Father Cekada has produced a new video on the reason for rejecting the 1955 Reform Missal for Holy Week of Pope Pius XII. See:
In the video, we get to see Fr. Cekada have a make-believe conversation with Pope Pius XII where Fr. Cekada gets to speak for the pope to justify his application of epieikeia to the 1955 Holy Week Missal. Cekada’s imaginary depiction of Pius XII is very convenient in support of his argument. I could depict the pope giving a very different response to Cekada but the whole thing is just too silly.
Cekada insists the 1955 missal “paved the way to the 1969 new order of mass of Paul VI and were the work from the same modernist cabal that concocted the post Vatican 2 reforms.” Because Bugnini said the Pius XII reforms were a “bridge between the old and the new” that “led to the new city” Cekada asks why walk halfway across the bridge if we’re never going to the new city.
Pope Pius XII promulgated Maxima Redemptionis claiming that the 1955 reform was a restoration. It’s not a bridge to the new mass but one more stage of reform of enhancing the liturgy that began with Pope St. Pius X. The 1955 missal didn’t pave the way to the new mass anymore than the Catholic Church paved the way to Protestantism.
Another problem is that Fr. Cekada says in his make-believe conversation with Pope Pius XII that there’s nothing evil with the 1955 missal, but he indicates in earlier writings that he may not really believe that.
In 2012, Fr. Cekada wrote, “the many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render 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.” [1]
This is merely Cekada’s opinion. How many Catholics has fallen victim to the new mass because of the 1955 missal? It would seem that if you’re going to claim the liturgy has become harmful and you’re going to apply epieikeia, you’d provide examples of it actually doing the harming rather than making a claim of it doing so. I would like to see the numbers of those Catholics leaving CMRI (who use the 1955 missal) for the new mass on account of the Pius XII liturgical revisions. After all, theologians HcHugh and Callan taught that “A person should not use epieikeia except in necessity.” [2] The burden of proof for its application should be provided not by claims but by its fruits.
Also, which parallels in principles and practices are Fr. Cekada referring?
The new mass also has parallels in principles and practices with the Roman Mass from the 4th century onward. If the supposedly evil principles and practices are found only in the new mass and the 1955 missal, how can they only be evil in the new mass and not in the 1955 reform.
In one of Fr. Cekada’s Quidlibet articles, he boasts, “As always, a Bugnini-free zone!” [3] His explanation really sounds like he’s looking for an excuse to get rid of the 1955 reform because Bugnini has his paws all over it. The application of epieikeia is not necessary, it’s just that Cekada really does think the 1955 Holy Week Missal is principally flawed from the beginning while saying it just became harmful only after the new mass.
I submit that the 1955 reform is not harmful at all. Pope Pius XII indicated in his document that the reform better clarifies the meaning of the liturgy by removing confusion between the Gospel accounts and the liturgical representations referring to them. It placed the Easter Vigil back to the evening hours so to clarify the sense of its words and symbols which also puts back the proper sorrowful character as the commemoration of the Lord’s burial.
The 1955 reform also provides an opportunity for an apology for legitimate reform against an illegitimate reform (new mass). Oh, and it provides an apology against those who think they should abandon it. So I’m glad we have it.
Footnotes:
[1] Short Critique of Article “Regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week”
[2] 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.
[3] http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/10/bugninis-51-easter-vigil-first-step-to-the-novus-ordo/
I stopped frequenting your site months ago after I saw the disrespect you showed to a true Catholic Priest, however I neglected to delete your bookmark. So I forgetfully stumble back into your site and what do I see? I see you railing against Father Cekada again. Who knows what you’ve been writing the last few months. I don’t want to know. I won’t go on about your credentials versus his but really; one of a few true Catholic Priests and this is what you do? You don’t bite your tongue or typing fingers, nor respectfully disagree privately. No, you treat Father Cekada as if he were one of the false shepherds of the N.O., or like some protestant heretic. Whatever your vocation may have been with this site, you have well and truly abandoned it. This time I will make sure I delete the bookmark
I don’t hold Fr. Cekada as a Catholic in good standing. He’s leading people right to hell with his garbage! Martin Luther was a true priest, too. True priests either do what’s right or go on their own. Cekada has chosen to go his own way. If you choose to go his way, GOOD RIDDANCE TO YOU! By the way, your comment sounds like it came from an emotional woman. Effeminate men are the biggest problem on earth!
LOL! Good reply for a lay person in over his over his head dealing with Theological issues. And Father Cekada is leading souls to hell? Pathetic.
I see that you’re one of those souls being led to hell by Cekada. For your info, CMRI priests agree that Cekada is terribly wrong. Our priest also agrees that Cekada is wrong. As for this being over my head, it’s a very simple subject. You either do what the pope orders or you don’t. Cekada chooses not to and then tries to justify his actions that the pope would agree with him. Lol.
You raise some interesting points. If the 1955 ‘reform’ of the Holy Week services had stopped at restoring things like the Easter Vigil to its original and logical time of day (i.e. evening around midnight), I would tend to agree. But Bugnini didn’t stop there. Lessons were eliminated from the Vigil Service, and an entirely new, trumped-up ‘renewal’ of baptismal promises by the Faithful was introduced, a sign of Bugnini’s obsession with vocal congregational participation of people in the sacred liturgy; an obsession shared by the protestant reformers. Besides the Vigil, substantial changes were made to the Palm Sunday liturgy, with the clergy required to turn their backs to the altar/tabernacle to use a table holding the palm branches, required so the ‘people’ could see it. Other changes were made to the Tenebrae services, as well as to the Good Friday Mass of the Presanctified. In retrospect, the changes were clearly made by Bugnini and his henchmen as a first move towards the gutting of the Liturgy following Vatican II and to soften up the Church for a ‘new springtime’ of constant change, in which we are all now flourishing.
Clearly a first move towards the gutting of the liturgy? There was no gutting of the liturgy with the 1955 missal. What followed has nothing to do with the 1955 missal. The Church was already moving towards changing the liturgy. Bugnini is meaningless. Whatever he did after the 1955 missal is on him and the counterfeit religion.
Grateful Catholics, decades fromnow, will be deeply grateful to Father Cekada , Bishop Dolan Bishop Donald Sanborn, SGG as Cmri priests for doing Christ’s work in keeping His Church always vs in these dad times of the Great Apostasy
Dear Mr.Speray
Is there any way your opinion on this matter could be changed?
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s not merely my opinion. We are to obey the last true pope and not make judgments against the liturgy. Are you willing to change your opinion on the matter?
What is the point of this post/article?
SPERAY REPLIES: To wake Catholics up from this nonsense.
Is it Catholic for a layman to make judgments, such as ‘Fr.Cekada is leading souls to hell’ and then issue them publicly?
SPERAY REPLIES: Absolutely! We are bound by Christ to do so. Why would we not? We don’t allow bishops and priests to lead people astray.
If you are wrong the weight of such pronouncements and actions is not light for the burden your soul will take into purgatory.
SPERAY REPLIES: How do you know this? If I’m doing the best that I can to defend Our Lord and His Church and make a mistake, I’ve got a huge burden on my soul? If I sit back and say nothing knowing what I know, what about that burden? What if I’m right, what about Fr. Cekada’s soul? What’s your point?
Are not all Sedevacantists applying epikeia by being Sedevacantist in the first place?
SPERAY REPLIES: Applying it to what? “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.” (McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology)
Do you think that the decision to use the pre-Pius XII reformed Holy Week was arrived at as simply as you have concluded it is wrong?
SPERAY REPLIES: No, it was simplier. They didn’t like Bugnini so they came up with a dumb excuse to get rid of it.
Are you aware that all other Catholic Rites celebration of Holy Week were not reformed by Pius XII and that this argues against the opinion that to continue in the pre-Reformed Roman Rite of Holy Week is contrary to Catholic Dogma about what is necessary for Salvation?
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT?
Are you aware of the way Pius XII illness was used as way to take advantage of the ailing Pope to push through the Reforms?
SPERAY REPLIES: Comepletely irrelevant. Are you now arguing that there was something wrong with the liturgy?
Are you aware that these Reforms were not universally adopted during Pius XII pontificate/lifetime and there were no excommunications of those who did not adopt them?
SPERAY REPLIES: Who didn’t adopt them in the Latin rite?
Are you aware of the Judeophiles who pushed for the Good Friday petition for the Jews conversion was changed in language and action, kneeling was required by the reforms, and that this was a clear precedent for the later denial of supercession of the New Covenant with the Church?
SPERAY REPLIES: Your opinion? Are you arguing that their was something wrong the 55 liturgy, then?
And that this clearly was the precedent for the later bowing down of the false papacy to the Jews?
SPERAY REPLIES: So you are arguing that there was something wrong with the liturgy? You can’t do so.
And though I could write much more erudite, qualified, Ordained and Consecrated! men have written more and better than I ever could:
SPERAY REPLIES: You are arguing against the First Vatican Council: 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].
There were saints who recognized and submitted to Anti-Popes during the Great Schism when there were valid popes and yet you condemn, though you are but a layman, men sanctified to hold the Body and Blood of the Lord in this darkest of eras without any Pope to perdition for doing what they believe to be right in the matter of Holy Week?!
SPERAY REPLIES: You are rejecting the teaching of the Church, and defending and promoting a lie. Those saints never dreamed of questioning the liturgy as you’re doing, especially now when Trent defined the perfection of the liturgy.
Even if your opinion is correct I cannot begin to understand how you can believe anything but the demonic is behind your language and actions!?
SPERAY REPLIES: I believe the demonic is behind you and leading you to write this demonic comment of yours.
Whenever a layman seeks to confront and offer correction to a clergyman it must first be rooted in the gravest humility and contrition.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, and?
This is not a matter of heretic non-clergymen posing as such in the Vatican II anti-church! Yet you speak in such a way!?
SPERAY REPLIES: Your opinion, which the demonic is behind. And?
And I’ll tell you that one thing you do have in common with the anti-church who celebrate the “Extraordinary Form”: you kneel for the Jews! Those celebrating Holy Week the way the Church always had, and you can read the Gelasian Sacramentary if you think I’m lying, do not kneel for the Perfidious Jews who killed not only our Lord bit also Sts. William of Norwich, Andreas of Oxner, Simon of Trent, and more!
SPERAY REPLIES: Now the truth comes out. You are
calling the liturgy evil!
I pray that you at least engage in mortification, prayer and fasting and seek to think, speak and act like a Catholic
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t want your prayers, I want you to repent for your blasphemy and lies!
and not like Luther who fell off into the demonic through the same over-scrupulosity until he felt justified to go from condemning clergymen to the Papacy and the Church itself in the end.
SPERAY REPLIES: You may be worse than Luther!
You cannot have been born before the Holy Week Reforms or when there was a valid pope so I have to wonder how long you’ve even been Catholic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Completely irrelevant especially from one who implies that the liturgy is evil!
I apologize if I’m assuming falsely but your language is something I’m familiar with coming from those new to the faith and are ‘zealous but not according to knowledge’. Romans 10:2
SPERAY REPLIES: You are calling the liturgy evil! You have judged me for defending the Catholic Faith and Pope Pius XII’s reforms. You are the worst of enemies since you claim to be a Catholic holding to sedevacantism.