CathInfo.com

Footnote 32 contains several assumptions and inferences that are clearly the opinion of the author.

Well, of course, anything in the notes above that is not in authoritative docuмents is the opinion of the author, who by his own admission is not a theologian :D

No serious Catholic theologian has ever granted positive infallibility regarding purely disciplinary matters.

Is not the Church infallible in matters concerning her general discipline? Not that the Church is infallible in her prudential judgments pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline, that is, that such and such individual precept of ecclesiastical discipline is always the best and wisest that could be formed in all possible circuмstances, but the Church is infallible insofar as she cannot err against faith and morals in the promulgation of general ecclesiastical precepts.  

The manner in which the Traditio "Fathers," for example, criticize the Restored Order of Holy Week makes it seem as if the reforms are noxious to the spiritual welfare of the faithful, which is a perilous notion to entertain.

It seems that intoxicating piety has been substituted for sound theology.

Correction duly noted and appreciated.

However, have you not read: Introduxit me in cellam vinariam: ordinavit in me caritatem (Cant. cap. ii., 4). Sacred theology should lead the contemplative soul to the intoxication of mystical prayer whereby it forgets everything outside of God and rests upon Him alone, just as St. John rested upon the Sacred Heart of Our Lord and from thence drew the streams of divine light that enabled him to write his sublime Gospel and Epistles.

But I know this is not what you meant. Thanks for the correction.

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:

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:

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?