CathInfo.com

Hobbledehoy, think about it....Bp. Sanborn, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Neville, and Fr. Stepanich (at least) all prefer the pre-55 Holy Week liturgy. Does that not say anything to you? They are some of the king-pins of the true position in these apocalyptic times. Even Bp. McKenna worked with the CMRI and with Bp. Sanborn for years and had no beef.

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 other of "picking and choosing" and "Pope-sifting," yet we have done it ourselves in diverse manners.

Profaning the memory of Pope Pius XII is really rash and scandalous, like the troll "Philip" has done: yet what is to be expected when the clergy repeatedly criticize the reforms of Pope Pius XII? Have we lost the notion of the respect and obedience that we owe to the august office of the Supreme Pontiff?

Bp. Pivarunas prefers to accept everything promulgated under Pius XII, but does this mean he also condemns those who choose otherwise? I have never seen that. He appears to me to consider consciences well, and just prefers what he considers safer.

No, Bp. Pivarunas has never condemned anyone for disagreeing with him on the liturgical question. In fact, he consecrated then-Fr. Dolan, knowing full well what his position was on this matter.

But I never claimed to represent the CMRI or its Superior-General.

However, Hobbledehoy, your piece really goes hard at condemnation....talking about disobedience and pride, with comparisons about the minds of heretics, etc., etc. That is why I mentioned denigration.

No, the Sacred Canons and the principles of liturgical law do that. I was merely citing them and explaining how they would apply to our days.

I don't have time right now, but I know you are mistaken. Yet, I do recognize that Fr. Cekada goes to some extremes, too, but is not altogether mistaken.  There is a mean between extremes, which I will relate later.

Of course we are going to disagree, especially if the trolls (I'm not saying you) keep taunting me with horrible profanations of the memory of Pope Pius XII.

At this point, I would like to make a clarification:

Objectively speaking, the case is as the notes I have posted say, but whether or not the present-day clerics 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.

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.

It seems rather significant to note that nobody at the time rejected or even questioned the Holy Week changes. This was the same for the fasting modifications, which are accepted by all the mentioned sede clergy.