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?
I already addressed that: the question of demonstrating conclusively that Pope Pius XII was the most recent Supreme Pontiff to have reigned over the Catholic Church, and that we are therefore in an interregnum, is a bigger question and a problematic one too: it's a red herring when it comes to the subject being now discussed.
That should be the question upon which clerics such as Father Cekada should focus, as it entails ramifications of immeasurable proportions.
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.[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.
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?
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.
So the principle Father argued for is not which pope's law applies (Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, etc.), but that traditional priests should follow rites that are not tainted with modernist influence. And really, what's so wrong with that — instead of engaging in legalistic quibbling and winding up with Bugnini?
As I have written, 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 [from men without a Canonical mission or office, strictly speaking, and therefore without any jurisdiction whatsoever, save that supplied by the Church herself in individual instances for the welfare of souls] 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, and a sense of loyalty and love for the Apostolic See is detrimental.
It's not "legalistic quibbling," but about the very essence of the apostolate of the sedevacantist clerics: whether they should be guided by what
they think is right, or what the
Church herself has decreed.
Again, Father Cekada has yet to demonstrate conclusively that the Restored Order of Holy Week is noxious to faith and morals, or that the clerics and layfolk who obey the decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites are somehow vulnerable to modernism.
And I don't think you should be offended by him saying that a priest usually knows a lot more about the liturgy than an average layman. It's just a statement of reality, like saying a farmer probably knows more about farming than a taxi driver does. :farmer:
The tone in which Father Cekada wrote those concluding remarks seems condescending, assuming contingencies regarding my person that he cannot presume to know.
Besides, he is not as clerics of the past, who had a Canonical mission and office, or as scholar 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 more insulting was the fact that Father Cekada did not correct the error in his "inquirer's" message:
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?
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.
Topic: Regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week (Read 19224 times)