Contra Fr. Cekada: Cessation of Law not Applicable-Holy Week
Apr 2, 2023 17:35:05 GMT -5
wenceslav and John Lewis like this
Post by Pacelli on Apr 2, 2023 17:35:05 GMT -5
This is the second part to my response to Fr. Cekada's 2006 paper titled, Is Rejecting the Pius XII
Liturgical Reforms Illegal?, linked HERE
The first part of my response answered Fr. Cekada's assertion that the 1955 Holy Week law of Pope Pius XII was not stable and not in perpetuity. This response titled, Contra Fr. Cekada: 1955 Holy Week was Stable & in Perpetuity, is linked HERE
This paper is a response to Fr. Cekada's second claim, that the 1955 law is no longer in force due to the principle of the cessation of law, which means that if a law becomes "positively harmful" or "unreasonable," or secondly if the "purpose of the law has entirely ceased for the entire community," then the law ceases to bind. (quoted text is taken directly from Bouscaren, and the scanned page is linked HERE)
Fr. Cekada wrote:
The fact that traditionalists apply the principle of the cessation of law to a number of ecclesiastical laws proves nothing. Time will tell if the application of the principle to each law it was applied to was correct. The fact that it was done, is not proof that it can be used in other circumstances. Each time the principle is used, it must be justified in that specific situation.
Regarding the cessation of law, as applied to the 1955 Holy Week Law, this is like a wild legal theorist making something up to justify something absolutely not envisioned by the lawgiver by using a far flung legal theory. How has the 1955 rite become harmful over time? Did you notice this was ignored? Are Catholics now all early risers and can't stay up in the evening for the mass, and therefore being deprived? Are Catholics all so hungry and can't fight the hunger pains on Holy Saturday that they are not keeping the extended fast ordered by Pope Pius XII until midnight? Is there some other harm? Who knows, because Fr. Cekada never explained it. He seems to think that Bugnini's involvement is the harm, but that's not harm at all, as this law is not Bugnini's law, it is the Catholic Church's law.
One last point on this, the SSPX and CMRI since the 70's have both obeyed Pope Pius XII and their chapels are packed on Holy Week every year, with Catholics being sanctified by this approved rite of the Church, and nowhere is any harm to be found.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
This is all irrelevant. The fact that there are "parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms," means absolutely nothing. This is surprising to hear from one who held the sedevacantist position. As a sedevacantist, one knows that there is a chasm between what came from the Church, and what did not come from the Church! The former is infallibly protected, and cannot be against the Faith or morals, or be an incentive to impiety or even be harmful to Catholics, while the latter, is protected from nothing, and is open to every possible evil, heresy, error, immorality, and harm in the rite.
How can one compare a received and approved rite of the Catholic Church with the rite used by an undeclared sect? Yes, there are some similarities, but all of that doesn't matter. One came from the Church and therefore was good and pleasing to God, and the other did not!
Pope Pius XII along with his predecessors were reforming the Roman Rite, and every approved action that they did was protected, and this includes the dialogue mass, the simplifying of rubrics, the adding of feasts, the removal of octaves, etc. Every one of these actions was not against the Faith, and absolutely did not lead to the Novus Ordo. What it was leading to was a reformed Roman rite that was different from the rite as it existed previously, but nonetheless fully Catholic and orthodox. It is not for individual Catholics to privately judge that the decisions of the Roman Pontiff in regulating the liturgy are (in their minds) misguided and therefore must be rejected!
The opinion that the Church's liturgical laws of the 1950's led to a rite that exists outside the Catholic Church, is grounded in a grave theological error. The Catholic Church cannot feed with stones rather than bread. It's laws are good, and if a breakaway sect creates its own law that in some ways resembles the law of the Church but perverts that law, then it cannot be argued that the law of the Church, which is and was good, led to the sect's evil law!
If the Pope could make laws regulating the liturgy for the Church that could lead Catholics astray over time, then Catholics could never trust the Pope in these matters, and further, could never trust the Church, and would have to remain continuously on guard that the Shepherd is either unknowingly or foolishly leading them astray.
I finish this point with two excellent quotes from Fr. Cekada's tract, Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, that are very relevant to this discussion just as much as they are to the question of whether the Novus Ordo came from the Church which Fr. Cekada was addressing by using them:
Council of Trent (1562):
P. Hermann (1908):
The last point to be discussed here before moving on is to answer the question of what happened between the approved changes to Catholic law, and the law of the undeclared sect.
The Catholic Church was reforming the Roman Rite under the watchful eyes of the Popes. It was Pope Pius XI that first began the use of the dialogue mass, and it was Pope Pius XII who shortened the Eucharistic fast, and allowed evening masses. These changes of Pope Pius XII most especially are appreciated by Catholics of modern times, who may work odd shifts or have long drives to Sunday masses, and yet no complaints are heard about these, or what involvement Bugnini had in these changes, or whether they also led to the Novus Ordo and need to be rejected as well. It's amazing to me how the private judgment of such persons, picks and chooses very inconsistently what it likes and what it does not, all under the cover of being "traditional."
The Novus Ordo could not have come from the Catholic Church as it deviated from the theology of the Church. If Paul VI had not defected, and was the Pope, he may very well have continued the reforms of the previous popes, but I and all Catholics must stand firm in rejecting the evil thesis that the reforms of the 20th-century popes, and most especially those of Pope Pius XII led to the Novus Ordo. The indefectibility of the Church would never have allowed that to happen. The Catholic Church is holy, not evil.
The binding Catholic teaching relevant to all of this can be found in Mediator Dei:
And
And
I ask the reader not to miss the teaching of the Pope when he states that the modifications to the sacred liturgy authorized by the ecclesiastical hierarchy are done under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The pope applied this teaching of the guidance of the Holy Ghost to the authorized reforms of the liturgy by the popes in his 1956 address on the liturgy when he taught:
And
And
Here again, the Pope in an official and authoritative teaching document to the universal Church, teaches that the recent liturgical rites were formed under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and deserve our reverence and respect!
Since these liturgical rites were formed under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, how did they lead to the Novus Ordo? This question is never answered by those who reject these liturgical rites.
The Shepherd decides how to feed the sheep, it is not for the sheep to command the shepherd on the manner of how they are to be fed. If the shepherd determines that an older method of feeding is no longer the best, he may change it, as he is the shepherd and the duty of the sheep are to trust him.
The Novus Ordo did not come from the Shepherd, it came from a wolf dressed as a shepherd. The fact that there are some similarities between the manner of the shepherd and the manner of the wolf, the one feeding, and the other devouring the sheep, is not proof that the manner of the shepherd is defective.
As I said in a previous post, the 20th century Popes, from Pope St. Pius X in their reforms of the liturgy were like sculptors who over decades were sculpting a beautiful statue, but then an intruder came, and he defaced and damaged the beautiful sculpture. If this intruder had not come, the sculpture most likely would have been completed, but that did not happen. There are similarities between what the Popes were sculpting and what was ruined by the intruder: the clay is present in the work being done by the popes and the intruder, so that makes a similarity but the intention and work of the sculptors and the intruder is fundamentally different leading to two different ends. A simple way of saying this is that Pope Pius XII as Christ's Vicar was refining the Catholic rites in a Catholic manner with Catholic motives, while Paul VI, as the undeclared leader of an undeclared sect, was making a mangled and defaced liturgy that was an incentive to impiety and against the Faith. The two situations are apples and oranges.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Here are the two paragraphs being referred to by Fr. Cekada from Missale Romanum:
So, because Paul VI wishes to connect his Novus Ordo with the approved Catholic rites that existed prior to him, does his asserting this make it true? Fr. Cekada even accuses Paul VI of a lie, so why trust a liar to begin with?
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Why wouldn't the law still bind? It was a law approved by the Pope for the universal Church. The Church accepted this law, and it was put into practice throughout the Latin rite. The law had the full support of the Pope. Bugnini was not the Pope, he was a middle man, who worked under the direction of the Pope. Should we, using this logic, scrutinize all laws of the Church by who makes up study groups behind the scenes?
Fr. Cekada wrote, quoting Archbishop Bugnini:
So, Bugnini was excited about the simplification of the rubrics and was also looking forward to future changes. I say, who cares? Does it matter what he thought or hoped for? The Catholic Church cannot ever give an evil liturgy or one that is harmful to souls. For those who think otherwise, read the Council of Trent and the theologian, Hermann, above. There are many other theologians who all say the same on this matter as well. God protects His Church. If Bugnini's intent in the 1950's was to make the liturgy evil, and that is not proven, at least from anything he did in the 50's, he could never have succeeded, as such is impossible. Catholics never have to fear that happening, as any liturgical rites approved by the Popes are always infallibly protected!
Fr. Cekada wrote:
The quote may give the impression that the pope may have been manipulated, but that is certainly not the case. The Pope's illness lasted for a couple months in 1954, and he was clearly dying, having lost about a third of his body weight and all in the know were expecting his death to be imminent. It was at this time, that Our Lord appeared to Pope Pius XII at his bedside, and he, by all appearances of it being a miracle, regained both his health and vitality, and ruled the Church firmly and with full mind and will, until his health began failing again shortly before his death in October, 1958.
The quote does capture one key point, which is that the Pope was firmly behind the commission, and this was his will that this work be done and he was closely monitoring it, even during the time of his serious illness in 1954.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Fr. Cekada confidently labels Archbishop Bugnini as a Mason, but for myself, I am not convinced of that. In justice to him, and in light of the moral teaching of the Eighth Commandment, to not bear false witness, I do not believe one can say with any certainty that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason, as I never read any hard evidence of that assertion, just conjecture. Fr. Cekada offers no proof of the charge, he just repeats what so many other have carelessly and most likely thoughtlessly repeated.
The idea of focusing on Bugnini, is like honing in on a lower level supervisor in the workplace, with one's complaints, rather than having the courage to name to name the big boss, who you are really having the problem with. By naming Bugnini, one doesn't have to say he is criticizing the approved rite of the Church, or the Pope, he can just go after the underling who is the easy target. This was a common tactic with criticism of the Novus Ordo too. Wasn't it easier to go after Bugnini than to take on Paul VI, and by that have to deal with sedevacantism?
Read my comments above on the "sick pope." I urge the reader to read for himself what actually transpired with the Pope's illness. He wasn't an old sick and helpless pope that was being manipulated. Pope Pius XII was a devout Catholic who loved the Faith, and had a very strong mind and strong will. He was hardly a pushover that would have been knocked around by underlings. He was firmly and absolutely in control of the Catholic Church and his illness in 1954, although very serious was relatively short lived, and he made a full recovery, and before his illness and after his illness continued to openly support the reform of the liturgy.
To the third point, there was not any destruction of the Church by these men. The Church cannot be destroyed. This is hyperbole, and Fr. Cekada should have known better than to use such language.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
As I said before, so what? If it is true that Bugnini wished to destroy the Catholic Mass, he could never have done so, so whatever his ideas on this were, simply do not matter. We don't learn our Faith from this. We learn from the Popes and theologians, not Bugnini. I cited all of the principles above, The Council of Trent, Mediator Dei, the teaching of Pius XII, a dogmatic theologian of the Church, and it is from these sources and other such sources that we learn our Faith.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
The idea that the later "reforms," meaning the Novus Ordo came from the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church is just an idea of Fr. Cekada and some others. They cannot prove it, it's all built on assumption.
It also ignores the teaching that it is the Holy Ghost who guides the Popes in reforming the liturgy. How do the two ideas square together, one that thinks the Pope approved liturgical laws which eventually led the Church to an evil rite, to the other, being the teaching of the Pope himself, that these liturgical laws were accomplished under the influence of the Holy Ghost?
Fr. Cekada wrote:
As stated above, this is a proof of nothing. We don't know if traditionalists are correct in ignoring other laws, so it's not a proof that this law must also be rejected. Traditionalists are not infallible. Each act must be looked at and analyzed on its own merits and proofs, not just assumed to be correct.
Liturgical Reforms Illegal?, linked HERE
The first part of my response answered Fr. Cekada's assertion that the 1955 Holy Week law of Pope Pius XII was not stable and not in perpetuity. This response titled, Contra Fr. Cekada: 1955 Holy Week was Stable & in Perpetuity, is linked HERE
This paper is a response to Fr. Cekada's second claim, that the 1955 law is no longer in force due to the principle of the cessation of law, which means that if a law becomes "positively harmful" or "unreasonable," or secondly if the "purpose of the law has entirely ceased for the entire community," then the law ceases to bind. (quoted text is taken directly from Bouscaren, and the scanned page is linked HERE)
Fr. Cekada wrote:
2. Cessation of Law. A human ecclesiastical law that was obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circumstances after the passage of time. When this happens, such a law ceases to bind. (I have written several articles that touch upon this topic.)
Traditionalists apply this principle (at least implicitly) to a great number of ecclesiastical laws, and it applies equally to the 1955 reforms.
Traditionalists apply this principle (at least implicitly) to a great number of ecclesiastical laws, and it applies equally to the 1955 reforms.
The fact that traditionalists apply the principle of the cessation of law to a number of ecclesiastical laws proves nothing. Time will tell if the application of the principle to each law it was applied to was correct. The fact that it was done, is not proof that it can be used in other circumstances. Each time the principle is used, it must be justified in that specific situation.
Regarding the cessation of law, as applied to the 1955 Holy Week Law, this is like a wild legal theorist making something up to justify something absolutely not envisioned by the lawgiver by using a far flung legal theory. How has the 1955 rite become harmful over time? Did you notice this was ignored? Are Catholics now all early risers and can't stay up in the evening for the mass, and therefore being deprived? Are Catholics all so hungry and can't fight the hunger pains on Holy Saturday that they are not keeping the extended fast ordered by Pope Pius XII until midnight? Is there some other harm? Who knows, because Fr. Cekada never explained it. He seems to think that Bugnini's involvement is the harm, but that's not harm at all, as this law is not Bugnini's law, it is the Catholic Church's law.
One last point on this, the SSPX and CMRI since the 70's have both obeyed Pope Pius XII and their chapels are packed on Holy Week every year, with Catholics being sanctified by this approved rite of the Church, and nowhere is any harm to be found.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
The many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render the 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.
This is all irrelevant. The fact that there are "parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms," means absolutely nothing. This is surprising to hear from one who held the sedevacantist position. As a sedevacantist, one knows that there is a chasm between what came from the Church, and what did not come from the Church! The former is infallibly protected, and cannot be against the Faith or morals, or be an incentive to impiety or even be harmful to Catholics, while the latter, is protected from nothing, and is open to every possible evil, heresy, error, immorality, and harm in the rite.
How can one compare a received and approved rite of the Catholic Church with the rite used by an undeclared sect? Yes, there are some similarities, but all of that doesn't matter. One came from the Church and therefore was good and pleasing to God, and the other did not!
Pope Pius XII along with his predecessors were reforming the Roman Rite, and every approved action that they did was protected, and this includes the dialogue mass, the simplifying of rubrics, the adding of feasts, the removal of octaves, etc. Every one of these actions was not against the Faith, and absolutely did not lead to the Novus Ordo. What it was leading to was a reformed Roman rite that was different from the rite as it existed previously, but nonetheless fully Catholic and orthodox. It is not for individual Catholics to privately judge that the decisions of the Roman Pontiff in regulating the liturgy are (in their minds) misguided and therefore must be rejected!
The opinion that the Church's liturgical laws of the 1950's led to a rite that exists outside the Catholic Church, is grounded in a grave theological error. The Catholic Church cannot feed with stones rather than bread. It's laws are good, and if a breakaway sect creates its own law that in some ways resembles the law of the Church but perverts that law, then it cannot be argued that the law of the Church, which is and was good, led to the sect's evil law!
If the Pope could make laws regulating the liturgy for the Church that could lead Catholics astray over time, then Catholics could never trust the Pope in these matters, and further, could never trust the Church, and would have to remain continuously on guard that the Shepherd is either unknowingly or foolishly leading them astray.
I finish this point with two excellent quotes from Fr. Cekada's tract, Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, that are very relevant to this discussion just as much as they are to the question of whether the Novus Ordo came from the Church which Fr. Cekada was addressing by using them:
Council of Trent (1562):
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the service of piety: let him be anathema.” Canons on the Mass. 17 September 1562. Denziger 954. (Emphasis added)
P. Hermann (1908):
“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments, such as Communion under one species...
“The Church in her general discipline, however, is said to be infallible in this sense: that nothing can be found in her disciplinary laws which is against the Faith or good morals, or which can tend [vergere] either to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful.
“That the Church is infallible in her discipline follows from her very mission. The Church’s mission is to preserve the integral faith and to lead people to salvation by teaching them to preserve whatever Christ commanded. But if she were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, the Church would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.” Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae. 4th ed. Rome: Della Pace 1908. 1:258. (Emphasis added)
“The Church in her general discipline, however, is said to be infallible in this sense: that nothing can be found in her disciplinary laws which is against the Faith or good morals, or which can tend [vergere] either to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful.
“That the Church is infallible in her discipline follows from her very mission. The Church’s mission is to preserve the integral faith and to lead people to salvation by teaching them to preserve whatever Christ commanded. But if she were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, the Church would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.” Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae. 4th ed. Rome: Della Pace 1908. 1:258. (Emphasis added)
The last point to be discussed here before moving on is to answer the question of what happened between the approved changes to Catholic law, and the law of the undeclared sect.
The Catholic Church was reforming the Roman Rite under the watchful eyes of the Popes. It was Pope Pius XI that first began the use of the dialogue mass, and it was Pope Pius XII who shortened the Eucharistic fast, and allowed evening masses. These changes of Pope Pius XII most especially are appreciated by Catholics of modern times, who may work odd shifts or have long drives to Sunday masses, and yet no complaints are heard about these, or what involvement Bugnini had in these changes, or whether they also led to the Novus Ordo and need to be rejected as well. It's amazing to me how the private judgment of such persons, picks and chooses very inconsistently what it likes and what it does not, all under the cover of being "traditional."
The Novus Ordo could not have come from the Catholic Church as it deviated from the theology of the Church. If Paul VI had not defected, and was the Pope, he may very well have continued the reforms of the previous popes, but I and all Catholics must stand firm in rejecting the evil thesis that the reforms of the 20th-century popes, and most especially those of Pope Pius XII led to the Novus Ordo. The indefectibility of the Church would never have allowed that to happen. The Catholic Church is holy, not evil.
The binding Catholic teaching relevant to all of this can be found in Mediator Dei:
22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it." (Mediator Dei, par. 22, Emphasis added)
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47] (Mediator Dei, par. 49, Emphasis added added)
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct." (Mediator Dei, par. 50, Emphasis added)
I ask the reader not to miss the teaching of the Pope when he states that the modifications to the sacred liturgy authorized by the ecclesiastical hierarchy are done under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The pope applied this teaching of the guidance of the Holy Ghost to the authorized reforms of the liturgy by the popes in his 1956 address on the liturgy when he taught:
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. SOURCE (Emphasis added)
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself. (Mediator Dei, par. 58, Emphasis added)
59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times. (Mediator Dei, par. 59, Emphasis added)
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man. (Mediator Dei, par. 61, Emphasis added)
Here again, the Pope in an official and authoritative teaching document to the universal Church, teaches that the recent liturgical rites were formed under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and deserve our reverence and respect!
Since these liturgical rites were formed under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, how did they lead to the Novus Ordo? This question is never answered by those who reject these liturgical rites.
The Shepherd decides how to feed the sheep, it is not for the sheep to command the shepherd on the manner of how they are to be fed. If the shepherd determines that an older method of feeding is no longer the best, he may change it, as he is the shepherd and the duty of the sheep are to trust him.
The Novus Ordo did not come from the Shepherd, it came from a wolf dressed as a shepherd. The fact that there are some similarities between the manner of the shepherd and the manner of the wolf, the one feeding, and the other devouring the sheep, is not proof that the manner of the shepherd is defective.
As I said in a previous post, the 20th century Popes, from Pope St. Pius X in their reforms of the liturgy were like sculptors who over decades were sculpting a beautiful statue, but then an intruder came, and he defaced and damaged the beautiful sculpture. If this intruder had not come, the sculpture most likely would have been completed, but that did not happen. There are similarities between what the Popes were sculpting and what was ruined by the intruder: the clay is present in the work being done by the popes and the intruder, so that makes a similarity but the intention and work of the sculptors and the intruder is fundamentally different leading to two different ends. A simple way of saying this is that Pope Pius XII as Christ's Vicar was refining the Catholic rites in a Catholic manner with Catholic motives, while Paul VI, as the undeclared leader of an undeclared sect, was making a mangled and defaced liturgy that was an incentive to impiety and against the Faith. The two situations are apples and oranges.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Indeed, this is the very lie that Paul VI proclaimed in the first two paragraphs of Missale Romanum, his 1969 Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Novus Ordo.
Here are the two paragraphs being referred to by Fr. Cekada from Missale Romanum:
The Roman Missal, promulgated in 1570 by Our predecessor, St. Pius V, by decree of the Council of Trent,(1) has been received by all as one of the numerous and admirable fruits which the holy Council has spread throughout the entire Church of Christ. For four centuries, not only has it furnished the priests of the Latin Rite with the norms for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but also the saintly heralds of the Gospel have carried it almost to the entire world. Furthermore, innumerable holy men have abundantly nourished their piety towards God by its readings from Sacred Scripture or by its prayers, whose general arrangement goes back, in essence, to St. Gregory the Great.
Since that time there has grown and spread among the Christian people the liturgical renewal which, according to Pius XII, Our predecessor of venerable memory, seems to show the signs of God's providence in the present time, a salvific action of the Holy Spirit in His Church. (2) This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite,(3) which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality.
Since that time there has grown and spread among the Christian people the liturgical renewal which, according to Pius XII, Our predecessor of venerable memory, seems to show the signs of God's providence in the present time, a salvific action of the Holy Spirit in His Church. (2) This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite,(3) which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
It makes no sense to support this deception by insisting that the 1955 legislation still binds — especially when we now know that it was all part of a long-range plot by Annibale Bugnini's modernist cabal to destroy the Mass.
Why wouldn't the law still bind? It was a law approved by the Pope for the universal Church. The Church accepted this law, and it was put into practice throughout the Latin rite. The law had the full support of the Pope. Bugnini was not the Pope, he was a middle man, who worked under the direction of the Pope. Should we, using this logic, scrutinize all laws of the Church by who makes up study groups behind the scenes?
Fr. Cekada wrote, quoting Archbishop Bugnini:
Here, from his 1955 book, The Simplification of the Rubrics, is Bugnini announcing the long-term goal of these changes:
• “We are concerned with ‘restoring’ [the liturgy]... [making it] a new city in which the man of our age can live and feel at ease...”
• “No doubt it is still too early to assess the full portent of this document, which marks an important turning point in the history of the rites of the Roman liturgy...”
• “Those who are eager for a more wholesome, realistic liturgical renewal are once more — I should say — almost invited, tacitly, to keep their eyes open and make an accurate investigation of the principles here put forward, to see their possible applications...”
• “More than in any other field, a reform in the liturgy must be the fruit of an intelligent, enlightened collaboration of all the active forces.”
• “We are concerned with ‘restoring’ [the liturgy]... [making it] a new city in which the man of our age can live and feel at ease...”
• “No doubt it is still too early to assess the full portent of this document, which marks an important turning point in the history of the rites of the Roman liturgy...”
• “Those who are eager for a more wholesome, realistic liturgical renewal are once more — I should say — almost invited, tacitly, to keep their eyes open and make an accurate investigation of the principles here put forward, to see their possible applications...”
• “More than in any other field, a reform in the liturgy must be the fruit of an intelligent, enlightened collaboration of all the active forces.”
Fr. Cekada wrote:
And here is Bugnini describing how his “reform” commission got the liturgical changes approved by Pius XII:
“The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini [Paul VI, the modernist who would promulgate the Novus Ordo] and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea [half-Jew, modernist, and premier ecumenist at Vatican II], confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him.” (The Liturgical Reform, p.9)
“The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope, who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini [Paul VI, the modernist who would promulgate the Novus Ordo] and even more, on a weekly basis, by Father Bea [half-Jew, modernist, and premier ecumenist at Vatican II], confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him.” (The Liturgical Reform, p.9)
The quote may give the impression that the pope may have been manipulated, but that is certainly not the case. The Pope's illness lasted for a couple months in 1954, and he was clearly dying, having lost about a third of his body weight and all in the know were expecting his death to be imminent. It was at this time, that Our Lord appeared to Pope Pius XII at his bedside, and he, by all appearances of it being a miracle, regained both his health and vitality, and ruled the Church firmly and with full mind and will, until his health began failing again shortly before his death in October, 1958.
The quote does capture one key point, which is that the Pope was firmly behind the commission, and this was his will that this work be done and he was closely monitoring it, even during the time of his serious illness in 1954.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Thus, the Mason’s liturgical creations were presented to the sick pope for his approval by the two scheming modernists who would be major players in destroying the Church at Vatican II.
The idea of focusing on Bugnini, is like honing in on a lower level supervisor in the workplace, with one's complaints, rather than having the courage to name to name the big boss, who you are really having the problem with. By naming Bugnini, one doesn't have to say he is criticizing the approved rite of the Church, or the Pope, he can just go after the underling who is the easy target. This was a common tactic with criticism of the Novus Ordo too. Wasn't it easier to go after Bugnini than to take on Paul VI, and by that have to deal with sedevacantism?
Read my comments above on the "sick pope." I urge the reader to read for himself what actually transpired with the Pope's illness. He wasn't an old sick and helpless pope that was being manipulated. Pope Pius XII was a devout Catholic who loved the Faith, and had a very strong mind and strong will. He was hardly a pushover that would have been knocked around by underlings. He was firmly and absolutely in control of the Catholic Church and his illness in 1954, although very serious was relatively short lived, and he made a full recovery, and before his illness and after his illness continued to openly support the reform of the liturgy.
To the third point, there was not any destruction of the Church by these men. The Church cannot be destroyed. This is hyperbole, and Fr. Cekada should have known better than to use such language.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Bugnini in his memoirs, indeed, entitles the chapter on his involvement with the pre-Vatican II changes as "The Key to the Liturgical Reform." It prepared the ground for what would follow.
As I said before, so what? If it is true that Bugnini wished to destroy the Catholic Mass, he could never have done so, so whatever his ideas on this were, simply do not matter. We don't learn our Faith from this. We learn from the Popes and theologians, not Bugnini. I cited all of the principles above, The Council of Trent, Mediator Dei, the teaching of Pius XII, a dogmatic theologian of the Church, and it is from these sources and other such sources that we learn our Faith.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
I devote two weeks of my seminary liturgy course on the "Modern Era" to an examination of the pre-Vatican II antecedents to the later "reforms." The problems outlined in the articles by Bp. Dolan and Fr. Ricossa on our web site thus far are only the tip of the iceberg.
It also ignores the teaching that it is the Holy Ghost who guides the Popes in reforming the liturgy. How do the two ideas square together, one that thinks the Pope approved liturgical laws which eventually led the Church to an evil rite, to the other, being the teaching of the Pope himself, that these liturgical laws were accomplished under the influence of the Holy Ghost?
Fr. Cekada wrote:
Traditionalists rightly set aside as inapplicable many other ecclesiastical laws. A fortiori, they should ignore liturgical laws that were the dirty work of the man who destroyed the Mass.
As stated above, this is a proof of nothing. We don't know if traditionalists are correct in ignoring other laws, so it's not a proof that this law must also be rejected. Traditionalists are not infallible. Each act must be looked at and analyzed on its own merits and proofs, not just assumed to be correct.