Archive for the ‘Fr. Cekada’ Category

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 thatA 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.





[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/

Read Full Post »