CathInfo.com

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.

 

No, they pick and choose which docuмents to apply, and give their own private interpretations. Just like the polemicists who refuse to obey the General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites when it comes to the Restored Order of Holy Week, or the Feast Day of St. Joseph the Workman, but adhere to the new Mass formulary of the Assumption or to the Feast of St. Pius X (both formularies used the New Translation of the Roman Psalter, which, by the way, gets equally bad treatment by such polemicists).

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?

You are reading a bit too much into this. The third person is formal, objective voice and not necessarily one of authority, or so I was taught in the University.

But you jump to your own conclusions, presuming the knowledge of contingencies normally incognoscible to human intellects, just as you do right... now.

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 have heard all this before, and this was the main reason why I had rejected the Restored Order of Holy Week, but ultimately it is mere speculation and conspiracy-theory, not bad in itself but a poor argument to use in favor of disobeying the General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

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.

Exactly, because it was optional whereas the Restored Order of Holy Week is not optional. The CMRI is the most consistent of all the groups because of this.

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

More speculations and revisionist historiography, kinda like what the home-aloners do.

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.

Nice! Ultimately you [not just you, but Father Cekada and the trolls] have nothing but conspiracy theories, propaganda, private speculations and conclusion, selectively citing Scripture and ad hominems to answer the notes I had posted, notes which cite the law of the Church. Those notes do not represent private interpretations, as the Canonists and rubricists did nothing like what the sedevacantist clergy you mention are doing now.

The real question is how much can you invoke epikeia and still retain Catholic praxis?

Why did some few notes I wrote causing such a raucous? Why has this stricken such a nerve?

This has been very interesting to observe. Ultimately there is no unicity of ecclesiastical discipline in the sedevacantist movement, and this just leads to more grave questions regarding Apostolicity, jurisdiction, the identity of the Ecclesia docens, etc.

The CMRI avoids all these horribly catastrophic questions by just obeying the law of the Church in these matters. However, they are the exception... unfortunately.

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

The 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.

Father Cekada is the one who is neglecting this question. Adhesion to the liturgical reforms lawfully promulgated by the Apostolic See is the Catholic thing to do, whereas doing as one pleases is Protestant.

See, I can simplify things too.

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.

Wow, more ad hominens, why aren't I surprised!? This just shows me that you failed to understand the prefatory remarks, because you keep bringing up this erroneous conclusion of yours regarding my statements.

Arrogant? You mean like profaning the memory of Pope Pius XII in "table-talks" and writing about how demented or stupid or sick he may have been in order to justify the use of epikeia.

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

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.

No, the real question is what authority do the sedevacantist clerics have to invoke epikeia when it comes to such grave manners in the first place.

I don't see any prudence anywhere here.

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.

I did not condemn anyone: Christian charity and scholarship oblige one to apply the principles of liturgical law as previous Canonists and rubricists have. Why are people taking offense at this?

Bp. 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.

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)

The problem is that there is disunity, when you look at the larger picture.

That's been the problem all along.

The chief reason why I published the notes, which took a year of research and writing to complete, was because I had scruples about the Restored Order of Holy Week back when I bought into Fr. Cekada's conspiracy theories, and the results were devastating. I know there are others facing similar difficulties. It is for them that I published the notes, and to show that the Restored Order of Holy Week is Catholic, precisely because the Apostolic See promulgated it.

You have not addressed my other questions, but that's fine: just walk away, Cupertino. Don't let this bother you so much. Again, I don't know why some notes of mine have caused such a raucous.

Judging from that last response to my reply...case closed. Y'all be the judge because you have both sides!

 

The Church has spoken on the matter.

It's either the general ecclesiastical discipline of Holy Mother Church, or your pet theories.

You made your choice, from what I can see.

Please be assured of my prayers.