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.
Or is this merely the over-exuberant burst of layman mistakenly presuming what some clergy think?
Footnote 32 contains several assumptions and inferences that are clearly the opinion of the author.
No serious Catholic theologian has ever granted positive infallibility regarding purely disciplinary matters.
It seems that intoxicating piety has been substituted for sound theology.
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/
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..
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)
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.
Hobbledehoy, think about it....Bp. Sanborn, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Neville, and Fr. Stepanich (at least) all prefer the pre-55 Holy Week liturgy. Does that not say anything to you? They are some of the king-pins of the true position in these apocalyptic times. Even Bp. McKenna worked with the CMRI and with Bp. Sanborn for years and had no beef.
Bp. Pivarunas prefers to accept everything promulgated under Pius XII, but does this mean he also condemns those who choose otherwise? I have never seen that. He appears to me to consider consciences well, and just prefers what he considers safer.
However, Hobbledehoy, your piece really goes hard at condemnation....talking about disobedience and pride, with comparisons about the minds of heretics, etc., etc. That is why I mentioned denigration.
I don't have time right now, but I know you are mistaken. Yet, I do recognize that Fr. Cekada goes to some extremes, too, but is not altogether mistaken. There is a mean between extremes, which I will relate later.
Hobbledehoy, you do know that the Feeneyites and Home-aloners claim is, likewise, "The Church has spoken"?
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.
Quote from: HobbledehoyThe 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.
This was the same for the fasting modifications, which are accepted by all the mentioned sede clergy.
Pertinent because both groups of lay people (Feeneyites and Stay-at-home Catholics) quote canon law and doctrinal docuмents to say they are only telling us what the Church says. You are doing the same.
It is really a bit much to see your prefatory remarks start a sentence with, "our Lord God chose as the instrumentality" only to end that sentence with a note about yourself saying, "relying solely on divine assistance and presuming not on any defective faculties proper to himself." In short, you allude (in third person, giving it a feel of some solemn office) to being some divine instrument with this, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Do you not think all these years priests and bishops (holding to the true Faith and position) rejecting the 55+ changes could have possibly had "divine assistance", or only you do?
Think first about the unprecedented disaster that has befallen the Church. Nothing like it in all of history, and pretty much would have horrified the imagination of the average Catholic throughout history. It was truly as if Pius XII had his finger in the dyke of modernism, because, upon his death, the prelates at the Vatican acted suddenly like a 4th grade school teacher just left her room, and the school children were unattended for hours.
[...]
Now we look at the Pontificate of Pius XII. Know the enemies were within, were pressuring towards modernization and modernism. It should be significant to all Catholics to think that Pius XII resisted all that pressure in his healthiest of years. It was in 1951 he beatified Pope Pius X, and in May of 1954 that he canonized him. This was a major and deliberate blow to the Modernists. Forward fast to October 1958 when Pius XII died of "heart failure", his doctor Gaspanini said afterwards:Quote"The Holy Father did not die because of any specific illness. He was completely exhausted. He was overworked beyond limit. His heart was healthy, his lungs were good. He could have lived another 20 years, had he spared himself."
[...]
I'm sorry, but all this looks very suspicious when you look at it concretely. Suddenly, to the pleasure of the modernists, Pius XII made some 1955 changes to the liturgy. Are we to think this is just some random and happy-go-lucky personal decision while he was gravely ill and having hallucinations and nightmares and was procrastinating personnel decisions at the Vatican? We don't have to say that the changes were intrinsically bad, but we can say, just as with the disbanding of the Jesuits, that it was a decision that would NOT have normally been done, but was done out of pressure by the enemy. An emergency measure to stave off harm to the Church at that time. We can piously believe his 1955+ concessions actually delayed what happened at Vatican II and even mitigated its harm.
Then we experience with full force the dastardly designs and changes of the modernists in the 1960s. The doctrinal & liturgical innovations have been disgusting and horrendous. A rude awakening occurs for all traditionalists-at-heart. They look back, they piece things together. They have a Catholic sense. The change of 1955+, precisely because of the revolution, began to savor of disgust. Most have a sense that nothing in liturgy should savor of something disgusting. What was acceptable to Catholics in the late 50's had drastically taken on a different flavor. The virtue of equity (epikeia) pertains to law, and we safely and prudently presume that Pius XII (just like with the disbanding of the Jesuits under pressure) did so only to handle the pressures of the moment, and that he would have gratuitously allowed after the revolution (had he seen it) the reversion back to pre-1955 standards.
I don't particularly care for the harshness and inaccuracy in which some, such as Fr. Cekada, explain this subject, yet the CMRI, you will notice, has a sense to avoid implementing some optional things allowed under Pius XII, such as the "dialogue Mass". This avoidance, I think, is a Catholic sense for the principle I am explaining here...they see the repulsiveness and avoid it, but fear to take the step of epikeia to avoid what was not optional, such as the Holy Week changes.
The changes of Holy Week, when you think about it, were hardly notice by the average Catholic at that time. Holy Week came once a year, and the ceremonies were lengthy, and not easily remembered except by the clergy. It wasn't considered a custom of the people. When you think about it, the changes amounted to what...a total of perhaps 10 minutes to carry out once a year hidden in the length of the liturgy? Let's think about this proportionately
In all, I consider Hobbledehoy's objections like that on the occasion in Scripture when the apostles were picking corn on the Sabbath and the Pharisees objected to them doing so because the letter of the law said they should not. Our Lord corrected the Pharisees, in favor of epikeia. A very important principle was given us by this, especially in these post-Vatican II days.
Now you really are going overboard. The major clergy who chose to do what they do, aren't creating a slippery slope. They do what they do, and maintain a steady practice. The Church has mercy in confusing times, and these are the most confusing and unprecedented times. You suggest "divine assistance" for yourself and suggest the major clergy having the Faith intact does not. Quite arrogant.
Epikeia is a virtue (equity), and it is akin to the virtue prudence; always recognized as difficult, except for the learned and saintly. Nevertheless, epikeia exists, it is Catholic, and it is an action that breaks the letter of the law to fulfill the will of the legislator who could not foresee the future. Yes, it is the REAL question.
Quote from: HobbledehoyThe real question is how much can you invoke epikeia and still retain Catholic praxis?
Ah, yes, the real question! Indeed it is. You haven't answered why epikeia does not apply. Your whole harangue left out the real question, therefore it failed.
Now you really are going overboard. The major clergy who chose to do what they do, aren't creating a slippery slope. They do what they do, and maintain a steady practice. The Church has mercy in confusing times, and these are the most confusing and unprecedented times. You suggest "divine assistance" for yourself and suggest the major clergy having the Faith intact does not. Quite arrogant.
Epikeia is a virtue (equity), and it is akin to the virtue prudence; always recognized as difficult, except for the learned and saintly. Nevertheless, epikeia exists, it is Catholic, and it is an action that breaks the letter of the law to fulfill the will of the legislator who could not foresee the future. Yes, it is the REAL question.
Bp. Sanborn doesn't agree with the CMRI on this, and vice versa. However, they don't go overboard like you are by your condemnations. The CMRI just don't feel up to making the step and feel sufficient following the changes. Bp. Sanborn still can direct people to the CMRI masses.
Let's not go overboard about conclusions of disunity because of a disagreement. St. Paul separated from Barnabas, but they both remained Catholic:
"there arose a dissension, so that they departed one from another; and Barnabas indeed taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus." (Acts 15:39)
You said yourself that you considered divine assistance for your article, and I am legitimately asking for the second time, why you don't consider priests and bishops with the true Faith and position to have not have that divine protection all these years.
Arrogant? The meaning means you "arrogate" to yourself divine protection which you should already presume prelates who stand fast to the Faith and have the true position should have.
As for as profaning the memory or Pius XII? I did no such thing myself. And if you are referring to something else specific, then quote it and I will then see what your are referring to.
Epikeia doesn't need authority. You are in over your head.
Stop attributing "offense" because I am merely replying to what I think is "wrong".
Quote from: HobbledehoyBp. Sanbon thinks he knows what the CMRI ought to do. I remember there was an interview where he had the audacity of saying that the CMRI should re-organize themselves. He is the one who thinks he knows best.
He has his opinions, so what? What is the big deal about suggesting "re-organizing"? That is not an insult. And...you also think you know best over a bishop!
Why do you suggest I am walking away? Error should bother anyone, as it does with you. I see no raucous on this end...speak for yourself.
Judging from that last response to my reply...case closed. Y'all be the judge because you have both sides!
However, the Church doesn't have to speak about applications of epikeia.
As you can see from the foregoing, the pertinent legal/canonical principles that justify not using the 1955 Holy Week are:
(1) Lack of Stability, i.e. the legislation lacked one of the necessary elements for a law, stability, because it was transitional in nature and intent, and
(2) Cessation, i.e., a human ecclesiastical law that was obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circuмstances after the passage of time; when this happens, such a law ceases to bind.
These general principles may be applied to decrees promulgating liturgical laws, including the new Holy Week, because (1) the legislation was transitional in nature, in intent and in fact; and (2) the many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter harmful, because such a use promotes (at least implicitly) the dangerous error that Paul VI’s “reform” was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy.
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: Fr. Cekada responding to Hobbledehoy?As you can see from the foregoing, the pertinent legal/canonical principles that justify not using the 1955 Holy Week are:
(1) Lack of Stability, i.e. the legislation lacked one of the necessary elements for a law, stability, because it was transitional in nature and intent, and
(2) Cessation, i.e., a human ecclesiastical law that was obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circuмstances after the passage of time; when this happens, such a law ceases to bind.
These general principles may be applied to decrees promulgating liturgical laws, including the new Holy Week, because (1) the legislation was transitional in nature, in intent and in fact; and (2) the many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter harmful, because such a use promotes (at least implicitly) the dangerous error that Paul VI’s “reform” was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy.
It seems that every and any new law lacks stability, including of course, the fast mitigation under Pius XII.
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. [emphases mine]
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
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.
Quote from: CanuteFr. 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:QuoteBut 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:QuoteI 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?
I concur with your position and even though I am a fan of Father Cekada on many issues - the pre 1955 Holy Week argument of his is weak and speculative. And I agree with your position in regards to the " Ad Hominem" tactics which are unnecessary and better left out of a serious debate. If anything - they degrade the argument of those leveling the charges and illustrate that the author is not confident in his own argument and thus has to resort to such tactics. The Argument itself should stand on its own merit.
Well done -
Pax
Quote from: Malleus 01I concur with your position and even though I am a fan of Father Cekada on many issues - the pre 1955 Holy Week argument of his is weak and speculative. And I agree with your position in regards to the " Ad Hominem" tactics which are unnecessary and better left out of a serious debate. If anything - they degrade the argument of those leveling the charges and illustrate that the author is not confident in his own argument and thus has to resort to such tactics. The Argument itself should stand on its own merit.
Well done -
Pax
His analysis on The Prayers after Low Mass is equally weak and speculative.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Malleus 01I concur with your position and even though I am a fan of Father Cekada on many issues - the pre 1955 Holy Week argument of his is weak and speculative. And I agree with your position in regards to the " Ad Hominem" tactics which are unnecessary and better left out of a serious debate. If anything - they degrade the argument of those leveling the charges and illustrate that the author is not confident in his own argument and thus has to resort to such tactics. The Argument itself should stand on its own merit.
Well done -
Pax
His analysis on The Prayers after Low Mass is equally weak and speculative.
I am shocked — shocked — that SJB would agree with any criticism of Fr. Cekada... :wink
That said, all the foregoing questions assume that the sole principle that must determine how traditional priests perform the liturgy is the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope.”
But this is not as simple as it sounds, because before a priest can maintain that the Pius XII legislation alone is legally binding, he must first demonstrate conclusively that John XXIII and Paul VI (at least before the end of 1964) were not true popes.
Until he does so, he must consider himself bound by all the John XXIII changes — “legally binding” is your principle, remember — as well as all the early Paul VI changes.
(Among the early Paul VI changes are the following: At Mass the priest never recites texts that the choir sings, bits of the Ordinary are sung or recited in English, the Secret is said aloud, the “Per Ipsum” at the end of the Canon is recited aloud, the “Libera Nos” is recited aloud, “Corpus Christi/Amen” is used for the people’s communion, the Last Gospel is suppressed, Scripture readings are proclaimed in the vernacular alone and facing the people, lay lectors/commentators assist the priest, the “Pater Noster” is recited in English, etc.)
In the case of both Roncalli and early Montini, a putative legislator was “in possession.” If observing the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope” is supposedly the golden norm for traditional Catholic worship, shouldn’t Father then follow the “safer course” by chopping up the Mass and training the lectors, just in case?
Since the “last true pope” principle leads to other problems, what then?
The answer is simple: Follow the liturgical rites that existed before the modernists started their tinkering.
We traditionalists endlessly reaffirm our determination to preserve the traditional Latin Mass and the Church’s liturgical tradition. To my way of thinking, it makes no sense whatsoever to preserve the liturgical “tradition” of Holy Week ceremonies invented in 1955, transitional Breviary rubrics, and “reforms” that lasted for all of five years.
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.
From a recent post on another thread, Cupertino says the following:Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/CupertinoUnfortunately, 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.
Quote from: Canuterites that are not tainted with modernist influence.
What do you mean by this, Canute? Do you mean that the rite itself, the very words and/or actions, intrinsically manifest modernistic thought? Or, do you mean by "influence" the subjective and external intention of modernists who desired the rite, but that the rite itself still does not intrinsically influence observers towards modernism? The concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic can really come into play with this.
Hobbledehoy is not necessarily correct, but there is a certain offense "to pious ears" to read that something Pius XII "approved of" can be described as:Quote from: Fr. Cekadareeking with the scent of Bugnini.
However, let's pull in another principle....the Church says that the Church's discipline can only be beneficial and not harmful at all. But, I don't know anywhere where it says that AS SOON AS the Church enacts the discipline that it is infallible. This can leave open the idea that Divine Providence allowed something not so good for a few years (and seldom observed), but made sure that after those few years it was no more. There are things that come into play in a crucial moment in history when things are really tough.
In this way, I can say both Fr. Cekada and Hobbledehoy, have a good sense, in one aspect and another, but they need to be ironed out without going overboard.
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.
That said, all the foregoing questions assume that the sole principle that must determine how traditional priests perform the liturgy is the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope.”
But this is not as simple as it sounds, because before a priest can maintain that the Pius XII legislation alone is legally binding, he must first demonstrate conclusively that John XXIII and Paul VI (at least before the end of 1964) were not true popes.
Until he does so, he must consider himself bound by all the John XXIII changes — “legally binding” is your principle, remember — as well as all the early Paul VI changes.
(Among the early Paul VI changes are the following: At Mass the priest never recites texts that the choir sings, bits of the Ordinary are sung or recited in English, the Secret is said aloud, the “Per Ipsum” at the end of the Canon is recited aloud, the “Libera Nos” is recited aloud, “Corpus Christi/Amen” is used for the people’s communion, the Last Gospel is suppressed, Scripture readings are proclaimed in the vernacular alone and facing the people, lay lectors/commentators assist the priest, the “Pater Noster” is recited in English, etc.)
In the case of both Roncalli and early Montini, a putative legislator was “in possession.” If observing the liturgical legislation of “the last true pope” is supposedly the golden norm for traditional Catholic worship, shouldn’t Father then follow the “safer course” by chopping up the Mass and training the lectors, just in case?
Since the “last true pope” principle leads to other problems, what then?
The answer is simple: Follow the liturgical rites that existed before the modernists started their tinkering.
We traditionalists endlessly reaffirm our determination to preserve the traditional Latin Mass and the Church’s liturgical tradition. To my way of thinking, it makes no sense whatsoever to preserve the liturgical “tradition” of Holy Week ceremonies invented in 1955, transitional Breviary rubrics, and “reforms” that lasted for all of five years.[emphasis mine]
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.
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.
So the principle Father argued for is not which pope's law applies (Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, etc.), but that traditional priests should follow rites that are not tainted with modernist influence. And really, what's so wrong with that — instead of engaging in legalistic quibbling and winding up with Bugnini?
And I don't think you should be offended by him saying that a priest usually knows a lot more about the liturgy than an average layman. It's just a statement of reality, like saying a farmer probably knows more about farming than a taxi driver does. :farmer:
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]
"It's pretty terrifying." - That pretty much sums up that you are all worked up and exaggerating the seriousness of your complaint.
I think you are infected with a liberal mentality from the University you went to, especially in your knee-jerk reaction to "conspiracy theory". It is a tell-tale sign.
You act like a typical man overcome by scrupulosity where more out of emotion and feeling says, "the profound and immensely problematic ramifications of such a course of thought and action. It's pretty terrifying"
You just need to get over Fr. Cekada's personal comment and stop exaggerating it.
Conspiracy against the Church has been on-going throughout history. Vatican II is the major culmination of just that - conspiracy. The whole Freemasonic designs against the Catholic Church have been a huge conspiracy. Pius XI mentioned in his encyclical against atheistic communism the "conspiracy of silence" of the press of the world. There is nothing wrong with "private speculation" as long as it has a foundation.
Fr. Stepanich has a doctorate and was schooled before Vatican II, and he believe as Fr. Cekada does.
Your comment, "disobey the decrees of Holy Mother Church" begs the question. Do you know begging the question is a fallacy, Hobbledehoy? If you admit the real question is epikeia, then you simply beg the question because epikeia doesn't disobey - it forgoes the letter of the law to obey the spirit and intention of the lawgiver.
It is one of Fr. Cekada's quirks to make such a comment to most laymen he addresses who disagree with him. I think you should read more Church history and then you will gain more tolerance about the actions of people and clerics and their views in a time of crisis.
Quote from: SJBFrom a recent post on another thread, Cupertino says the following:Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/CupertinoUnfortunately, 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.
What about the above, Cek-not?
Quote from: HobbledehoyI have not worked up anything or exaggerated things: do you think I am making this up? It is very serious indeed. People are seeing the inconsistencies and they are leaving back to the NO 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, which will be soon read at First Nocturn at Matins.
Do you have some statistics on that? Do you actually know a bunch of names of people who have expressed that they gave up the Faith or gone back to the Novus Ordo because they didn't like how some sedevacantist priests decided for themselves that some new liturgical changes of late 1950's( that were seldom used and rather obscure)....was too much for them to handle??
Quote from: HobbledehoyI have not worked up anything or exaggerated things: do you think I am making this up? It is very serious indeed. People are seeing the inconsistencies and they are leaving back to the NO 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, which will be soon read at First Nocturn at Matins.
Do you have some statistics on that? Do you actually know a bunch of names of people who have expressed that they gave up the Faith or gone back to the Novus Ordo because they didn't like how some sedevacantist priests decided for themselves that some new liturgical changes of late 1950's( that were seldom used and rather obscure)....was too much for them to handle??
Quote from: Canuterites that are not tainted with modernist influence.
What do you mean by this, Canute? Do you mean that the rite itself, the very words and/or actions, intrinsically manifest modernistic thought? Or, do you mean by "influence" the subjective and external intention of modernists who desired the rite, but that the rite itself still does not intrinsically influence observers towards modernism? The concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic can really come into play with this.
Quote from: CupertinoQuote from: HobbledehoyI have not worked up anything or exaggerated things: do you think I am making this up? It is very serious indeed. People are seeing the inconsistencies and they are leaving back to the NO 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, which will be soon read at First Nocturn at Matins.
Do you have some statistics on that? Do you actually know a bunch of names of people who have expressed that they gave up the Faith or gone back to the Novus Ordo because they didn't like how some sedevacantist priests decided for themselves that some new liturgical changes of late 1950's( that were seldom used and rather obscure)....was too much for them to handle??
There have been many people scandalized by some of the writings and mostly the behavior of "some sedevacantists priests."
The '55 reforms were not evil in themselves, but functioned as a "trial balloon" for several practices that would be introduced globally throughout the liturgy with the Novus Ordo.
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.
Okay, now, let's consider those 3 people. You REALLY think they were convinced of the sede position and solely because "some" priests of that persuasion decided that a few minor and seldom used liturgical implementations in the late 50's no longer applied, they went off the deep end to the Novus ordo or giving up the Faith entirely?! That is just so unreasonable.
People are seeing the inconsistencies and they are leaving back to the NO 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, which will be soon read at First Nocturn at Matins.
Quote from: HobbledehoyI have not worked up anything or exaggerated things: do you think I am making this up? It is very serious indeed. People are seeing the inconsistencies and they are leaving back to the NO 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, which will be soon read at First Nocturn at Matins.
Do you have some statistics on that? Do you actually know a bunch of names of people who have expressed that they gave up the Faith or gone back to the Novus Ordo because they didn't like how some sedevacantist priests decided for themselves that some new liturgical changes of late 1950's( that were seldom used and rather obscure)....was too much for them to handle??
In addition, I have been around in the sede world since the early 80's and very active in the Web world. I have witnessed no notable controversy in real life or on the Web about the 55+ changes. It has been a very minor disagreement without any sense of "flaking out". Hobbs is the first I have seen.
Hobbs made the claim in the same sentence as asking, "do you think I am making this up?", yet not quick to back it up.
I think emotions and wishful thinking are presuming too much. I think the intuition has failed on that point...
Quote from: s2sreaQuote from: CupertinoOkay, now, let's consider those 3 people. You REALLY think they were convinced of the sede position and solely because "some" priests of that persuasion decided that a few minor and seldom used liturgical implementations in the late 50's no longer applied, they went off the deep end to the Novus ordo or giving up the Faith entirely?! That is just so unreasonable.
I think you need to re-read what I was responding to; it was over a general statement, not because of one specific practice:Quote
People are seeing the inconsistencies and they are leaving back to the NO 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, which will be soon read at First Nocturn at Matins.
Cupertino- I think I am not the right person for engaging in discussions with, and our discourse is proving fruitless and lame. I'm sorry my eagerness to discuss subjects took over and I even responded to this; please disregard my post.
In general, those like you, LordPhan, Hobbledehoy, SJB, all abort discussion because it doesn't go your way. Discussion is discussion, and can last many, many, many posts, but as soon as you all find it doesn't go well, you back out, saying you don't have time, or it is fruitless. So, so typical of people who don't really have the truth in a matter.
Quote from: s2sreaQuote from: CupertinoOkay, now, let's consider those 3 people. You REALLY think they were convinced of the sede position and solely because "some" priests of that persuasion decided that a few minor and seldom used liturgical implementations in the late 50's no longer applied, they went off the deep end to the Novus ordo or giving up the Faith entirely?! That is just so unreasonable.
I think you need to re-read what I was responding to; it was over a general statement, not because of one specific practice:Quote
People are seeing the inconsistencies and they are leaving back to the NO 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, which will be soon read at First Nocturn at Matins.
Cupertino- I think I am not the right person for engaging in discussions with, and our discourse is proving fruitless and lame. I'm sorry my eagerness to discuss subjects took over and I even responded to this; please disregard my post.
In general, those like you, LordPhan, Hobbledehoy, SJB, all abort discussion because it doesn't go your way. Discussion is discussion, and can last many, many, many posts, but as soon as you all find it doesn't go well, you back out, saying you don't have time, or it is fruitless. So, so typical of people who don't really have the truth in a matter.
In addition, I have been around in the sede world since the early 80's and very active in the Web world. I have witnessed no notable controversy in real life or on the Web about the 55+ changes. It has been a very minor disagreement without any sense of "flaking out". Hobbs is the first I have seen.
This is about the whole inconsistency of the "movement" itself, of which the lack of ecclesiastical discipline is but a manifestation.
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.
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.
Quote from: CupertinoI 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.
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.
Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.
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/CupertinoUnfortunately, 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.
Quote from: SJBIsn'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/
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: SJBIsn'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/CupertinoUnfortunately, 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.
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.
Quote from: LordPhanQuote from: SJBIsn'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/CupertinoUnfortunately, 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 ChurchThe 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.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: LordPhanQuote from: SJBIsn'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/CupertinoUnfortunately, 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 ChurchThe 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.
Canonicus J.M. HERVE, S. Th. Dr., In majore Seminario Briocensi professor
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae
VOL. I De ReveIatione Christiana — De Ecclesia Christi ; De Fontibus Revelationis
EDITIO DECIMA OCTAVA, PARISIIS, APUD BERCHE ET PAGIS, EDITORES 69,via dicta de Rennes, 69
(Omnia jura vindicabuntur)
p.515, 516
OBJECTUM INDIRECTUM INFALLIBILITATIS
4) DE REBUS DISCIPLINARIBUS
518. Status questionis. — Res disciplinares intelligimus leges ecciesiasticas, quibus homo, ad Deum rite colendum et ad vitam christianam bene instituendam, dirigitur et ordinatur.
Solas autem leges,pro universa Ecclesia editas, ad magisterium infallibile pertinere contendimus, eo quidem sensu quod nil, unquam verae fidei aut bonis moribus oppositum continere possint.
Assertio : Ecciesia infallibilis est in decretis disciplinaribus universalibus. Theol. Certum. (Cf. Trid. 22. can. 7; Synod. Pist, prop. 78, Denzinger, 954, 1578.).
519. Haec thesis statuitur contra Iconoclastas, Pseudo-reformatores, praesertim Calvinistas, Modernistas, Rationalistas et omnes qui cultum Ecclesia et leges impugnant.
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)
Absolute etiam promisit Christus ligatum fore in caelo, quidquid in terra ligaverit Ecllesia (Mt. xvi, 19; xviii, 18). Atqui nihil a Deo ratihaberi posset, quod, contra jus divinum, quocuмque modo praescriptum fuisset. Ergo.
3) Ex praxi Ecclesiae. — Ecclesia suam in rebus disciplinaribus infallibilitatem nonnunquam diserte aut impticite affirmavit (Act. xv, 28; Denzinger, 626, 856, 1578.). Quinimo doctrinam, ipsa Ecclesiae praxi universali consecratam et confirmatam, semper ut veram habuerunt non solum Patres et theologi, sed Pontifices et Concilia (S. Steph, I, ep. ad Cypr.; Conc. Nic. II, act. 7; Denzinger, 46, 302; S. Aug., serm. 294, 2, 2; S. Leo I M., ep. 114, 2, 119, 3; Journel, 1525, 2185, 2186.). Ergo.
SYNOPSIS THEOLOGIIE DOGMATICAE FUNDAMENTALIS
DE RELIGIONE REVELATA IN GENERE
DE CHRISTO DEl LEGATO
DE VERA CHRISTI ECCLESIA
DE CONSTITUTIONE ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE
DE FONTIBUS REVELATIONIS.
Auctore AD. TANQUEREY
EDITIO VICESIMA QUARTA, QUAM PENITUS RECOGNOVIT ET DE NOVO REDEGIT
J. B. BORD, Dogmaticae theologiae Professor.
Typis Societatis Sancti Joannis Evangelistae, DESCLEE ET SOCII, PARISIIS — TORNACI (BELG.) — ROMAE, 1937.
p.625
DE OBJECTO INFALLIBILITATIS IN ECCLESIA
5 DE LEGIBUS DISCIPLINARIBUS.
[Paragraph] 932. — (i) Leges disciplinares, de quibus agitur, eae sunt quae ad Dei cultum et vitam christianam dirigendam pro universali Ecciesia sunt statutae; differunt ergo a praeceptis, statutis et legibus particularibus.
2) Ecclesia est infallibilis in legibus disciplinaribus universalibus. Certum.
EXPLICATUR. Haec infallibilitas consistit in eo quod EccIesia, doctrinali judicio nunquam legem universalem statuet, quae fidei, moribus et saluti animarum adversetur. Ut patet, ejusmodi infallibilitas optime componitur cuм mutabilitate disciplinarum legum; et distinguitur ab earumdem apportunitate: nam nullibi Ecciesiae promittitur summus prudentiae gradus ad optimas leges pro omnibus temporum vel locorum circuмstantiis ferendas.
PROBATUR. (a) Ecciesia infallibilitate donata est ad Christi doctrinam tuto conservandam, ut fideles secure ad salutem dirigantur. Sed, si in rebus generalibus disciplinaribus erraret, vera Ecciesia non esset doctrinae revelatae fidelis custos, nec fideles in sanctitatis viam duceret. (b) Quapropter Pius VI, ut ”ad minus erroneam “, judicat hypothesim juxta quam “Ecciesia disciplinam constituere posset periculosam, noxiam... (D.B., 3578.)
Hinc Ecclesia pariter infallibilis est quando definitive et sollemniter approbat constitutiones alicujus Ordinis religiosi, quatenus approbare nequit instituta quae fidei et moribus sunt contraria, propter eamdem rationem ac supra; sed non est infallibilis quoad opportunitatem talis vel talis reguIae pro variis adjunctis loci et temporis. (Cf. Pesch, op. cit. n. 545)
Conclusio. Ex his omnibus merito infertur Ecclesiae infallibilitatem, ex una parte, res mere profanas non attingere; ex alia vero, sese applicare non solum iis quae revelata sunt, sed etiam iis quae ita cuм revelatis connectuntur ut, si in eis falleretur, error perniciosus in rebus ad fidem spectantibus induci posset.
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.
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)
2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Quote from: CanuteQuote from: SJBIsn'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.
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.
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).
Pope Pius XII:
If the position of the liturgical movement today is compared to that of thirty years ago, undeniable progress in its extent and in its depth becomes evident. Interest in the liturgy, practical accomplishments, and the active participation of the faithful have undergone a development which would then have been difficult to anticipate.
The chief driving force, both in doctrinal matters and in practical applications, came from the Hierarchy and, in particular, from Our saintly Predecessor, Pius X, who gave the liturgical movement a decisive impulse by his Motu Proprio of October 23, 1913, “Abhinc duos annos.” (1)
The faithful received these directives gratefully and showed themselves ready to comply with them. Liturgists applied themselves to their task with zeal and, as a result, many interesting and rewarding projects were soon under way, although, at times, certain deviations had to be corrected by the Church’s authority.
Of the many docuмents published on this subject in recent times, it will suffice for Us to mention three: The Encyclical “Mediator Dei,” “De sacra liturgia,” of November 20, 1947 (2); the new decree on Holy Week, dated November 16, 1955,(3) which has helped the faithful to achieve a better understanding and fuller participation in the love, sufferings and triumph of our Savior; and finally, the Encyclical “De musica sacra” of December 25, 1955. (4)
Thus the liturgical movement has appeared as a sign of God’s providential dispositions for the present day, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church, intended to bring men closer to those mysteries of the faith and treasures of grace which derive from the active participation of the faithful in liturgical life.
"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."
"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."
"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].
"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."
"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."
"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].