Sean,
A happy Easter to you. I will give you my thoughts on Fr. Cekada's article. I will only deal with the core of his argument, the rest is non-essential.
Fr. Cekada wrote:
I. Lack of Stability (or Perpetuity). Stability is an essential quality of a true law.
True
Fr. Cekada wrote:
The 1955 reforms were merely transitional norms; this is self-evident from subsequent legislation and contemporaneous comments by those responsible for creating them.
This remains unproven and in my opinion is incorrect. There is no evidence that Pope Pius XII, the lawgiver, intended that the 1955 rite was transitional.
The decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites made no mention of the rite being transitional. The immense work that the Sacred Congregation put into this reform with the Pope's full approval also would imply that the Pope was looking for permanence, not a transitory rite. Lastly, if this reformed Holy Week rite was experimental, they would have said so, as they did with the Easter Vigil in 1951.
Fr. Cekada appears to be exclusively relying on the writings of Annibale Bugnini to prove his assertion. That is not a valid way of proving that the rite was transitional. Bugnini was not the lawgiver. To make such a claim, one must look to the official docuŠ¼ents of the Sacred Congregation of Rites or to the statements of Pope Pius XII. There is not even a hint of the 1955 Rite being a transitional rite.
I find it interesting that the entire basis of the rejection of a papal law is grounded on the writings and opinions of a known modernist, Annibale Bugnini. Is Bugnini's private assertions now given full trust and confidence that we may use them to form grave decisions regarding the practice of our Catholic Faith by using it in judgment of the stability of Papal law?
Fr. Cekada wrote:
2. Cessation. A human ecclesiastical law that was obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circuŠ¼stances after the passage of time. When this happens, such a law ceases to bind. (I have written several articles that touch upon this topic.)
Where exactly is the harm? As the law of Pope Pius XII went through time, at what point did it become harmful? It clearly was not harmful at the beginning, and Pope Pius XII publicly praised the 1955 reformed rite, so when exactly did the harm begin?
It appears to me that no harm has been noticed among Catholics that go to SSPX, CMRI or in other places that use the rite approved by Pope Pius XII. It also seems to me that many Catholics have benefited by the Pius XII Holy Week in that it is more accessible for Catholics of our age, and this pastoral approach by the Pope only helped Catholics to facilitate their attendance at the rite rather than harming them.
The assertion that the rite has become harmful is just that an assertion. It remains unproven, and in my opinion, it is false. Fr. Cekada's continued use of Annibale Bugnini's writings to prove his case also shows me that he is solely relying on the private writings of a known modernist as the only evidence of his assertions.
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.
This ignores the fact that Bugnini did not give us this law, Pope Pius XII promulgated the law.
Topic: The Resistance and the Pre-1955 Holy Week (and Missal): (Read 18340 times)