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.

The question assumes a harmful liturgy, something Fr. Cekada needs to prove, not assume.

As for Fr. Cekada having to prove harm? It is already proven by the fact that the optional things instituted by Pius XII in his last years for the liturgy are now universally avoided, as being extrinsically harmful, by all Catholics holding the true ecclesiastical position (viz., those rejecting the false popes of V2).

The question is whether the Pius XII holy week is harmful, not whether later changes are harmful. By your "Church Learning" argument, the '55 holy week changes are accepted by a morally unanimous traditionalist clergy, just like the 3 hour fast has been accepted.

You need to face the fact that Fr. Cekada has a history of taking rather "unique" positions. Do you also agree with his take on the Prayers After Low Mass? Schiavo? Not paying taxes?

Did you know his Bishop actually likes the Dialogue Mass?

Further responses to Father Cekada's critique of the notes I have presented.


The Reason Why the Notes Were Published

The chief reason why I published the notes in the original post was because I myself had scruples about the Restored Order of Holy Week back when I assented to Fr. Cekada's conspiracy theories, and the consequences were devastating insofar as the interior life was concerned. I know there are others facing similar difficulties. It is for them that I published the notes, and to show that the Restored Order of Holy Week is Catholic, precisely because the Apostolic See promulgated it.

Moreover, certain persons are seeing the inconsistencies in the sedevacantist clergy's praxis and doxis and they are leaving back to the modernist sect or are defecting from the faith altogether, as they are beginning to be scandalized at the fact that the sedevacantists have made of Holy Mother Church the very thing of which the Prophet Jeremias complained in his Lamentations, the verses thereof having been chanted at the First Nocturn lessons of Matins throughout the Sacred Triduum.

The question is how much can a cleric invoke epikeia and still retain Catholic praxis? Ultimately there seems to be no unicity of ecclesiastical discipline in the sedevacantist movement, and this just leads to more grave questions regarding Apostolicity and how this indispensable note of the Church can be reconciled with the phenomenon of acephalous clerics, the lack of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, the present identity of the Ecclesia docens, etc.

These are the things that Father Cekada does not seem to understand. The problem here is that certain clerics make imperious, categorical declarations regarding their liturgical praxis, and make it seem as if it is imperative for one to adopt their interpretation of pertinent principles. If they had just observed the abolished rites without making an issue out of it, everything would have been fine. But they have written for decades on how they are not only right but that they represent "traditional" Catholicism.

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 others such as the SSPX of "picking and choosing" and "Pope-sifting," yet we have done it ourselves in diverse manners.

Have we lost the notion of the respect and obedience that we owe to the august office of the Supreme Pontiff? Have we lost the true notion of the Apostolicity and Sanctity of the magisterium of Holy Mother Church?


Errors of Father Cekada and their Troubling Implications

His arguments against the reforms of Pope Pius XII are absurd and puerile. If one is to discard the Restored Order of Holy Week, because it was supposedly the "precursor" to the Novus Ordo anti-liturgy, why retain the mitigated fast, which could be discarded using the same arguments, according to the reasoning of those who refuse to obey the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites? Was the same Roman Pontiff, who is alleged by some cranks to have been too bedeviled or too demented or too sick to validly promulgate the liturgical reforms, also fooled by modernists or too crazy to validly promulgate the mitigated Eucharistic Fast with the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem (A.A.S., vol. xlix., pp. 177-178)?

One reason why there can be no solid argument invoking the principles of cessation of law regarding the recent liturgical reforms of the Holy See is the fact that the reforms were universally accepted (and with acclaim) by the whole of Christendom in the Roman Rite. Eventually the other Rites applied for the lawful adoption of the reforms, such as the Benedictines, the Carmelites, etc.

The same arguments posed by Fr. Cekada regarding the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII could be applied to Divino afflatu, since the reforms of the Roman Breviary were never finalized, as can be seen in the following from the tome The New Psalter and Its Use by Rev. Frs. Edwin Burton and Edward Myers (pp. 43-44; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912):

"On the publication of the new Psalter Pius X announced that a Commission would take in hand the complete reform of the Breviary. According to Mgr. Piacensa this will involve:

(i) A reform of the Calendar and the fixing of criteria of admission of feasts of saints into the Calendar of the Universal Church.

(ii) The critical revision of the historical lessons of the Breviary.

(iii) The removal of spurious patristic lessons and the correction of the text of the rest.

(iv) The remodelling of the General Rubrics.

(v) The institution of a common of many confessors and a common of many holy women in order to facilitate the lessening of the number of feasts of saints without injuring devotion to the saints."

Only the fifth objective listed above was accomplished, and even then these Common Offices were conceded only to certain localities: never did they form part of the Roman Breviary itself. The previous four objectives were never accomplished. Even the General Rubrics were left untouched, and a supplement to them was inserted with the new rubrics promulgated by Pope St. Pius X and the Congregation of Sacred Rites availing itself of his authority.

Are we then free to invoke epikeia and revert to the typical editions of the Roman Breviary published during the reign of Pope Leo XIII? Or maybe that's not far back enough...

It was Pope St. Pius X who made the most revolutionary change in the Roman Breviary (op. cit., 44-45):

"The advisers of Pius X, however, have gone to the root of the problem and have eliminated one of the great causes of the interference of the festal office with the ferial office, viz. the undue length of the ferial office which on certain days made its recitation very burdensome, and by redistributing the Psalms have rendered possible the frequent realization of the liturgical ideal of the weekly recitation of the Psalter. One cannot but rejoice in the restoration to its place of honour in the prayers of the Church of the book on which the piety of generations of her sons has been been nourished. Many, no doubt, will regret to see the old Roman arrangement of the Psalms disappear after having survived so many reforms, but their regret will be tempered by the thought that practically it had already disappeared, since its use had become so rare."

Where are the "many" who regretted the loss the ancient Roman Psalter now? Did they react to the new Psalter of Pope St. Pius X as Father Cekada et al. are reacting to the reforms of Pope Pius XII?

Father Cekada goes on to write:

"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.

Father Cekada also wrote:

"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?

Father Cekada writes that

"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.

Besides, he is not as clerics of the past, who had a Canonical mission and office, or as the past scholars 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 particularly insulting was the fact that Father Cekada in his blog 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?

The Sacred Canons menace certain serious penalties against such arrogance. One may conclude that Canon 1399, no. 6, and Canon 2334, as well as the Decree issued on 29 June 1950 by the Sacred Congregation of the Council (A.A.S., vol. xlii., pp. 601 seq.) condemn Father Cekada, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, etc,. for undermining the ecclesiastical discipline of the Church in their rants against the reforms of Pope Pius XII, attacking the person of the Supreme Pontiff in writing, and inciting the laity to defy and vilify the authority of the Church. Probably, their writings and missives would be put in the Index for these reasons alone.


Ultimately...

Objectively speaking, the case is as the notes I have posted say, but whether or not the present-day clerics who disobey the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites 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: it is simply Catholic.

I have posed various questions which have been answered with ad hominems and what outsiders may rightfully name "cult propaganda."

Yes, "cult propaganda," because either you obey Holy Mother Church or are part of a cult, just like a soul cannot be simultaneously in the state of sanctifying grace and in the state of mortal sin: for the question is whether or not the clerics who seem to be doing as they please are striving to preserve the Church of Christ, or are they endeavoring to propagate their own ideas. None of the present day clerics in the sedevacantist movement can say that they form part of the Ecclesia docens, so what is to guide the clerics themselves in their apostolates if not filial and reverent obedience to the decrees of the Roman Congregations, duly promulgated by authority of the Supreme Pontiff?

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.


Conclusion

Perhaps I should have been more mild. However, I am tired of coddling so-called "apologists" merely because of their celebrity (whether well-merited or misplaced) or for their ornately decorated bibliographies and intimidating rhetorical devices. Nor is it of little consequence that I would be doing a great disservice to these clerics in being remiss in correcting their errors. The fact that I am a layman should not even be mentioned, since none of the clergy are formally trained as theologians, rubricists, etc., as I have written above.

The mirage has dissipated; the illusion broken. It is no longer the 1980's or 1990's.

The problem with the sedevacantist "movement" is that in some places it has practically ceased to be an endeavor to preserve the profession and practice of the Catholic faith, as it has become a cult of personality: an autolatrous implementation of cult propaganda; ignoring, defying and even vilifying the decrees duly promulgated by the Apostolic See.

People are seeing this and they are leaving, because they do not recognize in the "movement" the notes of the Church of Christ: the self-serving clergy are to blame for the most part for this, as they are making the "movement" into a pastoral failure comparable to "Vatican II."

It is the Oresteia of Aeschylus magnified into an ecclesial context: the undreamt nightmare of Franzelin!

Perhaps I am being dramatic now, but I cannot help but be indignant at beholding how certain clerics have destroyed the faith and lives of many youths in debasing Holy Mother Church into a harlot to serve their cults of personality. Am I doomed to become another Cassandra, seeing the horrors that are to befall us only to meet with derision and disbelief?

So be it, as it is written, "Thou wilt terrify me by dreams, and by visions shake me with horror" (Job ch. vii., 14.).[/size]