Contra Fr. Cekada: 1955 Holy Week was Stable & in Perpetuity
Mar 30, 2023 12:34:19 GMT -5
John Lewis likes this
Post by Pacelli on Mar 30, 2023 12:34:19 GMT -5
In 2006, Fr. Cekada published answers to questions in regards to the licitness of rejecting the laws of the Catholic Church as promulgated by Pope Pius XII in a paper titled, "Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms Illegal?" The paper is linked here: HERE I would urge the reader to read his paper first prior to reading my response below, as this matter is complex, and it will make it easier to grasp the points made below.
In this post, I will only be examining the first assertion by Fr. Cekada, which was that the 1955 Holy Week law lacked stability or was not made in perpetuity.
Two questions were posed to Fr. Cekada specifically asking about the licitness of rejecting the 1955 Holy Week law, but Fr. Cekada's answer did not directly address this law, and focused almost entirely on a different law also approved by Pope Pius XII dealing with the simplification of the rubrics.
The two questions posed were:
And
Fr. Cekada reponded:
Fr. Cekada provides quotes from Archbishop Bugnini's book, The simplification of Rubrics as proofs of his assertion that the these liturgical laws approved by the Pope lacked stability and perpetuity, and in his words, makes this "abundantly clear."
Comments on the above:
1. The questioners above were specifically asking about the licitness of rejecting the 1955 Holy Week law, not about another law of Pius XII dealing with the simplification of the rubrics. The two separate matters should have been dealt with separately by Fr. Cekada, but his answer conflates the two and can easily confuse the reader who does not understand that the many laws that were reforming the liturgy were different. Some were of a permanent nature, such as the Holy Week and the establishment of the universal Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, (of course a future pope could always change them), but they were not deliberately made as transitional laws, others were deliberately made to be transitional in nature.
2. Fr. Cekada claims that the four assertions made by Bugnini make it "abundantly clear" that the "1955 reforms," were transitional. This is literally a half-truth, as the simplification of the rubrics was transitional, and that fact was stated in the decree, as more was to be done on that matter, but the Holy Week rites were not transitional, as they were the completed reform. There is absolutely no evidence that the Pope had any intention of continuing the reform of the Holy Week! The Pope did not say this, and neither did the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and neither any other member of the liturgical commission, and not even Bugnini said this.
Fr. Cekada is alone is saying this, and by placing his statement in the context of the decree on the simplification of rubrics which was transitional, his statement will easily confuse the reader into thinking that the 1955 Holy Week law was transitional as well, and therefore lacked stability.
3. If Fr. Cekada had only answered the question that was actually posed by his questioner specifically dealing with the Holy Week, he could not have said that the Holy Week was transitional, as the quotes from Archbishop Bugnini wouldn't have supported it, and only by lumping the two issues together was he able to do this, but of course that leads the reader into believing that both reforms were transitional, while only one was, as stated above.
4. The reader must be aware that quotes numbered, 1, 2 and 3 above are only dealing with the simplification of the rubrics and have nothing to do with the Holy Week whatsoever!
5. The quote from Archbishop Bugnini numbered 4 above, which is the only quote dealing with the Holy Week, is not supporting the contention that the Holy Week law is transitional, it is only stating the obvious and known fact, that is understood from Pope Pius XII's own words in his 1956 Address in Assisi, that the liturgy of the Roman Rite was being reformed under his express will and direction, and all of the 20th century Popes before him as well. The Holy Week was one part of that reform, more was being reformed, but it was not a transitional part, as was the Easter Vigil in 1951, and the simplification of the rubrics, which by the way expressly stated as much in the decrees.
6. The reformed Holy Week was the finished product, so to speak, and it so much pleased the Pope that he openly praised it, saying, that this reformed rite "has helped the faithful to achieve a better understanding and fuller participation in the love, sufferings and triumph of our Savior." This is hardly a statement made of a work in progress!
7. To conclude: the 1955 Holy Week law did not lack stability, it was not a transitional or experimental law. The context of the law also makes it clear that this reformed rite approved by the Pope was the finished reform, and that is not to in any way say that the Pope could not make changes, as he can do to any rite. If Fr. Cekada or any other commentator who rejects the 1955 Holy Week law had any statement from Archbishop Bugnini, or any others on the commission, asserting that the Holy Week was transitory, they would certainly have quoted it. The only way that Fr. Cekada was able to use quotes in this paper which give the impression to the reader that the Holy Week was transitional is by combining two separate issues together, that should never have been combined, as the reader will come away believing that both laws being discussed are transitory!
In this post, I will only be examining the first assertion by Fr. Cekada, which was that the 1955 Holy Week law lacked stability or was not made in perpetuity.
Two questions were posed to Fr. Cekada specifically asking about the licitness of rejecting the 1955 Holy Week law, but Fr. Cekada's answer did not directly address this law, and focused almost entirely on a different law also approved by Pope Pius XII dealing with the simplification of the rubrics.
The two questions posed were:
QUESTION: I was just wondering how you justify rejection of the Holy Week "reforms" under Pius XII. If the principle of "epikeia" is invoked, it would seem this does not apply given the validity of the reigning Pontiff, and his rightful authority to make such changes. I was under the impression that epikeia only applied when a law began to work against the common good and needed to be ignored. I would ap- preciate your insight. (Emphasis added)
QUESTION: Regarding the 1955 Holy Week changes: in reading the arguments from 1955 for the reasons for the changes, the "innovators" talked of "returning to earlier traditions" and of "simplification of the ceremonies", etc.: the same arguments made later for the entire Novus Ordo. Admittedly, the whole thing stinks of Bugnini. Annibale admit- ted in his memoirs that this was an important step towards the liturgi- cal anarchy he later created with Paul VI and all their Protestant friends and bishops. I have no doubt in my mind that the 1955 changes should have been thrown out (like the rest of Bugnini's "innovations").
However, I have two main questions: what does this say to us of Pope Pius XII in those latter years for permitting and utilizing this new ceremony, and also, since we have been Interregnum since 1958, what justifications do we utilize to individually celebrate the older ceremonies which were replaced before 1958 without making it appear that we are "picking and choosing" which ceremonies we want to utilize. Is it because of the belief that Pope Pius XII would never have agreed with the changes if he knew what occurred afterwards like we do know? Is it because he never really promulgated the changes (as some believe)? Or is it simply because Bugnini was behind it all? I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this as this topic has puzzled me for quite some time. (Emphasis added)
However, I have two main questions: what does this say to us of Pope Pius XII in those latter years for permitting and utilizing this new ceremony, and also, since we have been Interregnum since 1958, what justifications do we utilize to individually celebrate the older ceremonies which were replaced before 1958 without making it appear that we are "picking and choosing" which ceremonies we want to utilize. Is it because of the belief that Pope Pius XII would never have agreed with the changes if he knew what occurred afterwards like we do know? Is it because he never really promulgated the changes (as some believe)? Or is it simply because Bugnini was behind it all? I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this as this topic has puzzled me for quite some time. (Emphasis added)
Fr. Cekada reponded:
RESPONSE. Over the years we have been repeatedly asked this question. The answer is quite simple, and is based on the commonsense principles that underlie all the Church’s legislation.
The laws promulgating the Pius XII liturgical reforms were human ecclesiastical laws, subject to the general principles of interpretation for all church laws. As such, they no longer bind on two grounds:
1. Lack of Stability or Perpetuity. Stability is an essential quali- ty of a true law. The 1955 reforms were merely transitional norms; this is self-evident from subsequent legislation and contemporaneous comments by those responsible for creating them.
In his 1955 book on the changes, The Simplification of the Rubrics, Bugnini himself makes this abundantly clear in the following passages:
The laws promulgating the Pius XII liturgical reforms were human ecclesiastical laws, subject to the general principles of interpretation for all church laws. As such, they no longer bind on two grounds:
1. Lack of Stability or Perpetuity. Stability is an essential quali- ty of a true law. The 1955 reforms were merely transitional norms; this is self-evident from subsequent legislation and contemporaneous comments by those responsible for creating them.
In his 1955 book on the changes, The Simplification of the Rubrics, Bugnini himself makes this abundantly clear in the following passages:
Fr. Cekada provides quotes from Archbishop Bugnini's book, The simplification of Rubrics as proofs of his assertion that the these liturgical laws approved by the Pope lacked stability and perpetuity, and in his words, makes this "abundantly clear."
• (1) “The present decree has a contingent character. It is essentially a bridge between the old and the new, and if you will, an arrow indicating the direction taken by the current restoration....”
• (2) “The simplification does not embrace all areas which would deserve a reform, but for the moment only the things that are easiest and most obvious and with an immediate and tangible effect... In the simplification, being a ‘bridge’ between the present state and the general reform, compromise was inevitable...”
• (3) “This reform is only the first step toward measures of a wider scope, and it is not possible to judge accurately of a part except when it is placed in its whole.”
In a 1956 commentary on the new Holy Week rite (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Lit. 25, p.1.), Bugnini says:
• (4) “The decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria, promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 16 November 1955 [and introducing the new Holy Week] is the third step towards a general liturgical reform.”
Such norms (as we now realize), thus lacked one of the essential qualities of a law — stability or perpetuity — and are therefore no longer binding.
(The boldfaced numbering in the parentheses, and other emphasis added)
• (2) “The simplification does not embrace all areas which would deserve a reform, but for the moment only the things that are easiest and most obvious and with an immediate and tangible effect... In the simplification, being a ‘bridge’ between the present state and the general reform, compromise was inevitable...”
• (3) “This reform is only the first step toward measures of a wider scope, and it is not possible to judge accurately of a part except when it is placed in its whole.”
In a 1956 commentary on the new Holy Week rite (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Lit. 25, p.1.), Bugnini says:
• (4) “The decree Maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria, promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 16 November 1955 [and introducing the new Holy Week] is the third step towards a general liturgical reform.”
Such norms (as we now realize), thus lacked one of the essential qualities of a law — stability or perpetuity — and are therefore no longer binding.
(The boldfaced numbering in the parentheses, and other emphasis added)
Comments on the above:
1. The questioners above were specifically asking about the licitness of rejecting the 1955 Holy Week law, not about another law of Pius XII dealing with the simplification of the rubrics. The two separate matters should have been dealt with separately by Fr. Cekada, but his answer conflates the two and can easily confuse the reader who does not understand that the many laws that were reforming the liturgy were different. Some were of a permanent nature, such as the Holy Week and the establishment of the universal Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, (of course a future pope could always change them), but they were not deliberately made as transitional laws, others were deliberately made to be transitional in nature.
2. Fr. Cekada claims that the four assertions made by Bugnini make it "abundantly clear" that the "1955 reforms," were transitional. This is literally a half-truth, as the simplification of the rubrics was transitional, and that fact was stated in the decree, as more was to be done on that matter, but the Holy Week rites were not transitional, as they were the completed reform. There is absolutely no evidence that the Pope had any intention of continuing the reform of the Holy Week! The Pope did not say this, and neither did the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and neither any other member of the liturgical commission, and not even Bugnini said this.
Fr. Cekada is alone is saying this, and by placing his statement in the context of the decree on the simplification of rubrics which was transitional, his statement will easily confuse the reader into thinking that the 1955 Holy Week law was transitional as well, and therefore lacked stability.
3. If Fr. Cekada had only answered the question that was actually posed by his questioner specifically dealing with the Holy Week, he could not have said that the Holy Week was transitional, as the quotes from Archbishop Bugnini wouldn't have supported it, and only by lumping the two issues together was he able to do this, but of course that leads the reader into believing that both reforms were transitional, while only one was, as stated above.
4. The reader must be aware that quotes numbered, 1, 2 and 3 above are only dealing with the simplification of the rubrics and have nothing to do with the Holy Week whatsoever!
5. The quote from Archbishop Bugnini numbered 4 above, which is the only quote dealing with the Holy Week, is not supporting the contention that the Holy Week law is transitional, it is only stating the obvious and known fact, that is understood from Pope Pius XII's own words in his 1956 Address in Assisi, that the liturgy of the Roman Rite was being reformed under his express will and direction, and all of the 20th century Popes before him as well. The Holy Week was one part of that reform, more was being reformed, but it was not a transitional part, as was the Easter Vigil in 1951, and the simplification of the rubrics, which by the way expressly stated as much in the decrees.
6. The reformed Holy Week was the finished product, so to speak, and it so much pleased the Pope that he openly praised it, saying, that this reformed rite "has helped the faithful to achieve a better understanding and fuller participation in the love, sufferings and triumph of our Savior." This is hardly a statement made of a work in progress!
7. To conclude: the 1955 Holy Week law did not lack stability, it was not a transitional or experimental law. The context of the law also makes it clear that this reformed rite approved by the Pope was the finished reform, and that is not to in any way say that the Pope could not make changes, as he can do to any rite. If Fr. Cekada or any other commentator who rejects the 1955 Holy Week law had any statement from Archbishop Bugnini, or any others on the commission, asserting that the Holy Week was transitory, they would certainly have quoted it. The only way that Fr. Cekada was able to use quotes in this paper which give the impression to the reader that the Holy Week was transitional is by combining two separate issues together, that should never have been combined, as the reader will come away believing that both laws being discussed are transitory!