Holy Week is here and we’re about to see a bunch of R&R sedevacantists apply the law of epieikeia to the 1955 missal of Pope Pius XII. Their reasoning is simple. They have passed judgment on the decision of the Apostolic See and therefore have done exactly what is forbidden by the First Vatican Council when it infallibly declared:
- Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54].
Not only has Vatican I declared that its judgments are not to be judged, it also declared that:
- For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished.
- That this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.
Therefore, no judgments can be made without rejecting the above two declarations. See Should the 1955 Missal Be Rejected?
Unfortunately, R&R sedevacantists have determined by private judgment against Pope Pius XII that the 1955 missal:
- Has false principles and practices.
- Marginalizes the Social Kingship of Christ.
- Is naturalistic.
- Undermines the proof of Christ’s Resurrection
- Undermines the proof of malice Jews had for Christ after His death.
- Leads to the New Mass.
R&R sedevacantists also reject the fast law of Pope Pius XII where he extended the Lenten fast on Holy Saturday to midnight and they reject the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, the same pope established on May 1st of the liturgical calendar.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
So my question for many sedevacantist this week is are you going to obey Bp. Sanborn, Dolan, and others who will fast until noon on Holy Saturday or will you obey Pope Pius XII who changed it to where you must fast the entire day? The same question can be asked of the Good Friday and Holy Saturday revisions. Of course we know all the excuses.
What do you make of Fr. Cekada’s piece on this controversy?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1GMMCdeTJd0J:www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P12MoreLegal.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Cekada claims the 55 reform became harmful but then explains how it was always harmful because it was principally flawed. In fact, Cekada stands in judgment of the 55 missal which is precisely what Vatican I condemned. The liturgy can’t be principally flawed.
He claims that continuing to follow these practices found in the 55 reform promotes the modernist lie that the New Mass was merely an organic development of the true Catholic liturgy. WRONG! I submit that Cekada is promoting a lie!
Cekada continues the lie by making it appear that epieikeia can apply to this liturgy because of what he has judged. Look up epieikeia and find out how it applies and to what circumstance and you’ll see that Cekada is way off base.
His argument is a slap in our Catholic faces, but unfortunately many so-called Catholics will believe and accept whatever their heroes tell them.
Mr. Speray
Could you explain to me how you can say “The liturgy can’t be principally flawed.”, when Pope Pius XII judged that the use of vernacular language might be good for some (pastoral?) reason instead of the use of Latin.
SPERAY REPLIES: I appreciate your passion and you trying to reach out to me. Please, don’t read into my replies anything but a quick blunt reply. You’ve given me much to answer. First, I’ve already answered your question elsewhere. Pope Pius XII declared that the liturgy is an untainted source. Therefore, it can’t be flawed. The use of the vernacular has been approved hundreds of years ago when Sts. Cyril and Methodius used it with the Slavs. It just so happens that the German bishops complained about it not using Latin and the pope sided with the saints.
As you believe, this judgement did not flaw the sacred liturgy, but the following execution of this discipline led the Catholic liturgy to that heretical Novus Ordo, after His death.
SPERAY REPLIES: The problem with the Novus Ordo is not with the use of the vernacular, or else the gates of hell prevailed back in the 9th century.
It was not due to the false principles included in the 1955 changes (as you accuse Father Cekada for having said so),
SPERAY REPLIES: He explained how it has false practices and principles.
but due to the intention Bugnini and his fellow men had for the destruction of the sacred liturgy as they set the first steps towards the Novus Ordo liturgy.
SPERAY REPLIES: It does not matter if the devil himself drew it out for the destruction. If a true pope approves it, it’s good. Intentions have nothing to do with it.
In this sense, Father Cekada said that a good law could become bad in time and by circumstances.
SPERAY REPLIES: A good law can become bad in time and by circumstance but not because of some bad intention in the good law. That’s absurd. The 1955 missal did not become bad. That is Cekada’s flawed opinion. However, he says it became bad, but in reality, it was always bad to Cekada. He just doesn’t like the fact that Bugnini had his paws all over it, therefore, he comes up with this novel argument to do away with the missal.
However you seem to think that a perfect discipline cannot be abused, because it’s perfect. A good law can become bad, not because it is has been always bad in principle, but because it was badly executed or manipulated later on (among other reasons).
SPERAY REPLIES: Abused? There’s nothing wrong with the 55 missal! It wasn’t badly executed or manipulated later. The Novus Ordo is something entirely different.
So the 1955 changes were substantially a good law, but became bad or harmful due to accidental factors and circumstances: Bugnini and the appearance of the New Mass.
SPERAY REPLIES: Total absurdity! You might as well blame Catholicism for Protestantism and do away with both and go back to Judaism. The New Mass and the 55 missal are not related anymore than Catholicism and Protestantism.
Pius XII died without witnessing this.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT DOESN’T MATTER. If Pope Pius XII lived, he would have approved another version of some new but same liturgy…one that is perfect. He would not have approved the novus ordo because he could not have done so.
If He, a True Catholic Pope, were alive at this time, obviously He would not implement the discipline for the 1955 changes or he would excommunicate those who created the New Mass.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re being silly now. He did implement the 55 missal and he wouldn’t have approved the new mass. That’s all.
I think you are ignoring these facts.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m not ignoring anything. I’m actually dealing with every part of the argument. I don’t see anyone dealing with my arguments or answering the questions.
In other words, the 1955 changes (after Pius XII died) accidentally became the bridge to connect the sacred liturgy with the heretical Paul VI’s New Mass.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO IT DID NOT! We Catholics do the 55 missal every year, and none of us have any temptation to accept the new mass.
At the same time, I think that if the changes of Pius XII had been correctly executed, their outcome would have been different.
SPERAY REPLIES: It doesn’t matter.
But it’s not. Why? Because they were abused. If we admitted the 1955 changes many Novus Ordites could rightly counter you by saying ” You reject the New Mass for its heresy? But it came from the 1955 discipline.
SPERAY REPLIES: Did Protestantism come from Catholicism?
So it was intended by the Church”. In other words, to defend the 1955 changes weakens the our position in front of Novus Ordites when it comes to prove that the Paul VI changes are evil. So this is my opinion, this is what I am talking about.
SPERAY REPLIES: It doesn’t weaken our position at all. It actually strengthens it. In fact, you have weaken your position by rejecting the 55 missal because of those things I’ve explained in the two articles.
Therefore it is more safe and in accordance with common sense to reject the 1955 changes.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m sorry, but you’re extremely wrong. You have condemned yourself in two ways.
And if there is no Pope and other representatives to whom we can have recourse, we can apply the principle of epieikeia to this situation because it is necessary to reject the discipline in order to refute the criticism from Novus Ordites who say “You don’t use the New Mass that came from the 1955 changes.”
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG. Epieikeia must be necessary. I have proven that it’s not necessary, but also erroneous to do so. You won’t hear my argument because you’ve decided that Cekada is already right.
You might say “it did not come from the 1955 changes, but from Bugnini. Until the true outcome of the 1955 changes appears, we continue to use the 1955 liturgy of Pius XII.” However, I believe it brought about bad consequence contrary to what Pius XII intended.
SPERAY REPLIES: It didn’t bring about anything negative.
So why do you continue to use it?
SPERAY REPLIES: Because it’s perfect! We love and embrace it. It came from our last true pope whose judgments are not to be judged.
And how can you condemn Father Cekada and others as heretics without referring to common sense and the fact that a good law could become bad due to some bad factors and circumstances?
SPERAY REPLIES: Because his argument is tantamount to heresy since he’s really saying the 55 missal has flawed practices and principles. I’ve demonstrated that he’s really lying about the whole thing to justify his use of epieikeia.
Because he and they did not have recourse to Pope or other representatives?
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s his excuse. He’s wrong and it could cost him his soul in the end.
There are no Pope and valid representatives, there is no authority.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Church has no authority?
In such a case, one could apply epieikeia to problems because it is necessary.
SPERAY REPLIES: The only time we can apply epieikeia is when it’s necessary, but this isn’t one of those times.
I think Catholic theology is not lacking of common sense, but on the contrary is full of it.
SPERAY REPLIES: AGREED! Try using it sometime.
Today to defend the 1955 changes will lead people to say that sedevacantists accept the discipline that gave birth to the New Mass.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’VE PROVEN YOUR STATEMENT WRONG.
To reject it as Pius XII would do if he were alive,
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re being silly again. Since he wouldn’t have approved the new mass, he couldn’t condemn his own liturgy by your own argument. SO NO, HE WOULDN’T HAVE CONDEMNED IT.
will refute such an objection without anybody becoming a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your argument is heretical.
Again the 1955 liturgical laws later became harmful due to some accidental factors and circumstances.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE!
If there is no Pope, we should reject it to avoid all kind of criticism and scandal from Novus Ordites.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! You’ve created the scandal by rejecting it but you’re too blind to see it.
Pius XII certainly will do the same.
SPERAY REPLIES: Again, this is silly because he wouldn’t have approved the new mass
And please don’t hurry in condemning Father Cekada and others as heretics. Of course these are my opinions based on study and research. Opinions must be weighed by what they convey.
SPERAY REPLIES: Have you made up your mind then? I can tell you that I’ve made up mine.
In Christo
Veritas liberabit vos!
Again, certainly Pope Plus XII WOULD do the same.
Pope Pius XII would condemn Cekada for his position.
Sir, I made two corrections on the text I just sent to you:
SPERAY REPLIES: Thank you. I deleted your first comment since this is the corrected version.
Dear Steven Speray,
I would like to present some objections to your article.
First, Pope Pius XII was the Roman Pontiff until 1958, how can you recognize and resist a person who is no longer a Pope? Therefore, the analogy seems to be false
SPERAY REPLIES: By recognizing Pope Pius XII as the pope during his lifetime and resisting his decision that still applies now.
Second, if after a pope’s death no changes can be made in ecclesiastical discipline, even those based on the current circumstances (say, our tireless fight against Modernism), then it seems you would not be able to account for your books being published without an ordinary’s imprimatur and for our sede bishops being ordained without Apostolic Mandate.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve made it abundantly clear that epieikeia can and does apply in certain circumstances. For instance, Pope Pius XII legislation on papal elections no longer can apply since there are no cardinals. So you’re applying a principle that I don’t hold. The point of my article is that it’s not necessary to apply epieikeia to the liturgical discipline and that the excuse given for doing so is a lie anyway.
I fear that by such argument on the 1955 Reforms – say, you can’t change discipline without the Pope, or you can’t resist a dead Pope for any reason whatever – you could fall in the Pharisaical logic of the home alone people, those who support things as the absurd non-jurisdiction theory. As far as I can see, they ground their claim in the same principle you did.
SPERAY REPLIES: Now you see that I don’t hold the position that you thought. Although, I don’t think you can do away with a liturgy without the pope. That would be like doing away with an encyclical or apostolic exhortation without the pope.
Finally, history teaches that many things objectively good maybe used by heretics to put forward their bad doctrines.
SPERAY REPLIES: Should we do away with Catholicism because of Protestantism?
For example, the idea of human liberty by Pelagius and grace by Luther. Once they ascribed to it a wrong sense, dealing with the same concepts demand on the part of the teaching Church a care that they dint’t have before.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not be calling the once good discipline harmful after the fact.
What is true on doctrine is also true on discipline: the 1955 reforms were good in itself, however it is a matter of fact that Modernists ascribed to it a bad interpretation, and created a new rite in which their false ideas are not only an interpretation, but the true and sole way of understanding it correctly.
SPERAY REPLIES: If what you said were true than the 1955 reform would not be good in itself. It would actually be evil.
Yes, we have a New Mass around us such as one day our Catholic ancestors had the Protestant concept of justification around them. Can you speak about grace as you spoke in the Reformation’s eve? Hardly, now you will have a greater care: you are going to exclude not just obviously false propositions but even those good ones that may be taken wrongly, you will talk much more about the importance of good works than you did before and so on.
SPERAY REPLIES: What “good ones” are you referring to by which you’re trying to prove a point?
Applying it to our time, it would be something like this: talking more about passive participation against the assembly meeting theory, that’s to say avoiding even those things that could allow a wrong interpretation. As the Church not just teaches us by her words, but even more strongly by her deeds, it seems to be fair and necessary to pray in such a way that not even a shadow of Modernism may be imagined. We don’t have to make it ourselves, we find such a prayer in St Pius X’s rubrics.
SPERAY REPLIES: There’s not even a shadow of Modernism in the 1955 reform or else it would have never been good. You’re doing exactly what Cekada does. He argues that it became bad but in reality it was inherently bad. That’s the fatal flaw in your argument.
Those are my humble objections. I am studying the subject with care at the moment and I would appreciate very much your comments on those findings of mine. My chief claim, as I hope it became clear enough from what I said, is that fighting the antiliturgical heresy today demands on the part of pastors a greater care now than it demanded in Pope Pius XII’s times. Since then our enemies grew in influence and so grew the danger and confusion in liturgical matters; acting in proportion to this new challenge, our zeal and opposition against them grew as well.
SPERAY REPLIES: I sincerely hope that you understand what I’m saying and abandon this notion that epieikeia must be applied to the 1955 missal. Again, read what the Church said: “The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54].” Yet, you’re arguing that judgment should be passed on the liturgy.
Are we going to believe Bugnini about the 1955´s Missal?
A modernist would say anything to calumniate a Catholic Pope.
The new R&R sede tack is to say it wasn’t really Pius XII who approved the liturgy but two heretical Cardinals who took advantage of Pius XII when he was ill in ’55(wink wink, who else said that about Protocol 122/49 and Marchetti?) What answer would you make to that? I answered that it’s covered by Church infallibility and even if it were the case that Modernists hijacked him, the same can’t be said of Pius X’ s reforms when there were an equal number of Modernists running around. At any rate, the “he was ill” card sounds stupid and this resistance goes as far back as 1950 when Pius XII was fit as a fiddle and even pronounced the Assumption and (sigh) the Leonine prayers. When I see how people snatch on one word (epikeia) and use it like a pickaxe, I get mental images of bulls and china shops. Compare it to the vacancy pushers who see one thing, Canon 188.4, and apply it like Ibranyi to as far back as Innocent II.
You’re right! It’s amazing isn’t it? People see what they want to see. Pope Pius XII did approve it. They just don’t like it because Bugnini was involved in it.