of the Catholic faith, as it has become a cult of personality: an autolatrous implementation of cult propaganda; ignoring, defying and even vilifying the decrees duly promulgated by the Apostolic See.

People are seeing this and they are leaving, because they do not recognize in the "movement" the notes of the Church of Christ: the self-serving clergy are to blame for the most part for this, as they are making the "movement" into a pastoral failure comparable to "Vatican II."

It is the Oresteia of Aeschylus magnified into an ecclesial context: the undreamt nightmare of Franzelin!

Perhaps I am being dramatic now, but I cannot help but be indignant at beholding how certain clerics have destroyed the faith and lives of many youths in debasing Holy Mother Church into a harlot to serve their cults of personality. Am I doomed to become another Cassandra, seeing the horrors that are to befall us only to meet with derision and disbelief?

So be it, as it is written, "Thou wilt terrify me by dreams, and by visions shake me with horror" (Job cap. vii., 14.).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annotations

[1]Litaniæ Lauretanæ Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, Rituale Romanum, Tit. XI, cap. iii. (Romæ: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1954).

[2] Cf. Missale Romanum, Præfatio de Apostolis: “Vere dignum et justum est, æquum et salutare: Te Domine, suppliciter exorare, ut gregem tuum, Pastor æterne, non deseras: sed per beatos Apostolos tuos continua protectione custodias: Ut iisdem rectoribus gubernetur, quos operis tui vicarios eidem contulisti præesse pastores.

[3]Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. xlvii [1955], p. 838-847.

[4] Rev. Father J.B. O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956; Imprimatur: + Albert G. Meyer, Archbishop of Milwaukee, 27 April 1956), p. 6

[5] A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II [1917].

[6] Can. 1257: “Unius Apostolicae Sedis est tum sacram ordinare liturgiam, tum liturgicos approbare libros;” cited in Rev. Father Richard Stapper’s Catholic Liturgics (trans. Rev. Father David Baier. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1938; Imprimatur: + Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York, 1 November 1935), p. 34.

[7 ]A.A.S., vol. xxi. [1929], pp. 33-41.

[8] Rev. Father Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (Barcelona: Herder, 1957; Imprimatur: + Gregory Bishop of Barcelona, 29 September 1950), no. 2200.

[9]A.A.S., vol. xxxix [1947], p. 521-595.

[10] “Quamobrem uni Summo Pontifici ius est quemlibet de divino cultu agendo morem recognoscere ac statuere, novos inducere ac probare ritus, eosque etiam immutare, quos quidem immutandus iudicaverit.

[11] Rev. Father Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology (London, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1958; Imprimatur: + John Henry, Archbishop of Portsmouth, 4 May 1957), vol. 1, p. 149.

[12] Denzinger, no. 694.

[13] Denzinger, no. 1827. Dogmatic Constitution I of the Church of Christ Pastor aeternus (Acta Sanctæ Sedis, vol. vi. [1870-71], pp. 40 sqq.).

[14] Denzinger, no. 1831: “Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.

[15] Denzinger, no. 1827.

[16] Can. 218, § 1: “Romanus Pontifex, Beati Petri in primatu Successor, habet non solum primatum honoris, sed supremam et plenam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam tum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores, tum in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent.

[17] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 6.

[18] “Atque ita factum est ut, cum saeculo XVI id genus usus ac consuetudines nimis magis increvissent, cumque hac in re privatorum incepta fidei pietatisque integritatem in discrimen inducerent, magno cum haereticorum profectu magnaque cum eorum fallaciae errorisque propagatione, tum Decessor Noster imm. mem. Sixtus V, ut legitimos Ecclesiae ritus defenderet, ab iisdemque quidquid impurum inductum fuisset prohiberet, anno MDLXXXVIII Sacrum constituit tuendis ritibus Consilium; ad quod quidem institutum nostra etiam aetate ex credito munere pertinet ea omnia vigilanti cura ordinare ac decernere, quae ad sacram Liturgiam spectent.

[19] Can. 253, §§ 1, 2: “Congregatio Sacrorum Rituum ius habet videndi et statuendi ea omnia quae sacros ritus et caeremonias Ecclesiae Latinae proxime spectant [...] ejus proinde est praesertim advigilare, ut sacri ritus ac caeremoniae diligenter serventur in Sacro celebrando, in Sacramentis administrandis, in divinis officiis persolvendis, in iis denique omnibus quae Ecclesiae Latinae cultum respiciunt.” cited by Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 26. The scope of the jurisdiction and labors of the S.R.C. also embrace the beatification and canonization of the Servants of God, among other important matters (Can. 253, § 3).

[20] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 26.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., pp. 27, 28.

[23] “Qui ritum romanum sequuntur, in posterum servare tenentur Ordinem hebdomadae sanctae instauratum, in editione typica Vaticana descriptum” (No. 1).

[24] “Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.

[25] “Quapropter, de speciali mandato eiusdem Ssmi D. N. Pii divina Providentia Papae XII, Sacra Rituum Congregatio ea quae sequuntur statuit.

[26] “Ssmus D. N. Pius Papa XII mandavit ut Commissio instaurandae liturgiae, ab eodem Ssmo Domino constituta, quaestionem hanc de Ordine hebdomadae sanctae instaurando examinaret et conclusionem proponeret.” The supposition set forth by certain polemicists who contend that the Restored Order of Holy Week was enacted without the knowledge or consent of the late Holy Father, or that he was somehow fooled into sanctioning it, is therefore utterly absurd.

[27] A.A.S., vol. iii. [1911], pp. 633 sqq.

[28] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 37; cf. Can. 1257.

[29] “Episcopis autem ius et officium est vigilare diligenter ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur;” cf. Can. 1261, § 1: “Locorum Ordinarii advigilent ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur.

[30]“Haud igitur fas est privatorum arbitrio, etsi iidem ex Cleri ordine sint, sacras atque venerandas res illas permittere, quae ad religiosam christianae societatis vitam pertineant, itemque ad Iesu Christi sacerdotii exercitium divinumque cultum, ad debitum sanctissimae Trinitati, Incarnato Verbo, eius Genitrici augustae ceterisque caelitibus honorem reddendum, et ad hominum salutem procurandam attineant; eademque ratione privato nemini ulla facultas est externas hoc in genere actiones moderari, quae cum Ecclesiastica disciplina et cum Mystici Corporis ordine, unitate ac concordia, immo haud raro cum catholicae etiam fidei integritate coniungantur quam maxime.

[31] Cf. Can. 147 “§ 1. Officium ecclesiasticum nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta.

[32] “Verumtamen temerarius eorum ausus omnino reprobandus est, qui novas deliberato consilio liturgicas consuetudines invehant, vel obsoletos iam ritus reviviscere iubeant, qui cum vigentibus legibus ac rubricis non concordent.” Although the Pope here speaks of those foolhardy scholars who pretended to justify proposed modernistic liturgical innovations with groundless appeals to archeology and history, nothing forbids the application of these words to those who attempt to revive the rubrics and ceremonies abolished by the decrees of Congregation of Sacred Rites. Polemicists who would argue otherwise --- because they erroneously hold that the late Holy Father contradicted himself by allowing the very reforms that these words of Mediator Dei condemn―seem to suggest that these words would actually apply to the reforms promulgated by the same Roman Congregation, which is a heretical and perilous notion to entertain. It ultimately constitutes an implicit denial of the inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, thereby indirectly attacking the dogma of the infallibility Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council.

[33] “Verumtamen vetus usus, non idcirco dumtaxat quod antiquitatem sapit ac redolet, aptior ac melior existimandus est vel in semet ipso, vel ad consequentia tempora novasque rerum condiciones quod attinet.

[34] “Recentiores etiam liturgici ritus reverentia observantiaque digni sunt, quoniam Spiritus Sancti afflatu, qui quovis tempore Ecclesiae adest ad consummationem usque saeculorum, orti sunt; suntque iidem pariter opes, quibus melita Iesu Christi Sponsa utitur ad hominum sanctitatem excitandam procurandamque.

[35] “Quemadmodum enim e catholicis cordatus nemo, eo consilio ductus ut ad veteres revertat formulas, a prioribus Conciliis adhibitas, illas respuere potest de christiana doctrina sententias, quas Ecclesia, adspirante moderanteque divino Spiritu, recentiore aetate, ubere cum fructu, composuit retinendasque decrevit; itemque quemadmodum e catholicis cordatus nemo vigentes leges repudiare potest, ut ad praescripta regrediatur, quae ex antiquissimis hauriantur canonici iuris fontibus; ita pari modo, cum de sacra Liturgia agitur, qui ad antiquos redire ritus consuetudinesque velit, novas repudiando normas, quae ex providentis Dei consilio ob mutatas rerum condiciones fuere inductae, non is procul dubio, ut facile cernere est, sapienti rectoque movetur studio.

[36] “Haec enim cogitandi agendique ratio nimiam illam reviviscere iubet atque insanam antiquitatum cupidinem, quam illegitimum excitavit-Pistoriense concilium, itemque multiplices illos restituere enititur errores, qui in causa fuere, cur conciliabülum idem cogeretur, quique inde non sine magno animorum detrimento consecuti sunt, quosque Ecclesia, cum evigilans semper exsistat «fidei depositi» custos sibi a divino Conditore concrediti, iure meritoque reprobavi! Etenim prava id genus proposita atque incepta eo contendunt, ut actionem illam exténuent ac débilitent, sanctitatis effectricem, qua sacra Liturgia -adoptionis filios ad caelestem Patrem salutariter dirigit.

[37] Although it is beyond the scope of these notes to treat of this critical topic, it would not be out of place to briefly explain how certain attitudes manifested by certain polemicists who pertinaciously reject the disciplinary decrees promulgated by the Apostolic See can lead to errors against faith and morals. If the faithful are taught that the General Decrees of the Roman Congregations can be disobeyed by appealing to complex argumentations entailing principles of Canon Law and casuistry --- that are usually beyond the intellectual competence of the average layman --- there is a serious danger that reverence for the august person of the Supreme Pontiff may be lessened, and there may consequently arise a grave misunderstanding of the doctrines defined by the Vatican Council regarding the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. This is especially true in the present day, wherein the vacancy of the Apostolic See alleged by the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion does not afford them an opportunity to exercise their loyalty to the Apostolic See at the practical level, and wherein certain non-sedevacantist polemicists who attempt to reconcile the Johannine-Pauline Council with the Catholic faith commit various and sundry errors regarding the nature and authority of the papacy in their attempt to vindicate ecclesiastical praxes that are contrary to the acts and spirit of the authority they recognize. The consequences of this phenomenon in the interior life of the individual Catholic can be horrendously devastating, leading to a terrible pessimism regarding the history and future of the Church, to a tendency to become one’s own spiritual director, which ultimately leads to the cultivation of lax consciences, and thereby dragging the individual soul to retardation in the interior life, to spiritual pride and vanity, to acedia, to the neglect of the cultivation of the acquired moral virtues, and ultimately to serious spiritual disorders that can pervert the individual soul and lead it astray from the care of trained Pastors to false clerics or openly heretical or schismatic sects. This peril is particularly increased when absurd conspiracy-theories, utter deception and falsification, and shoddy scholarship are used by those polemicists who deny obedience to the legislation promulgated by the Apostolic See.

[38] “Nemo sibi arbitrium sumat normas sibimet ipsi decernendi easdemque ex voluntate sua ceteris imperandi.

[39] Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Constitution Sedis hujus Apostolicae (14 May 1920; A.A.S., vol. XII [1920], pp. 317 sqq.); cited by Archdale A. King in the Preface of his book The Liturgy of the Roman Church (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957; Imprimatur: + E. Morragh Bernard, Vicar General of Westminister, 5 June 1957).

[40] “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronuntiamus omnino de necessitate salutis,” Bull Unam sanctam (18 November 1302), Denzinger, n. 469.

[41] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 33.

[42] Ibid. The typical edition of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus replaces the Roman Missal and Breviary during Holy Week, so it is the rubrics of the former book that are relevant in this discussion.

[43] Ibid., p. 34.

[44] Rev. O’Connell, op. cit., p. 37. In a footnote on this page, the author aptly cites the rebuke of Our Lord to the Pharisees (S. Mark. ch. vii., 8, 9): “Leaving the commandment of God, you hold the traditions of men. Well do you frustrate the precept of God, that you may observe your own tradition.”


Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:31 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:47 am
Posts: 17
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
To reiterate and clarify some of the points in the article above:

The controversy regarding the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius amongst the Catholics of the sedevacantist persuasion has proven to be one of the most lamentable tragedies in the anti-modernist resistance.

As it had been foretold unto us, so it has come to pass in the present age: "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. cap. iv., 3-4).

Not only does this warning of St. Paul apply to the modernists who have constructed their anthropocentric "Tower of Babel," which is the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church, but also to Catholics who have committed their own aberrations and errors in a rash reaction against the novelties of the modernists.

There is nothing that illustrates the latter case better than the predicament of certain Catholic polemicists of the sedevacantist persuasion who discuss the question of the liturgical reforms promulgated by authority of the last pope whom they all recognize as such, only to discard and vilify the Decrees of the Apostolic See and even the person of Pope Pius XII [i.e., Fr. Cekada, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, &c.].

1) If they would insist in postulating their views regarding the great ecclesiastical question of the present day as cogent theological opinions (stricte dicitur) whilst maintaining moral and intellectual integrity, the Catholic polemicists of the sedevacantist persuasion are to regarding the reforms promulgated by the authority of Pope Pius XII as binding in conscience, according to the principles of the Sacred Canons and the doctrines of the inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of general ecclesiastical discipline.

The "recognize-and-resist" traditional Catholics who eschew sedevacantism and follow the typical editions of the Roman Missal and Breviary prior to the promulgation of the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII are not the object of my critiques because they are informed by a different ecclesiological orientation. I have not studied enough the seminal texts and the present day discourse of their circles to enable me to write anything substantial regarding their stance, but (as I have written before) their liturgical praxis appears to be consistent with their understanding of the ecclesiastical question. I cannot blame them for rejecting the reforms of Pope Pius XII when they recognize Benedict XVI as the Supreme Pontiff and yet act as if he is not at Rome.

Those traditionalists who are domineering and self-proclaimed demagogues with the "mission" (Canonical pun intended) to expose how Benedict XVI cannot be the Roman Pontiff because the Pope can never promulgate anything anti-Catholic --- even to the point of imputing moral culpability to those Catholics who attend Holy Mass wherein he is mentioned in the Sacred Canon --- and continue to vilify the late Pope Pius XII with such rank arrogance and disdain, to the point of positing that he opened the way to the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church: these are the sedevacantists who ought to be corrected, because they are causing scandal amongst the faithful, deluding and seducing them with the aberrant notion that they can be Catholics without an Apostolic hierarchy and yet lend ear to the private opinions of acephalous clerics who are bordering on (if not outright espousing) the Gallicanism of which they accuse the SSPX and others to be culpable.


2) The clerics and layfolk of the sedevacantist persuasion who continue in their pertinacity and obstinacy in disobeying and vilifying the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and even the very person of Pope Pius XII, substantiate the claims posited by anti-sedevacantist apologists: that if one were to adopt the sedevacantist stance, then they would expose themselves to proximate perils of pride, and ultimately come to fancy themselves as possessing at the theoretical and practical orders the very magisterial and disciplinary authority that the Apostolic See alone can claim and demand.

The question of the Restored Order of Holy Week amongst the Catholics of the sedevacantist persuasion should not be a controversial topic. Holy Mother Church has promulgated legislation regarding Sacred Liturgy, and a Catholic has no choice but to obey. It would be one thing for a cleric to follow his conscience in purity and simplicity of heart and adhere to those rubrics which he knows he can competently fulfill, but it is quite another for a cleric to adopt a historicist revisionism that does not pay due respect to the Office of the Roman Pontiff or to the Apostolic See. The same principles apply to the laity.

We are not free to do as we please simply because there is no reigning Pontiff (according to the sedevacantists' explanation of the present crisis devastating Holy Mother Church). Yet this seems to be the norm amongst those of the sedevacantist persuasion who "Missal-sift," observing the Offices of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as promulgated by Pope Pius XII, or the Offices of Pope St. Pius X, whilst rejecting and denouncing the Offices of St. Joseph the Workman as a "modernist invention."

This is the great difference between what has transpired before in the history of the Church, such as the great Schism and the Babylonic Captivity or the Arian persecutions, and the predicament of the present day: the Catholics who endured those trials in their respective epochs always remained faithful and docile to the supreme magisterial and disciplinary authority of the Apostolic See. Their very loyalty and obedience was what made their Crosses so difficult to bear and yet so very meritorious.

In the present day, certain Catholics of the sedevacantist persuasion have come to impose themselves as authorities in ecclesiastical matters and categorically insist that their opinions are to be taken as as the "safer course," if not "truth" itself. In doing so, they have essentially arrogated to themselves the authority and privileges of the Ecclesia docens, and have rent themselves from the Ecclesia discens at the practical level. This was never done by Catholics who were assailed and beleaguered by such things as the Babylonic Captivity (when the Supreme Pontiff abandoned Rome for Avignon) and the subsequent Great Schism, or those Catholics who endured the persecutions of the Arian heretics. Never did it occur to them to "make it up" as they went along.

This is dramatically illustrated in the manner in which certain sedevacantist polemicists have treated the question of the reforms promulgated by Pope Pius XII in such wise so as to cast doubt and defame the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in matters of ecclesiastical discipline and to negotiate away their sensus Catholicus regarding this matter for an ecclesial Stockholm Syndrome wherein they blindly follow the acephalous clerics who share their opinions and theories simply because they audaciously claim, "It is either our clergy or the N. O."

Things are much more complicated than that.

In order for Sacred Liturgy to be Catholic the authority of Holy Mother Church is indispensable, otherwise it is all just rubricated theatre, akin to what the Anglo-Catholics have in their Sarum Missals.

The sedevacantist clergy and laity who accept that Pope Pius XII had reigned as Roman Pontiff cannot refuse to obey the liturgical reforms of the Apostolic See by invoking epikeia, appealing to private speculation based on non-authoritative sources as presented and interpreted by acephalous clerici vagi, who have neither Canonical office or mission, nor habitual or delegated jurisdiction.

Since when did conspiracy theories and private speculation suffice to disobey the decrees of Holy Mother Church? And to do so with such air of authority?

The Sacred Canons menace certain serious penalties against such arrogance. One may conclude that Canon 1399, no. 6, and Canon 2334, as well as the Decree issued on 29 June 1950 by the Sacred Congregation of the Council (A.A.S., vol. xlii., pp. 601 seq.) condemn such clerics as Fr. Cekada, Fr. Ricossa, etc,. for undermining the ecclesiastical discipline of the Church in their rants against the reforms of Pope Pius XII, attacking the person of the Supreme Pontiff in writing, and inciting the laity to defy and vilify the authority of the Church. Probably, their writings and missives would be censured by the Holy Office and placed in the Index of Forbidden Books for these reasons alone.

The general ecclesiastical discipline of the Church is to be chosen in preference to the private opinions of any cleric, his learning or personal sanctity notwithstanding. Even if every sedevacantist or traditionalist cleric chooses to disobey the decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, it would still be wrong.


3) Arguments based upon past contingencies absolutely incognoscible to created intellects (such as the question, "What would Pope Pius XII have done if he had lived longer?") are not only inadequate and unsatisfactory, but they expose in a striking fashion the troubling contradiction of those sedevacantists who profess themselves apologists for the indefectibility of the Apostolic See and yet do whatsoever it pleases them, crying forth, "Oh, Pope Pius XII would have done so!"

Equally unbecoming and inadequate are those who in their theories imitate the modernist discourse of "hermeneutic of continuity" and other Hegelian constructs in arguing in favor of a neo-historicist historiography attacks the very nature of the Church of Christ.

Whosoever were the clerics in the Liturgical Commission whose recommendations contributed to the latest liturgical reforms is of no consequence whatsoever. What is of consequence is that the Sacred Congregation of Rites has the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in liturgical matters.

Just as no one seems to care about the fact the reformed Roman Psalter of Pope St. Pius X was not actually his, but the schema of the forgotten and unsung Rev. Father Paschal Brugnani, so Catholics should not pay mind to the fact that the above-mentioned Roman Congregation availed itself of the services of certain clerics who later were found to be modernists and who worked to establish a pseudo-liturgy antithetically opposed to the divine Offices of Holy Mother Church.

To believe that a band of covert heretics can be so successful in implementing their novelties in the Sacred Liturgy of the Roman Rite to the detriment of faith, morals and the spiritual welfare of the faithful, is essentially to deny the moral inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of ecclesiastical discipline.

This is why the supposed evolutionary continuity between the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII and the anti-liturgy consequent upon the Johannine-Pauline Council is merely accidental and peripheral at best: a revisionist historiography that seeks to explain the activity of the modernists as if the Church herself were "conquered" by them is not right, as the Church can never be overcome by modernists.

The Roman Liturgy is pure and unadulterated as Pope Pius XII has left it, whereas resorting to conspiracy theories and private opinions leads to an egocentric antiquarianism. If it were otherwise, then an individual may be led to believe that the Church can err in matters of general ecclesiastical discipline, making a sense of loyalty and love for the Apostolic See absurd and even noxious, as one sedevacantist polemicist seems to inadvertently admit when he wrote:

Quote:
If it wasn't for the obedience factor, which Satan used to lure us into the V2 Church, all would agree that the liturgy before the changes under Pius XII was certainly the most Catholic, even if some take humbrage to that statement since they claim nothing imprudent can happen to the liturgy under the watchful eyes of a severely ill Pope. [emphases mine]


Holy Mother Church has spoken, the matter is settled. It does not matter what Msgr. Bugnini had published in private or public missives: the Apostolic See has declared the Restored Order of Holy Week must be followed by all those who are bound to the Roman Missal and Breviary by the Bulls Quo primum and Quod a nobis.

Fr. Cekada's arguments, for example, (e.g., "Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms 'Illegal'?") are ultimately based on the publications of Msgr. Bugnini, and the conclusions he derives therefrom. He cannot apply the principles of perpetuity and cessation of law based only on these non-authoritative sources and private speculations of their own making, much less on past contingencies as he himself imagines and interprets them.

Such polemicists as Fr. Cekada, Fr. Ricossa, etc., together with their lay disciples, have yet to prove that the rites and rubrics of the Restored Order of Holy Week or the Simplification of the Rubrics promulgated by authority of Pope Pius XII present an occasion of scandal or are noxious to faith and morals. Even presuming to do so is perilous, for the Church cannot err against faith and morals in her general ecclesiastical discipline.

Whatever Msgr. Bugnini and other modernist clerics wrote or did is tangential and peripheral, because the Apostolic See cannot promulgate ecclesiastical discipline that leads to errors against faith or moral, or could ultimately result in the conquest of the Church, as Bugnini himself had boasted and as these sedevacantist historicists seem to imply in their polemical missives against the reforms of Pope Pius XII.


4) Here is an example of the sort of confusion and absurdity the mentality of the Missal-sifting sedevacantist polemicists engenders.

Droleskey in "Next Stop On The Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round: 1969 and Beyond" (27 August 2012) wrote:
The modernized Missal promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962 was meant of its nature to be transitory, and that it is precisely what it turned out to be, a transitional bridge between the Missal of 1958 that been approved, so we are told, by the dying Pope Pius XIII on October 3, 1958, six days before his death [...]. [emphasis mine]


An editio typica of the Missale Romanum issued by the Apostolic See in 1958? I have not seen or heard of such a thing. An edition "juxta typicam," yes. But to speak of a "1958 Missal" as if it were a new typical edition of the Roman Missal, incorporating the rubrics as reformed by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis (23 March 1955; A. A. S., vol. xlvii., pp. 218 sqq.), is just absurd if no documented support is put forth. It was in 1959 that some local Printing Presses and Religious Orders were given special permission to publish liturgical books which incorporated the rubrics simplified according to the aforementioned Decree.

Droleskey fails in providing documentary support, or citing any authoritative text in favor of this novel view. This sort of sloppy scholarship diminishes all the more the credibility of those demagogues who, despite the lack of training and competence requisite to categorically judge these matters, insist inciting the faithful to disobey the General Decrees duly promulgated by the Congregation of Sacred Rites by authority of a legitimate Roman Pontiff.


5) Furthermore, this already problematic predicament has been made all the more labyrinthine and perilous by certain polemicists who ascribe to the acephalous clergy the formal Apostolicity and the possession and exercise of habitual or delegated jurisdiction that can only be found in a cleric endowed with a Canonical mission and office by authority of the Supreme Pontiff (directly in the case of Episcopal consecrations, and through the duly appointed local Ordinaries or Religious Superiors in the case of Sacerdotal ordinations and ordinations to the Diaconate and the ecclesiastical Minor Orders).

A consistent sedevacantist would admit that it is precisely because the Apostolic See is vacant (according to their understanding) that no traditionalist Bishop can claim both formal and material apostolicity: only the latter can be ascribed to them [1] without infringing the ecclesiological doctrines taught by the theologians and manualists of past ages and enshrined in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II.).

The reality is that the clerici acephali, the episcopi vagantes, of our day may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law (cf. Can. 953: “Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifice ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato;” Can. 2370: “Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, presbyteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum Can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit"), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate.

Although, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard, the fact remains that these Bishops and the clerics they have elevated to Sacred Orders have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor ordinary jurisdiction (habitual or delegated) since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147: § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta).

It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3: “Ex divina institutione sacra hierarchia ratione ordinis constat Episcopis, pres-byteris et ministris; ratione iurisdictionis, pontificatu supremo et episcopatu subordinato; ex Ecclesiae autem institutione alii quoque gradus accesere” [emphasis mine]; Can. 109: “Qui in ecclesiasticam hierarchiam cooptantur, non ex populi vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione adleguntur; sed in gradibus potestatis ordinis constituuntur sacra ordinatione; in supremo pontificatu, ipsomet iure divino, adimpleta conditione legitimae electionis eiusdemque acceptationis; in reliquis gradibus iurisdictionis, canonica missione” [emphasis mine]).

Although the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given, this is only so by reason of the authority of the Pope since the magisterial authority of the Bishops, whether collectively or singly, is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. Can. 1326: "Episcopi quoque, licet singuli vel etiam in Conciliis particularibus congregati infabillitate docendi non polleant, fidelium tamen suis curis commissorum, [i]sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis, veri doctores seu magistri sunt[/i]” [emphasis mine]).

Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (Session XXIII, De reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to be incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1: “Quemlibet clericum oportet esse vel alicui dioecesi vel alicui religioni adscriptum, ita ut clerici vagi nullatenus admittantur” [emphasis mine]).

One must therefore conclude that all the present day traditionalist clerics are clerici vagi. Supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora are all that the present-day clerics can claim solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia. In going any further than this, they risk transgressing the limitations of their limited competence (in order of ecclesiastical authority) and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament all the more. It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinions or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, precisely because the Roman Pontiff is presently out of the equation in the practical order (according to the sedevacantists), such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise, one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is absurdly bereft of the sensus Catholicus.


6) To assert the contrary would be erroneous and obscene. Just because the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot be identified with the Ecclesia Christi, does not necessitate resorting to historicist and revisionist interpretations of what the theologians have taught in order to assuage those doubts that continue to haunt us.

Yet this too is a phenomenon amongst certain sedevacantist polemicists that seems concomitant with the vilification and slander of the authority of Holy Mother Church.

Droleskey wrote:
The blitzkrieg of liturgical changes that took place from 1955 and thereafter institutionalized impermanence and instability in the lives of those Catholics who still bother to go to the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, accustoming many of them to believe that doctrine can change just as easily and just as regularly as the liturgy. If we pray in novel ways then we are going to believe in novel things--and to be more readily disposed to accept novelties as being part of the normal life of the Catholic Church, which they are not.

It is not for us to revise and reformat the doctrines of the Church to suit our times.


It is bitterly ironic that Droleskey has just described what is happening now the "movement" of those particular sedevacantist polemicists who are pertinacious in their errors regarding the authority of the Apostolic See on matters of ecclesiastical discipline. To argue that what the Church has promulgated as binding ecclesiastical discipline (i.e., the simplification of the rubrics of the Roman Missal and Breviary, the Restored Order of Holy Week, the mitigation of the Eucharistic fast, all promulgated by authority of Pope Pius XII) can be noxious to faith and morals because of the times is something that no Catholic would have argued in ages past. To cite historicist historiography -- seemingly bereft of the indispensable orientation given by the divine revelation as proposed by the Catholic Church and taught by the Fathers, the Popes, and approved theologians, -- and invoke the principles of Canon Law to justify arbitrary and egocentrically antiquarian liturgical praxes, is simply disheartening to say the very least.

Curiously, such process of cognition and reasoning is akin to what the modernists wrote regarding the "organic evolution" of dogma and the "hermeneutic of continuity" that is so often cited nowadays by conservative circles within the Johannine-Pauline construct.

The nova œconomia brought forth by the Johannine-Pauline modernists and implemented by the structures they have usurped cannot at all be construed as warranting the creation of another nova œconomia: redefining and re-interpreting what the magisterium of Holy Mother Church proposes for our assent, particularly regarding the Apostolicity and Unity of the one and true Church of Christ, can only bring about error and confusion. Instead of defending Holy Mother Church in the pristine integrity of her doctrines, some Catholics, in a rash reaction to the novelties of modernists, have (inadvertently, and in some cases with full deliberation) concocted further novelties whereby they humiliate and vilify these same doctrines in a most lamentable manner.

This, again, is inexorably connected with the Gallicanistic liturgical praxes of the sedevacantist polemicists of whom I have been writing:

Droleskey wrote:
Clinging onto a missal that was itself meant to be but one phase of the liturgical revolution while ignoring the evidence presented above is an exercise in nothing than than willful, deliberate self-delusion. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not possess the Catholic Faith. He is a Modernist to the core of his apostate being, and that particular "expression" of the "one" Roman Rite is now to be "improved." This is simply a logical "evolution" in the trap that went snap a long time ago that goes by the name of Summorum Pontificum


The matter in question is not about sedevacantism in itself, but, rather, how such polemicist interpret and publicize it.

Leaving for now the oblique attack upon those sedevacantists who obey what they admit to be the most recent liturgical legislation of the Apostolic (note: Droleskey's grudge against the CMRI is not a secret), the question raised in reading this is: exactly who has the competence and authority to determine exactly what liturgical rites ought to be followed by those who would avoid the modernists' "tinkering." The Saint Lawrence Press, Ltd., seems to think the answer would be 1939, since their Ordines are based on the typical editions of the liturgical books that were in force that year. At Saint Gertrude the Great's Chapel, the Feast of St. Pius X is observed, but not that of St. Joseph the Workman. So at what year, at what typical edition of the Roman Missal and Breviary, do we stop?

According to this revisionist historiography, what is to stop another polemicist from asserting that the unfinished reforms of Pope St. Pius X were also a step in the supposed "evolution" towards the Johannine-Pauline "liturgy"? After all, St. Pius X was the Pope who promulgated the most radical and dramatic reform of the Roman Breviary: the entire re-structuring of the Roman Psalter. The present day clerics and layfolk cannot understand what a novelty the reformed Roman Psalter of Pope St. Pius X really was to the Priests and Religious of that age. Priests and Religious were reciting or chanting Psalms that had rarely occurred in the old Office, reformed up until the end of Pope Leo XIII's reign (the exceptions were those Monastic Orders who adhered to the Psalter as arranged in the Holy Rule of St. Benedict, which is now the most ancient Psalter in the Latin Occident). Yet they did not hesitate to accept it with docility and jubilation, for it was truly a reform that was necessary.


7) That sedevacantist polemcists who present themselves as apologists for Holy Mother Church would vilify the liturgical reforms promulgated by Pope Pius XII, and actually publish such rash errors, is utterly disedifying and disgusting to me. Although he is criticizing the Motu proprio of Benedict XVI in the above-cited article, Droleskey is attacking one whom he regards as having been a true Supreme Pontiff and shows an utter irreverence for the august office of the Supreme Pontiff.

I reiterate: in order for the practice and profession of any given Catholic to be Catholic, obedience and docility to the Apostolic See is indispensable. Otherwise, what would differentiate the anti-Johannine-Pauline conglomerate from such schismatic movements as the Oxfordists or Anglo-Catholics, who with their Sarum Missals and ornate vestments have all the trappings of Catholic liturgical praxis but not the sensus Catholicus that is necessarily and inexorably concomitant with such praxis?

The question is: who exactly gets to be the one to determine what rubrics and what decrees are to be observed, and by what criterion can this person arrive at his conclusion? Could it be that what the anti-sedevacantist polemicist is true: that these people make Popes of themselves citing for the justification of that endeavor the supposed vacancy or usurpation of the Apostolic See?

If the Church is where Peter is, and the sedevacantists assert that St. Peter does not now have a successor because the Apostolic See is vacant or usurped, then does not that necessarily lead one to conclude that the sedevacantist clergy and layfolk are to be docile and obedient to the Decrees promulgated by whom they regard as the most recent successor of St. Peter in the Supreme Pontificate, even to the point of scrupulosity?

Were one to think that these Missal-sifters represent the sedevacantist stance, then one would have to conclude that there is no unicity of ecclesiastical discipline in the sedevacantist movement, and this just leads to more grave questions regarding Apostolicity and how this indispensable note of the Church can be reconciled with the phenomenon of acephalous clerics, the factual lack of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, the present identity and locality of the Ecclesia docens, etc.

The problem with the sedevacantism, as interpreted and set forth by the Missal-sifting sedevacantists, is that in some places it has practically ceased to be an endeavor to preserve the profession and practice of the Catholic faith, as it has become a cult of personality: an autolatrous implementation of cult propaganda; ignoring, defying and even vilifying the decrees duly promulgated by the Apostolic See.


Yes, "cult propaganda," because either you obey Holy Mother Church or are part of a cult, just like a soul cannot be simultaneously in the state of sanctifying grace and in the state of mortal sin: for the question is whether or not the clerics who seem to be doing as they please are striving to preserve the Church of Christ, or are they endeavoring to propagate their own ideas. None of the present day clerics in the sedevacantist movement can say that they form part of the Ecclesia docens, so what is to guide the clerics themselves in their apostolates if not filial and reverent obedience to the decrees of the Roman Congregations, duly promulgated by authority of the Supreme Pontiff?


Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:42 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pascual; thanks for the great post my friend. I am posting this article from my friend Hoot Gibson as a simply response from others who may see things differently in regard to Pius XII. I fall somewhere in between the two postions (pro or anti Pius XII) but I must concede that I recognize in my humble and perhaps eroneous opinion that Pope Pius XII had some serious modernist flaws. It is hard to reconcile any possiblity (at least in my mind) that somehow all the error and chaos since the Vat. II council simply began and was born overnight without preparation or forethought that existed prior to the council. We are certain, due to the writings of Pius X, that modernism already existed with the walls of the church. Pius XII was curiously weak on evolution, liberal leaning in liturgical matters (IMO) and without any question appointed and protected the very people who would later destroy what we knew as the church. I simply post this for the benefit of the discussion brought up, not to cause any controversy, although I recognize it might do just that. Many on this list already realize form past issues that I have some other issues with Pius XII. I look forward to any reaction or response to Hutton's post as follows:

Novus Ordo from Pius XII
Traditio website (edited):


Recently, a traditional writer [Guess who] wrote that John XXIII "modified the Mass, in violation of St. Pius V’s law, Quo primum tempore.... [John XXIII’s] Mass changes [commonly called the "Mass of 1962"] produced the climate in which [Paul VI] suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass and most of the Sacraments." The "Mass of 1962" was not the work of John XXIII’s pontificate, but of Pius XII’s, and more specifically of Hannibal Bugnini, the Freemason presbyter appointed by Pius XII, later to become the chief architect of the Protestant/Masonic/Pagan [Arian] Novus Ordo service of 1969. John XXIII, when he promulgated the changes of 1960-1962, specifically indicated that he was simply publishing work that had already been done under Pius XII, whom he revered.


[He had good reason to revere the man who continued to promote him despite his heretical, masonic, communist background, as well as the Modernism they apparently shared. Why would John not try to show that he innovated nothing in such a matter? The fact remains: Not Pius XII but John XXIII imposed the 1962 violation of Quo primum tempore, and convoked the Second Vatican Council.]


As the years since Vatican II (1962-1965) pass, it becomes clearer and clear that Pius XII, not John XXIII, was responsible for the Modernist changes in the Sacred Liturgy. Since most traditional Catholics regard Pius XII as the "last traditional pope," this may be a surprising statement. But Pius XII in 1948 appointed Hannibal Bugnini as General Secretary to the new Pontificia Commissio pro Generali Liturgica Instauratione {Pontifical Commission for a General Liturgical Reform} [for which there was no excuse].


As Pius XII’s personal appointee, Bugnini wielded overarching authority, and through his position of papal favor, he introduced, starting in 1951, the changes that would eventually lead to the full-blown Novus Ordo service of 1962. Bugnini himself called the first of these Modernist changes, contained in the Decree Dominicae resurrectionis vigiliam (February 9, 1951): "the head of the battering-ram which pierced the fortress of our hitherto static liturgy." Further major changes to the conduct of the Mass and Holy Communion were introduced in 1956 in the General Decree Cum nostra haec aetate (March 23, 1955). Finally, the General Decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria (November 16, 1955), gutted and "modernized" Holy Week to such a degree that few further changes were necessary to incorporate it into the Novus Ordo of 1969.


All of Bugnini’s "modernizations" [except the 1962 Missal] were implemented under Pius XII, not John XXIII. John XXIII so detested Bugnini that he fired him from his position. After John XXIII’s death, Paul VI, the first[?] truly Modernist pope[?], appointed Bugnini in 1965, to the now all-powerful Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia {Committee to Execute the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy}.


It may be argued that Pius XII after 1954 was so sick that he had lost control of the Bugnini commission. Perhaps, but it was Pius XII who appointed Bugnini in the first place and foreshadowed in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei of 1947 the changes that would ensue in Novus Ordoizing the Mass. This encyclical has previously been regarded as traditional, but a rereading of it in the light of Vatican II, shows that, like that Modernist Council (which Pius XII himself wanted to convoke), Pius XII introduced novelties and ambiguities into traditional Catholic doctrine on the Sacred Liturgy from 1947 and that his softening of traditional liturgical doctrine led ultimately to the full-blown Novus Ordo of 1969. [So far Traditio]


The Reform of the Liturgy (Bugnini) indexed references to Pius XII by page number:


xxiii: “work of the commission for general liturgical reform that Pius XII established in 1948. The Lord willed that from those early years a whole series of providential circumstances should thrust me [Bugnini] fully, and indeed in a privileged way, in medias res, and that I should remain there in charge of the secretariat. This volume thus embraces in a measure the entire history of liturgical reform in the period from 1948 to 1975 – twenty-seven years devoted to restoring splendor and charm, youthful beauty, trenchancy, and a sweet fragrance to the public prayer of the Church.”


xxvi: “The liturgical reform was a ‘movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church’ (Pius XII), a great work that all who took part in approached with humility, faith, intense love, and prayer; they ‘put off their shoes,’ as Moses did on approaching the burning bush, because they knew that everything they touched was sacred. [But, with consecrated fingers, they touched it anyway.] All of us had constantly before our eyes a vision either of the divine Majesty whose earthly praise we were providing with new expressions and new emphases, or of the Church, which would be putting this new song on the lips of the faithful.”


6: “In his encyclical Mediator Dei of November 11, 1947, Pius XII put the seal of his supreme authority on this movement, which by now was to be found everywhere in the Church. The liturgy had entered [at last!] upon its true course, that of pastoral concern, and was thus returning to the ideal it had had in the beginning.”


7: “…. Pius XII had already been thinking of reform some years earlier. A project for liturgical reform – or, more accurately, liturgical codification – was later found among the papers of Father Pio Alfonzo, a Benedictine, who taught liturgy at the College of Propaganda and was a consultor of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.”


(footnote 5) “In an audience granted to Cardinal Carlo Salotti, prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on May 10, 1946, Pope Pius XII expressed his wish that a start be made on studying the problem of a general reform of the liturgy. In another audience, granted to Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, secretary of the same Congregation, on July 17, 1946, it was determined ‘that a special commission of experts should reflect on the general reform of the liturgy and offer concrete proposals’; ….”


9: “So secret …. was their work that the publication of the Ordo Sabbati Sancti instaurati at the beginning of March 1951 caught even the officials of the Congregation of Rites by surprise. The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work by [two termites] Monsignor Montini and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea, confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him.”


44: “The liturgy feeds the Church’s life; it must therefore remain dynamic and not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified. Pius XII said as much in 1947 in this lapidary sentence: ‘The liturgy is something lasting and alive.’”


385: “In this document (Missale Romanum) Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal …. The constitution notes that the current reform brings to completion the work begun by Pius XII with his restoration of the solemn Easter Vigil and Holy Week.”


708: April 21, 1966 Cardinal Lercaro sent Paul VI a memorandum incorporating: “…. Revision of the sacramental rites in the Roman Pontifical raises a series of problems that are very serious and sensitive not only from the viewpoint of ritual but also and above all because of their theological consequences. …. Her rites in their structure and particular parts should also have a didactic function; they should therefore be clear in their organization and contain a series of gestures and words that express sure teaching.


“The problem becomes even more urgent and sensitive where the rites of ordination are concerned, especially the three sacramental ordinations, episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. The ritual for these orders has been formed by successive contributions that reflect the doctrinal and cultural influence of the periods in which the rites and formulas were created. The formulas of ordination, for example, reflect the allegorizing mentality and spirituality of the early Middle Ages, containing as they do a whole series of references to personages, events and rites of the Old Testament as applied to the new covenant. The gestures and several parts of the rite, for example, the traditio instrumentorum, the traditio insignium, and, to some extent, the taking of an oath of fidelity, reflect the influence of the feudal period, and so on.


“Furthermore, each gesture is habitually accompanied by a formula, but the latter is not always in harmony with the objective meaning of the gesture itself. For example: the laying on of hands (an essential part of the rite) at the consecration of a bishop is accompanied by the words ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ which are not the sacramental formula but, by reason of their placement and of the solemn moment at which they are said, end up by pushing into the background the real sacramental formula, namely, the ensuing preface.


“Finally, it is necessary for the study group to keep before it the extensive doctrinal enrichment [new] brought to this area by Vatican II, especially in its Constitution on the Church, when dealing with the episcopate and with the priesthood in general. In the present effort at renewal, the liturgy cannot fail to introduce this wealth of teaching into its formulas, which are intended not simply for the conferral of a sacrament but also for the instruction of the faithful through the rite. Nor may we set up an opposition between this renewal and the simple respect due to a text that is rich indeed, but rich rather by reason of its venerable age than of its authentic theological content.”


The Cardinal then addressed himself in greater detail to several issues:


Sacramental formulas. In virtue of the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius XII, the sacramental formula for the conferral of holy orders in each of its three degrees is the entire preface, although only one part of this is said to be essential and indispensable.


But the three prefaces in the Pontifical no longer seem suited to their purpose, since they do not adequately show forth the true nature of priesthood to the full extent in which the Church now understands it. The Consilium should therefore adopt two resolutions. The first has to do with the episcopate: “In our opinion there should be a study on whether other texts may be substituted which better express the theology of the episcopal office.” The second concerns the diaconate: “The Fathers have decided that there should be a study of how the consecratory preface may better express the theology of the diaconate in the [new] light of the constitution Lumen gentium.”


A good starting point for the study of episcopal consecration would seem to be the text in the Traditio Apostolica of [antipope] Hippolytus. This is still used in the Coptic Rite and, in a fuller version derived from the Testamentum Domini, among the West Syrians.

For the diaconate the formula has been tackled almost from scratch, using part of the current formula and completing it.


For the presbyterate the current formula seemed already a rich one, needing only the restoration[?] of the original form it had in the source and a few additions or revisions.


The words “Receive the Holy Spirit” These occur at the moment when the celebrant lays his hands on the elect during Episcopal consecration. [So obviously they mean nothing.] They also occur in a fuller form in diaconal ordination (“Receive the Holy Spirit for strength to resist the devil and his temptations, in the name of the Lord”).


These words are not part of the sacramental formula and can lead to incorrect interpretations in catechetical instruction and into misunderstanding of the rite by the faithful. [Is this a classroom? Are the faithful being ordained?] It seemed wise, therefore, to eliminate them, so that the imposition of hands is done in silence, as is already the case in the ordination of priests. [Now the faithful can’t determine whether the ordinand is becoming a deacon or a priest. Let’s eliminate the consecratory prayers at Mass because they may confuse a Christian Scientist!] ….


According to the regulations in the old Pontifical, after the imposition of hands the co-consecrating bishops should “also recite the prayer Propitiare and the entire preface that follows; throughout the remainder of the rite they should likewise read in a low voice everything that the consecrating bishop reads or sings.”


All this creates a disagreeable situation, since the words of the principal consecrator [who may be tone-deaf] are continually [continuously?] accompanied by the murmur of the other two bishops as they recite the same formula. [Of course it’s the same formula; why else are they present?] It would seem more appropriate to adopt the practice of the Eastern Rites, in which …. the other bishops participate simply by imposing hands and by their [manifest?] intention. The verbal participation of the co-consecrators will therefore be limited to the essential formula, that is, they will sing or recite, along with the consecrating bishop, only the part of the preface that is determined to be the “essential part.” [But the entire preface is designated as the form. And what if Pius XII was wrong in redefining the form? His Sacramentum ordinis was addressed to only the Latin Rite and therefore failed a condition for an infallible statement.] No more Lercaro.


[I must admit that I have never been too happy with Eugenio Pacelli. I have the impression that, like Montini, he was reared to become pope. He, like Della Chiesa (Benedict XV), was secretary to one of our worst enemies, Cardinal Rampolla, who was almost elected pope in 1903. He was soft on Darwin’s fable of Evolution. Some suspected that he muzzled Father Charles Coughlin. Perhaps he was as sure as I that we would eventually be embroiled in World War Two, during which Roosevelt allowed the bombing of Monte Cassino and his fellow-Mason Truman atom-bombed the two best known centers of Catholicism in Japan, and was concerned that an “unfriendly” Vatican might suffer like treatment. In Sacramentum ordinis he demonstrated deficiency in logic and theology. He kicked Montini upstairs for homicidal treachery. He permitted a female prostitute to maintain permanent quarters in the Vatican.


Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:47 am
Posts: 17
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Tommy Short wrote:
I am posting this article from my friend Hoot Gibson as a simply response from others who may see things differently in regard to Pius XII. I fall somewhere in between the two postions (pro or anti Pius XII) but I must concede that I recognize in my humble and perhaps eroneous opinion that Pope Pius XII had some serious modernist flaws. It is hard to reconcile any possiblity (at least in my mind) that somehow all the error and chaos since the Vat. II council simply began and was born overnight without preparation or forethought that existed prior to the council. We are certain, due to the writings of Pius X, that modernism already existed with the walls of the church. Pius XII was curiously weak on evolution, liberal leaning in liturgical matters (IMO) and without any question appointed and protected the very people who would later destroy what we knew as the church. I simply post this for the benefit of the discussion brought up, not to cause any controversy, although I recognize it might do just that. Many on this list already realize form past issues that I have some other issues with Pius XII. I look forward to any reaction or response to Hutton's post as follows.


Hutton has only conspiracy theories oriented by a deconstructionist and historicist revisionism of certain historical facts to justify a rank arrogance and irreverence to the Office of the Supreme Pontiff. This is the sort of stuff that discredits sedevacantism in the eyes of many.

The supposed continuity between the clerico-political dynamics at Rome before and after the Johannine-Pauline Council is merely accidental and peripheral. It never may justify a total abandonment of Catholic praxis and doxis.

If I were to chose between Hutton (or Mr. Morrison at Traditio) and Pope Pius XII, it would not be a very difficult choice to make :D

Pope Pius XII may not have been perfect, but those who criticize him in order to justify egocentrically devised constructs and novelties regarding the praxis and doxis of the Church are merely parroting the sort of propaganda that the Jansenists and Gallicanists had spewed a centuries ago.


Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Thanks for the quick reply Pascual, I certainly appreciate it. I know Hoot very well and I not only consider him a friend, but know him to be a very spiritual man. He has been fighting this fight for quite some time, certainly longer then most. I do not think then it is wise to simply gloss over his motivations or his assertions. While I too have had some disagreements with Hoot in the past, I have always been somewhat astounded by the almost universal adoration of Pius XII's pontificate in light of the many shortcomings. Could you point out for me the revisionsary historical aspects of the post I sent? for my benefit. I too would choose a vaild Pope over Mr. Gibson, whatever that really means. But I have no doubt that Hoot would not have appointed Bugnini to any Vatican offices in charge of the Liturgy, added any fuel to the Evolution heresy, etc etc. I suppose my difficulty arises from an unspoken belief that we can't question the motives or errors of the pre-vatican II Popes in light of the Post-Vatican II catastrophe. As sedevacantists we all see the smoke from the Vat II council, I wonder if we can find the fire from whence it came? Its genesis is certainly long before the Council. To claim the continuity from pre-council to post-council is "accidental" seems naive to me; but then again who am I? Well, I am a Catholic man who believes the continuity is not accidental or peripheral. Thanks for the engaging is this conversation, I believe it is an important one.


Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pascual wrote:
If I were to chose between Hutton (or Mr. Morrison at Traditio) and Pope Pius XII, it would not be a very difficult choice to make :D

Nor for me either: I especially like your characterization of "Mr" Morrison...

Pascual wrote:
Pope Pius XII may not have been perfect, but those who criticize him in order to justify egocentrically devised constructs and novelties regarding the praxis and doxis of the Church are merely parroting the sort of propaganda that the Jansenists and Gallicanists had spewed a centuries ago.

Again, you are right on target.

It should be perfectly plain to anyone who has studied the issues that have afflicted the Church for the past couple of centuries (at least) that the present crisis had been planned from long ago: long before Pius XII or Pius X or even Pius IX.

For some idea of what had taken place up to then, reading the book, "The Christian Trumpet" will go far towards others' education in these matters.

As far as I am concerned, it took a special permission from God for it finally to come to fruition. St. Paul said it quite plainly: "...until he who holds be taken out of the way..."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
HI Ken. I still do not know exactly what it means to "take" Pius XII over Hutton or why Morrison is even in the equation. Are we choosing teams for a rugby match, for a debate on politics, on being a pope? If it is just individual events then I would have no problem taking Hoot over Pius XII if it came to Bugnini or evolution or other theological issues that are not permissable discussion here. But this is really aside to the issue we are discussing.

Since you too agree that this demonic plot was given birth long before the Vatican II Council, I wonder if you believe or even know which clerics must have been a part of this plan? Popes, Bishops, perhaps non-Catholics. Actually this was all I was pointing out. Modernism had enterred the church long before John XXIII (who by the way always gave credit to Pius XII) and I admit that this self evident truth does nothing to change the current apostacy of the Vat II sect it would seem permissible to apply the same Catholic princples that we used to embrace sedevacantism to the clerics before the council.


Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:09 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Tommy Short wrote:
HI Ken. I still do not know exactly what it means to "take" Pius XII over Hutton or why Morrison is even in the equation.

We (at least I) am talking about authority. Neither Hutton nor Morrison has any authority whatever in matters of Church Doctrine.

I am sure Morrison was mentioned because he too apparently believes that Pius XII was no different than these latest antipopes...which isn't even logical, let alone supported by the facts.

I can state categorically that "Fr." Morrison is nothing but a layman...as Hutton is...and therefore neither one has any authority whatever in these matters.

Of course, both or either can state their opinion: after all, everyone has one...like navels...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Well Ken, that actually makes perfect sense indeed. I suppose as well, we do all have our opinions. I guess I never have totally understood the apparent universal pass that Pius XII gets on the present crisis in the church. My only real motivation is a personal one. I simply have a difficult time not holding the pre-cinciliar poes to the same standars we use to convict the pot-conciliar popes too. Although I will say that even if undisputed evidence existed convicting Pius XII of sharing in the blame it would not change anything. It seems I just responded to Pascuals post simply due to questions that I continue to have about Pius XII specifically. Like most, I am trying to practice my Catholic faith in trying circumstances, and seemingly void of Church authority. Thanks Ken...


Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Concerning Pius XII: you were aware, weren't you, Tommy, that Pius XII was almost constantly under attack from within his own curia from many different directions, and that, especially during the last few years of his life, he was very, very ill much of the time?

For instance, it is now common knowledge that Montini, when that scumbag was Pius XII's Secretary of State, during the time that Pius XII was consecrating bishops secretly and sending them behind the Iron Curtain (following the example of Pius XI), that Montini, probably due to being blackmailed for his homosexuality by the Communist, Tondi S.J., was giving all the necessary details to Tondi, who then turned all that information over to the Russian secret police, who then gathered up almost all of those men as they crossed the border and either killed them instantly, or put them in the Gulag.

It took the Protestant Bishop of Upsalla, Sweden, who was privy to the Swedish Secret Police's information, to warn him of this. When Pius XII confirmed this, he first fired Montini and sent him to Milan (he should have excommunicated that....jerk), then took to his bed for several months and almost died. It took considerable effort by Sr. Pascalina to get him back to work. As long as he lived, he never ever appointed another secretary of state, attempting to handle all that work himself.

Montini also lied, repeatedly, to Pius XII about the true conditions of the Catholic Church in China.

Following the advice of people such as Montini was the direct cause of many of Pius XII's apparently bad decisions.

However, I have never seen or read of anything that Pius XII did, said, or published that wasn't completely orthodox or based in orthodoxy.

There is an old saying by Indians of the Northwestern U.S. "Never judge a man until you have walked 10 moons in his mocassins". It is really too bad most Catholics don't take this advice to heart and practice it.

Personally, I would be very, very afraid to stand before God at my death and hear Him judge me as so many "Catholics" judge people like Pius XII...

I find it utterly disgusting, and it would scare me to death to do such a foolish thing.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Ken; hopefully what I am engaged in here is not judging Pius XII or passing judgement. My intention is mere conversation of observation using the same skill set (good or bad) used to pass judgement on the Pot-conciliar Popes, nothing more. I do not know under the circumstances of the church today that I can swallow all the excuses used to exhonerate some of the bad decisions we are aware of regarding Pius XII. Maybe this is wrong. How sick was Pius XII when he protected and elevated Bugnini or created his position to update the liturgy? But I don't want to beat this to death Ken, or cause any issues here for the onlooker. Again just some observations. I have another issue but I won't go there either. Thanks for all the relpies Ken, I truly do appreciate it.


Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Tommy Short wrote:
I do not know under the circumstances of the church today that I can swallow all the excuses used to exonerate some of the bad decisions we are aware of regarding Pius XII.

"Aware of"? How certain are "we" that these ostensibly "bad decisions" were solely the responsibility of Pius XII?

Tommy Short wrote:
Maybe this is wrong. How sick was Pius XII when he protected and elevated Bugnini or created his position to update the liturgy?

My understanding of the Bugnini issue was that Pius XII had nothing whatever to do with it since at the time this occurred he was too sick to even really understand what was going on. As I understand it, he died within a year, or possibly two, of this, after a long illness.

If you would care to provide some incontrovertible documentary proof for his having "elevated Bugnini" other than something either Hutton or Morrison said, or provided, I would be pleased to review it.

Pius XII, despite his office, was most certainly not omniscient. In fact, it was clear at the time that he was purposely being kept in the dark about many things that effected the Church. The Church in China, for instance. I lived through that period and was watching, with considerable distress, what was going on. Of course, we were not privy to the details, but it was obvious to anyone who cared to see it that Pius XII was being almost totally ignored by those "in charge" during the last few years of his life.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Bugnini was appointed as Secretary of the Commission for Liturgical Reform (go figure) by Pius XII in 1948. Was he sick then? I believe that Pius XII createdf this particular commission, did he not. As Pope wouldn't he be responsible?

You know Hutton is quite intelligent and sources his works like anyone else. I don't understand why his input is any less valuable then any of the other folks we seem to admire, on this list, as well as off. We are all working with the skill set that God has provided.


Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:31 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Tommy Short wrote:
Bugnini was appointed as Secretary of the Commission for Liturgical Reform (go figure) by Pius XII in 1948. Was he sick then? I believe that Pius XII created this particular commission, did he not. As Pope wouldn't he be responsible?

It has been a long time ago that I/we addressed this issue, so I have forgotten much of what we learned then. I will have to go back to my very old notes to check this out. However, as I remember it, Pius XII had much less to do with the entire matter of Bugnini than is even today commonly thought.

Tommy Short wrote:
You know Hutton is quite intelligent and sources his works like anyone else. I don't understand why his input is any less valuable then any of the other folks we seem to admire, on this list, as well as off. We are all working with the skill set that God has provided.

I have nothing to say against Hutton, and most of what you say above about him is correct. In my view, we traditionalist Catholics of today owe him an awful lot. However, he is not any more infallible than the rest of us, and can make mistakes just as we do.

Perhaps you are not aware that the issues concerning Pius XII which (I presume, not having read everything Hutton accuses Pius XII of doing) Hutton writes concerning Pius XII were brought up many years ago by Mary Ball Martinez, and further elaborated on by Solange Hertz, both of whom had somewhat less than completely orthodox ideas of the Church?

Considering Hutton's past completely orthodox and courageous stance against modernism, I find it "interesting" that on this issue, he is in the same camp as "Mr." Morrison, Mary Ball Martinez, and Solange Hertz.

Something doesn't seem quite right to me about it.

To my mind, there are many other possible explanations of Pius XII's apparently wrong actions than to say he is in the same group as the latest series of antipopes. I simply don't believe that.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
I must also add that one of the reasons I defend Pius XII is that he was, and still is, being persecuted by nearly everyone: right, left, and everyone in between...apparently nothing he ever did was right...like his Master. And he is no longer around to defend himself either.

It has been proven over and over again throughout history that anyone who has been persecuted by everyone has, obviously, done something right, sometime.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Ken,

Thank you so much for your defense of Pope Pius XII. You and I are in perfect agreement on this. It seems to me that all the rant against good Pope Pius XII is based on assumptions and conjecture. It appears to me that the position against Pius XII is basically this: The crisis came after he died, therefore he failed to defend the Church during his time, and allowed modernism to grow to the point that they could make the bold attack they did at Vatican II.

But, to counter this view, I would say first of all that it lacks evidence. Can anyone say, "Pope Pius XII appointed modernists, while knowing that they were modernists?" Does Pius XII's encyclical Humani generis mean anything? He was addressing the modernists. He used his power of Supreme Teacher to correct their errors, one by one in the encyclical.

Secondly, the position against Pius XII appears to not take into account that Catholics have a duty to the see the best in their neighbor until the contrary is evident. Like all Catholics, Pius XII could not lawfully entertain rash suspicions or judgments. He was the Pope, but he was not God, he could not see into the hearts of men, he could only see external evidence. But, what evidence did he see in those, we now, after the fact, know as modernists? No one can seem to prove anything, just endless conjecture.

The liberals also hate Pius XII, they hate the fact that he defended the Faith and taught it magnificently, in such documents as Mystici Corporis and Mediator Dei. Catholics during the time of Pope Pius XII loved him but all this seem to change after his death. False accusations began to surface that Pius XII allowed the Jews to be captured and executed by the Nazis. This lie is so bizzare, as he did the exact opposite, he saved many from execution, a great act of charity, and one which even brought about the famous conversion of the chief Rabbi of Rome.

The Church under Pius XII was a magnificent and beautiful sight. Have Catholics forgotten or failed to read up on what what the Church was actually doing under his reign. The Church was converting the world, and was active everywhere, all through Africa and Asia converting the world to Christ. In America and other parts of the Protestant controled world, Protestants were coming into the Church in record numbers. Pope Pius was leading the Church in a great age. He acted truly as the Holy Father, a most beloved father, a Shepherd who truly loved his Sheep and was leading them to the eternal pasture.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Ken, thanks again for the reply.

First, I don't believe that most of Pius XII's detractors are putting him in the Vat. II popes camp. They are simply applying the same principles we use in detracting from the modern no-popes and using logic and historical evidence to produce a conclusion or an opinion that things were going drastically wrong long before the council. Personally that is my entire purpose of questioning some of his actions. I still contend he elevated several folks who later destroyed the church and were aggresively pursuing this agenda while he was the Pope. He appointed Bugnini in 1948. He was at the least soft on Evolution, and I believe the evidence suggests he had some hand, if not minor, in moving the updating of the liturgy forward. Since I am aparty of one on the anti-NFP bandwagon I won't even use that particular issue.

Secondly, it seems more apparent to me that Mary Ball Martinez and Solange Hertz (whom I agree with often) are in Hoots camp not vice versa. Hoot spends no time at all joining others' camp or allegiances to others theology unless he feels it is the constant teaching of the Church. This is akin to saying that all of us here are in the Dimond camp because they too believe that the Vatican II popes are bogus. The Dimonds simply hold to a reality that we hold to as well, nothing more. I trust this helps. I simply and often quote Hoot because I know him and trust him; he has a wealth of information due to endless resources and is as intelligent a lay scholar as I have come across. In many ways he has the same prowess as our mutual friend John Lane. I know he is not infallibe, nor is anyone on this list.


Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:32 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Suit yourself, Mr. Short. I will no longer argue with you on this particular issue. I have made my points clear. If you don't agree with them, so be it.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Thank you, Mike. As is usual with you, your thoughts are always reasoned and Catholic. God Bless you.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:26 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 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:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.