Many reasons are given why the 1955 missal should be rejected. I’ll point out the facts, certain Catholic teachings along with my opinion and let the reader decide the answer.
1. Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII were calling for and working on reforming the liturgy. Pope St. Pius X began with Divino Afflatu November 1, 1911.
2. The Sacred Congregation of Rites promulgated the explanation for the 1955 reform in a general decree that can be read here.
Whatever the final outcome was to be, the changes would not have led to the 1969 Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, but to another mass that was fully orthodox because…
3. Pope Pius XII declared a year after the 1955 reform: “the faithful must seek from Scripture, tradition and the sacred liturgy as from a deep untainted source.” Haurietis Aquas, May 15, 1956.
4. Pope Pius XI declared: “Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.” Quas Primas, 22, Dec. 11, 1925.
5. Pope Gregory XVI declared: “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. ” Mirari Vos, 9 (1832).
Other papal teaching could be provided including theologians such as…
6. P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258: “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…”
7. McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology wrote: 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.
In light of the Catholic teaching, can we ascribe to the 1955 reform that it has “false principles and practices” that are found in the 1969 Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI?
Can we say that using the 1955 reform promotes the dangerous error that Paul VI’s “reform” was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy? If so, then how was the 1955 reform ever really untainted, perfectly and perpetually immune from error, or perfect as the Church declares the liturgy must be?
Is it absolutely necessary to apply epieikeia?
Who decides?
One thing is certain. To claim the 1955 missal was inherently bad (as all the arguments appear to be), then one is rejecting the 2nd article of Faith at least implicitly.
Is it not really the case that the private interpretation for applying epieikeia to the 1955 missal promotes this dangerous heresy anyway?
What so the reason for rejecting th 1955 missal?
I allude to some of the reasons in the questions in the article. The number one reason is that the 1955 missal is harmful.
Did you address the issue brought up that claims sedes have no authority to reject the 1955 missal until a pope authoritatively decides that? Why wouldn’t sedes just wait until a pope is elected and then have the pope decide? 🙂
You’re right, of course. I didn’t bring that up because some sedes will justify why they can decide it.
I’m countering why they couldn’t even if they had the authority.
Father Anthony Cekada of St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church and Dr. Carol Byrne (articles on the Tradition In Action website) have written instructive articles on why we should reject the 1955 reforms. This is of course while accepting Pius xii as a valid Pope. Since their arguments are extensive and to me convincing I would simply suggest you look them up and read for yourself.
Basically they have examined the changes and found them guided by Masonic and modernist principles. The 1955 changes were destructive of Catholic doctrine and liturgy. Although there is no explicit heresy in the changes neither can we find explicit heresy in the Novus Ordo Missae. We have to look a little deeper and see really why they made the changes. Then we can see the sinister plan of demolition from the beginning and which continues today.
I know Fr. Cekada’s argument well. In fact, I’m countering his argument. You can’t accept Pope Pius XII as a valid pope and then argue that he promulgated a destructive liturgy with modernist principles. That’s exactly the same argument the SSPX give for rejecting the Novus Ordo Mass while maintaining that the Vat2 popes are true. You can’t have it both ways.
There are no modernist principles in the 1955 missal. You won’t be able to tell what they are because they don’t exist except in the minds of those like Fr. Cekada. Your argument for some sinister plan doesn’t work against the 1955 missal. A true pope approved and promulgated it and it’s perfect! It’s that simple!
Read Dr. Carol Byrne’s articles and then see if you have the same opinion.
I just read it and the same problem arises. Tradition in Action rejects the 2nd article of Faith as the Catholic Church has always taught it. They believe as the Protestants. The article is basically heretical just as Tradition in Action is heretical. Dr. Byrne is giving an opinion against Pope Pius XII’s approved liturgy. Where does it end? Today, it’s Pope Pius XII’s liturgy, tomorrow it’s this canon law, next it’s that doctrine, and then you’ll find yourself complaining about everything the Church as ever done. Ibrayni doesn’t think we’ve had a true pope for a thousand years because of his private opinion against this and that teaching of the Catholic Church. You can’t reject an approved liturgy because you think it’s somehow problematic. The Church can’t give us a problematic liturgy and Dr. Byrne has not proven that the 1955 is problematic. Throughout history, people have argued why they think there are problems with certain approved changes in the liturgy and other practices. Catholics wanted to murder Pope St. Gregory the Great for changing the canon of the Mass. You’ll find old complaints from the East against the West because the East believed the West was straying from beauty and truth of the Faith. You may believe what you want as everybody does so anyway, but I believe the liturgy of the Church is holy and it must be for the Church to be holy as the Church teaches. Rejecting the 1955 missal by claiming it was inherently problematic even though it was approved by a true pope is at least an implicit rejection of Catholicism.
Would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic to go to a Mass that uses the missal prior to 1955?
To commit mortal sin, it must be serious and one must know it’s serious with full consent of the will. Perhaps you would like to rephrase the question?
Sure, I assume a Catholic must attend a mass with a missal approved by a valid pope and to do otherwise would be sinful. The 1955 missal was approved by Pope Pius 12 so would attending a mass using a prior missal be mortally sinful?
For it to be mortally, it would depend on certain elements. So to answer your question, it might be and it might not be. If you were unaware of the problem and trying to do what’s right, it probably would not be. You would have to be very specific in your questioning and whether you’re referring to the objectivity or subjectivity of the action. Lay out a scenario. Moral theologians deal with this stuff. Objectively, one should not be rejecting the 1955 missal as Protestants should not be rejecting papal teaching. How that figures subjectively depends on knowledge, intent, etc.
For it to be mortally, it would depend on certain elements. So to answer your question, it might be and it might not be. If you were unaware of the problem and trying to do what’s right, it probably would not be. You would have to be very specific in your questioning and whether you’re referring to the objectivity or subjectivity of the action. Lay out a scenario. Moral theologians deal with this stuff. Objectively, one should not be rejecting the 1955 missal as Protestants should not be rejecting papal teaching. How that figures subjectively depends on knowledge, intent, etc.
So what you are saying. Suppose a Catholic reads your article and now has a doubt whether attending a Mass said by a sede priest not affiliated with the CMRI is sinful, would this person commit a sin in attending? It becomes a catch 22 for the layman because the priest is the guide for moral actions in the confessional, but if the priest is leading people to hell by providing a Mass no longer approved by a pope, the how can he be trusted for moral guidance? If I was fine in attending the Mass prior to reading your article and now I commit a sin , then you did me no favors. Your article in practical terms condemns all non sede CMRI priests who use the old missal which is most of the non-CMRI priests. It also creates a situation where thousands of Catholics are committing sin.
No catch 22 if when you know what’s right and wrong. I personally think it is a sin to reject the 1955 missal and I would never trust a priest for moral guidance if he rejected the 1955 missal. You’re right that my article condemns all those who reject the 1955 missal and I’ll go a step further. I’m not too sure that I would call a priest a Catholic who rejects the 1955 missal. Perhaps you can explain to me how one is professing the Faith while at the same time saying the Faith has a harmful liturgy. It’s like being a Feeneyite. You might have asked the same question about going to an SSPX or other una cum mass. The answer about it being a sin is the same. Can you explain how in principle those sedes who reject the 1955 missal are any different than the SSPX? Do you realize that all those sede priests who reject the 55 missal are exSSPXers? Connection?
This is an interesting topic, as it highlights the objectivity of sedevacantism. If I may illustrate this with the following reasoning:
1) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (on ‘Modernism’), “You will know whether you are dealing with a veritable modernist or not, according to the way in which the Catholic conception of dogma is travestied or respected”;
2) Now read Pius XII’s defense of dogma in ‘Humani Generis’:
“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin”;
3) Note also how Pius’ defense of dogma above accords with the following additional dogma of the Vatican Council:
“If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the church: let him be anathema”;
4) Sedevacantist logic is illustrated by the following extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia (on ‘Infallibility’):
“A[n]…exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholica…. [I]n this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope”.
Clearly, Pope Pius XII did exactly the opposite of point 4 in his defense of dogma above, and, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, the claims of modernism (point 1 above) and sedevacantism do not apply to him.
He therefore possessed full papal authority, including the authority to “prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church” (Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘The Pope’).
I am new to this particular debate, so I apologize if I am going over old ground.
I have just read some of Fr. Cekada’s Web-published writings on this topic. It seems to me that the crux of his argument, as it relates to this blog post, lies in the following syllogism:
1) “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 circumstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.”
2) “The laws promulgating the Pius XII liturgical reforms were human ecclesiastical laws, subject to the general principles of interpretation for all church laws.”
3) “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.”
How do you respond to this argument?
The first point can be seen in cases such as the legislation on papal elections. Since there are no more cardinals, the law that only cardinals can vote for a new pope becomes harmful by prohibiting the divine right that Peter has successors. Therefore, such a law ceases to bind. However, the 1955 missal didn’t become harmful except in the minds of those who don’t like the changes.
Second point doesn’t give anyone the right to reject a liturgical reform because they don’t like it.
Third point is true except that Cekada is arguing that the 1955 missal was inherently harmful due to false principles and practices that are found in the Novus Ordo mass. Cekada can’t do that. His argument doesn’t really apply to the points. My article is demonstrating that Cekada argument is false because he is misapplying how and when epieikeia is to be used.
What this really comes down to is that Annabale Bugnini had his paws all over this and we all know how bad Bugnini was. However, it wouldn’t matter if the devil himself created the reform, if a true pope approved it, then it’s good. It’s that simple.
In the documents that I have read, Fr. Cekada enumerates fourteen “principles and precedents introduced in the Pius XII liturgical changes”, of which he states that, taken individually, “none was evil in itself”. That is, that they were not inherently harmful.
He goes on to claim, in the following quote with which you are apparently familiar, that they became harmful in the subsequent historical context:
“But fifty years later, we recognize that these principles and precedents were the foot in the door to the eventual destruction of the Mass…. You can hardly criticize the New Mass’s vernacular, passive presider and ceremonies facing the people if you engage in the very same practices every year when Holy Week rolls around.”
Excluding the question of right that you refer to under point 2 above, the principal matter of contention between you and Fr. Cekada appears to be this characterisation of the changes as a “foot in the door”.
I believe, however, that he may be entitled to hold such an opinion. I would like to demonstrate this by way of analogy with another area of ecclesiastical discipline.
The popes, such as St. Pius X, have ordained that “scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences” (Pascendi). The Catholic Encyclopedia, while in my view exhibiting great fealty to this injunction, nevertheless feels free to make the following observation (emphasis added):
“One need not go so far as to say, with Barthélemy Saint Hilaire, that ‘Scholasticism, in its general result, is the first revolt of the modern spirit against authority.’ Nevertheless, one is compelled by the facts of history to admit that there is more truth in that description than in the superficial judgment of the historians who describe Scholasticism as the subordination of reason to authority.”
It seems from this as if one could argue that the prescribed remedy against Modernism contains within itself the temptation to Modernism. That is, if I may put it this way: while the Scholastic may rationally prove that God exists, he also implicitly invites the reader to attempt to refute his proof.
In other words, I believe that while the Church’s promotion of Scholasticism is without flaw, it is also not without historically demonstrable risk. The same goes, perhaps, for Pius XII’s liturgical reforms.
You’re right about the charge as a “foot in the door” as part of the contention. While Cekada claims that nothing in the changes were inherently harmful he actually says the 55 reform has false principles and practices.
He is not entitled to have such an opinion. He gets to decide such a matter?
And, how about his rejection of the 1955 missal leads down the road of either rejecting the 2nd article of the Catholic faith or just picking and choosing what one likes or dislikes and rationalizing away why not to follow/obey? See the problem?
Let’s take it a step further. If Cekada is right, then you have the CMRI doing something harmful by using the 55 missal? So, would Cekada say it’s okay to use the 55 reform or would he have to condemn CMRI for using it? If it’s okay to use it, then he can’t make the charge that the reform is harmful. Otherwise, he must condemn the CMRI practice.
You can’t have it both ways. It’s okay to use it and it’s harmful.
Who decides? Those are his words to Salza/Siscoe/SSPX/etc.
This has been an interesting topic that I think is worth revisiting. I would like to make a concluding remark on this particular thread:
The changed circumstances to which Fr. Cekada refers have occurred during an interregnum, meaning that no authoritative decision can be given. I therefore do not see why the status of the 1955 reforms cannot be an open question.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I apologize for that. What Cekada is saying is that there REALLY was something wrong with the 1955 missal in the beginning but we didn’t see it until the Novus Ordo came about. That means that Cekada believes the 1955 missal was inherently harmful, like a time bomb. It’s not an open question because the Church can’t do what Cekada claims.
Does that help clear this up?
Dumb Ox,
If the standards of Fr. Cekada are used, then anyone could reject any law of the Church, so long as he personally decides it’s “harmful.” While it’s true that we are not bound by a law that harms, it’s a very dangerous thing to just say something is harmful when clearly it is not. It makes a mockery of the Church’s law.
Since Cedaka has that opinion would that be enough not to attend his services as a priest? Does that opinion of his make him an apostate in your opinion. Thank you for all your help.
I would not call him an apostate. I don’t know what censure he would fall under but I would stay away from all those like him who reject the 1955 reform.
I think I have read this article 15 times since you published it, and basically I continue to be confused about the 1955, 1962 and subsequent missals for one reason as it relates to Quo Primum. I came across an article by Raymond Taouk, (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/qprimum.htm). Taouk argues the entire liturgy was destroyed and he is in no wise complimentary of the Novus Ordo mass. His article caused me to reread again Quo Primum of Pius V from 1570 promulgating the Tridentine Liturgy. Save for rites that had been in place 200 years or longer prior to 1570, he seemed quite clear:
“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”
“We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.”
“We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.”
“We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding.”
After Quo Primum I believe we have these revisions:
1604 – Pope Clement VIII
1634 – Pope Urban VIII
1884 – Pope Leo XIII
1920 – Pope Benedict XV
1955 – Pope Pius XII
1962 – Pope John XXIII
1970 – Pope Paul VI
1975 – Pope Paul VI
2002 – Pope John Paul II
Were the revisions of 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920 (and 1955) valid? If arguments can be made (and accepted by sedes or non-sedes) alike that the changes after 1570 until 1955 are acceptable despite the binding in perpetuity by Pius V, then how can one argue the changes after 1955 (the missal of John XXIII, et al) are wrong?
What does it mean that Pius V bound the mass in perpetuity, yet there seemed to be changes within 35 years of his proclamation in Quo Primum? I assume Quo Primum was not bound on the eastern churches as their liturgies had been older than 200 years?
Finally I was curious if you could comment on the Sensus Fidelium in this situation. I know that the consensus of the faithful doesn’t automatically make something doctrine, but doesn’t the consensus of the people in part play a role too? For example, wasn’t there a consensus of belief Mary was assumed before Pius XII declared it a doctrine? So if Pius XII had come out and said Mary was not assumed and espoused some other explanation, wouldn’t this have been contrary to the consensus of the people? Can the Pope promulgate something contrary to the consensus of the people? Also, what happens if the consensus of the people does not follow what the Pope says? What comes first, the Pope’s promulgation and then the consensus or the consensus and then the Pope’s promulgation? (I understand if that is not an easy one to answer.)
However, I was just curious your thoughts on the notion that if the Sensus Fidelium accepted the liturgical changes of Paul VI, what does that say? Is it possible Pius V saw that any changes (no matter how gradual) could eventually lead to the problems being debated today and thus why he said “The way we worship is the way we believe” (lex orandis, lex credendi)?
These are just some questions I had.
Pope St. Pius V also revised the missal after Quo Primum with the Feast of Our Lady of Victory because he never intended to bind himself or future popes with Quo Primum. Popes don’t bind future popes on discipline. You’ll see Pope Clement XIV suppressing the Jesuits in 1773 using strong language, “the Company [Jesuits] shall be, and is, for ever extinguished and suppressed.” Yet, they were restored by Pope Pius VII in 1814. Therefore, you can’t use Quo Primum as an argument against a pope changing the mass.
Can you cite the Church teaching on Sensus Fidelium?
A pope couldn’t dogmatize something that’s not true which is how infallibility works.
As for Paul VI’s mass, it’s not Catholic because Paul VI was not Catholic regardless of the majority who accepted it. You might look up passive infallibility and how it’s applied as well. I think this is what you’re really after.
“Can you cite the Church teaching on Sensus Fidelium?”
Again, I’d like to use the assumption of Mary and Pius XII’s bull Munificentissimus Deus and Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus as two examples. Regarding Munificentissimus Deus, when did the Sensus Fidelium start, in 1950? Wasn’t it nearly 2000 years earlier when Christians began to ask, “What happened to Mary?” “Where is Mary’s grave?” Isn’t Munificentissimus Deus itself an example of the church’s teaching on Sensus Fidelium? The belief in her assumption far preceded the bull. Similarly, in Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX acknowledged the testimony of tradition firmly established before the bull.
I’ve also consulted Cardinal Newman’s words in the Rambler and his comments on “Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine.” In it, he also discusses the immaculate conception. A few quotes from his article:
“The history of the definition of the Immaculate Conception shows us this; and it will be one among the blessings which the Holy Mother, who is the subject of it, will gain for us, in repayment of the definition, that by that very definition we are all reminded of the part which the laity have had in the preliminaries of its promulgation. Pope Pius has given us a pattern, in his manner of defining, of the duty of considering the sentiments of the laity upon a point of tradition, in spite of whatever fullness of evidence the Bishops had already thrown upon it.”
“The faithful people have ever a special function in regard to those doctrinal truths which relate to the Objects of worship. Hence it is, that, while the Councils of the fourth century were traitors to our Lord’s divinity, the laity vehemently protested against its impugners. Hence it is, that, in a later age, when the learned Benedictines of Germany and France were perplexed in their enunciation of the doctrine of the Real Presence, Paschasius was supported by the faithful in his maintenance of it. The saints, again, are the object of a religious cultus; and therefore it was the faithful, again, who urged on the Holy See, in the time of John XXII., to declare their beatitude in heaven, though so many Fathers spoke variously. And the Blessed Virgin is preeminently an object of devotion; and therefore it is, I repeat, that though Bishops had already spoken in favour of her absolute sinlessness, the Pope was not content without knowing the feelings of the faithful.”
“St Gregory thus says that, in controversy about a matter of faith, the consent of all the faithful has such a force in the proof of this side or that, that the Supreme Pontiff is able and ought to rest upon it, as being the judgment or sentiment of the infallible Church. These are surely exceedingly strong words; not that I take them to mean strictly that infallibility is in the “consensus fidelium,” but that that “consensus” is an indicium or instrumentum to us of the judgement of that Church which is infallible.”
This is why I asked, “What comes first, the Pope’s promulgation and then the consensus or the consensus and then the Pope’s promulgation?” Isn’t it your own opinion (or the Sede position) that, because there are no cardinals, the only way to get a real pope is by a consensus of the faithful?
What is your take on the consensus fidelium and the Novus Ordo and the New Missal(s). I already know your take on them, but I am curious what your assessment is of the entire consensus fidelium?
What comes first? It looks like you partly answered your own question. The consensus can be an indicium or instrumentum but that would figure differently on how you view it. For instance, the First Vatican Council declared: “In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.” Therefore, the Church Fathers carry more weight. Who determines the consensus? A pope can promulgate dogma without a consensus, too.
Your question: “Isn’t it your own opinion (or the Sede position) that, because there are no cardinals, the only way to get a real pope is by a consensus of the faithful?” It’s no opinion but a fact that a future pope without cardinals can be brought about since Vatican 1 declared that Peter by divine right has successors. No church legislation can hinder a divine right. Devolution to bishops is the teaching we see by canonists and theologians explaining how. We also have by historic precedent men who assumed the papacy by universal acceptance such as Pope Vigilius. A mere consensus would not hold if the person were not a Catholic man.
As for your last question, I only a see a few good priests/bishops refusing to accept the novus ordo in the beginning. The people just go along in ignorance and/or fear like they do when their sede priests rejects the 1955 missal.
Steven,
I honestly think you are a great Catholic. I enjoy reading many of your articles. I don’t always agree with you and I am not a sedevacantist. I also enjoy reading Robert Sungenis and really only a select few others in the overall conglomerate of what is available within Catholicism to read. I try to drink deeply from the Fathers and even later leaders who were faithful. I could go on and I am not trying to puff you up in order to sucker punch you.
In my own personal analysis, I think I see why you are a sedevacantist. It seems in your honest belief, “I only a see a few good priests/bishops refusing to accept the novus ordo ….” and, “The people just go along in ignorance and/or fear ….” It appears to me you’ve looked on the landscape of Catholicism today and you see, ““There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Romans 3:11-12). I understand why you see it that way. It does not appear you believe there is a Sensus Fidelium among the people like there was even 100 years ago.
I don’t think you’ve ever written an explicit post on the Sensus Fidelium. My understanding of it was never that i felt every Catholic holds faithfully to whatever the particular issue is. I think this is what Newman was talking about, “The faithful people have ever a special function in regard to those doctrinal truths which relate to the Objects of worship.” He didn’t say how many faithful, it was just that it was the faithful. I think his belief is that it was more people than not, but he never suggested all were the faithful or what the number needed to be to say who was among them.
“Hence it is, that, while the Councils of the fourth century were traitors to our Lord’s divinity, the laity vehemently protested against its impugners.” If you lived in the 4th Century, it probably would have been you and the other faithful, but there were many who probably fell for Arianism. What was the true number of the faithful? Who knows.
“Hence it is, that, in a later age, when the learned Benedictines of Germany and France were perplexed in their enunciation of the doctrine of the Real Presence, Paschasius was supported by the faithful in his maintenance of it.” Again, that probably would have been you and the number of the faithful who supported Paschasius. But how many actually numbered this faithful? No one knows again.
When I left Catholicism, and then some 20+ years later had an Orthodox priest explain to me the words of institution and the unbloody sacrifice of the mass it changed my thinking. Then when I first returned to a Catholic Mass, I listened intently at the words of consecration. There I heard the calling down of the Holy Spirit, the words, “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” I don’t know who I am among the Sensus Fidelium, but hope I would be found to be among them when I hold to the belief of the real presence of Christ at the sacrifice of the Mass. I have no reason to doubt the words of consecration or that Christ was truly present. Each Sunday, I listen intently for these words in the Eastern Liturgy, I hear them, and I have no reason to doubt them and the real presence of Christ.
The Sensus Fidelium gives me hope even as Elijah was given the hope he wasn’t the only one who hadn’t bowed his knee to the Baals but God had reserved 7,000. Peter has successors by divine right, but that wasn’t the point of your article. Your questions were whether we can ascribe to the 1955 reform “false principles and practices” found in the 1969 Novus Ordo, whether the 1955 reform promotes the errors of Paul VI’s “reform,” the application of epieikeia and ultimately, “Who decides?”
Who decides? I don’t think I have the authority to, I believe I have the responsibility of faithfulness that is ascribed to the Sensus Fidelium. If Peter has a successor by divine right and it actually was John XXIII and then Paul VI, et. al, then the 1955 missal was not rejected by the church, but reformed as the 1955 missal was itself a reform. It goes without saying your reject that succession and therefore you reject the 1962 missal, et. al. So I guess I would conclude that those in your camp then have no other missal to accept other than the 1955 missal and shouldn’t reject it.
You’re right that we don’t accept missals from false popes.
You’re right that the Vatican 2 popes didn’t reject the 1955 missal, but they did reject the Catholic religion as a whole. They are modernists and I say they are the synthesis of all heretics.
The point of my article was that you can’t say the 1955 missal reform was inherently harmful in order to reject it when you hold Pope Pius XII as a true pope.
However, I think you have misunderstanding on the Sensus Fidelium. You gave a nice example with Arian heresy but what if it were mostly the laity who accepted the heresy as well? You wouldn’t call that the Sensus Fidelium because Arianism is not being faithful right? That is what you have now in the Novus Ordo religion. It’s not just the hierarchy, it’s everyone. You don’t find anyone in the Novus Ordo religion that’s faithful to Catholicism as it has always been taught.
That’s why I asked you for the Church’s definition of the Sensus Fidelium?
The Church has been abundantly clear about what makes someone a Catholic and how to be faithful. You will not find it saying that you go along with majority. The Sensus Fidelium would only include those who are faithful to the Catholic Faith.
There’s no way around the fact that Francis/Bergoglio is a total apostate who professes heresy after heresy. He, on a regular basis, blasphemes Our Lord, Our Lady, and our Catholic Faith. Therefore, according to the teaching of the Church and the law of the Church, he’s not a Catholic and has no place of authority in the Catholic Church. To knowingly recognize as him as pope would not, could not be included as part of the Sensus Fidelium even by the definition of the Vatican 2 religion.
Where am I wrong?
“The point of my article was that you can’t say the 1955 missal reform was inherently harmful in order to reject it when you hold Pope Pius XII as a true pope.” – I understand this. I never said the 1955 missal was harmful (though I understand you are saying there are others who say this.) My point was that, “If Peter has a successor by divine right and it actually was John XXIII and then Paul VI, et. al, then the 1955 missal was not rejected by the church, but reformed.” Therefore I concluded sedes should still use the 1955 missal, because what else do they have?
I think you missed what I said about the Sensus Fidelium, “but what if it were mostly the laity who accepted the heresy as well? You wouldn’t call that the Sensus Fidelium because Arianism is not being faithful right?” I stated in my reply, “there were many who probably fell for Arianism. What was the true number of the faithful? Who knows.” I would agree with you, most of the laity probably fell for Arianism. Those that did not were the sensus fidelium. My whole point is that it has never been declared just how many people have or must make up this group to be labeled the Sensus Fidelium. Wouldn’t the 7,000 along with Elijah have actually been considered at that time the Sensus Fidelium? God has never given us, nor has the church ever explicitly explained to us (to my knowledge), what the particular number or percentage must be for recognition of the Sensus Fidelium.
“That is what you have now in the Novus Ordo religion. It’s not just the hierarchy, it’s everyone. You don’t find anyone in the Novus Ordo religion that’s faithful to Catholicism as it has always been taught.” – This is why I quoted Romans 3:11-12. I know this is your view.
“That’s why I asked you for the Church’s definition of the Sensus Fidelium?” – Two of the clearest allusions to it were Pius XII’s bull Munificentissimus Deus and Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus. Nearly 1900+ years before Munificentissimus Deus, Christians began asking “What happened to Mary?” “Where is Mary’s grave?” In Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX acknowledged the testimony of tradition firmly established before his bull.
“The Church has been abundantly clear about what makes someone a Catholic and how to be faithful. You will not find it saying that you go along with majority.” Then why are you a sedevacantist? Didn’t you argue in your article, “Why Sedevacantism?” from The First Vatican Council:
“By divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”
From Pope Pius IX:
“We cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.”
Isn’t the entire argument of Sedevacantism because of the fact the whole notion of a One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is that there is a single authority, a single magisterium to be followed and believed by all? So if there was actually a Pope (that you accepted) seated in Rome and the Sensus Fidelium consented to and followed it you would say this was actually what the church said not to do? As you stated, “Notice, that all teachings from the supreme and ordinary (not just extraordinary) Magisterial must be believed.”
I believe you and I both agree, “The Sensus Fidelium would only include those who are faithful to the Catholic Faith.” I think you need to clarify your statement, “You will not find it saying that you go along with majority.” From everything I’ve read from you so far, if there was a real Pope professing the real faith and the majority accepted this, this would be the way we should all go as a majority.
Thank you for the clarification. Let me clarify myself as well.
I didn’t say that most of the laity fell for Arianism but rather I said what if they did. I was using your analogy. Sorry.
The entire argument of sedevacantism is due to the fact that the Vatican 2 popes aren’t Catholic and the religion of Vatican 2 is not Catholic.
Yes, if there was a real pope professing the real faith and the majority accepted this, this would be the way we should all go as a majority BUT NOT BECAUSE of the majority.
Steven, in all Charity, I think you miss the point of those who reject the 1955 missal. It is not because they think that the 1955 reforms are “intrinsically” bad. No, that would be very close to heresy to say the least. They say that because of a change of circumstances, which did not exist in 1955 (and btw, all were obliged in 1955 to use the 1955 missal, obviously), namely, the Vatican II liturgical movement, we now have the ability, in hindsight, to apply epikeya and say that, to use the 1955 missal, now after everything we know, would be bad (in other words, not intrinsically, but because of a change of circumstances). An analogy may help: all truly catholic priests today were ordained by bishops who do not have any ordinary jurisdiction, canonical authority, papal mandate etc. But these are all required for licit orders and for some of the sacraments to be valid. Although, I don’t think you or anyone with a brain has ever doubted that traditional priests have licit and valid orders and sacraments. So is ordaining priests and bishops in these times when ordinary jurisdiction is impossible to obtain, somehow condone the idea that clerics really don’t need jurisdiction? Of course not.
You quote: “Hence, a person should not use epikeya except in necessity, when he is ; and, even then, he must be sure that he acts from sincerity and disinterestedness.” And exactly how do those who reject the 1955 missal as by circumstance imprudent to use, not acting in necessity, being thrown on their own resources and obliged to decide for themselves?
Then you say this: “One thing is certain. To claim the 1955 missal was inherently bad (as all the arguments appear to be), then one is rejecting the 2nd article of Faith at least implicitly.” If you would have read Fr. Cekada’s arguments (or other arguments) you would have seen that not all arguments are saying “inherently bad”. I assume it was an innocent mistake on your part, but this is slanderous to say the least. Yes, some people who refuse to look up proper theology probably do make the mistake of saying “‘inherently bad” but no where close to all say this. The argument is epikeya, and it is no more unreasonable to apply it to the 1955 reforms than to the liciety and validity of orders and sacraments by traditional catholic priests.
I’ve read all their arguments very well. They are claiming the missal became harmful because of the change in circumstance, but in reality, their argument implies that it was inherently harmful. That’s the point you missed. You didn’t read my article very closely. I was quoting Cekada’s reasoning for why the 1955 missal is harmful now. Where’s the need to use epieikeia? His claim that the change in circumstance is a bogus argument for using it because the change in circumstance didn’t make the 55 reform harmful. Again, they don’t like the change and they are rationalizing away why they should reject it now.
I did read your article very carefully and nowhere do you quote Fr. Cekada. So to say that a papal mandate, which is necessary for a licit episcopal consecration, is no longer required because there is no authority to grant it, somehow implies that there is something inherently wrong with the law requiring such? That’s your logic. No, something can be harmful by circumstance without being harmful intrinsically.
No, you’ve completely misunderstood the issue. Of course, something can be harmful by circumstance but the argument Cekada uses is not one of them. That’s the point you keep missing. In the questions, I’m using the very words that Cekada claims is why the 55 reform is harmful, such as that it has false principles and practices and that the 1955 reform promotes the dangerous error that Paul VI’s “reform” was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy. Totally ridiculous! AND since you’re defending him, you must say the CMRI is doing something harmful by using the 55 missal.
I just read Fr. Cekada’s articles on this subject. Nowhere does he say what you claim he says. Please provide a reference. I’m not defending Fr. Cekada. I really don’t care who speaks the truth, as long as it’s spoken, I’ll defend the truth.
He does say over and over again that it is the change of circumstance. Nowhere does he say what you claim. Yes, of course what Pope Pius XII did was completely orthodox and fine. But what people subsequently took from that is what is wrong. In the same way that the suppression of the Jesuits was done by Pope Clement XIV. Obviously what he did was perfectly fine when it came to the indefectibility of the Church. But since the Jesuits at the time were the greatest bulwark against heresy and the greatest teaching order, it caused a great deal of harm to the Church that no one disputes. Also, it was done under pressure from the various monarchies. A similar parallel to Pope Pius XII and Bugnini. And you make the outrageous claim in a comment that quote: “I’m not too sure that I would call a priest a Catholic who rejects the 1955 missal.”
And then about the CMRI: should I bring up that fact that they publicly profess that going to the schismatic una-cum mass is legitimate (a mortal sin)? Or that they are opinionists on the question of the pope (a mortal sin again, since it denies a dogmatic fact)? I don’t think that the CMRI have the moral high-ground on condemning people. Would you call a priest catholic who believes these things? I’d rather not get into these questions because that’s not what this post is about, but I mention it so you understand that they don’t have the moral high ground.
I was quoting directly from Cekada word for word where he speaks on why the 55 reform is harmful. Yes, he quotes over and over again that it’s because of circumstance, but his argument doesn’t follow; the point of my article that you seem not to understand.
What people take from it is irrelevant because you can make that argument about everything the Church does. He goes on and on about Bugnini but he is irrelevant as well. I don’t care if the devil himself wrote it, if a true pope approved it, it’s good and it would not become harmful because of something else like the novus ordo mass. If you pay close attention to Cekada’s argument, you’ll see that even though he claims it was a change in circumstance, it was really the 55 reform itself that has false principles. Something that’s impossible for a true pope to approve of.
That it caused great harm they no one disputes? You mean the SSPX. Cekada came from the SSPX who publishes the book “The Liturgical Movement or The Trojan Horse in the City of God” written by a SSPX priest of the heretical society. Notice the title. What they claim is heretical! Therefore, I’ll repeat what I said. I’m not too sure that I would call a priest a Catholic who rejects the 1955 missal BECAUSE the argument used to reject it is a lie to hide another lie.
As for the CMRI, I have spoken with the bishop and several of their priests, and they all have personally told me they condemn what you claim they profess. There are nuances to the subjects and you have misrepresented them.
You misrepresent the CMRI. First, they don’t approve of going to una cum masses. If so then where is it writing? They aren’t opinionist on the question of whether last 6 claimants were pope. The opinionist groups are the SSPV and Bp. Petko’s group. Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV made that clear in his video on sedevacantism here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H633jb0YX2c Skip to 22 Min 30 Seconds and listen till 23 Min 15 Seconds and you’ll find out.
The point is that Fr. Cekada and many sede priests and bishops believe there is something wrong with the 55 liturgical reforms for holy week refuse to use it. The Holy Office was clear in 1955 when it said, “Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound… to follow the Restored Ordo for Holy Week, set forth in the official Vatican edition.” (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites November 16th 1955) Remember Pope Pius XII had the final say, not Bugninni, Cekada, or anyone else.
If you were really a Sede for Christ as for the name you choose to go by then you would obey a true popes.
CMRI statement on Catholics going to masses una cum is:
Appendix
Bp. Mark Pivarunas and his brethren, of the C.M.R.I., have provided the following statement in relation to so-called “una cum” Masses, to be appended to this article.
“The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses “una cum” (John Paul II).
“Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer “una cum” Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.
“Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.
“This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.
“Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church.”
Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002
http://www.sedevacantist.com/una_cum.html
You should call them and get all the nuances to the question. I’ve spoken to them.
Lots of things have changed since then and I’ve talked with the bishop and many of their priests. They’ve all told me I was not obligated to go to an SSPX mass in my local area and when I could go to one of their priests once a month to do that or they would try to find a way to get themselves in our area as a means for the sacraments. As one of their priest told us the sacraments are not for Catholics to just simply take when accessing them is easier but to give the right form of worship in order to receive them properly as a Catholic ought. This says it all because many people today would rather just go to a valid latin mass out of convenience then to drive a little further to a place which actually has the Catholic Faith and offers the latin mass.
[…] Therefore, no judgments can be made without rejecting the above two declarations. See Should the 1955 Missal Be Rejected? […]
Steve,
You wrote:
“I know Fr. Cekada’s argument well. In fact, I’m countering his argument. You can’t accept Pope Pius XII as a valid pope and then argue that he promulgated a destructive liturgy with modernist principles. That’s exactly the same argument the SSPX give for rejecting the Novus Ordo Mass while maintaining that the Vat2 popes are true. You can’t have it both ways.”
Absolutely. It’s a rejection of the Catholic Mass in force by the last legitimate pontiff of the Church. I guess he who dumps on R & Rs for “sifting” can’t see the beam in his eye . . . gotta be hard ambulating around with that, though.
Mark
Mr. Speray,
I’ve been reading and re-reading your articles about Fr. Cekada’s opinion on the 1955 Missal, and after a bit of research, it seems to me that my priest most likely rejects it too. Is it mortally sinful for me to continue attending this parish, and is the CMRI the only group that doesn’t reject the 1955 Missal? If so, that really sucks; there isn’t even a CMRI parish in my state.
On a related subject, would it be a bad idea to listen to sermons by Fr. Cekada and those who associate with him, like Bishop Sanborn? Based on the CMRI not including any parishes in Florida (Sanborn’s state of residence) in their directory, and his association with Cekada, I’d assume Sanborn rejects the 1955 Missal too.
Finally, another thing: have you heard of the website todayscatholicworld.com? And if so, how would you react to what they say (i.e., Pope Gregory XVII, the invalidity of Bishop Thuc’s line of bishops, and so on). Thanks again!
I don’t believe it’s sinful to attend the masses of these priests. There’s nothing we can do about what bad priests do, they will answer to God for their errors. Priests have doing things like this for 2000 years but it’s our duty to attend mass.
As for listening to sermones by Cekada, Dolan, etc., you may do that as well but be aware that you may not always be getting the truth.
Todayscatholicworld is run by quacks. The Thuc line bishops are valid. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLJIqLd5Gh8 Siri was never pope. There can be no doubt about who the pope is.