CathInfo.com

Pius XII did lots of things, like install Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentations, opened the door to evolution, permitted the first Ecuмenical gatherings, and appointed nearly every single Modernist bishop who later brought us the glories of Vatican II.  Pius XII actively helped usher in the Vatican II era.

That's a slippery slope argument right there. What they did later is irrelevant to the material in an encyclical or allocution they published years earlier. Just saying.

That's a slippery slope argument right there. What they did later is irrelevant to the material in an encyclical they published years earlier. Just saying.

Which Encyclical?  Pius XII was merely giving a long-winded (clearly-speculative) speech to a group of midwives.  There was no Encyclical, no teaching addressed to the Universal Church, nothing to indicate that he was teaching something with any kind of authority, and everything to suggest that he was merely thinking out loud and speculating (I'll cite the language of his speech here).

But what does it matter if you're R&R?  He could have issued an Encyclical, right?, and as long as it didn't meet the notes of infallibility it was fair game.  After all, it's OK to reject an Ecuмenical Council, right?  If I sat down and decided that the Encyclical was wrong or not "Traditional", I would have been within my rights to reject it, no?

That's my problem.  R&R are all "lay popes" in their own way.  Then you have SVs on the other side who exaggerate the scope of infallibility where a speech given by Pius XII to a group of midwives might have been a solemn dogmatic definition.  These SVs are also lay popes vis-a-vis the pre-V2 theologians, since these same theologians all endorsed Vatican II and the New Mass.  So where do they get off rejecting this theological consensus.  Don't we see the problem here between the imbalance?  Both are wrong and are exaggerations.  No, a speech given by Pius XII is not necessarily authoritative, infallible, and irreformable.  But then many R&R somehow also act as if it is, whereas at the same time claiming it's OK to reject an entire Ecuмenical Council.  If you say that's OK, then what's stopping me from rejecting even papal encyclicals, much less a speech to some midwives?

Ladislaus,

I don't know where to begin, but I have to correct several points right away.

1. I don't have an "agenda" unless you say that God, the cause of Truth, and the good of souls are "agendas".

2. I'm not a fan of Fr. Cekada, today or yesterday.

3. Due to my love of the truth, however, I will "give the devil his due" and admit that Fr. Cekada was completely right every time he opened his mouth (or got out his pen/keyboard) when he spoke on the topic of "Trads pontificating on matters above their pay grade". His statements about normal Catholic life before Vatican II are spot-on. Do you dispute that Catholics used to need an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat to publish such tracts before Vatican II? Do you dispute the level of education that men used to have who presumed to teach the Church militant about matters of theology, moral or otherwise? Or the oversight the Church placed over them? Truth is truth, no matter who utters it.

4. Is Fr. Cekada a hypocrite? That's another story. He himself pontificated (without any authority) about "Una cuм" being sinful and other nonsense. But that's beside the point. His point about laymen and under-educated Trad priests becoming little Popes is still spot-on.

Someone else complained that Fr. C didn't jump into the public debate. EXACTLY! That was his point! It's matter for practical application, IN the confessional. Without the specifics for an individual soul, there's nothing to discuss, only the general principles involved (which he actually gave). Those principles could excuse or condemn, depending on the individual.