CathInfo.com

Quote from: Canute

Fr. Cekada apparently just put out something about your article:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/03/31/short-critique-of-article-regarding-the-restored-order-of-holy-week/

Wow! I did not think my notes would get such attention, and so promptly too.

The notes present what, to the sedevacantist individual, are the current binding legislation promulgated by the Apostolic See, since (according to their understanding) we are in an interregnum. We are not free to do as we please simply because there is no reigning Pontiff.

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 in his article "Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms “Illegal”?" are 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. His theories are therefore not pertinent to the discussion.

The liturgical reforms of Pope St. Pius X were never completed: does that mean that we are free to disregard Divino afflatu and go back to the Breviary of Pope Leo XIII?

The only convincing argument that he presents in his article "The Pius XII Reforms: More on the “Legal” Issue" is the following:

Quote

But this is not as simple as it sounds, because before a priest can maintain that the Pius XII legislation alone is legally binding, he must first demonstrate conclusively that John XXIII and Paul VI (at least before the end of 1964) were not true popes.

.

But this not only concerns the questions regarding the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII, but the raison d'être of the sedevacantist stance itself. This just opens Pandora's Box and uncovers the ultimate fragility and instability of the stance of those sedevacantists who do as they please, and invoke epikeia or declare Ecclesia supplet, only to demand that the other sedevacantists adhere to whatever arbitrary principles they themselves follow.

Fr. Cekada has yet to prove that the rites and rubrics of the Restored Order of Holy Week 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.

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.

This just begins a slippery slope, and soon you shall see arguments in favor of foregoing the so-called Leonine Prayers: oh wait, that happened: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=16&catname=1

Finally, there are, of course, the usual ad hominem attacks:

Quote

I also note in passing that the author of the article is a layman. As such, it is unlikely that he has an intimate practical knowledge of the texts and rubrics of the old Holy Week, the 1955 Holy Week or the Paul VI Holy Week that a priest could have. Hence, he will be more or less oblivious to the differences or similarities between the rites (if indeed he notices them at all!) and will not really understand why a traditional Catholic priest could be completely repelled at the thought of performing rites created by Bugnini as one step in destroying the Mass. (emphasis mine)

What can I respond to that? If Pope Pius XII has been attacked based on conspiracy-theories, then why should I be surprised that Father presumes the knowledge of contingencies regarding my person?

Quote from: Malleus 01

I concur with your position and even though I am a fan of Father Cekada on many issues - the pre 1955 Holy Week argument of his is weak and speculative. And I agree with your position in regards to the " Ad Hominem" tactics which are unnecessary and better left out of a serious debate. If anything - they degrade the argument of those leveling the charges and illustrate that the author is not confident in his own argument and thus has to resort to such tactics. The Argument itself should stand on its own merit.

Well done -

Pax

His analysis on The Prayers after Low Mass is equally weak and speculative.

That said, all the foregoing questions assume that the sole principle that must determine how traditional priests perform the liturgy is the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope.”

But this is not as simple as it sounds, because before a priest can maintain that the Pius XII legislation alone is legally binding, he must first demonstrate conclusively that John XXIII and Paul VI (at least before the end of 1964) were not true popes.

Until he does so, he must consider himself bound by all the John XXIII changes — “legally binding” is your principle, remember — as well as all the early Paul VI changes.

(Among the early Paul VI changes are the following: At Mass the priest never recites texts that the choir sings, bits of the Ordinary are sung or recited in English, the Secret is said aloud, the “Per Ipsum” at the end of the Canon is recited aloud, the “Libera Nos” is recited aloud, “Corpus Christi/Amen” is used for the people’s communion, the Last Gospel is suppressed, Scripture readings are proclaimed in the vernacular alone and facing the people, lay lectors/commentators assist the priest, the “Pater Noster” is recited in English, etc.)

In the case of both Roncalli and early Montini, a putative legislator was “in possession.” If observing the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope” is supposedly the golden norm for traditional Catholic worship, shouldn’t Father then follow the “safer course” by chopping up the Mass and training the lectors, just in case?

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.

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.

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.