Author Topic: Holy Week Law of Pope Pius XII (Read 5908 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:26:42 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant. In other words, even if Pius XII intended to utter a statement (wasn't just tongue-tied), let's say it was something that he didn't KNOW was heretical and immediately retracted when someone pointed out to him. He would have been guilty of only MATERIAL heresy.

So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.

Let me make sure I got this straight. You believe that someone who does not believe any heresy at all but merely has a slip of the tongue is objectively a material heretic?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #41 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:45:02 PM »

Ambrose · « **Reply #42 on:** December 20, 2013, 12:52:16 AM »

Quote

That's exactly my view on sedevacantism.

I consider it quite possible, nay, rather, very likely, ... or actually, almost morally certain, that the V2 popes were not legitimate.

Yet I feel that there absolutely must be some role for the Church's authority. Legitimacy of popes is classified as a dogmatic fact, and as such the legitimacy (or lack thereof) must be known with the certainty of faith. Otherwise, for instance, any dogmatic pronouncements made by a such a pope cannot be held with the certainty of faith either.

You are right, there is absolutely a role for authority. We as Catholics may recognize a clearly evident fact prior to the judgment of authority, but our judgment binds no one else.

The issue here is that if these Popes were legitimate, certain other facts would be true. Catholics could not lawfully reject any of the authoritative teaching and law of these "popes." If they were popes, Catholics would not be free to judge their teaching and law, their duty would be to hear and submit.

Quote

Consequently, I defer to the judgment of the Church. I consider my state of doubt sufficient reason to effectively withdraw from obedience to the V2 popes while avoiding formal schism.

The trouble is that there is no such concept in the teaching of the Church. If a man is Pope, he can never lead you astray in his authoritative teaching or universal law, so the fact that you believe you must withdraw from him in the matters is only proof that he cannot be the Pope.

Quote

I have problems with both the SVs who feel that you MUST hold it as practically de fide that these are not popes (the Sanborn anti-"Opinionism" position) as well as with the sedeplenists who hold that you MUST believe the V2 popes to be legitimate (all the while refusing to obey them but paying lip service and posting a token picture of the current V2 pope in the vestibule). Neither of those extremes is at all defensible.

I also disagree with Bp. Sanborn's position. His coined term, "opinionism," is gravely misleading to say the least. Those who hold the position that these post Vatican II papal claimants are not popes are morally certain of the fact that these men are not popes. But, our private judgment of this fact cannot bind others. when the Church judges the matter, all are bound to hear the Church.

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre held a similar view, if you look at his entire body of work, and Bishop Tissier has articulated the same thing. Bishop Williamson has hinted at it and that one Resistance Father has said it (I forget his name momentarily).

Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that a Catholic could and even must judge these men as heretics, therefore losing their offices, (if they ever possessed them). He recognized that Catholics cannot ignore the Pope, and cannot just go about their lives in these chapels as though the pope did not exist.

Ambrose · « **Reply #43 on:** December 20, 2013, 01:26:58 AM »

Ambrose wrote:

Quote

The Popes are infallibly protected in their universal disciplinary laws, so as long as we are dealing with certain popes, we can be certain that their laws for the Church are good, holy and acceptable to God.

This principle is certain with the Holy Week rites. There is no valid Catholic principle that can be used to argue against Pope Pius XII's Holy Week law.

Ladislaus wrote:

Quote

Yes and no. Infallibility protects the changes from having anything in them inherently harmful or contrary to the faith. It does not protect them from being inferior in a "relative" sense. Since they're not exactly the same, one can make an argument about which one is better and which one worse. That essentially is the epikeia argument made by the sedevacantists who fail to implement the Holy Week Rites, i.e. that they're inferior and/or "inopportune", i.e. harmful relatively speaking due to the modernist climate of our time; had the same changes been made 300 years ago, there would not have been a question.

I never claimed that a rite may not be inferior than a former rite. It is possible for one to be better and one to be lessor. There would be no reason for Pope Pius XII to approve the revised rite if he didn't think he was making it better.

The problem here is who are anyone of us to make such a judgment? Who are these "traditional" bishops and priests to make a judgment that they are qualified to judge which received and approved rite of the Church is better and which is lessor?

Secondly, in order to invoke epikeia, one must be certain of the harm which comes from the universal law to reject it in a particular case, that the lawgiver failed to envision. Clearly, Pope Pius XII, the lawgiver! envisioned this law a good law! and even openly praised it.

I find any claim to epikeia to be an abuse. This law does not harm souls. I have never heard of any Catholic who attends the Pius XII Holy Week to have been spiritually harmed by it. It seems to me that once epikeia is stretched to justify rejecting an approved rite of the Church that is acceptable to God, then, anything goes. That to me seems to cause real spiritual harm.

Ladislaus wrote:

Quote

Of course, the problem here is that the you could look at the Novus Ordo as just a LOT of changes very similar to the Pius XII changes, none of which in and of itself is inherently harmful. Is it intrinsically harmful or bad for the faith to reduce the Kyrie Eleison-Christe Eleison sequence from 9 to 3? You could go down the line for each change in the NOM.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. Pope Pius XII was changing the very long Holy Week rite to a shorter rite. Obviously some things needed to be omitted to shorten it. He did not change the ordinary of the Mass for the rest of the year, only for these days.

As the decree states, Catholics were not attending the former rite, so he took action, as a good pope would do. He shortened the rite and approved it to better fit into the times of Catholics living in the modern age, which was mostly not agrarian.

We can be absolutely certain that the changes made to the Holy Week did not affect the holiness of the rite. God will accept the rite his Vicar has promulgated. It is not for anyone to question what the Pope has bound the Church to do. Our duty as Catholics is to trust the Pope, and believe that his teaching and acts are good for us, as the Pope cannot lead us astray in his authoritative teaching and universal laws.

Quote

As for the Pius XII changes, I absolutely LOVE the fact that the time of the Easter Vigil was changed. I've always found it extremely annoying to hear Traditional Catholics running around on Easter Saturday morning saying "Happy Easter". Didn't Christ die on the 3rd Day? That's CLEARLY an abuse that crept in over time. You look at the darkness & light imagery in the Liturgy, and it's obviously meant to be a TRUE VIGIL.

I agree with you completely.

Quote

At the time of Pius XII, one would absolutely have been required to accept the changes and implement them. In a sedevacante or sede-"doubtist" period like this, however, there's some freedom for an application of epikeia.

I don't agree. The Pope's laws remain binding until a future Pope changes them. Whatever the Pope binds us to, then we are bound.

In order to invoke epikeia to reject Pope Pius XII's law, it must be demonstrated that the law is harmful in a particular situation, not envisioned by the lawgiver.

It seems to me that the circuмstances that existed in the 1950s which led the Pope to reform the Holy Week are still present today. I would be curious to hear how well attended the chapels are that use the older rite verse those that use Pius XII's Holy Week.

According to SJB, the chapels that he is familiar with that reject the Pius XII Holy Week are in the same condition as churches were in the early 1950s: almost empty.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #44 on:** December 20, 2013, 06:29:22 AM »

Amborse. Is someone who does not believe any heresy that slips and says something heretical a material heretic?