Hobbledehoy said:  

This is about the whole inconsistency of the "movement" itself, of which the lack of ecclesiastical discipline is but a manifestation.

If the sedes weren't inconsistent, then it would be even worse for us, because it would mean there was never any point to having a Pope at all  :dancing:

God protects His church and, at least when what sits in Rome was the Church, He didn't let Bugnini go too far.  It's a case of the scribes and the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat, do what they say and not what they do.  Sort of like how Caminus or others in the SSPX think of the Vatican II church, that it just barely scrapes by and meets the conditions of being the true Church; that is how I feel about the papacy of Pius XII.  God was restraining the fall from happening but just barely; it was already incredibly rotten.    

I'm afraid, Cupertino, that you are the one using bluster and rhetoric and emotion here.  No one is saying the changes are a vast improvement, but they did come from the true Church.  So it makes more sense to accept them for now, for the reasons Hobbledehoy points out.

I also brought up about the CMRI and the 55+ changes. Note well that they perform the mandatory changes, but they leave off the optional things from the late 50's (Fr. Cekada lists them and the average traditionalist today winces at them). We could argue likewise that the optional things were "good" at that time, then why do the CMRI entirely avoid them? For instance, the CMRI don't implement the "dialogue Mass" for the very same reason Fr. Cekada, et al, don't do the ones considered mandatory in the late 50's - because they offend against traditional Catholic sensibilities since and because the circuмstances changed drastically in the 60's.

This is a very balanced insight, and I wish Raoul and Hobbledhoy would give it some serious consideration.

The circuмstances HAVE changed from when the changes were promulgated, and it's not unreasonable to believe that this should lead us to look us upon them in a different way.

Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

"Safer course"?

C'mon, SJB, your own priest, Fr. Ramolla, uses the old Holy Week!

A "safe" course IS a sufficient norm, so if you brought up your "safer course" theory to him, Fr. Ramolla would have just one question for you:

http://movieclips.com/fMhF-marathon-man-movie-is-it-safe/

Quote from: SJB

Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

"Safer course"?

C'mon, SJB, your own priest, Fr. Ramolla, uses the old Holy Week!

A "safe" course IS a sufficient norm, so if you brought up your "safer course" theory to him, Fr. Ramolla would have just one question for you:

http://movieclips.com/fMhF-marathon-man-movie-is-it-safe/

The safer course does not involve epieikeia or cessation, because it is not necessary.

413. In its use epieikeia is at once lawful and dangerous.

(a) It is lawful, for it defends the common good, the judgment of conscience, the rights of individuals from subjection to a written docuмent and from oppression by the abuse of power;

(b) it is dangerous, for it rests on the judgment of the individual, which is prone to decide in his own favor to the detriment of the common good as well as of self.

415. The dangers of epieikeia also place limitations on its use.

(a) There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one's ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epieikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now.

(b) There is the danger that one may be in bad faith in deciding that the common good or justice requires the use of epieikeia; the motive in reality may be self-interest or escape from obligation. Hence, a person should not use epieikeia except in necessity, when he is thrown on his own resources and must decide for himself; and, even then, he must be sure that he acts from sincerity and disinterestedness.

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: SJB

Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino

Unfortunately, anytime you have a true pope approve of a liturgical practice, even tacitly, it is considered to be approved by "the Catholic Church". That is the holiness of the Catholic Church. Either the Novus Ordo liturgy is from the Church and perfectly good, or else the man approving of it is not a true pope.

Cupertino is not a theologian and should not play one on TV. Are you suggesting that you agree with his absurd suggestion that anything the Pope does is "From the Church" which is a condemned Modernism.

"The deposit of faith was not completed by the death of the last apostle" Condemned by Pope St. Pius X

What the CHURCH TEACHES is what the Church has always taught, nothing more nothing less, it is the Traditions handed down.

Lord Phan, do you deny the indirect infallibility of the disciplines laid down by the pope? If you do, you have a very un-Catholic view of the disciplines prescribed by the Church.

Here is an approved theologian explaining:

Quote from: Monsignor G. VanNoort, Christ’s Church

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
 
2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

Since when does VanNoort speak for the Church? It would appear he has overextended the use of infallibity of the Church PAST that which was defined in the first Vatican Counsil. Can you site this book, when it was issued and can you cite a source that says this from an Earlier date?

Diciplinary Commands have never been considered infallible, in fact I think he misunderstands what infallible means, if something is infallible then it cannot be changed. Diciplinary commands have always been changed or disregarded by New Popes?

By the way, there have been many approved theologians who have gotten things wrong. Some of them are Doctors of the Church. What they say isn't what you must believe to be a Catholic, what the Pope decrees Ex Cathedra is what you must believe.

To call me un-catholic in my view would be to call everyone in history who hasn't had that view un-catholic. Catholic by the way means universal, both in time and place.

The reason that the Pope is guarenteed infallibity when speaking Ex Cathedra is because he defines a Dogma which has always been believed(The Dogma itself is infallible because it comes from God) on pain of not being a Catholic.

The diciplinary acts of a Pontiff do not fall into this sphere and do not enjoy the chrism of infallibity.

I can cite Father Hesse Doctor of Thomistic Theology and Doctor of Canon Law to back up my statement.

The Teaching authority of The Theological Manuals

By Joseph Clifford Fenton

The Doctrine Of The Theological Manuals

...Obviously, if we are to examine Father Baum's claims seriously, we must first ask ourselves about the identity of the theological manuals of the turn of the twentieth century. The question with which the schema on which the council voted was that of revelation and the sources of revelation. Hence, we must suppose that, when Father Baum speaks of the offending manuals, he is referring to those which deal with fundamental dogmatic theology, and particularly with the sections De revelatione and De fontibus revelationis. It so happens that, in this field, there have been a great many very influential and well-written manuals produced during the early years of this century.

We are speaking, of course, of the manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, which were in use and were influential at and after the turn of the twentieth century. Some of these were originally written during the last years of the nineteenth century, but, in editions published subsequent to the issuance of the Lamentabili sane exitu, the Pascendi dominici gregis, and the Sacrorum antistitum, these manuals acquired the anti-Modernist emphasis, which seems so displeasing to Father Baum.

Probably the most important of these manuals were those of Louis Billot, who will most certainly be counted among the very ablest of all the theologians who labored for the Church during the early part of this century. These books, most immediately concerned with the material in the schema voted upon by the Fathers of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council, were published by the Gregorian University Press in Rome, and were re-edited many times. One of them was the De inspiratione sacrae scripturae theologica disquisitio,3 and another was the magnificent De immutabilitate traditionis contra modernam haeresim evolutionismi.4

Even more widely known than the works of Billot were those of the Sulpician Adolphe Tanquerey. Many thousands of priests were introduced to the study of sacred theology, and particularly of fundamental dogmatic theology, by courses based on Tanquerey's De Religione: De Christo Legato: De Ecclesia: De Fontibus Revelationis, the first of the three volumes of his Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae ad mentem S. Thomas Aquinatis accommodata.5 This particular volume had gone into its twenty-first edition in 1925. If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages," then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.

Likewise of prime importance in the early years of the twentieth century were Van Noort's two works on the subject of fundamental dogmatic theology, De vera religione6 and De ecclesia Christi.7 The influence of these two excellent works has been increased tremendously as a result of the English translation and adaptation of these works done by the Sulpician Fathers Castelot and Murphy. Another enormously and deservedly popular manual translated into English was Brunsmann's Fundamental Theology,8 made available to our scholars by the famed Arthur Preuss.

The first volume of Archbishop Zubizarreta's Theologia dogmatico-scholastica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis likewise influenced many students for the priesthood in the earlier part of this century. This volume was entitled Theologia fundamentalis.9 It contained the same material found in the first volume of Tanquerey's series. Like Tanquerey, Zubizarreta wrote a shorter treatise on dogmatic theology, placing the matter covered in the four volumes of the regular edition within the content of one volume. Tanquerey's was the Brevior synopsis theologiae dogmaticae.10Zubizarreta entitled his the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae.11

In 1930 the brilliant German Jesuit Herman Dieckmann continued the tradition of the manuals of the turn of the century by publishing his De revelatione Christiana: Tractatus philosophico-historici.12 Previously he had published the two volumes of his De ecclesia: Tractatus historico-dogmatici.13 Contemporary with Dieckmann's manuals, and likewise of primary importance in the history of twentieth-century theology was the three-volume text of the Jesuit Father Emil Dorsch, Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis.14In line with the teachings of Dorsch is the doctrine contained in a highly important American manual, The Theory of Revelation,15 by the great Rochester theologian, Monsignor Joseph J. Baierl.

The manual of Tanquerey was certainly the most widely distributed among all those that appeared during the early part of this century. In the perspective of history, it would seem that two authors must share the prize for theological acuмen. One, of course, was Billot, whose text, De Ecclesia Christi: sive Continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato,16 still remains the best theological treatment on the Church produced during the course of the past hundred years. The other was the French Dominican, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, whose classical De Revelatione per ecclesiam catholicam proposita17 is still basically the best manual of scholastic apologetics available to the student today.
Later than the manual of Tanquerey, but like it destined for tremendous success in the world of ecclesiastical studies, was the first volume of Herve's Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, the one entitled De vera religione: De ecclesia Christi: De fontibus revelationis.18 The first volume of Bartmann's Precis de theologie dogmatique,19 a textbook very popular a quarter of a century ago, dealt with the sources of revelation and other topics which entered into what Father Baum calls the "conflict" at the Second Vatican Council.
 
Tremendously influential in their own time were other manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology, which are not in common use today. Among these is the Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae fundamentalis 20 by the Austrian priest Anton Michelitsch. The Elementa theologiae fundamentalis,21 by the Italian Franciscan, Clemente Carmignani, is another of these texts. In this same class we must place Cardinal Vives's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 22 the first volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones,23 which was entitled Theologia fundamentalis, and the first volume of MacGuiness's Commentarii theologici, a book containing the treatises De religione revelata ejusque fontibus and De ecclesia Christi.24

In the Spanish speaking world the Lecciones de apologetica 25 of Father Nicolas Marin Negueruela were outstandingly popular. There is much material on fundamental dogmatic theology in Father John Marengo's Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis and in Canon Marchini's Summula theologiae dogmaticae.26 The publication of these books in the last decade of the nineteenth century marks them as genuinely "turn of the century," and they incorporate the kind of theological teaching which seems to displease Father Baum. Much more influential, however, was the treatise De theologia generali, in the first volume of Herrmann's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae 27 a work which, incidentally, earned for its author a letter of thanks from St. Pius X himself.
The first volume of Monsignor Cesare Manzoni's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 28 contains a typical "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. So too does Bishop Egger's Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae generalis.29 The same type of doctrine can also be found in the Franciscan Gabriel Casanova's Theologia fundamentalis,30 in the Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis of Father Valentine Saiz Ruiz,31 and in the Theologia generalis seu tractatus de sacrae theologiae principiis32 by Father Michael Blanch.

The first volume of nearly every set of manuals of dogmatic theology issued during the early part of this century and the last decade of the nineteenth century carried a treatise on fundamental dogma. Typical of such works were Tepe's Institutiones theologicae, Prevel's Theologiae dogmatica elementa,33 Lercher's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae,34 and Christian Pesch's Praelectiones dogmaticae.35 The texts by Pesch and Lercher have been especially influential in the training of seminarians throughout the first half of this century.

The two volumes of Hilarin Felder's Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis 36 were widely used during the past few decades. And, in the historical part of apologetics, Felder's Christ and the Critics 37 was and continues to be almost uniquely valuable. Also outstanding in this field was the two-volume work, Jesus Christ: Sa Personne, Son Message, Ses Preuves,38 by Leonce de Grandmaison.
Father Berthier, the founder of the Missionaries of the Holy Family, wrote, during the reign of Pope Leo XIII, an Abrege de theologie dogmatique et morale,39 which contains a relatively complete and typically "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. The brilliant Father Bainvel published a treatise De vera religione et apologetica,40 which had a wide and powerful influence. And among the multitudinous and now almost forgotten writings of Cardinal Lepicier were a Tractatus de sacra doctrina 41 and a Tractatus de ecclesia Christi.42

The American Jesuit Father Timothy Cotter published an eminently successful and accurate Theologia fundamentalis.43 Among the most recent of our twentieth-century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology is the Theologia fundamentalis, the first volume in the text of Iragui and Abarzuza.44 The Capuchin Father Iragui is the author of this first volume.
Of primary importance among the ecclesiological manuals of our century is the two-volume Theologica de ecclesia,45 by the Jesuit Bishop Michel d'Herbigny. Other intensely influential texts in the same area are the De ecclesia Christi 46 by the Jesuit Father Timothy Zapelena and the De ecclesia Christi47 by the Franciscan Father Antonio Vellico.

Another excellent and widely used manual in this field is The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise,48 by the late Father E. Sylvester Berry of Mount Saint Mary's. And in Canada we find an extraordinarily useful pair of manuals, the Apologetica authored by the Sulpician Fathers Yelle and Fournier and the De ecclesia et de locis theologicis,49 written by Father Yelle. From Spain comes one of the very best recent traditional manuals in this field, the Theologia fundamentalis by the Jesuit Fathers Salaverri and Nicolau.50 This is the first volume of the famed Sacrae theologiae summa.

Pegues's Propaedeutica thomistica ad sacram theologiam 51 contains an unusual statement of many of the central theses of the traditional fundamental dogmatic theology. Another Dominican, Father Joachim Berthier, wrote a Tractatus de locis theologicis,52 in which he deals accurately with the matter of the sources of revelation and the Church. The Dominican tradition in the field of ecclesiology was kept up in the "turn of the century" literature by, among others, Father De Groot, who published his magnificently accurate Summa apologetica de ecclesia catholica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis,53 by Father Gerard Paris, who followed the teaching of De Groot to a great extent in his Tractatus de ecclesia Christi,54 and by Father Reginald Schultes, whose De ecclesia catholica: Praelectiones apologeticae55 is still a classic in the field.
 
Forty years ago the outstanding controversy among theologians was the debate about the definability of the theological conclusion. In the discussion Schultes and Father Francis Marin-Sola were the most prominent spokesmen for the two sides. Schultes's teaching was set forth in his Introductio in historiam dogmatum.56 Marin-Sola presented his teachings in his L'Evolution homogene du dogme catholique.57 Both authors, however, were "penetrated" by what Father Baum has called "anti-modernist emphasis." And the material in these books definitely influenced the content of subsequent manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology.

There has been considerable writing in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, in line with the "turn of the century" tradition of Catholic and anti-Modernist theology, among English-speaking priests. Immensely popular some years ago was Devivier's Christian Apologetics,58 a translation edited and arranged by Bishop Messmer, one of the first faculty members at The Catholic University of America. In line with the teachings of Father Garrigou-Lagrange were Father Walshe's The Principles of Catholic Apologetics 59 and my own We Stand With Christ.60

The Jesuit Father John T. Langan wrote a fine Apologetica,61 which has been too little used by his fellow Americans. Another Jesuit, Father Joseph de Guibert, published a De ecclesia,62 which is recognized as one of the finest texts in this field produced during the course of our century.
 
During the past twenty years we have had many more texts which have kept up the teachings and the spirit of the manuals of the turn of the century, and which have certainly continued their anti-Modernist emphasis. Among these we may mention in passing the Theologia fundamentalis of the Jesuit Father Francis X. Calcagno,63 the Theologia fundamentalis64 of Archbishop Parente, the present Assessor of the Holy Office, and the Theologia fundamentalis65 of the Franciscan Father Maurus Heinrichs, as well as the magnificent treatise De revelatione christiana66 by Father Sebastian Tromp. There are also the very complete and accurate Theologia fundamentalis 67of the Jesuit Father Joseph Mors, the first volume of Conrad Baisi's Elementa theologiae scholasticae,68 and the first volume of the Theologiae dogmaticae theses 69of Canon Joseph Lahitton.

The "turn of the century" spirit, and the anti-Modernist emphasis so deplored by Father Baum are also quite manifest in the articles published in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique and the Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique.

4 The Gregorian University also brought out a fourth edition of this brilliantly anti-Modernist work in 1929, shortly after Billot had resigned from the College of Cardinals.
5 This set was published by Desclee and Co., of Paris, Tournai, and Rome. Later editions of these manuals were prepared by the Sulpician Father J. B. Bord.
6 The third edition of this work was prepared by Father E. P. Rengs, and was published at Amsterdam by C. L. Van Langenhuijsen in 1917.
7 Van Langenhuijsen published the third edition of this work in 1913. The English translations were published by the Newman Press in 1955 and 1957.
8 A Handbook of Fundamental Theology, by The Rev. John Brunsmann, S.V.D. Freely adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss. Four Volumes. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1928, 1929, 1931, 1932.
9 The firm of Elexpuru in Bilbao, Spain, published a third edition of this Theologia fundamentalis in 1937.
10 Desclee published a seventh edition of this work, produced with the co-operation of J. B. Bord, in 1931.
11 A second edition of the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae was published by Elexpuru in 1947.
12 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1930.
13 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925.
14 This work was published by Rauch in Innsbruck, Austria. A second and third edition of the first volume appeared in 1930, a second edition of the second volume in 1928, and a second edition of the third volume in 1927.
15 This book was published by The Seminary Press, in Rochester, N. Y. The first volume appeared in 1927, and the second in 1933.
16 A fifth edition of the first volume of this work was published by the Gregorian University in Rome in 1927. A third edition of the much smaller, but still immensely important second volume appeared in 1929. The De ecclesia is generally recognized to be the finest of all the theological writings of Cardinal Billot. It must not be forgotten that the late Pope Pius XII, in an address to the students of the Gregorian, named Billot as a theologian who should be a model for all of the teachers of sacred doctrine in our time.
17 The publishing house of Ferrari in Rome published a third edition of the complete De revelatione (in two volumes), in 1929 and 1931. The original edition appeared in two volumes and the preface is dated on the feast of the Holy Rosary in 1917. Afterwards there was a one-volume edition, which was not successful. Ferrari published a fourth edition of the two-volume work in 1945.
18 This first volume was published in Paris by Berche et Pagis in 1929.
19 The translation of this work into French was made by Father Marcel Gautier. A second edition of the first volume, translated from the eighth edition of the German original, was published in Mulhouse, France, by Les Editions Salvator in 1935.
20 A third edition of this book was published by the firm of Styria at Graz and Vienna in 1925.
21 Carmigiani's Elementa theologiae fundameiitalis was published in Florence by the Libreria Editrice Fiorentina in 1911.
22 The firm of Pustet published a fourth edition of this work in 1903.
23 The first volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones, the Theologia fundamentalis, was published by J. J. Romen and Sons in Roermond, in Holland, in 1910.
24 The third edition of the first volume was brought out in Paris by Lethielleux and in Dublin by Gill in 1930.
25 The Libreria Internacional, in San Sebastian, Spain, brought out a fifth edition of this two-volume work in 1939.
26 The Salesian Press in Turin published a third edition of Marengo's two-volume work in 1894. Marchini's Summula was published at Vigevano in 1898.
27 The publisher Emmanuel Vitte brought out a seventh edition of Herrmann's Institutiones in Lyons and Paris in 1937.
28 The fourth edition of Monsignor Manzoni's first volume was published in Turin in 1928 by Lege Italiana Cattolica Editrice.
29 The publisher Weger of Brescia brought out the sixth edition of Bishop Egger's work in 1932.
30 This work was published in Rome by the Typographia Sallustiani in 1899.
31 The Press and the Bookshop of the Centro Catolico published this work in Burgos, Spain, in 1906.
32 Father Blanch's book was published by the Montserrat Press of Barcelona in 1901.
33 Tepe's book was published by Lethielleux in Paris in 1894. In 1912 the same publisher brought out a third edition of Prevel's first volume. It was edited by Father Miquel, SS.CC.
34 The second edition of Lercher's first volume appeared in 1934, published at Innsbruck by Rauch. Father Schlagenhaufen, S.J., edited a very useful fifth edition of this volume, which was published by Herder in Barcelona in 1951.
35 Herder, in Freiburg-im-Breisgau brought out a sixth and seventh edition of this work in 1924.
36 A second edition of the two volumes of Felder's Apologetica was published in Paderborn in 1923 by Schoeningh.
37 The English translation was made by the famous John L. Stoddard and was published in London in 1924 by Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, Ltd.
38 The brilliant French original, one of the most powerful works in the field of Catholic apologetics, was published by Beauchesne in Paris. A seventeenth edition appeared in 1931. One of the sad phenomena in English Catholic letters was the appearance, two years ago, of a small and relatively unimportant section of this work set forth as a complete book. This radically bowdlerized edition is published as Jesus Christ, by Leonce de Grandmaison, S.J., with a preface by Jean Danielou, S.J., and has been brought out by Sheed and Ward in New York.
39 A fifth edition was published by Vitte at Lyons and Paris in 1928.
40 Beauchesne of Paris published this work in 1914.
41 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1927. Basically this work is a commentary on the first question in the Pars Prima of the Summa theologica. It takes in, however, a good deal of anti-Modernist teaching.
42 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1935.
43 The book was published by Weston College, in Weston, Massachusetts, in 1940.
44 The Theologia fundamentalis of Father Serapius de Iragui, O.F.M. Cap., was published by the Ediciones Studium in Madrid in 1959.
45 Beauchesne published third editions of the two volumes in 1927 and 1928 in Paris. D'Herbigny's manual is outstanding for its use of oriental Christian theological literature.
46 The fourth edition of the first volume of this fine work was published in Rome by the Gregorian University in 1946. The first public edition of the second volume did not appear until 1954. Previous editions, like that of 1940, were "ad usum auditorum."
47 Rome: Arnodo, 1940. Vellico's text is extraordinarily valuable.
48 Herder of St. Louis published a second edition of this book in 1927.
49 Both of these highly useful volumes were published by the Grand Seminary, in Montreal, in 1945.
50 The Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos published a fifth edition of this Theologia fundamentalis in Madrid in 1955.
51 This was published by the Libreria del S. Cuore in Turin in 1931.
52 A second edition of this was published by Marietti in Turin in 1900.
53 The publishing house of Manz in Ratisbon brought out a second edition of this in 1892.
54 The full title of this work is Ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis tractatus de ecclesia Christi ad usum studentium theologie fundamentalis. Marietti published it in Turin in 1929.
55 A later edition of this work, edited by Father Edmund Prantner, O.P., was published in Paris by Lethielleux in 1930.
56 Lethielleux also published this work, which appeared in 1922.
57 A second edition of this two-volume work was published in Fribourg in Switzerland in 1924 by the Imprimerie et Librairie de l'Oeuvre de Saint Paul.
58 This translation was published in 1903 by Benziger Brothers of New York.
59 Longmans, Green and Company published this in 1919.
60 Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1942.
61 Chicago: The Loyola University Press, 1921.
62 A second edition of this work "in auditorum usu," was published in Rome by the Gregorian University Press in 1928.
63 Naples: D'Auria, 1948.
64 Turin: Marietti, 1946.
65 The Studium Biblicuм Franciscanum of Tokyo bought out a second edition of this work in 1958.
66 Fifth edition, Rome: The Gregorian University Press, 1945.
67 This is a two-volume text, the second edition of which was published in Buenos Aires by the Editorial Guadalupe in 1954 and 1955.
68 Milan: Editrice Ancora, 1948.

Cupertino, my position would be that of Father Stepanich, I believe the CMRI is taking the safer course.  I'm not saying that this is a huge scandal or that Father Cekada is bound for hell because of it.

When the theologians say that disciplinary laws are infallible, they mean that they cannot lead the faithful into error.  I don't really even need the quotes from theologians, this is common sense, but here goes:

Van Noort:

But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

Probatur:  1) Ex Ecclesic natura et fine. — Si Ecelesia enim, pro suprema sua auctoritate, omnibus fidelibus praeciperet aliquid contra fidem aut bonos mores, practice erraret, et eo ipso a vera fide deficeret; sancta esse cessaret et homines a salute averteret, viam falsam edocendo, nimirum vera Christi Ecciesia esse desineret et sub potestate diaboli constituta inveniretur.

Ergo.

2) Ex verbis Christi. — Nam, ex assistentia Christi perpetua et quotidiana << non minus infallibilis exhibetur Ecclesia in concreta et practica interpretatione revelationis, quam in ejus interpretatione dogmatica: <<docentes eos, aiebat Dominus, servare omnia quaecuмque mandavi vobis, et ecce ego vobiscuм sum...>> (Mt. xxviii. 20). Quod sane verum non esset, si per Ecclesiae leges possent aliquando amoveri fideles a rectitudine regulae evangelicae. >> (Billot, th. 22)

I am no Latin scholar -- yet -- but I can read enough to see that in the first paragraph, it suggests that if the Church errs in its disciplinary laws, it would be leading the faithful astray and into the grip of the devil.

Then it says "ergo" and explains why this can't happen, that the Church must protect its flock in its disciplinary laws.

It is a different use of "infallible," however, then the use of this word concerning dogmas.  The Holy Week changes of Pius XII are certainly not dogmatic; disciplinary laws are changed frequently depending on what seems advisable at the time.  What they all have in common is that they cannot cause impiety.  But the degree of their helpfulness can be debated.

Cardinal Merry del Val was supposed to have said to Pius X, after the latter announced that the age of first communion was to be pushed forward, that "You are making a mistake on this one."  

Certainly the reduction of the fast before Mass to three hours under Pius XII is going to have some kind of effect.  There may be advantages, there may be disadvantages; there may be both.  It may have been specifically geared to its time, while this is no longer the case.  

Van Noort said:

2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Father Cekada could make the argument that ( a ) The circuмstances have now changed and that ( b ) The later scandals involving Bugnini make it advisable to reject his tinkering with the Mass under Pius XII.  He doesn't help his own case by making it sound like Pius XII was old or coerced, what Hobbledehoy called a conspiracy theory, because for all we know Pius XII was a secret Satanist at heart and he didn't have to be coerced into anything.  It's irrelevant.  Also, Pius XII promoted Bugnini HIMSELF to the head of this new congregation for sacred liturgy; he didn't just say "Go ahead and play with the Mass," he raised this man himself to power and even gave him his own new congregation to lead.  Who knew what, and when they knew it, is only known by God for now.  However, Father Cekada can certainly draw on what we DO now at this point, which is that the name of Bugnini is associated with an immense scandal.

As long as he doesn't say the changes are incentives to impiety, then he is free to have that opinion.  But, here again I agree with Father Martin, it's not the most prudent choice.  This is for two reasons, both of which Hobbledehoy points out:  We don't have a Pope, and such an action opens Pandora's Box when it comes to determining what is or is not acceptable.  

I don't know what Father Cekada was saying about the new rites, or if he was insisting that to retain them was wrong in some way.  If he did that, he is wrong.  But if he says it is only his opinion to reject the 1955 changes, it doesn't strike me as the best course, but neither does it seem to me to be an apocalyptic fiasco that is going to send people fleeing from sede chapels.  The people who want to flee can make any excuse to do so; they can even make the excuse that we are using Bugnini's Mass!

To me it just feels sloppy and inconsistent, slightly unconvincing.  I won't say that his wayward opinion on Terri Schiavo means that he is necessarily wrong about this as well -- that is a logical fallacy -- but it does seem to indicate a mind that is somewhat "freer" than one would like.

For the information of Phan, Raoul and Hobbledehoy, Fr. Cekada already dealt with the indefectibility/infallibility issue in one of the linked articles:

3. Indefectibility of Church? “What becomes of the indefectibility of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost if we assert that a heretic has used the authority of a true pope to promulgate a liturgy that is harmful to the Church?”

The application of laws promulgating the liturgical changes became harmful after the passage of time because of the changed circuмstances, as explained in 2.

Canonists and moral theologians (e.g., Cocchi, Michels, Noldin, Wernz-Vidal, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Zalba) commonly teach that a human law can become harmful (nociva, noxia) due to changed circuмstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.

One cannot therefore maintain that the application of this principle contradicts the teaching of dogmatic theology that the Church is infallible when she promulgates universal disciplinary laws.

If you accept his earlier point that the "application of laws promulgating the liturgical changes became harmful after the passage of time because of the changed circuмstances," this seems to answer objections based on infallibility in discipline.