[/b][/size]



It is to be known that the simple layman who has written the following notes does not intend to pretend to have the canonical training that is proper to Priests―much less the education prerequisite for the licentiates and doctorates that had enabled clerics to officially teach in oral or written discourse as theologians, canonists and rubricists of happier ages—knowing well that he is bereft of the competence to issue definitive declarations and the authority to bind individual consciences thereto, which prerogatives are proper to the Apostolic See alone. However, if it was the harlot Rahab whom our Lord God chose as the instrumentality by which the children of Israel took possession of the Promised Land (Josue ch. ii-vi; Heb. ch. xi., 31; S. James ch. ii., 25) and so was found worthy to be mentioned in the sacred Genealogy of our Lord (St. Matt. ch. i., 5), so may this vilest amongst sinners, with the help of holy grace and the loving patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sedes sapientiæ,[1] help the servants and handmaidens of Jesus and Mary to attain to some clarity and equilibrium regarding these matters, relying solely on divine assistance and presuming not on any defective faculties proper to himself.

It would be better for the reader to be forthwith cognizant of the conclusion whereto the following notes arrive: the safest and most decorous course of thought and action for an individual Catholic to take in these tumultuous times is that of prayerful humility and obedience to the doctrinal teachings and disciplinary decrees of Holy Mother Church. To place individual and private opinions and sentiments as normative principles in preference to legislation promulgated by lawful authority―especially in matters of great moment―would be antithetical to the sensus Catholicus that schismatics and heretics scruple not to violate in the excess of pride and vainglory. Such a course of thought and action would not only be repugnant to the Lord God―Who in the multitude of His ineffable loving-kindnesses established for our sakes the holy Apostles together with their successors, subject to the supreme primacy and guided by the dogmatic infallibility of St. Peter and his successors, as rulers and Pastors of Holy Mother Church[2]―but it may also bring about a very great peril for souls, as demonstrated by the histories of the schismatic and heretical sects that have plagued Christendom throughout the ages. The reader, therefore, would do well to be mindful of the fact that there need be no apology against polemicists and critics for adhering to the legislation promulgated by authority of the Roman Pontiff: indeed, for a Catholic the very idea of defending filial obedience to the Apostolic See against other Catholics is a bewildering absurdity.

In order to arrive at a correct understanding of this conclusion as it applies to the esteem Catholics of the sedevacantist persuasion are to entertain for the Restored Order of Holy Week, the reader must consider the nature and the binding force of the General Decree that promulgated the Restored Order of Holy Week in the light of the dogma of the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the principles of liturgical law. It has been a great misunderstanding of these matters that has primarily contributed to the multiplicity and gravity of the errors that traditionalist polemicists have committed and propagated in the controversies that have arisen regarding the reforms of the late Pope Pius XII, particularly the Restored Order of Holy Week.

The exigencies of circuмstance and the paucity of time prevent the author from treating these important matters in their appropriate depth and detail. For the present time, these few notes will have to suffice, leaving to better minds and hearts the task of composing and publishing treatises more worthy of this sublime and grave matter.



The Restored Order of Holy Week was promulgated by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites Liturgicus Hebdomadae Sanctae ordo instauratur (Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria) together with the Instruction De ordine Hebdomadae Sanctae instaurato rite peragendo (cuм propositum) on 16 November 1955.[3] This very fact alone should have obviated any controversy or confusion regarding the question raised by certain traditionalist polemicists of whether or not to observe the Restored Order of Holy Week. For the principles of liturgical law―that is, “that part of Divine and Canon Law that concerns the Sacred Liturgy, i.e., the worship of God by the Church”[4]―forbid any individual to pronounce opinions involving any interpretation or application of principles of Canon Law contrary to this and all other General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.  



The Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917),[5] declares that “it belongs to the Holy See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy as well as to approve liturgical books.”[6] It is to preserve the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy that the Apostolic See has been given supreme authority over it, as Pope Pius XI teaches in the Apostolic Constitution Divini cultus (20 December 1928):[7] “Since the Church has received from her founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of course after preserving the substance of the sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chants―by which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action.”[8] Citing the above-mentioned Canon in his celebrated Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (20 November 1947),[9] Pope Pius XII makes it clear that “the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”[10] This is because the Roman Pontiff “is the shepherd and teacher of the faithful, and has by divine right and delegation the primacy of jurisdiction, being successor de jure and de facto of S. Peter, so that he is the supreme lawgiver in the Church, jurisdiction being the power of ruling subjects in matters over which the Superior has control.”[11] It is as Pope Eugenius IV had taught in the Bull Laetentur coeli (6 July 1439): “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church.”[12] Moreover, regarding the supreme and absolute primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the sacred Vatican Council in its fourth session (18 July 1870) defined that “the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church.”[13] Those who have the audacity to deny this have been solemnly anathematized by the same holy Council,[14] for it is “the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”[15] The Code of Canon Law has affirmed this absolute and universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff in the selfsame words that the Vatican Council employed to define this dogma.[16]



Although at times availing himself of this authority directly through such docuмents as an Encyclical Letter or a Motu Proprio, the Roman Pontiff ordinarily legislates in liturgical matters through the Roman Congregations, particularly through the Congregation of Sacred Rites (Sacrorum Rituum Congregatio).[17] Pope Pius XII, in his above-mentioned Encyclical Letter, states that his predecessor Pope Sixtus V in the Apostolic Constitution Immensa aeterni (22 January 1588) established the Congregation of Sacred Rites “when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics [of the 16th Century Protestant revolt] and further spread their errors” and it was therefore “charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.”[18] This Sacred Congregation, according to the Code of Canon Law, “has the right of watching over and determining all that immediately concerns the sacred rites and ceremonies of the Latin Church” and “is its concern, especially, to see that the sacred rites and ceremonies are diligently observed in celebrating Mass, in administering the Sacraments, in the carrying out of the divine offices, in fine, in all that regards the worship of the Latin Church.”[19] The decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, “when drawn up in due form and duly promulgated,” have the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “even if they had not been referred to him.”[20] When a decree is “drawn up in writing and signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and its Secretary, and furnished with the seal of the Congregation” it is considered authentic, and therefore possessed of binding force.[21] Furthermore, when a decree, both in its content and form, concerns the entire Latin Church, it is a formally general decree, which is of obligation for all who follow the Roman Rite.[22]



The General Decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria, together with its accompanying Instruction cuм propositum, fulfills the requisites of an authentic decree, being signed by His Eminence Gateano Cardinal Cicognani, Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and by His Eminence Alfonso Cardinal Carinci, titular Archbishop of Seleucia in Isauria, and Secretary of the same Roman Congregation. It is clear that the Decree is formally general as its very text demonstrates: “Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound in the future to follow the Restored Order of Holy Week, set forth in the original Vatican edition.[23] All things to the contrary notwithstanding.”[24] Not only is the General Decree of 16 November 1955 binding on all who follow the Roman Rite by reason of its authentic and formally general nature, but the fact that it is endowed with the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is made abundantly clear by the fact that it was promulgated by express command of the late Holy Father himself: “by special mandate of Our Most Holy Lord the Pope, by Divine Providence, Pius XII, the Congregation of Sacred Rites decrees that which follows.”[25] This is to be expected, since the endeavor to restore the Rites of Holy Week was conceived by the paternal solicitude of this same Holy Father, as the General Decree states: “Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius XII commanded the Commission for the Restoration of the Liturgy, established by the same Most Holy Lord, to examine this question of restoring the Order of Holy Week and propose a solution.”[26]

Considering all these things, together with the principles of liturgical law and in light of the ecclesiastical primacy and sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council and declared by Canon Law, there can be no doubt that the rites of Holy Week as found in the old Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum have been abolished. Furthermore, those who are bound to the Roman Missal and Breviary by virtue of the Bulls Quo primum (14 July 1570) and Quod a nobis (9 July 1568) of Pope St. Pius V and by the Bull Divino afflatu (1 November 1911)[27] of Pope St. Pius X cannot lawfully avail themselves of them as they are bound in conscience to observe the rites of Holy Week as found in the typical edition of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus.



Since the Apostolic See has exclusive and absolute authority over liturgical matters, no Ordinary in virtue of his own authority and competence can presume “to abrogate, dispense from, or give an authentic interpretation of, such laws.”[28] On the contrary, as the Code of Canon Law states and as Pope Pius XII has reiterated in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei, the Ordinaries “have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.”[29] “Private individuals, therefore,” continues the late Roman Pontiff in his celebrated Encyclical Letter, “even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters” and, moreover, “no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity, and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself.”[30] This is especially pertinent to the present-day traditionalist clerics, being bereft of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction together with its concomitant privileges and prerogatives. All that the present-day “independent” clerics can claim is supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora, solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia— lest they risk exacerbating their problematic Canonical predicament wherein they have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office since they lack the requisite Canonical mission.[31] The clerics of the present day, therefore, may not in any way presume to deviate from the disciplinary decrees that have been promulgated by the late Holy Father and the Roman Congregations that availed themselves of his supreme authority, especially considering that lawfully appointed Ordinaries had been forbidden such measures. That the clerics of the present day presume to do that which was forbidden to the Ordinaries who had lawfully governed dioceses and communities by the authority of the late Pope is as perplexing as it is disheartening.

Those clerics of the present day who pertinaciously advocate the observance of the abolished rites of Holy Week as found in the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum can be said to be rebuked by Pope Pius XII in the words of his abovementioned Encyclical Letter: “The temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve reproof.”[32] Moreover, the late Supreme Pontiff declares that “ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.”[33] “The more recent rites,” continues the Holy Father, “likewise deserve reverence and respect. They too owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world [S. Matt. ch. xxviii., 20]. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of men.”[34] Just as no Catholic in his right mind would reject “the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas of the Church […] because it pleases him to hark back to old formulas,” so “as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical, would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of Divine Providence to meet the changes of circuмstance and situation.”[35] Such a course of thought and action, as the Holy Father teaches, ultimately leads clerics, together with the layfolk who follow them, “to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise,” and succuмb to the grave errors that “tend to paralyze and weaken the process of sanctification by which the sacred Liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father for their souls’ salvation.”[36] Sadly, this calamity, of which the late Pope attempted so earnestly to warn clerics and layfolk in his paternal solicitude and loving-kindness, has become the harrowing reality of the present age amongst the majority of traditionalist clerics and faithful.[37]

“Let no one,” the late Pope Pius XII declares, “arrogate himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will.”[38] For the Apostolic See alone is the Iuris Liturgici suprema moderatrix, the supreme moderatress of liturgical law.[39] The authority that promulgated the Restored Order of Holy Week is none other than that of the Apostolic See, that of the Supreme Pontiff himself, which no Christian can refuse to obey if he wishes to profess inviolate the Catholic faith. It would be most apt to remind the reader of the solemn words of Pope Boniface VIII: “Furthermore, We declare, say, define and pronounce as entirely necessary for salvation for all human creatures to be subject unto the Roman Pontiff.”[40] Those who advocate disobedience and rejection of the decrees promulgated by the authority and express command of the late Holy Father ought to carefully consider and meditate upon these words, that they may discern what spirit animates their zeal for the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy.


   


All clerics of the Roman Rite are bound in conscience to adhere to the Restored Order of Holy Week promulgated by the General Decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria with its accompanying Instruction cuм propositum. It would be absurd to argue the contrary from the principles of customary law and precedents of usages contra legem. Establishing a real custom contrary to existing liturgical legislation is difficult “because of the resistance of the Holy See, owing to its desire for uniformity in matters liturgical.”[41] Furthermore, the Congregation of Sacred Rites in its decisions “admits the force of custom only in minor matters and for particular cases” and “it seldom approves of a general usage contrary to the rubrics.”[42] Moreover, those decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites “which expressly oppose existing usages, at once abolish these (and this even if they are immemorial) for they prevent the consent of the legislator which alone can change a usage into a custom.”[43] Such abuses did indeed exist before the present crisis of Holy Mother Church: “Not infrequently, in practice, usages contrary to the rubrics are defended on the ground that they are ‘customs.’ Quite often such usages are not only not customs―for they do not possess the qualities which are required to create customary law, i.e. , reasonableness and the requisite age, together with the absence of resistance on the part of the legislator―but are abuses which should be suppressed.”[44] There can be no Catholic possessed of reason and sense who can seriously entertain the notion that the observance of the abolished Holy Week Rites as found in the Officium Majoris Hebdomadae and the Memoriale Rituum during the present interregnum (that is, according to the understanding of the sedevacantists) can lawfully constitute a custom, nor can anyone pretend that the clerics of our age have the authority to sanction such an abuse in any other way.



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.



It is absurd to base one’s decisions, especially if they are of great moment, on future contingencies which can never be the proper object of a created intellect. The argument set forth in certain tracts that the late Holy Father would have rescinded his liturgical reforms had he known their supposed consequences, and that clerics are thereby allowed to return to the abolished rubrics and ceremonies of the reformed liturgical books, betrays an ignorance of catastrophic magnitude — it is ultimately an irresponsible and ignorant historiography, based upon contingencies absolutely incognoscible to created intellects. Ultimately, one must conclude that the machinations of subversive clerics working in the Liturgical Commission of Pope Pius XII were foiled because the Roman Rite never became what they intended to make of it: whatever happened after the death of the late Pope Pius XII should be of no consequence whatsoever to the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion, as all such acts are null and void by reason of the vacancy of the Apostolic See according to the opinion of these same Catholics. The august dignity and divinely-bestowed authority of the Supreme Pontiff is such that these historical details are reduced to mere footnotes and have no importance or relevance to the matter. The intention of certain modernistic clerics notwithstanding, the infallibility of the Apostolic See guarantees that the latest liturgical legislation is free from all moral and theological error.

The burden of writing apologias and of constructing ingenious arguments falls upon those who advocate rejection of the decrees promulgated by the Apostolic See. The above notes did not intend to address any particular missive of this category, or any author thereof. Those clerics who have advocated disobedience and rejection of the most recent liturgical reforms promulgated by the Apostolic See present a very quizzical problem. Although their position is erroneous, and even scandalous and pastorally devastating when considered in itself, particularly when these clerics err grievously in the interpretation and application of principles of Canon Law as well as when they avail themselves of expressions which are impudent and puerile, the reader would do well to assume that they are animated with a zeal, although misguided, for the integrity of the Roman Missal and Breviary and therefore are to be considered as erring in good faith. However, those clerics who are neither canonically fit nor trained and those whose Orders are of dubious origin, as well as lay-folk exceeding the competence proper to their station in writing about matters they are incapable of understanding without the necessary guidance that such clerics are unable to provide, who attack the decrees of the Apostolic See with an ignorance and arrogance that betray a schismatical and heretical mentality, are to be confuted and rebuked with a salutary severity, yet ever moderated by charity and purity of intention.[/size]





[/b]


[1]Litaniæ Lauretanæ Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, Rituale Romanum, Tit. XI, cap. iii. (Romæ: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1954).
[2] Cf. Missale Romanum, Præfatio de Apostolis: “Vere dignum et justum est, æquum et salutare: Te Domine, suppliciter exorare, ut gregem tuum, Pastor æterne, non deseras: sed per beatos Apostolos tuos continua protectione custodias: Ut iisdem rectoribus gubernetur, quos operis tui vicarios eidem contulisti præesse pastores.”
[3]Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. xlvii [1955], p. 838-847.
[4] Rev. Father J.B. O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956; Imprimatur: + Albert G. Meyer, Archbishop of Milwaukee, 27 April 1956), p. 6
[5] A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II [1917].
[6] Can. 1257: “Unius Apostolicae Sedis est tum sacram ordinare liturgiam, tum liturgicos approbare libros;” cited in Rev. Father Richard Stapper’s Catholic Liturgics (trans. Rev. Father David Baier. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1938; Imprimatur: + Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York, 1 November 1935), p. 34.
[7 ]A.A.S., vol. xxi. [1929], pp. 33-41.
[8] Rev. Father Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (Barcelona: Herder, 1957; Imprimatur: + Gregory Bishop of Barcelona, 29 September 1950),  no. 2200.
[9]A.A.S., vol. xxxix [1947], p. 521-595.
[10] “Quamobrem uni Summo Pontifici ius est quemlibet de divino cultu agendo morem recognoscere ac statuere, novos inducere ac probare ritus, eosque etiam immutare, quos quidem immutandus iudicaverit.”
[11] Rev. Father Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology (London, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1958; Imprimatur: + John Henry, Archbishop of Portsmouth, 4 May 1957), vol. 1, p. 149.
[12] Denzinger, no. 694.
[13] Denzinger, no. 1827. Dogmatic Constitution I of the Church of Christ Pastor aeternus (Acta Sanctæ Sedis, vol. vi. [1870-71], pp. 40 sqq.).
[14] Denzinger, no. 1831: “Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.”
[15] Denzinger, no. 1827.
[16] Can. 218, § 1: “Romanus Pontifex, Beati Petri in primatu Successor, habet non solum primatum honoris, sed supremam et plenam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam tum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores, tum in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent.”
[17] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 6.
[18] “Atque ita factum est ut, cuм saeculo XVI id genus usus ac consuetudines nimis magis increvissent, cuмque hac in re privatorum incepta fidei pietatisque integritatem in discrimen inducerent, magno cuм haereticorum profectu magnaque cuм eorum fallaciae errorisque propagatione, tum Decessor Noster imm. mem. Sixtus V, ut legitimos Ecclesiae ritus defenderet, ab iisdemque quidquid impurum inductum fuisset prohiberet, anno MDLXXXVIII Sacrum constituit tuendis ritibus Consilium; ad quod quidem institutum nostra etiam aetate ex credito munere pertinet ea omnia vigilanti cura ordinare ac decernere, quae ad sacram Liturgiam spectent.”
[19] Can. 253, §§ 1, 2: “Congregatio Sacrorum Rituum ius habet videndi et statuendi ea omnia quae sacros ritus et caeremonias Ecclesiae Latinae proxime spectant [...] ejus proinde est praesertim advigilare, ut sacri ritus ac caeremoniae diligenter serventur in Sacro celebrando, in Sacramentis administrandis, in divinis officiis persolvendis, in iis denique omnibus quae Ecclesiae Latinae cultum respiciunt.” cited by Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 26. The scope of the jurisdiction and labors of the S.R.C. also embrace the beatification and canonization of the Servants of God, among other important matters (Can. 253, § 3).
[20] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 26.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid., pp. 27, 28.
[23] “Qui ritum romanum sequuntur, in posterum servare tenentur Ordinem hebdomadae sanctae instauratum, in editione typica Vaticana descriptum” (No. 1).
[24] “Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.”
[25] “Quapropter, de speciali mandato eiusdem Ssmi D. N. Pii divina Providentia Papae XII, Sacra Rituum Congregatio ea quae sequuntur statuit.”
[26] “Ssmus D. N. Pius Papa XII mandavit ut Commissio instaurandae liturgiae, ab eodem Ssmo Domino constituta, quaestionem hanc de Ordine hebdomadae sanctae instaurando examinaret et conclusionem proponeret.” The supposition set forth by certain polemicists who contend that the Restored Order of Holy Week was enacted without the knowledge or consent of the late Holy Father, or that he was somehow fooled into sanctioning it, is therefore utterly absurd.
[27] A.A.S., vol. iii. [1911], pp. 633 sqq.
[28] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 37; cf. Can. 1257.
[29] “Episcopis autem ius et officium est vigilare diligenter ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur;” cf. Can. 1261, § 1: “Locorum Ordinarii advigilent ut sacrorum canonum praescripta de divino cultu sedulo observentur.”
[30]“Haud igitur fas est privatorum arbitrio, etsi iidem ex Cleri ordine sint, sacras atque venerandas res illas permittere, quae ad religiosam christianae societatis vitam pertineant, itemque ad Iesu Christi sacerdotii exercitium divinumque cultum, ad debitum sanctissimae Trinitati, Incarnato Verbo, eius Genitrici augustae ceterisque caelitibus honorem reddendum, et ad hominum salutem procurandam attineant; eademque ratione privato nemini ulla facultas est externas hoc in genere actiones moderari, quae cuм Ecclesiastica disciplina et cuм Mystici Corporis ordine, unitate ac concordia, immo haud raro cuм catholicae etiam fidei integritate coniungantur quam maxime.”
[31] Cf. Can. 147 “§ 1. Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta.”
[32] “Verumtamen temerarius eorum ausus omnino reprobandus est, qui novas deliberato consilio liturgicas consuetudines invehant, vel obsoletos iam ritus reviviscere iubeant, qui cuм vigentibus legibus ac rubricis non concordent.” Although the Pope here speaks of those foolhardy scholars who pretended to justify proposed modernistic liturgical innovations with groundless appeals to archeology and history, nothing forbids the application of these words to those who attempt to revive the rubrics and ceremonies abolished by the decrees of Congregation of Sacred Rites. Polemicists who would argue otherwise―because they erroneously hold that the late Holy Father contradicted himself by allowing the very reforms that these words of Mediator Dei condemn―seem to suggest that these words would actually apply to the reforms promulgated by the same Roman Congregation, which is a heretical and perilous notion to entertain. It ultimately constitutes an implicit denial of the inerrancy of the Apostolic See in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, thereby indirectly attacking the dogma of the infallibility Roman Pontiff as defined by the sacred Vatican Council.
[33] “Verumtamen vetus usus, non idcirco dumtaxat quod antiquitatem sapit ac redolet, aptior ac melior existimandus est vel in semet ipso, vel ad consequentia tempora novasque rerum condiciones quod attinet.”
[34] “Recentiores etiam liturgici ritus reverentia observantiaque digni sunt, quoniam Spiritus Sancti afflatu, qui quovis tempore Ecclesiae adest ad consummationem usque saeculorum, orti sunt; suntque iidem pariter opes, quibus melita Iesu Christi Sponsa utitur ad hominum sanctitatem excitandam procurandamque.”
[35] “Quemadmodum enim e catholicis cordatus nemo, eo consilio ductus ut ad veteres revertat formulas, a prioribus Conciliis adhibitas, illas respuere potest de christiana doctrina sententias, quas Ecclesia, adspirante moderanteque divino Spiritu, recentiore aetate, ubere cuм fructu, composuit retinendasque decrevit; itemque quemadmodum e catholicis cordatus nemo vigentes leges repudiare potest, ut ad praescripta regrediatur, quae ex antiquissimis hauriantur canonici iuris fontibus; ita pari modo, cuм de sacra Liturgia agitur, qui ad antiquos redire ritus consuetudinesque velit, novas repudiando normas, quae ex providentis Dei consilio ob mutatas rerum condiciones fuere inductae, non is procul dubio, ut facile cernere est, sapienti rectoque movetur studio.”
[36] “Haec enim cogitandi agendique ratio nimiam illam reviviscere iubet atque insanam antiquitatum cupidinem, quam illegitimum excitavit-Pistoriense concilium, itemque multiplices illos restituere enititur errores, qui in causa fuere, cur conciliabülum idem cogeretur, quique inde non sine magno animorum detrimento consecuti sunt, quosque Ecclesia, cuм evigilans semper exsistat «fidei depositi» custos sibi a divino Conditore concrediti, iure meritoque reprobavi! Etenim prava id genus proposita atque incepta eo contendunt, ut actionem illam exténuent ac débilitent, sanctitatis effectricem, qua sacra Liturgia -adoptionis filios ad caelestem Patrem salutariter dirigit.”
[37] Although it is beyond the scope of these notes to treat of this critical topic, it would not be out of place to briefly explain how certain attitudes manifested by certain polemicists who pertinaciously reject the disciplinary decrees promulgated by the Apostolic See can lead to errors against faith and morals. If the faithful are taught that the General Decrees of the Roman Congregations can be disobeyed by appealing to complex argumentations entailing principles of Canon Law and casuistry―that are usually beyond the intellectual competence of the average layman―there is a serious danger that reverence for the august person of the Supreme Pontiff may be lessened, and there may consequently arise a grave misunderstanding of the doctrines defined by the Vatican Council regarding the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. This is especially true in the present day, wherein the vacancy of the Apostolic See alleged by the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion does not afford them an opportunity to exercise their loyalty to the Apostolic See at the practical level, and wherein certain non-sedevacantist polemicists who attempt to reconcile the Johannine-Pauline Council with the Catholic faith commit various and sundry errors regarding the nature and authority of the papacy in their attempt to vindicate ecclesiastical praxes that are contrary to the acts and spirit of the authority they recognize. The consequences of this phenomenon in the interior life of the individual Catholic can be horrendously devastating―leading to a terrible pessimism regarding the history and future of the Church, to a  tendency to become one’s own spiritual director, which ultimately leads to the cultivation of lax consciences, and thereby dragging the individual soul to retardation in the interior life, to spiritual pride and vanity, to acedia, to the neglect of the cultivation of the acquired moral virtues, and ultimately to serious spiritual disorders that can pervert the individual soul and lead it astray from the care of trained Pastors to false clerics or openly heretical or schismatic sects. This peril is particularly increased when absurd conspiracy-theories, utter deception and falsification, and shoddy scholarship are used by those polemicists who deny obedience to the legislation promulgated by the Apostolic See.  
[38] “Nemo sibi arbitrium sumat normas sibimet ipsi decernendi easdemque ex voluntate sua ceteris imperandi.”
[39] Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Constitution Sedis hujus Apostolicae (14 May 1920; A.A.S., vol. XII [1920], pp. 317 sqq.); cited by Archdale A. King in the Preface of his book The Liturgy of the Roman Church (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957; Imprimatur: + E. Morragh Bernard, Vicar General of Westminister, 5 June 1957).
[40] “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronuntiamus omnino de necessitate salutis,” Bull Unam sanctam (18 November 1302), Denzinger, n. 469.
[41] Rev. Father O’Connell, op. cit., p. 33.
[42] Ibid. The typical edition of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus replaces the Roman Missal and Breviary during Holy Week, so it is the rubrics of the former book that are relevant in this discussion.
[43] Ibid., p. 34.
[44] Rev. O’Connell, op. cit., p. 37. In a footnote on this page, the author aptly cites the rebuke of Our Lord to the Pharisees (S. Mark. ch. vii., 8, 9): “Leaving the commandment of God, you hold the traditions of men. Well do you frustrate the precept of God, that you may observe your own tradition.”

While Hobbles and Peregrine attempt to defend clergy who comply with the 1955+ liturgical changes, let's hear whether both of these laymen can present to us the actual words of approval of a traditional priest for the strength of denigration of priests who have chosen to not follow those 55+ changes.

What denigration?

There is no need to provide any words from a traditional Priest, as the Church herself has spoken on the matter, as can be seen in the notes I have posted.

Do you not realize how problematic it is for the clergy to "pick and choose" which Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites to follow whilst insisting so much on how Pope Pius XII was the most recent Pontiff to have reigned over the Catholic Church?

Or is this merely the over-exuberant burst of layman mistakenly presuming what some clergy think?

You mean like down-thumbing our posts...?

Or like those who have attacked and looked down upon the CMRI throughout the years for obeying the latest liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII?



Actually, Rev. Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt has published several articles throughout the years wherein he says in substance what the notes above say. Why don't you e-mail him?

   While I happen to be an SSPXer, I greatly prefer Holy Week (In addition to the Leonine breviary and the 1954 Missal generally).

   Some SSPX chapels I have been to use the 1962 Missal/1956 Holy Week strictly.

   Some I have been to used the 1956 Holy Week with modification (e.g., Refusing to genuflect at the prayer for the Jєωs on Good Friday).

   And while I have never seen a 1954 Holy Week performed in an SSPX chapel, I do know that some SSPX priests use the 1954 (or earlier) Missal for their daily Masses.

   For example, my old priest in the new Indianapolis SSPX chapel was over for dinner one night.

   I told him it was a house custom of ours to allow our clerical guests to choose a book from my collection as a "thank you" for coming to dinner.

   He looked over my collection, and asked if it would be OK to choose an old alter Missal I had on the shelf (1948).

   Pleasantly surprised, I eagerly asked why he wanted that one (suspecting he possibly might have found it inappropriate for a layman to have that Missal in the house?).

   He responded that "This Missal has nicer tabs which make it easier to turn pages during Mass."

   Of course, that is objectively true.

   But it would be a $5 fix to get new tabs inserted on the relevent pages of his 1962 Missal.

   In other words, he uses the older Missal regularly (which of course contains all the prefaces, octaves, and other deletions from the 1962 Missal).

   Whether he reverts to the 1962 in places where there is a "modernization" I do not know, as we were usually relegated to the basement because of crying children.

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?

Come off it Hobbledehoy!

Pacelli was the harbinger of modernist nonsene.  Have you never read what happended at Lugano in 1951 etc.

The Pacelli (un)Holy Week is wicked.  You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting such untraditional cr*p.

Gee, how edifying is this! And right as Holy Week is about to begin, the Holy Week for which you are supposedly so zealous.

Thanks for proving my point, though. You are doing Father Cekada no favors by trolling around, profaning the memory of Pope Pius XII.

Behold the fruit of Pharisaical hyper-criticism of Pope Pius XII!

Hobbledehoy, you do know that the Feeneyites and Home-aloners claim is, likewise,  "The Church has spoken"?

And that is pertinent to this discussion because...?

Another clarification: Bishop McKenna (and I believe Bp. Neville too) follows the Dominican Rite, so the General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites cited in the notes I posted do not apply to them.

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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.

It seems rather significant to note that nobody at the time rejected or even questioned the Holy Week changes.

Another reason why there can be no solid argument invoking the principles of cessation of law: 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.

This was the same for the fasting modifications, which are accepted by all the mentioned sede clergy.

In fact, it was the Restored Order of Holy Week that eventually led to the toleration and sanction of evening Masses and ultimately to the mitigation of the ancient Eucharistic Fast promulgated by the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem (A.A.S., vol. xlix., pp. 177-178).

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 bedeviled or too demented to validly promulgate the liturgical reforms, also fooled by modernists or too crazy to validly promulgate the mitigated Eucharistic Fast?