Monday, July 23, 2018

In Defense Of Pope Pius XII


 The last pope before the Great Apostasy, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, is one of the most unfairly attacked pontiffs, especially among those purporting to be "Traditionalists." Coming into the world March 2, 1876, Eugene Pacelli was born into a family of devout Catholics. He felt called to the priesthood, and on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1899, he was ordained. Incredibly intelligent, young Father Pacelli received his doctorate in theology in 1904, being just 28 years old. His mentor was the great Cardinal Gasparri, whom he helped with the codification of Church Law, promulgated in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV as the Code of Canon Law. He also was good friends with Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, the "power behind the throne" of Pope St. Pius X. It was Cardinal Merry del Val who helped drive Pope St. Pius X's attack on Modernism. If we had a real pope, I'm confident the holy and erudite Cardinal would have an "St." in front of his name.

On May 13, 1917, the same day the Blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima, 41 year old Father Pacelli was consecrated a bishop at the Sistine Chapel by His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, who had appointed him as nuncio to Bavaria. On December 16, 1929, Pope Pius XI gave Bp. Pacelli the Cardinal's hat, and in February of 1930--a mere two months later--promoted him to Vatican Secretary of State. This appointment made Cardinal Pacelli one of the two most powerful men in the Church after the pope himself (the other powerful position is Pro-Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office).

Pope Pius XI died on February 10, 1939. In the conclave that followed, Cardinal Pacelli was elected Supreme Pontiff on his 63rd birthday, after the third ballot. He took the name Pope Pius XII in honor of his immediate predecessor who had named him both cardinal and Secretary of State. Pope Pius had his solemn coronation ten days later, on March 12th. As the three-fold tiara of the papacy was placed on his head, he took seriously the words that were spoken for centuries: "Receive ye this tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, Pastor of the Universe, and Vicar on Earth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom belongs all glory, world without end." His papacy was tumultuous, and lasted 19 years, 7 months, and 7 days until he went to Judgement on October 9, 1958. In this post, I will not be defending Pope Pius against the asinine attacks of those who claim he didn't "do enough to save the Jews," or that he was "Hitler's Pope," and other rank calumnies. There is enough literature out there that puts such lies to shame.

The purpose of my post will be to outline his many shining achievements, and expel the charges of those, from Vacancy Pushers (those who "push the time of the papal vacancy" before Roncalli), to the simply misguided, who believe that Pope Pius XII was "responsible" for the Great Apostasy, or allegedly promulgated "harmful changes" such as the mitigated Eucharistic Fast, and the New Rites of Holy Week.

Pastor Angelicus

 Pope Pius XII is sometimes thought to be the "Angelic Pastor" spoken of by the so-called "Prophesies of St. Malachy" regarding the popes. The so-called prophesies have no Magisterial approval, but have been influential in some "conservative" Vatican II sect circles. Nevertheless, the title for "Papa Pacelli" is most fitting. Here is a run down of some major theological accomplishments.

1. A True Marian Pope.
As a priest, the future pope celebrated his First Mass on April 3, 1899, at the altar of the icon of The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, under her title Salus Populi Romani in the Basilica of St. Mary Major. As previously written, he was consecrated a bishop the same day the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima. As Pope, in 1940, he approved the Fatima apparitions as "worthy of belief," and in 1942, consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (I refuse to get bogged down in argumentation over the "true meanings" of private revelations, and therefore will not argue with those whom assert he should have specifically consecrated Russia, as was the hallmark of "Fr." Gruner). 

Pope Pius XII claimed to have seen the "Miracle of the Sun" no less than four times. According to the Fatima visionaries, Mary had said there would be a miracle October 13, 1917, so that people would come to believe. Thousands had gathered at the site of the visions, and the sun "danced," reportedly drying instantaneously the rain-soaked land and spectators. Pius XII wrote, "I have seen the 'miracle of the sun,' this is the pure truth." 

The papal note says that at 4 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1950, during his "habitual walk in the Vatican Gardens, reading and studying," having arrived to the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, "toward the top of the hill […] I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen."

"The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle,” he recounted. And one could look at the sun, "without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it."

The Holy Father’s note goes on to describe "the opaque sphere" that "moved outward slightly, either spinning, or moving from left to right and vice versa. But within the sphere, you could see marked movements with total clarity and without interruption." (See https://zenit.org/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun/)

For Pius, this served as a confirmation of one of his greatest acts as pope. On November 1, 1950, wearing the papal tiara and invoking his Supreme Apostolic Authority as infallible teacher of all Christians, he declared ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption. The Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus declares:

 "For which reason, after We have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

The text of the Apostolic Constitution was drafted by the eminent theologian, Fr. Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, one of the first sedevacantists, who was consecrated a bishop in 1981 by Archbishop Thuc.

2. Foe of Communism.  Pius was doggedly anti-Communist. On July 1, 1949, the Holy Office published a decree, approved by His Holiness, declaring any Catholics who became Communists as apostates.

DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE
FORMULATED BY PIUS XII
JULY 1, 1949


This Sacred Supreme Congregation has been asked:
1. whether it is lawful to join Communist Parties or to favor them;

2. whether it is lawful to publish, disseminate, or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them;

3. whether the faithful who knowingly and freely perform the acts specified in questions 1 and 2 may be admitted to the Sacraments;

4. whether the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See as apostates from the Catholic faith.

The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers entrusted with the supervision of matters concerning the safeguarding of Faith and morals, having previously heard the opinion of the Reverend Lords Consultors, decreed in the plenary session held on Tuesday (instead of Wednesday), June 28, 1949, that the answers should be as follows:

To 1. in the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; and the leaders of the Communists, although they sometimes profess in words that they do not oppose religion, do in fact show themselves, both in their teaching and in their actions, to be the enemies of God, of the true religion and of the Church of Christ;

to 2. in the negative: they are prohibited ipso iure (cf. Can. 1399 of the Codex Iuris Canonici);

to 3. in the negative, in accordance with the ordinary principles concerning the refusal of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed;

to 4. in the affirmative.
And the following Thursday, on the 30th day of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, Pope by the Divine Providence, in the ordinary audience, granted to the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Assessor of the Sacred Office, approved of the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers which had been reported to Him, and ordered the same to be promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, on July 1st, 1949.

(Signed) Petrus Vigorita,

Notary of the Sacred Supreme Congregation
of the Holy Office.

A further dubium ( a question answered) dated April 4, 1959 from the Holy Office made the provisions of the 1949 Decree more specific, stating that it implied a prohibition on voting for parties that were helping Communists, even if such parties themselves had inoffensive doctrines or even called themselves "Christian."

3. Pope Condemning Modern Errors. 
One of the greatest encyclicals of the 20th century was Humani generis "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine" which was promulgated August 12, 1950. It was drafted by the Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Its salient points include:

  • Encyclicals usually speak to matters already expounded upon in doctrine; however, should the Pope pass supreme judgment on a disputed matter, it should be considered closed for discussion.
  • Divine revelation was given by God as guidance for the Church to exercise her living teaching authority, not for private deterministic interpretation.
  • Some dispute the divine authorship of Scripture in part or in whole and interpret it on the basis of exegesis, looking for hidden meanings, instead of on the Church’s teachings.
  • They claim that a new exegesis of the Old Testament would replace literal difficulties with symbolic/spiritual truth.
  • Their claims oppose the norms of interpretation explained in previous encyclicals.
  • Doubt regarding revealed truths is a result of this way of thinking. (e.g. Creation out of love, God’s eternal foreknowledge of men’s free choices, etc.)
  • Angels, essence, the supernatural order, original sin, sin in general, the efficacy of Christ’s sarifice, and the Real Presence or all debated.
  • The necessity and value of the Church and the faith itself is questioned.
  • These errors are being pointed out herein because some Catholic theologians are committing them and are hereby censured.
  • The Church relies on reason to understand the faith, God’s law, the mysteries, and even the existence of God. Reason comes with training and leads to truth.
  • Teaching Authority only covers matters of faith and morals. "New" truth cannot overturn established truth, but it can correct errors.
  • Priests must learn philosophy and Aquinas’ method is tried and true.
  • Opponents claim that the traditional philosophy used by the Church is adequate for basic instruction but not for practical application, and that all other philosophies, albeit evolving, are ultimately compatible with Catholicism.
  • They claim that the Church’s philosophy appeals to intellect and ignores the will and emotions; however, this is clearly and historically false, for the Church teaches that the will can see truth beyond what the intellect can deduce on its own.
  • Theodicy and ethics (philosophical sciences) are threatened by these new opinions. Not only are they themselves debased, but so is the protection provided by the Church’s Teaching Authority.
  • Discussion of theories not yet proven scientifically but merely hypothesized must follow. Theories can only be considered if they do not oppose Church teaching.
  • Human evolution (origin of man from pre-existent and living matter) is up for discussion, but cannot contradict that God is the immediate creator of souls.
  • Polygenism (origin from two or more distinct ancestors) is irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin.
  • The first eleven chapters of Genesis may not fit the modern concept of history, but any inclusion of folklore was done under divine inspiration.
  • Thus, these are not imaginative myths but expressions of truth. Ancient sacred authors were clearly superior to secular ("profane") authors of the same period.

Thus while condemning the modern errors, Pope Pius was careful to allow discussion on evolution of the body of humans, and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis in certain instances (which idea was advanced by Pope St. Pius X).

4. Pope who developed the traditional and correct ecclesiology and also defended the Mass. 
In his great encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), His Holiness taught that the One True Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth. It made clear that the Church of Christ is not a mere collection of believers (as taught by Protestants), but is identical to the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching would be repudiated for "the People of God" false ecclesiology at Vatican II, whereby the Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, but merely "subsists" there in its fullness, yet can be found in false sects as well.

In Mediator Dei, Pius, as if seeing the year 1969 and the Novus Bogus "mass," he condemns those who, under the guise of "returning to old ways," would make unlawful and radical changes to the Mass in these words:

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (para. #62; Emphasis mine).

5. The "greatest act of my papacy." Near his death, when Pope Pius reflected upon all he had done, he considered one act to be "the greatest act" of his papacy. What was this act to which he referred? On May 29, 1954 when he canonized his predecessor Pope Pius X, and enrolled the "Foe of Modernism" among the saints of the Church!

Unjust Criticisms
With all the great things this pope did, how could he be so harshly criticized? He was a theologian who looked up to, and surrounded himself with, Anti-Modernists. I will list the criticisms I hear most often, and devote a separate section to the revised Rites of Holy Week. 

  • Pope Pius was "soft on Modernism." It is claimed he didn't clamp down on Modernist theologians as he should have done, and promoted heretics such as Roncalli and Montini. First, there is nothing that protects a pope from making poor choices in whom he elevates to Cardinal or appoints as a bishop. While Montini and Roncalli were "suspect of Modernism," the word "suspect" means just that--not yet guilt. His confessor, Cardinal Bea, may have convinced him they were rehabilitated. Bea was a real snake in the grass; a closet Modernist no one suspected until he came out at Vatican II. Has not (unfortunately) almost everyone been betrayed by a trusted family member or friend? Does that somehow cast doubts on your character? Did Pius make poor choices in appointments? Objectively, yes, but subjectively we don't know all the reasons. It's another case of playing "Monday morning quarterback." The calumny that Pius knew certain facts about clergy and deliberately elevated them is on the same level as the Jews who scream that he knowingly and willingly helped Hitler.
  • Pope Pius "praised the Masonic United Nations." Actually, he enunciated (in 1953) the sound principle that should guide such a body: "Within the limits of the possible and the lawful, to promote everything that facilitates union and makes it more effective; to raise dykes against anything that disturbs it; to tolerate at times that which it is impossible to correct, but which, on the other hand, must not be permitted to make shipwreck of the community of peoples, because of the higher good that is expected from it." The detractors of His Holiness never mention this, or the fact he never "praised" Masonry or Masonic ideals. 
  • Pope Pius modified the Eucharistic fast. Yes, he did, and (a) he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator, and (b) there was good reason for it. With the increasing secularization of the world, people had to work on Holy Days of Obligation, and sometimes on Sundays (police officers, doctors in hospitals, etc.) with it being harder and harder to take off and make ends meet for their families. They had to miss Mass and say an extra Rosary that night and/or read devoutly from the missal. Pope Pius therefore allowed evening Masses. The ancient fast began at midnight. If I'm working and the Traditionalist Chapel near me has an 8pm Mass, I would need to go over twenty (20) hours without food. Many people due to infirmity, old age, or the need to keep their strength for work (especially in manual labor) would not be able to do it. They would have to go to Mass and abstain from Communion, or risk their health and job performance. With his decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus (1905), Pope St. Pius X encouraged frequent Holy Communion, not as a reward for the just but as the antidote to sin. The Saint said, "Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven." By mitigating the fast to three hours before Communion (water and medicine don't break the fast and may be taken at any time), Pope Pius XII was ensuring the will of His Predecessor was continued. I agree with some of my readers who say that, if you can do so without harm to your health or occupation, the midnight fast should be voluntarily kept as penance. Those who cannot do so (such as my now deceased mother who was sickly most of her life), should not be the least afraid to avail themselves of the modified fast. 
  • Pope Pius changed some feast days and made some changes in the Mass rubrics. As I stated above, yes, he did, and he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator. He instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (August 22) and The Queenship of Mary (May 31). On May 1st, the day used by Communists as "May Day" to show the might of Marxism, Pope Pius made it the feast of St. Joseph the Workman. Here he clearly shows the proper understanding of labor exemplified by St. Joseph as opposed to the evil system of Karl Marx. With Cum hac nostra aetate (March 23, 1955), he slightly changed the rankings of feasts, eliminated some octaves and suppressed the Proper Last Gospels for the usual Last Gospel of St. John.  
None of the above makes him a promoter of heresy or evil. The following section deals with the most controversial aspect of his papacy---only controversial, I may add, after Vatican II and complained of by some Traditionalists---the Reformed Rite of Holy Week. 

The New Rites of Holy Week

 On Novenber 19, 1955, Pope Pius XII issued the decree Maxima Redemptionis, for a Revised Rite of Holy Week to take effect in 1956. (In 1951, the Vigil of Easter on Holy Saturday was altered experimentally, and made official in 1956). There are some Traditionalist clergy who hold the Revised Rites are obligatory. Still others hold that the Rites have ceased to bind because they have become "noxious" over time in a way Pope Pius XII could not have foreseen. They use the pre-Pius XII Rites. As I have no Magisterial authority, and I am not a theologian, I can not settle the issue. What all agree about, as do I, is that the reforms of Pope Pius XII are just as good and Catholic as the former Holy Week. Do the reformed Rites cease to bind? Not for the reasons given by those who reject them. I do believe a case can be made for using the older Rites. I have attended both with no problem. I prefer the older Rites, but that's all it is--a preference. So while I think a case can be made that the older Rites can be used, I believe the stronger arguments are on the side of those who use the Reformed Rites as obligatory. I will set forth my reasons below.

1. The Rites were promulgated by a True Pope. No Traditionalist clergy denies the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII. Some Traditionalist laymen have called his papacy into question, as well as Vacancy Pushers such as Michael Bizzaro. Their arguments hold no water, and the clergy know it.

2. The Church is Infallible in Her Universal Disciplinary Laws. According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls...The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Hermann, "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…" ( See Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae 1:258).

Therefore, the Reformed Rites of Holy Week are guaranteed to be holy and non-heretical.

3. The Reformed Rites had some obvious improvements. Pope Pius XII allowed the times of the services to be held later, for more people to participate and to be aligned with when they actually occurred (Good Friday in the afternoon, Maundy Thursday in the evening) and allowed Our Lord to be received in Holy Communion on Good Friday.  It also lengthened the end of fasting and abstinence until midnight on Holy Saturday, rather than 12 noon.

So why the rejection by some clergy? Fr. Anthony Cekada has written on this extensively, and has recently made a change in the upshot of his arguments in a video. He (and others) argued:

1. The Rites introduced changes that "became harmful over time." To read the argument in full, please see http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P12MoreLegal.pdf. Fr. Cekada lists certain "false principles and practices," such as: the vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy, the priest’s role is reduced, lay participation must ideally be vocal, etc. These were incorporated into the Novus Bogus of 1969. If a principle is wrong, it's always wrong, and does not become wrong. If the vernacular may never be an integral part of the liturgy, then it was wrong when Pope Pius XII introduced it, which is impossible, unless you want to say he wasn't pope. The application of the principle may be wrong, but not the principle itself.  Therefore, there was nothing that could have "become harmful." To use an analogy, praying to saints is good and laudatory. Certain "High Church" Anglican heretics, offer their invalid and heretical liturgy in honor of St. Thomas More as a "Martyr of the Reformation (sic)." The dishonoring of St. Thomas More through a false service that equates him with others who were Protestants in no way derogates from the principle that praying to saints is good, or that honoring St. Thomas More is in some way "rendered harmful" because of what some heretics have done.

2. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason and behind the changes. It doesn't matter. If Pius XII was pope, the Holy Ghost protected all  Pius did in the Liturgy. Bugnini can say 2+2=4 and he's not automatically wrong because he's a Freemason. He was putting in true principles which could be misapplied later. That doesn't make them per se bad, and Fr. Cekada agrees they are not bad in and of themselves.

3. The Changes led to the "New Mass" of 1969. No. I believe the changes were transient and leading to a different form of the Mass that would fight Modernism. What this final product would look like, I have no idea. Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII were calling for and working on reforming the liturgy. Pope St. Pius X began with Divino Afflatu of November 1, 1911. The year after the change, Pope Pius XII declared, "...the faithful must seek from Scripture, tradition and the sacred liturgy as from a deep untainted source." (See Haurietis Aquas, May 15, 1956; the True Mass will always be untainted even when changes are made by the pope because it is the working of the Holy Ghost). It was not leading to a Masonic bread and wine service as in the Novus Bogus. The Modernists hijacked the Liturgical Movement beginning with Roncalli.

4.  By using the Reformed Rite of Holy Week, we lend credibility to the lie of Montini (Paul VI). In a video, Fr. Cekada changed his argument slightly. In the video, he is "sent back in time" to have an audience with Pope Pius XII.  Fr. Cekada concedes that the changes made were not evil or heretical, but since Montini claimed they were the first step towards the Novus Bogus "mass," they should no longer be used because they give credibility to that notion. Pius agrees, and Fr. Cekada returns to 2018. The video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsEOsohZKM. Actually, the argument works the exact opposite to what Fr. Cekada states. Since the reforms of Pope Pius XII were not the first steps to the "new mass," Montini lied (no surprise there). By refusing to use those reforms, it makes their rejection seem to stem from the fact that they were the first steps to the Novus Bogus "mass"---why else would you reject them?

5. We can't be sure Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) were not true popes (at least until 1964), so you can't reject those changes if you accept Pope Pius XII's changes. For clergy and laity in 1959-1964, that would hold true. However, since then, we have good reason to doubt the validity of Roncalli's and Montini's election on several counts. As theologian Szal explains, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Scismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 2; Emphasis mine).  Since we can suspect the elections of Roncalli and Montini, we can safely disregard their "laws" at any stage. Not so Pope Pius XII.

6. Laymen don't understand these matters like clergy, so they have no business discussing them. This argument is fatuous at best. In the absence of a pope, which Traditionalist clergy do the laity follow when they disagree on a disputed point of theology? In this time of the Great Apostasy, we can't "check our brains at the door." Moreover, I received Holy Communion from the hands of my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw, on Good Friday for years, as he explained the changes of Pope Pius XII. Father was ordained in 1942, was an approved pre-Vatican II canonist (doctorate in canon law [JCD] in 1955 from Catholic University of America), and a peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II who fought the Modernists. He was a seminary professor for the Archdiocese of Baltimore (1955-1962), and was the first to publicly stand against Vatican II in 1964. I'd love Fr. Cekada, or any other Traditionalist priest, to tell me with a straight face that he "didn't understand" the complexities of the rubrics and all it entailed!

That the Reformed Rite was not meant to be permanent, and we don't know how it was heading in a truly orthodox way, in my opinion, would perhaps justify the Old Rites. I don't condemn (nor could I) the SSPV or Fr. Cekada in using them. However, the Reformed Rites are good and holy--equal to the Old. No one should claim that the Old Rites are "Bugnini-free" as if the Reformed Rites of Pope Pius XII were the work of Bugnini and not protected by the Holy Ghost. One may have a preference, but that's all it is; a preference. The CMRI has a much stronger position that the Rites can be considered obligatory. Finally, one must be careful when invoking epieikeia, for as theologians McHugh and Callan note:

"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." (See Moral Theology 1:141).

Conclusion
Pope Pius XII was a good and holy pontiff. He has been attacked unjustly on the left by the Jews, and unjustly on the right by certain Traditionalists (and those of the lunatic fringe calling themselves "Traditionalists"). We need more unity and less diversity as we struggle to make our Catholic way in these perilous times. The chaos all began with the death of "Papa Pacelli" on October 9, 1958. I'd say that's a good date to retain all that was in place, and to reject all that comes after it, until we get a new pope, or Our Lord returns in glory. 




169 comments:

  1. Great article! I believe though that Pope Pius XII was soft on modernists, at least he did not bear down on them as St. Pius X did. So many people were allowed to roam freely who ought to have censured. His softness toward teilhard de Chardin is a case in point.

    Also i believe the tansient natural of the first reform justifies the preference for the older rite for many clergymen. The fact that even Roncalli used the older rite of Holy Week is worth noting. Also although disciplinary laws may be infallible, they can become harmful due to changed or unforseen circumstances. A good reason for favouring the older rite is Bugnini's own admission that the reform was the first step in the liturgical changes. If he authored the reform, and also made such admissions, certainly the "second and third stages" which proved harmful are reasons to consider again the motive behind the first changes.

    I'm sure Fr. Cekada wouldn't "say with a straight face " (as you put it)that Fr. De Paww didn't know about liturgy, But the fact remains that all the stages that led to the New Mass came from the same person. And if he himself said that ll were part of a preparation for a New Order , it should make one wonder to say the least. Something may be infallibly decreed which time and circumstances render harmful. God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the kind words Father! I agree that Pope Pius XII was not as strong on beating down the Modernists As was Pope St Pius X. However, this is an objective assessment in retrospect. No one suspected Bea, and he is not infallible in making appointments. He was no friend of Modernists, and I think a lot of it was poor judgement.

      I cannot (and do not) condemn good and holy priests, like yourself, who use the Old Rites. However, the argument that they “became harmful,” just doesn’t stand up. The New Rites were promulgated by a True Pope. I do believe that the Mass was going to be revised, but not as the Novus Bogus. That the subsequent changes WERE EVIL as they did not come from a True Pope, has no bearing on the changes Pope Pius XII approved.

      The subsequent changes would not have gone as Mason Bugnini wanted with a real Pontiff on the Throne Of St Peter. Since we don’t know the Orthodox way the Mass would have developed, and the changes were not meant to be permanent, I can see the preference for the Old Rite, but the New Rite was not thereby made harmful.

      How many people leave the CMRI because they use the 1958 Missal and go to the Vatican II sect? I also note that some priests reject the feast of St Joseph the Workman, and the extension of the end of Lent with fast and abstinence from noon to midnight of Holy Saturday. How were those changes “made harmful” over time?

      If those Rites “lead to” the Novus Bogus, then they were always harmful, which is impossible.

      God Bless you Father,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Great article, indeed! Pius XII is one of my favorite popes.
    I really do not understand the hate some traditionalist express when they talk about him. He was a modern pope, but not a Modernist!

    Nonetheless I must stress that Roncalli was not that into the New Liturgical Movement. It is known that he didn't liked the Pius XII reforms and only implemented them out of respect for his predecessor. He also sacked Bugnini. Roncalli was a moderate modernist/ someone who was only stained with Modernism (false ecumenism and sillonism). Montini was completely different. He was modernist to the core of his being. I think even Roncalli would have been shocked with all the changes he made to the Church.

    Another point I want to make is that even with a real pope the Tridentine mass would have looked quite different today.
    I guess it would almost resemble the 1965' missal (more vernacular, simplified rubrics etc.).
    Change is not necessarily a bad thing.
    I even think it makes some possible converts cringe to see traditionalist priests still wearing overly baroque vestements at a sugarsweet fairyland church.
    It can feel like kitsch to them, which unfortunately gives the modernists more ammunition to shoot.
    Traditionalist groups should therefore "update" themselves esthetically, instead of going back to the 1600s or the Middle Ages.

    Some examples:

    - Many priests in the 1950s already wore sober, but beautiful gothic chasubles. I think they are to be prefered instead of the more exuberant vestments most of the traditionalist clergy still prefers.

    - Churches built from the 1920s untill mid 1960s are more modern in style (art deco, early modernism...) and lean themselves more to the possible conversion from someone with a modern mind.

    I could go on, but you get my point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do indeed get your point, and it makes sense!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I notice I made a few mistakes against the English language. Sorry about that! I'm not a native speaker.

      Delete
    3. No worries! You write well for a non-native speaker. I often make mistakes in the comments typing quickly during work.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. So if we agree if Pius XII had lived & implemented the 1964 or 1965 missal,what's the point in being Traditionalists?
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    5. @ Andrew,
      I don't agree he would have implemented the "Montini Missals." The purpose of being a Traditionalist is to remain in the One True Church of Christ and keep the Integral Catholic Faith. That Faith includes accepting whatever a True Pope decrees. There is nothing in the Pope Pius XII reforms that is evil or heretical. If a pope decrees an orthodox change in the Mass, as True Catholics, we obey the pope.

      My parents (both deceased now for years) lived through the Pope Pius XII changes. There was no exodus from the Church, and no one complained of the changes. They were happily accepted. Not so the changes of Montini.

      We are Traditionalists because no one gets to Heaven without the Integral Catholic Faith!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo @7:54 - You state that “no one gets to Heaven without the Integral Catholic Faith”. Can’t a person possess the Faith, but not be in the State of Grace? Therefore, doesn’t one need to possess the Faith and be in the State of Grace?

      Delete
    7. Joann,
      You are correct. Having the Integral Catholic Faith is necessary but NOT sufficient. If you are in mortal sin at death, you go to Hell, even if you have the Faith. To be sufficient to enter Heaven one must possess BOTH the Integral Catholic Faith AND be in the state of sanctifying grace at the moment of death.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. The 1965 missal can be seen as a genuine development of the Tridentine Mass even if it was promulgated by Montini. There is nothing heretical about it, nor is it a danger to the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX used the 1965 missal untill the mid 1970s. The semi-traditionalists monks of Fontgombault still use it to this very day and with succes. I therefore personally wouldn't mind attending such a Mass if a true pope brought it back.

      The 1965 missal is more fit for the modern age/ the 21st century than the pre-1955 missal. The adaptations made were balanced and the traditional structure was kept. If tomorrow - by a miracle - we get pope Pius XIII or Gregory XVII he ain't going to force the Pre-1955 liturgy on the clergy and folks in the pews. If he would do that it would result in an unmitigated disaster, because both the laity and the priests have been accustomed to the Novus Ordo through and through. The 1965 liturgy allows the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular accept the canon of the Mass and as such has all the benefits of the Pauline "Mass" without being anti-Catholic. It would be the best choice to get the Church back on track.

      Delete
    9. @anonymous 2:00
      Interesting observation! Thank you for commenting.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. Wow that flat sucks!!!
      I love the pre-51 Missal & Holy Week especially since I learned so much of it dates back to Apostolic times.(holy week)
      So much for wanting a true Pope.
      It would be awful for me to endure the 1965 missal.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    11. @Andrew
      We don’t know if the 1965 Missal would be used under a true pope, it’s all speculation. I’d like to think the restored Church would be a little slice of Heaven—-“However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--“
      1 Corinthians 2:9.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. It's true that we cannot know if a true pope would bring back the 1965 missal, but it would be a good choice. I will explain in detail why:

      1) The Catholic faith is all about Tradition with a capital T, not with a lower t. There is nothing heretical/ modernist about the 1965 missal. The same goes for the new Holy Week (1955), or the name of Saint Joseph in the canon of the Mass (1962). Your feelings just don't apply. Catholics only started to complain in 1967 when the liberal lunatics took the changes too far by allowing the canon of the Mass in the vernacular. At the same time Gregorian chant was also getting more and more replaced with protestant hymns and folk songs.

      2) The Church has to take care of all her children. Most people who call themselves Catholics are TOTALLY not acquinted with the Tridentine Mass. Traditionalists are in the MINORITY.*** If Novus Ordo folks suddenly have to attend a liturgy completely in Latin while the priest stands with his back to the congregation etc. we would face a big riot. The disgruntled people in the pews will side with the modernist clergy and the traditionalist revolution ends right there. That is why a true pope will have to act as wise as king Salomon if he wants to purify the Church.

      3) A revolution has to be swift in order to succeed. There will be no time to learn every Novus Ordo priest the Latin and more complicated rubrics of the Pre-1955/1962 liturgy. I think it already would be a miracle to get all these men re-ordained in the Old Rite.

      *** Many traditionalists seem to suffer from solipsism syndrome. They seem to forget that most Catholics out there don't even know that something as a Tridentine Mass, or a movement as sedevacantism exists.

      Delete
    13. @anonymous7:35
      You make salient points. There is one complication with what you write—Are members of the V2 sect truly Catholics? Objectively, they are not. To what degree God will hold them culpable only He knows. They are objectively outside the Church and cannot be saved any more than a Lutheran who believes his sect to be true.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. There are 2 groups within the Conciliar sect:

      1) The Modernists: those who have changed and still want to change the Church along new principles. They are NOT Catholics. Most of the current hierarchy and folks in the pews belong to this group. It is nonetheless possible to make a distinction between:

      A) The people who wholeheartedly welcomed the reforms from the start and are still not satisfied, and:
      B) The people who lack/ lacked knowledge of the faith, or a strong will and went along with the modernist heresies.

      Group A is more culpable than group B. Group A can be likened to counterfeiters; Group B to those who accept and pass the false bank notes.

      2) The neo-conservatives/ indult-types (FSSP, ICKSP, Communauté de Saint-Martin etc.): they really want to be true Catholics and know there is something deeply wrong in the (their?) Church. It's only tragic that for some reason they fail to condemn the Second Vatican Council and the consequent reforms.

      In my eyes the people who belong to the second group are Catholics in the MORAL, but not in the TECHNICAL sense.

      Delete
    15. Typically,it's Traditionalists who have to take a back seat,sit down,shup up,and do as the modern world tells you.
      Who knows what would happen if we had a true Pope?
      I do not think I will live to see it so I am not arguing.
      God bless.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    16. @andrew
      I hope we all live to see a real pope! Who knows but God?

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    17. @Anon 8;01AM
      Possible converts should decide what clergy wear during Holy Mass and priests/bishops are too stupid to learn the pre-1950 Holy Sacrifice and Latin?
      You sound like a parish council circa 1975.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    18. I’ll pass on that guy Hans!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. If Pius XII believed in the Fatima apparitions, why didn't he obey Our Lady's desire for him to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, in union with all the bishops?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,
      We know Pope Pius XII believed in Fatima because he declared the apparition “worthy of belief” and it has Church approbation. He also claimed to have seen the Miracle of the Sun four times.

      That doesn’t means he believes every word ascribed to Our Lady, and he may have had good reason to think Consecration of the world was sufficient. “Fr” Gruner kept harping on the Consecration Of Russia as a panacea for all the world’s ills as he asked for funds.

      Our Lady allegedly said, “Portugal will always keep the dogma of the Faith.” How? It’s just as pagan now as the other European countries. Someone suggested Portugal was metaphorical. This is why I believe in Fatima but will not argue over “true meanings.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Excellent reply, So many trad souls think the key to restoration is consecrating Russia. It borders on superstition.

      Delete
    3. Tom,
      It is sad how many elevate Fatima to the status of “dogma.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Seeing that Russia was not converted, seeing that the institutional Church imploded right after his reign, and seeing that we have all been plunged into the Great Apostacy, from which there does appear to be any escape, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that no, the Consecration to the World was NOT sufficient.

    Here is, sadly, the most plausible scenario: Our Lady requested the Consecration of Russia. Pope Pius XII understood this but did not accede to her request. And here we are,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,
      I don’t put my Faith in private revelation. However, rather than purposeful refusal on the part of a true Marian pope, he might have done so for reasons unknown to us. We are not privy to the inner workings of the Vatican.

      To read more on this, please refer to my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-profits-of-doom.html?m=1

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. This was a great article. I think you and Steve Speray are the only ones who haven't have written a defense against Fr. Cekada's video and I like them both. Fr. F. Radecki wrote an article in defense of Pius XII's changes a couple years ago in the Reign of Mary but other than that, there is not much more out there on the topic. Thank you for the history as well. It was very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the kind words my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. I am not a fan of Fr. Cekada. He is not the “Pope” of the Traditionalists as he thinks he is. Also, what he did with Teri Schiavo was despicable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fr.Cekada has done much good. Unfortunately, he has adopted the very “follow me or die” mentality he used to rightfully deplore. When he starts pontificating on issues and insults anyone who disagrees, he does himself a great disservice. The Terri Schiavo case was a disgrace. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he has never apologized for the scandal he caused in making excuses for her adulterous husband to MURDER her.

      Let’s hope he changes his ways where needed. Clerics need to set the example above all others.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. You know when I knew that Fr. Cekada, Catholic priest or not, was far, far afield regarding Schiavo? It was this: I had been speaking with an older black woman---a woman who was about as far away from the Catholic Church that you can imagine. One day, in casual conversation, I mentioned Schiavo, without letting on anything in the way of a political viewpoint about her. As soon as I mentioned Schiavo's name---I mean, no sooner than the word 'Schiavo' came from my mouth---that woman replied to me: "They murdered that woman."

      IF she can see that, why the he** can't this supposedly great priest?

      Delete
    3. I know Fr. Cekada applied to his best ability medico- moral ethics to the Schiavo case. If he is convinced he made the right conclusion, you wouldn't be correct in asking him to apologise. One doesn't owe apology if one follows his conscience . Yoou don't apologise because people were shocked, you apologise if your conscience tells you to.

      Delete
    4. Father,
      You need not apologize if your CORRECTLY FORMED conscience tells you that you’re right. It’s difficult to see how Fr. Cekada was following a correctly formed conscience.

      Fr. Cekada is quick to shoot laymen down because they don’t have formal Ecclesiastical education and training. When Fr DePauw, a real canonist and Fr Stepanich, a real theologian came out calling the Schiavo case murder (and having far better Ecclesiastical training and education), did Fr Cekada defer to them? No! When Dr. Gebbel, a neurologist with much experience, informed Fr Cekada that he was wrong as to Mrs Schiavo’s medical condition, and therefore the principles were wrongly applied, did he rethink his position? No! He dug his heels in deeper and claimed that his “common sense” told him better!! Can anyone so informed claim a rightly formed conscience?

      Please understand that this is not a personal attack in Fr Cekada. He has done much good, and I respect the good he has done, although I know his feelings for me are not mutual. You are a great example of the good he has done in helping form Traditionalist priests.

      Unfortunately, with many Traditionalist clerics, Pride is their stumbling block (think: Bp. Kelly and his stance on the Thuc Consecrations).

      God Bless you Father,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. I understand and appreciate your words. I am only saying that when one has reached a conclusion which he thinks correct to his best of knowledge, he his conscience nred not be troubled. I assume Fr. Cekada consulted canonists and theologians before reaching his conclusion, theologians and canonists whose authority at least equals Frs Stepanich and De Pauw. If he didn't defer to these two, couldn't it be because because he preferred others of equal or higher rank.

      I confess i don't know the specific details of the case, for example, i don't know if other doctors were involved in studying the problem or whether Fr. Cekada consulted other doctors. I would assume he did since common sense and the importance of the matter demand it. I will ask him about that.
      But i wouldn't expect him to apologise if his conscience does not accuse him.

      I'd say we leave it to the wisdom of God.

      Men are not perfect though they strive their best. It's what makes us human. But i wouldn't be willing to conclude that pride is a factor here. All the same leave it in God's hands to decide .
      God bless you!

      Delete
  7. You are way too soft on Pius XII. He was a weak, terrible pope who made possible vacancy of papacy and the triumph of modernism. A few points against him follow.

    Pius XII was a major enabler of Montini. He knew that Montini gave the names of clerics secretly working in communist countries to the communist authorities, which led to the execution of those clerics, but Pius XII appointed Montini Archbishop of Milan instead of defrocking and excommunicating him, which would probably have prevented Vatican II. Pius XII also made Roncalli a cardinal bishop despite his inveterate reputation as a modernist. Pius XII could have and should have defrocked every suspected modernist.

    Many of the liturgical novelties promulgated under Pius the XII seemed to have no purpose other than to “democratize” the Mass, weaken the faith of Catholics, and condition them to the coming changes of Vatican II. These attacks on tradition included

    • singing by the laity
    • washing the feet of laymen
    • elimination of 15 of the 18 octaves in the Tridentine Missal
    • suppression of the vigil of Pentecost
    • introduction of the renewal of baptismal promises
    • revision the Easter Vigil

    Read Dr. Carol Byrne’s Dialogue Mass series on Tradition in Action for an in-depth analysis of all the problems with the 1950’s changes. (I am not endorsing that website as a whole.)

    Pius XII did not consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with all the bishops of the world as Our Lady had asked. He only had 19 and a half years to do it.

    Pius XII made apparently heretical remarks in January 1945, which were quoted in Angelic Shepherd, written by Father Senan. He said: “They (the Jews) are the people whose country God chose to be the birthplace of his Son. OUR GOD IS THEIR GOD, and our lawgiver is their lawgiver. For centuries they have been most unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity. God wills it and the Church wills it. St. Paul tells us that the Jews are our brothers. Instead of being treated as strangers, they should be welcomed as old friends. It is not by our own merit that we have had the heritage of the Lord. We are all entitled to see the light of Faith...Their entry into the Church will mark the spiritual renovation of the world.”

    Pius XII seems here to be suggesting continuity between the Biblical Jews and the Talmudists of today, which does not exist, and implying that the Talmudists worship the same God as the Catholics, which they most certainly do not. He also seems to be taking a slap at past Catholic authorities who had restricted the Talmudists to prevent their preying on the Catholic population and leading them away from the faith. The entire mush-mouthed statement could have come from any Vatican II “prelate.”

    Pius XII was not speaking ex-cathedra, so I suppose such heretical remarks would not cause him to lose the Papacy. But I am not convinced that he did not lose the Papacy at some point or even that the vacancy of the Papacy did not begin with the death of Pius X (because Benedict XV and Pius XI were poor Popes as well, but that is beyond the scope of this comment). Maybe he did commit heresy, but we just haven’t found it.

    One more thing…. After Pope Pius X died, his body of lay incorrupt for several days for several days in the August heat. By contract, the body of Montini was decomposing badly by the time of his funeral, and this is taken as a sign of his wickedness. Yet Pius XII’s body decomposed badly during his funeral as well. What are we to make of that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My friend,
      You are in danger of being a Vacancy Pusher. The quote from Fr Senan sounds like blog blather. Michael Bizzaro, a Vacancy Pusher, takes quotes out of context to “prove” someone a heretic. He attributed a “heretical quote” to Pope Benedict XV, which upon inspection, proved to be the Secret Prayer at the Mass of Corpus Christi which he used in the encyclical! You have to verify if what was said is true, and if so, the context in which it was said. For more on this point, see my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/08/pushing-back-time-of-vacancy.html?m=1

      There is no CREDIBLE evidence that Pope Pius XII knew about Montini. All I’ve read is hearsay and calumny. It wasn’t Pius who enabled Montini, it was Roncalli. Did he make bad judgement calls on appointments? Yes. But that doesn’t make him a false pope.

      There is ZERO evidence that his liturgical changes drove people out of the Church. Quite the opposite, they were well received. The Tradition in Action articles ascribe evil to the Dialogue Mass. In so doing, they deny the Indefectibility of the Church if they accept Pope Pius XII as legitimate (which they do, including all Concilliar “popes” including Bergoglio.

      There is nothing heretical or evil in the changes you describe. What V2 did was an affront to the FAITH.

      As to decaying bodies, who do you think canonized the great St Pius X? While being incorruptible after death is a sign of sanctity, the fact of bodily decay is not “proof” of damnation. If that were the case, many saints could not have been canonized.

      Finally, we don’t have all the facts as to what Our Lady said at Fatima, and why Pope Pius Consecrated the world. Apparitionists make private revelations “dogma.”

      Please rethink your position.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The quote from Pius XII is not “blog blather.” He apparently said it, and no one ever refuted it. I included the whole paragraph so you can see the context. Father Senan’s book carries an imprimatur from Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid, so it apparently represents the position of Catholic hierarchy at that time. By the way, McQuaid was posthumously accused of abuse of young boys.

      Randy Engel describes Pius XII as a “second father” to Montini. Pius XII continually promoted Montini and looked after him throughout his career, this after his modernism and unorthodoxy were well known. https://akacatholic.com/paul-vi-and-the-churchs-paradigm-shift-on-homosexuality/

      Don Luigi Villa, assigned by Padre Pio, claimed that Pius XII knew about Montini’s illicit liaising with the communist authorities, as recounted by Alice von Hildebrand. Technically, it was one of Montini’s underlings, Alighiero Tondi, S.J., who gave the clerics’ names to the communists. http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_su_hildebran.html

      Also, see here, page 23: https://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Chiesa_viva_441_S_en_New_Corrected.pdf

      Montini’s antics were more than sufficient justification for Pius XII to have defrocked and excommunicated him. He never should have been allowed to remain a prelate where he could have continued to inflict grievous damage to the Church.

      I haven’t studied the liturgical changes and their effects enough to make an in-depth reply, but I recognize the break with tradition that they brought.

      I agree incorruptibility of the body is not a necessary prerequisite to sainthood. Many canonized saints did not have incorrupt bodies. However, given the prominent nature of the Pope and the visibility of his body during his funeral, I think it likely that God would maintain the body incorrupt as a sign to the world of his holiness, as he did with Pius X. The Vatican II sect also canonized holy people who had been beautified under true popes.

      I sincerely hope that Pius XII died reconciled to God.

      For what it’s worth, I still hold Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII as true popes. At best, they were weak, ineffective popes who were rolled over by the enemies of the Church. However, I smell smoke, and where there is smoke there is usually fire. They need more investigation by someone far smarter and more erudite than I.

      Delete
    3. I’m glad you’re not a Vacancy Pusher! The quote from the book needs to be seen in the context of the whole work, not just a paragraph. Please give me the title so I may try to obtain a copy for myself.

      You must distinguish tradition with a small t and Tradition with a capital T. Just because something wasn’t done a certain way before doesn’t make it in-Catholic or anti-Catholic like the Novus Bogus!

      As to Randy Engel, et al I have some problems with the conclusions they draw and the evidence they present. Padre Pio has problems in his own right. See my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/was-padre-pio-ecumenist.html?m=1

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. The book is called "Angelic Shepherd" by Father Senan.

      Delete
  8. Thank you for writing an informative article and responding to all the comments. I love the changes by Pope Pius XII and I think it is the preference and excuses of those like Fr. Cekada and many sedevacantist trads which cause them to be critics. I know you've mentioned you don't condemn priests for not holding to the reform and that's kind of you, but I don't think Pius XII would be pleased with them (as far as how much, I don't know) regardless of the excuses and pretense they come up with nowadays. For this reason I stay away from not only Fr. Cekada who holds to it but all the rest except the CMRI, Frs. Thielen, Vaillancourt, and a few others. It's just too serious of a subject for me because it's like he is saying that the liturgy is tainted which it cannot be if it is the real Catholic Church.

    On a different note, I know Pope Pius XII also consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on July 7th 1952. Of course he didn't do it in union with all the bishops (as the claim goes) and maybe he didn't do it completely right a second time (the first being in 1942 to the world) but Our Lady did say that the pope would consecrate Russia to her. Just saying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the kind words. I understand your position and it is a legitimate one. In this time of the Great Apostasy, I will give liberty of action if there is any room for such. We should fight more against the V2 sect, in my opinion. I think your position is definitely the stronger one.

      Thanks for the information regarding Fatima. For the record, I believe in Fatima, but refuse to argue over “true meanings.” (I’m not counting you among those who so argue!)

      It does go to show Pope Pius XII really was trying to fulfill what he believed was Our Lady’s request.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Pius XII did not consecrate Russia in 1952. He consecrated the peoples of Russia, which is not the same thing. The sad reality is that Our Lady wanted the pope to give her Russia, and he wouldn't do it, and the Great Apostasy ensued. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

      One more thing, why do you suppose Pius XII was given a vision of the Miracle of the Sun -- four time?! Might it not have been Our Lady's way of saying, "I'm waiting, Eugenio"?

      The Fatima Apparitions are not a dogma, but they either happened, or they didn't. Assuming they they did, then they are just as real as any dogma.

      Delete
    3. My point was that it wasn't done according to the way she asked, but some elements may have been done. But for the sake of argument, what's the difference between the Peoples of Russia and Russia without the people? What if I consecrated my soul to the Immaculate Heart of Mary but I didn't consecrate my body with all its faculties to her as well? Sure I may have done it wrong but the soul and the body belong to each other even though there is a difference between the two. Our Lady said "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father WILL consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.” Since we have not had a pope since 1958 how could a pope consecrate Russia to her like she said? Then again has Russia been converted since that time? I don't think so but let's not get carried away with stuff like this because some things are a mystery. We agree that there is a great Apostasy and it's not looking good. Common sense tells us to pray the Rosary, consecrate ourselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (body and soul if you will), and believe in what the Church always taught from the time of Pope Pius XII and before.

      Delete
    4. @anonymous6:34
      Sage advice! You make a good case for why I refuse to argue over “true meanings” of apparitions. Certain “Apparitionists” (not George above), exault Apparitions above Church teaching. We must remain level-headed like you.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Thank you for the compliment. I love approved apparitions and use them as a means to grow a stronger devotion depending on what its towards, but as you said Church teaching is much more important to get right. Thank you

      Delete
  9. "...since Montini claimed they were the first step towards the Novus Bogus "mass," they should no longer be used because they give credibility to that notion."

    As you succinctly pointed out, the only ones giving credibility to this notion are Father Cekada and his followers. They're also giving credibility to the R&R Lefebvrist position by passing judgment on the Holy See!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Traditionalist really should get their act together.

    1) Conspiracy theories can be as damaging to the faith as dancing nuns and clown masses. In this regard traditionalists should stick with Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Roncalli and Montini truly believed that modernism would make the Church better and fit for the 20th century. We all know it turned out differently, because nothing good can come from heresy.

    2) Stop exalting "private revelations" above known church doctrine. Now, don't get me wrong: I believe in Lourdes, Fatima etc., but the Catechism of Trent should be our real guideline in this age of apostasy.

    3) The sin of pride and the "holier-than-thou" aproach stands in the way of making converts. Many people who are in the "Reform-of-the Reform" or "Recognize-and-Resist" camp don't know any better. They really try to make sense of all the destruction around them. If you immediately start hammering down these good folks the chance that they will become sedevacantists is nill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make three excellent points! I try to avoid being guilty of those three problems on this blog. I hope I am successful.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I thoroughly agree with Anon @3:08. I am fairly new to Tradition. Since I am a woman I would like to add that the Traditionalists need to give the height of women’s shoes and how many inches below the knee a skirt should be, a rest. It comes across as Sharia Law like. Also, when women are being constantly berated for these things, it comes across as very being very shallow. I am 64 years old and if my skirt being one inch below the knee rather than ankle length entices some man, I would say that man has the problem if my 64 year old legs entice him!!

      Delete
    3. @Joann
      Lol! Thanks for the insight and the laugh! Near the end of her life, my mother would frequently soil herself, and one time the only skirt she had left was knee-height. She was 84 and using a walker. A busybody after Mass told her to “watch her skirt size.” My mom looked at her huge varicose veins and slowly looked backed up at her and asked, “You’ve GOT to be kidding right?” The busybody never spoke another word as she left!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. @Joann
      Sent answer to your private inquiry. Hope you got it.

      Delete
  11. If we had a real Pope we would know whether it is/was permissable to ignore the liturgical "reforms" of Pius XII. Until then it is all simply our opinions. A good case can be made either way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      That is exactly why I say that neither side should condemn the other. The stronger case is on the side of the Reformed Rite, but there is no Magisterial authority to decide. Unfortunately, some clergy and laity feel it their duty to tell people “follow me or die.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The Holy Office said, 1. "Those who follow the Roman Rite are BOUND to observe in the FUTURE the restored Order of Holy Week... Those who follow other Latin rites are bound to observe only the time set in the new Order of Liturgical functions 2. The new Order must be observed on March 25th 1956, the Second Passion Sunday or Palm Sunday. 3. No commemoration is ALLOWED during the entire Holy Week and collects commanded under any title are PROHIBITED at Mass. We don't need a future pope to settle this. A true pope has already settled it and it's not just opinions. Fr.Cekada and the gang who are acting no different than the SSPX by resisting what a pope prescribed. Epikeia, Bugninni, and pretend conversations with a pope 60 yrs. ago on a you tube video doesn't give them a right to do what they are doing or say what they are saying otherwise you might as well call Pius XII's pontificate into question.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous7:09
      Your point is well taken. I believe your argument is strong and most probably true. Can it be that it has ceased to bind because of its transient nature? More was to come. I don’t have the answer to that one. That doesn’t call the papacy of Pope Pius XII into question. The way Fr Cekada and company argue it does call his papacy into question de facto, despite protestations to the contrary.

      In this time of the Great Apostasy, when Liberty is possible, I believe we should allow freedom to act and not condemn.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/15/03/26/15-50-27_0.pdf This book by Fr.Frederick McManus in 1956 explains the Holy Week Reforms well.

      Delete
    5. @anonymous12:03
      Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. On July 7,1952 Pope Pius XII did
    consecrate Russia by name in his
    Apostolic Letter Carissimis Russiae Populis
    On the Immaculate Heart and the People of Russia
    but without the presence and collaboration
    of the world's Bishops, as Mary requested.

    It seems possible and reasonable to
    believe, in light of the present situation
    in Russia, because and of unfavorable
    conditions in the Church at that time,
    that the Pope's act of consecration might
    have been accepted by Mary, but may
    perhaps have made Russia's conversion
    a to be a longer and slower process.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your interpretation is reasonable. Thank you for illustrating why we shouldn’t get bogged down over interpretations of private revelations!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Trads need to stop making dogmatic pronouncements when it comes to issues where no heresy exists. God gave us reason to spot heresy and then commands us to avoid the heresy. I personally like the pre Pius XII version with no Una Cum. That's my preference but I don't shun those who go to indult, RR, or Eastern Catholic. I do warn all that care to listen to stay away from the NO and the eastern schismatics. I do warn indult types that '68 Orders are most likely invalid. All sedes agree there is no Pope and that this necessitates a state of emergency. This state gives the faithful a wide berth to operate under conscience and reason. This is why one group can make a case for 1962 Liturgy and another can make a case for pre 1955. It is useful to discuss these things but only to share information and not to command observance. No one in the trad sede camp has that authority. No priest, bishop, or layman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with most of what you say. Remember that the reason we are Traditionalists is because the V2 sect is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone in ACTUAL UNION with Bergoglio is outside the Church. Hence, Indult and Eastern Rites are off limits. Remember our real fight is for the FAITH not the Mass. You can get to Heaven without going to Mass when persecuted, etc, but no one gets to Heaven without the Faith.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The SSPX would say they are in union with Rome. Are they? Who knows? In reality they are no different than the FSSP. They simply have no canonical standing but they claim Bergolio is the Pope just like the Indults and Eastern Catholics.

      Delete
    3. Tom,
      The SSPX claim union with the “Eternal Rome” whatever that means. As confused as their theology is, they REJECT the errors of V2 and the Concilliar “popes.” Their property is their own, and they get to reject the local “bishop.” With a new General Superior just elected, I’m hopeful there will be no actual union, absorbing them into the V2 sect.

      Indults and Eastern Rites are in ACTUAL UNION and must accept all the errors and evils of V2 and Bergoglio. They have dubious orders as well.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I personally like the Pre-55 missal of Pius XII as well, but just because I like them better, doesn't mean I have a right to go against the updated reforms. It's not about preference. It's about obedience which is what laymen, priests, and bishops are suppose to do when the pope says to do something. So we're sharing with you what we're really commanded to do based on what has already been stated by the last pope and a handful of priests and bishops in the sede world say otherwise. Who has more authority? Who has the final say? Or as they say nowadays "Who is your daddy?" I will follow Pope Pius XII because I love him and if he says this is what he wants us to do (especially when it comes to liturgy for the entire Western Church [A big deal]), then I'm going to do it and I'm going to like it because he is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, the Supreme Pontiff, the man who has the power to bind and loose. This doesn't mean I worship him but that I respect him with the utmost profound respect and wish other Catholics did to. The problem with a lot of sede priests and bishops is that they came from the SSPX. It's good they are no longer with them and haven't been so for 35 yrs, but they tend to have a do what I want attitude (R&R). I've been to SGG's a couple dozen times and they didn't do the usual 3 hail Mary's, the hail Holy Queen, the St. Michael prayers, and the Sacred heart prayers after the usual low mass but other random prayers on a piece of paper passed around as if I'm suppose to do it with them. I've seen where Fr. Cekada gives his reasons in his Leonine prayers article on his website, but who else does that and why be different? Where does it stop and who decides? I just wish everybody would keep that in mind on the opposing side.

      Delete
    5. I agree. My only point is that a case can be made that the law ceased to bind, but not for the reasons Fr Cekada, the SSPV and others offer. Therefore, I think room should be made for both without condemnation. If I had to choose sides on which Rites to use, I would say the Reformed Rites Of Pope Pius XII. I can’t decide if it ceases to bind as I have no Magisterial authority.

      You hit the proverbial nail on the head about the SSPX. Almost all Traditionalist clergy using the Old Rites come from the SSPX and have the “pick and choose” mentality. The SSPX claims to follow the 1962 Missal with the calendar and rubrics of Roncalli. However, any SSPX Mass I ever attended (including one by Richard Williamson before his episcopal Consecration) did not follow what Roncalli commanded. Roncalli suppressed the People’s Confiteor before Communion and the subsequent Misereatur and Indulgentiam prayers. The SSPX RETAINS them.

      I think we should be unified in accepting all that was in effect as of October 9, 1958, and discard all that came after.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. "I can’t decide if it ceases to bind as I have no Magisterial authority." But you seem to have magiserial authority to make all kinds of other claims right? Father C brings up just one such as masses in garages etc. So it seems you have "magisterial authority" for the things that you want to have them for but it is somehow lost when someone disagrees with you.

      Delete
    7. @anonymous9:32
      Masses in garages is a necessity, just as in times of war and persecution. Ditto for episcopal Consecrations without papal mandate during a time of Sedevacantism. Please explain how using the Old Rites is a necessity on par with the others just mentioned.

      It is Fr C (and some other clerics) who tell us the Rites Of Pope Pius XII cease to bind so you better not use them, and Una Cum Masses are a mortal sin to attend. I say there should be liberty where possible. So who’s “playing pope”? It certainly isn’t me!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Its my opinion the Pius XII reforms after 1950 will be rejected entirely after the first and second generation of Trad Catholics die.

      Delete
    9. @anonymous4:38,
      I don't see that happening as we have groups such as the CMRI and some independent Traditionalist clergy who stand by it. I can live with both.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. I disagree with Anonymous 9:32 and 4:38. First to Anonymous 9:32. Magisterial Authority came from Pius XII. Fr. C in reality rejects Pope Pius XII and acts as though he doesn't. Who cares if Masses are in garages. Fr. Emil Kapaun said Mass on Jeeps etc during WWII. Irish priests had Mass on stones in the middle of a field when trying to hide from the black and tans. The English back in the days of Queen Elizabeth said Mass in a secret room in a house. You do what you can with what you got. Right now we either have a few dozen sede priests who hold the Catholic Faith or we have the SSPX, indult, or independents who have a love/hate relationship with Francis and who prefer bells and smells over the truth. Let me hear the Mass in that garage please so long as he is a Catholic priest Now to Anonymous 4:38. Their will always be an obedient group. Intoribo answered that well, but I can't live with both and it's more than just the Pius XII reforms. It's because with the SSPV you have them against the Thuc line and any of those who attend a Thuc lineage priest or bishop get refused the sacraments. They are also known for being opinionist when it comes to Sedevacantism (totally stupid). Bp. Sanborn seems to be big on Sedeprivationlism (The idea that Francis is a material pope but not a formal one, [still not a pope, but who can become one formally again because of his supposed legal possession of it [So in a sense he's still pope]). He also says the Mystical City of God is condemned when you have Pope Benedict XIII saying it can be read by all the faithful without impunity along with Pope Leo XIII who exhorted and commanded a Canadian women who wanted to print out excerpts from the book to actually have it done. Fr. C and SGG had a huge scandal back in 2008-09 and half the Church including one of its wealthiest members left for good reason (I was a witness and it's public knowledge BTW). I'm not here to bash any group, I'm just saying why I'm avoiding some sedes. In the end everybody is going to do what they want to do regardless of what popes taught or what laymen say. One day we will all know before the dreadful day of our judgement. May the Lord have mercy on us and I don't mean that in the twisted way that Francis does.

      Delete
    11. @anonymous 9:24
      You make some excellent points! Thank you for adding to the discussion.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. UNION is not one of those words that needs a qualifier. One is either IN UNION or NOT IN UNION. SSPX is a strange creature since it claims it is IN UNION but acts as if were NOT IN UNION. So I see your need about using the phrase "actual union," but SSPX status depends on who you talk to. If anything, their situation is so convoluted that they should be the ones everyone avoids. Pick a side Sede or NO!!! But SSPX plays their mushy middle position quite well. It is a house of cards that will eventually fall and at some point they will be absorbed into the NO sect or be forced to declare Rome is no longer Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      I agree. The R&R position will lead to become part of the Modernist V2 sect or sedevacantism because the delusional "middle ground" is becoming harder and harder to be taken seriously.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. I have always wondered how a law can survive without a lawgiver. The general sede position is that no authority remains to enforce the laws of the Church, so how can we the faithful be bound by any law. We are always bound by Divine Law and should hold fast to Tradition, but Church Law has no one to enforce it anymore. So why and how are we bound to it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ecclesiastical laws bind by virtue of the lawgiver, and God expects you to obey them UNLESS circumstances have rendered them
      harmful. For example, how can we keep the Church going with clergy if we need a papal mandate to consecrate bishops? In the state of Sedevacantism, that law would become harmful to the Church, so it no longer binds. Not so in the case of fast and abstinence, for example. We’re bound by the last legislation given when we had a pope.

      God Bless,

      —Introibo

      Delete
    2. I am no lawyer, but I find it odd that we are bound by a law with no authority to enforce it nor any authority to seek relief from it and to make appeals. I cannot accept that we are bound by law. I can understand the wisdom of holding to traditiona and customs, but until there is a Pope and Bishops who are Catholic, we are de facto living in a lawless land. Divine Law being an exception of course, for we are always bound by Divine Law. This issue raises itself when it comes to Holy Days of Obligation. It was always the Ordinary that set the HDOs in law making them an obligation. But without a Catholic Ordinary, are we bound out of tradition, there being no law to mandate our assistance on HDOs. With respect to Liturgy, Divine Law states we give proper worship to God on Sundays. So being there is no Authority to tell us how to worship and punish us if we use the incorrect version, I see no problem using any form of Mass that is a proper sacrifice. This sounds very disturbing but I see no alternative position given there being no Authority sedes can currently submit to. The sede clergy can command no obedience from the faithful and can only preserve the priesthood and provide sacraments. They have lost all governing authority. The only Authority that currently exists is the authority to designate a Pope. Some think that the heretical college of heretical cardinals still holds that authority, while others believe it is lost forever. Still others believe it can be reconstituted in the body of remaining believers. I wish I had the answer.

      Delete
    3. Tom,
      Remember Christ said, “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever thou bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever thou loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (St. Matthew 16:19).

      The Code Of Canon Law is binding unless the principle of epikeia applies. All canonists, like my spiritual father, Fr DePauw, know this fact. We are bound by the last laws given until the Church is restored. The Ecclesiastical laws are not like civil law. We don’t live in the “Wild West” where laws can’t be enforced. God is always in control.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Is that your opinion or is the nature of ecclesial law spelled out somewhere? I have tried to research this question to no avail. All law needs authority to enforce it. Divine Law is enforced by God. But who enforces and interprets ecclesial law at this time? No one. I was under the impression that ecclesial and canon law was the churches equivelant of civil law.

      Delete
    5. Tom,
      According to canonist Buscaren, Canon Law can ONLY cease to bind in one of two ways: by express repeal (extrinsic cessation) or by becoming inoperative without repeal (intrinsic cessation). Intrinsic cessation is when either (a) the law has become harmful in a way the lawgiver did not intend or (b) the purpose of the law has ceased. (See “Canon Law A Text and Commentary” pg. 35. Fr C argues point (a) for rejecting Pope Pius XII Rites. Laws do not cease when promulgated unless by extrinsic or intrinsic cessation.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. I believe those are ordinary means of cessation. But as a general rule of all law, there must be an Authority to enforce it. I suppose one can argue that the Authority itself is eclipsed and hidden at the moment and therefore will be reconstituted at some point. Bu it is this lack of tangible authority at the moment that gives one the right to determine for themselves what is "harmful" or not. So in the practical sense, the laws have ceased and men follow them based on tradition, custom, or conscience. We may not agree with the other guy as to what is "harmful" or not but again, to whom do we appeal? I suspect that "harmful" clause gives every sede to right to determine for himself how best to weather this unusual interregnum.

      Delete
    7. Tom,
      As I was taught in law school, “Tough cases make bad law.” When people wanted the murder of the unborn, they didn’t try to justify it using the example of a woman who doesn’t want the “inconvenience” of another child because she wants to work. You are told of a woman who was made pregnant after being gang raped.

      Similarly, because in certain select cases where applications of law can be difficult, does not mean clerics and laymen can do as they please and the law ceases to bind. How about just reciting the Words of Consecration over the bread and wine—can this be justified as “Mass” if some off-the -wall cleric thinks anything more has somehow become “harmful”?

      So, in difficult cases, you apply the law according to the rules of interpretation as best you can, and allow for genuine disagreement. Otherwise, you follow the law as intended.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. The one who is determining what is harmful is Fr. C and it's based on his preference for the pre 55 missal reforms. In the video he's saying they're not harmful but in his writings as Introibo and others have pointed out, he has. If he calls SGG's a Bugninni free zone (meaning pre-55 missal zone) as if he's glad, then how can he say its okay to go to a Bugninni zone? Wouldn't his implication mean it's harmful to go with the reforms. The ones who disagree with Fr. C are saying it's harmful to say that a true pope can implement something which is harmful to the Church because the Church has condemned that belief on numerous occasions (Pope Pius VI Auctorem Fidei Gregory XVI Mirari vos as examples). So it doesn't matter who agrees with the other guy or who doesn't. What matters is criticism of a true pope and allowing oneself the freedom to do what one thinks is right despite what a true pope wanted done. Lets say you have a living will for after you die and you specifically wanted certain things to go to certain people and you wanted to be buried and not cremated and lets say after you died relatives in the family cremated you and did the opposite of what you asked as far dividing up your goods. What was the point of the living will? Where was the respect? Who did the relatives care about more themselves or their supposed loved one who died. Do you think Pius XII would be happy today? I don't think he would be with Fr. C and the rest of sedes who think like him.

      Delete
    9. Yes, that is what we are all doing. But without a definitive Authority to draw on, the trad/sede movement will suffer the charge of "being no better than the protestants." Each man being his own interpreter of the law, each man being his own pope. I do not see how this charge is unavoidable. In practice, we sedes are living in the wild west days with pockets of order here and there based on the personalities of various clergy. As bad as this sounds, it is still extremely preferable to the alternative of being associated with the NO sect either in actual union or desired union.

      Delete
    10. @anonymous7:06
      Good analogy!

      @Tom
      Sorry to disagree, but that’s not how Canon Law works. Some clergy do as they wish with no accountability. On that we agree. And I agree anything is better than falling victim to the V2 sect!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. There is a definitive authority called Pius XII, that way you don't have to live in the wild west of trying to figure out whether you should follow this or that priest saying what he wants. Therefore, not every man being his own interpreter is his own pope except when he goes against the last one or any other previous ones. If Pius XII died 3 years ago as opposed to 60 yrs. ago and Francis and his cardinals hijacked things much earlier would we have the freedom to choose obedience to Pius XII or just say what he did lead to this and therefore it's his fault and I'm not doing it? It's true some sedevacantist aren't any different than protestants because they are protestants. You're suggesting that because we don't have any authority (true pope) to enforce a law now means we cannot recognize what is and what isn't Catholic based on what has already been implemented or taught. How do you think we determine that the Novus Ordo isn't Catholic? No authority now gives us any authority to do but that's because no authority is needed when something is so manifestly obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The only thing that matters for the average laymen is will I go to hell or commit mortal sin by attending the pre pian mass during Holy Week. If the answer is yes, we have a problem. If no then, why worry about it. If the answer is yes, then the cmri should condemn all those priests who use the pre pian Holy Week for leading souls to hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      There is another issue of importance; being led to believe that the Pian reforms can "become evil" having been promulgated by a true pope. The priests who follow the Old Rites definitely make it seem that those Rites are "superior" and "Bugnini-free." They seek to enforce their ideas on issues not decided by the Church. I agree that it is no sin to attend either Rites.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The CMRI and Fr. C are both insistent on this issue but neither one wishes to tell people to avoid each other because of the numerous splits that have already happened for other things. They will remain that way (so you don't have to worry). I personally will not go to any priest or bishop who rejects the pre-55 reforms missal and I do believe it's a sin because the principles behind Fr. C would not be tolerated by Pope Pius XII even though he would make you think otherwise. Priests who believe that the Church can give us something harmful (Our Bugnini zone as it is called) and turn around and lie by saying they don't are no different than the SSPX and even though many lay people within those groups are ignorant through no fault of their own, the priests and bishop have no excuse.

      Delete
  18. The above commentators are saying that the SSPV and the independents that use the pre pian missal lead people to mortal sin and to hell and should be avoided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      Some people believe that, but as I’ve made clear, the Rites can be used without sin in my opinion. The REASONS given for using the Old Rites is erroneous and gives a false idea of papal authority.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. David,

    If I live within an hour of Church ran by Fr. Cekada and that is all that was available would I be committing a mortal sin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. by attending it is what I forgot to add?

      Delete
    2. I don’t believe you would.

      Delete
    3. I believe Father Cekada and Bishop Dolan do great work. I believe the same for the CMRI. I am a simple man. For me, it all boils down to whether something is sinful and will lead to a loss of salvation and will offend Our Lord and Our Lady grievously. If something is not a sin, then I don’t see the point in worrying about it because as a simple laymen it is far out of my realm of control or ability.

      Delete
    4. To be honest, people who have personal grudges and are basically home aloners should preface Thier comments with such information because then the simple know what they are preaching and hocking. I would not want to be accused by Our Lord about writing material that would cause the leading of simple souls away from valid sacraments at my judgment.

      Delete
    5. They could preface their comments thus: “I am basically a home aloner who will only attend Mass when I am able in Texas at Father Campbell’s Shrine because he was ordained before the council. I have had personal disagreements with “insert name of various sede clergy.” They disagreed with me on something so I am doing my best to dissuade anyone from approaching them. I know Our Blessed Lord preaches forgiveness and reconciliation with my brother, but that is not for me right now.” This preface would make waiding through posts easier.

      Delete
    6. Father Campbell is a good and Holy priest and should be approached for sacraments if visiting Texas. - David

      Delete
    7. David

      LOL, I just realized I asked you the wrong question. If I live within an hour of Church ran by Fr. Cekada and that is all that was available would I be committing a mortal sin if I refused to attend?

      Delete
    8. @David
      I agree with you. People with grudges become de facto Home Aloners and do great damage.

      @anonymous5:38
      I’ll add my two cents as I don’t speak for David. To refuse to attend Fr Cekada’s Mass based on his false notion of why to use the Old Rites would be sinful and needlessly shutting yourself off from grace.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. We are to attend a valid mass without grave inconvenience. Is one hour considered grave inconvenience by canon law? Before the council, if I had a contention with priest Y would it give me a valid reason for missing mass? I guess that would answer your question. You are probably more versed in canon law than I am. I would attend his mass and have my family and friends do the same if they lived one hour away.

      Delete
    10. Okay so this proves my point. Introibo you believe we have liberty to choose who we want to go to regardless of this issue (55 missal reforms) since you believe a pope has to settle the matter now, but we don't have the liberty to refuse to go to Fr. C who we don't think is Catholic because he knowingly refuses to obey the most previous pope (who he believes was the last pope) and teaches that the Church gave us something harmful. If a pope has to settle this issue shouldn't he have to settle the issue with regards to those who refuse to go to him since Fr. C has no jurisdiction and technically is being obedient himself? I'm not a home aloner who believes there is nobody to go to. I believe you can go to priests and bishops who uphold the correct position even if they be incorrect on saying it's okay to attend those who don't hold the same position as sad as that reality is). Fr. C is guilty of attacking his pope on the liturgy. He is guilty for teaching that the liturgy lead to something harmful which really means it was harmful to begin with. I do not want to be guilty before God for ignoring this serious problem which will never cease until he humbly changes his position. If he tried to pull something off like this in the olden days he would have at least been laicized.

      Delete
    11. @anonymous8:36
      Fr Cekada is wrong in his reasoning yet upholds the Faith, much like the old SSPX to which he used to belong. There IS a case for cessation of the law, and since the Old and New Rites are equally Catholic (no one is claiming either is sinful) there should be liberty of action.

      Fr C has done much good. Unfortunately, he is prideful and has done much harm with the Schiavo case and declaring Una Cum Masses sinful and off limits. We disagree strongly. In this case, it’s not the same.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. While the Traditionalists are splitting hairs over issues such as the pre pian missal, Frankie the fake and the Vatican II sect are, more than likely, jumping for joy that the Trads are so split. Where is the unity among the Trads? All they seem to do is pick and squabble among each other. There is strength in unity, however, until unity becomes a reality among the Trads they will continue to be divided and more than likely conquered as a result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      A sad reality. Without a pope, the source of unity is broken. I can only pray we obtain enough unity to combat Bergoglio until the Church is restored or Christ returns!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  21. I don't care about what "Trads" think any more than what Frankie the Fake thinks. The sedes are split not only because we have no pope but even if we did they would find an excuse to do something their own way against his will. Nobody is picking and squabbling Joann. It's that if they go against their priests and bishops they're afraid of not having any place to go and don't want to make an issue like this be the reason (for me it's more). Some of these sede clergy are close enough to where I could attend Mass as opposed to others that I would agree with but I refuse to go to them, just as much as I would go to the SSPX. If you all want them, then you can have them, I've dealt with enough of them in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anonymous6:21
      I'm sorry you've had bad experiences. However, the Church survives and I know many good and holy Traditionalist clergy. Even the Apostles had Judas. But don't give up. "When the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith on Earth?" (St. Luke 18:8). The upshot being that there will be very little.

      I'll be praying for you!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. It seems that some commentators have personal axes to grind. It seems foolish to me to avoid Our Blessed Lord when availing ourself of him at places that our not sinful or heretical are available. People and personalities and grudges mean nothing in the end. We have our judgment and soul to think about and save.

      Delete
    3. I have no personal axes to grind. There are a couple of priests in the CMRI I don't care for, but I would still attend their Mass regardless of personal likes or dislikes. With Fr. C and Bp. Sanborn it's much different. I really do believe they are refusing not only to obey a pope (which would have to be penalty if he were still around) but also are claiming the Church gave us something harmful? Do you believe that nonsense?

      Delete
    4. @anonymous 5:27
      There is a case for cessation of the law, but not as they claim. They do not claim the Church gave us something harmful, but that is de facto the result of their flawed arguments. You presume malice in this case and I don’t know if it’s justified. They nevertheless proclaim the Truth that the Church cannot give evil.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Malice is presumed by law. You're guilty until proven innocent in Canon law. They are not stupid. They know what they are doing and are lying. Show me where cessation of law applies to the liturgy. Can I apply the cessation of law to The Pius X liturgy? After all he made many reforms to the liturgy? If I cannot then why not?

      Delete
    6. @anonymous 9:23
      I agree you have the stronger arguments for certain. However, these changes were not meant to be permanent. Secondly, we can’t know where they were headed without a true pope. Is it therefore possible they cease to bind and you can go back to the former Rites? Possible. I don’t have the answer to that one. St. Pius X never claimed transience for his changes.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. You say the changes were not meant to be permanent. The liturgy has changed a dozen times since Pope St. Pius V. So what? How do you know they weren't meant to be permanent. It's as permanent until a pope changes it again. So that would be irrelevant. The second point is also irrelevant because we don't have to know where it was headed. So basically you don't really have an argument. Irrelevant points are not arguments.

      Delete
    8. @anonymous4:50
      Bugnini and the Liturgical Movement stated there was more change to come, and there is sufficient proof this was the case. Would the legislator (pope) want an “incomplete” liturgy, or would he allow the older Rites? The first statement is fact, the second is a legitimate question. I don’t have an answer, so I don’t condemn those who use those Rites. Those using the Pian Rites have the much stronger case. However, in Sedevacantism, when heresy and evil are not at stake we should follow St Augustine , “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. All your points are irrelevant. Popes can change the liturgy. It doesn't matter what Bugnini and the modernist wanted. You have no arguments. You are just making irrelevant points.

      Delete
    10. No. You have not addressed the cessation of law when there is reason to believe the legislator did not intend it to bind under circumstances of not being able to go forward due to the Great Apostasy. Fr. DePauw was a canonist and struggled with wondering if such was possible. I would hardly call that irrelevant points particularly since you are not an approved theologian or canonist as was Fr. DePauw.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. What reason is there to believe the legislator didn't intend it to bind under these circumstances? It is irrelevant because you can't apply cessation of law to something unnecessary. Btw, what Cekada is doing is evil and leads to the suspicion of heresy because he's arguing by implication that there is something wrong with the principles and practices of the 1955 missal.

      Delete
    12. Are you a canonist? A theologian? The only thing irrelevant here is your constant harping “it’s irrelevant.”

      1. Malice is presumed in the case of a cleric regarding HERESY. Using pre-Pian Rites is not heretical.

      2. There are MANY reasons to believe the changes were not meant to be permanent including statements by Pius.

      3. You could apply cessation(perhaps) if the intended changes could be a cause of confusion (like now).

      Leads to “suspicion of heresy”? The SSPV too? I agree that the arguments are wrong, but he states the truth that the Rites are NOT evil.

      My patience has run out, so until you get your JCD or STD, your further comments are irrelevant. You can’t solve anything.

      Over and out.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. Canonists have already given you the answer but you won't listen. IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I've given you the reason your argument is irrelevant and you confuse the issue.

      1. I didn't say using pre-Pian rites was heretical. I said Cekada is doing evil and leads to suspicion of heresy BECAUSE he's arguing by implication that there is something wrong with the principles and practices of the 1955 missal.

      2. I didn't ask what reasons the missal wasn't meant to be permanent since no missal is really permanent. I asked, "What reason is there to believe the legislator didn't intend it to bind under these circumstances?" YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

      3. What confusion has the 1955 missal caused? NONE! Cessation of law doesn't apply here.

      The SSPV also believe something was intrinsically evil about the 1955 missal. This leads to suspicion of heresy. It doesn't matter if he says the Rites are not wrong but then he says they are. He speaks with a forked-tongue like all the Vatican 2 popes.

      If I'm making you angry I don't intend to because deep down I know you agree. I think you agree more than you think and I appreciate your patience.

      Delete
    14. One last time:

      1. Fr Cekada’s arguments are flawed. That’s a given. So is the SSPX about R&R. I don’t consider them heretical because they profess the True Faith. Ditto for Fr Cekada.

      2. As Fr Cekada rightly points out” Memoria sulla riforma liturgica,” which was presented to Pius XII in 1948 states specifically that the “complete and general revision” it envisions “cannot be put into practice in a few days” and must be carried out in “successive phases” (¶334). The reform will begin but not end with Holy Week.

      3. The confusion is caused by the misunderstanding that accrued around this issue post-Vatican 2.

      I CONCEDE your arguments are stronger. I CONCEDE you are probably correct. However, unlike Fr. Cekada, as long as there is a possibility that the law may have ceased, I will not condemn those who use the Old Rites. Fr. DePauw thought there was a plausible possibility for using the older Rites.

      “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things Charity.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  22. Introibo, How do you explain the loss of Apostolic Succession during this time of sedevacantism? Also, many claim the Church is in eclipse. Where can this “eclipse” be found in the Bible, or where does this “eclipse” originate from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no loss of Apostolic Succession. There are three valid episcopal lineages: Thuc, Lefebvre, and Mendez. If you’re talking about the Succession in the Chair Of St Peter, according to Theologian Dorsch:
      “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

      As far as the eclipse of the Church, it really is the Church driven underground so to speak. According to Theologian Berry;
      The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.

      (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 119)

      Hope this helped!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo



      Delete
  23. I've read various priests in England Scotland & Ireland quietly used to the pre-51
    Holy Week/missal from 1956-1964.
    They innocently thought things would go back to normal eventually.
    If what I have read is true,the divide was already happening under Pius XII.
    Simultaneously,if this did go on in the U.K. something tells me other priests in various corners were
    "Quietly keeping the tradional Holy Week."
    Not saying it was widespread don't get me wrong.
    -ANDREW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Any priest who did that while His Holiness was alive would be Schismatic, no question.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I disagree. Not all disobedience is schismatic.

      Delete
    3. Tom,
      According to Theologian Szal there are excusing causes. I don’t see any that would apply if Pope Pius XII was alive and his changes were in effect

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I mean that someone can wrongly disobey a pope and it may even be a mortal sin, but that doesn't mean it is schismatic.

      Delete
  24. I note, what he did in Humani Generis and allocution of 1951 after Bea influenced him seems not to have been taken into account ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you explain what he did in
      "Humani Generis" please?

      Did Cardinal Bea influence his (Pius XII) decision to destroy the after midnight Holy Communion fast & the "new" 1951 Easter Vigil?

      Delete
    2. Humani Generis And Cardinal Bea are irrelevant. If the changes were promulgated by a true pope, they are protected from all error and evil by the Holy Ghost.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  25. After re-reading the comments in this thread, I understand why so many trads want nothing to do with sedevacantists. So many sedes saying you have to do this or you have to do that. The whole point of sedevacantism is that there is NO AUTHORITY! Non whatsoever! No Pope, No bishops with jurisdiction. Each and every person is bound by divine, natural, and moral law. These laws never change nor ever cease to bind. Not true for ecclesial law. No one here has any authority to tell me or anyone else how to keep holy the sabbath. We can observe Tradition if possible and attend a TLM from '55 or '62. Maybe its Una Cum maybe its not. We can stay home and do rosaries all day long. You cant claim the See is Vacant yet claim there is some authority to bind us to certain actions. That's just as ridiculous as recognize and resist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      I hope you realize that Canon Law is promulgated by the Vicar of Christ, and only ceases to bind on the conditions set forth within itself. There are hard cases which no one should attempt to bind someone, which is why I believe in St. Augustine's wise dictum: "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.”Fr. Cekada and others try to enforce their ideas about the Rites of Holy Week, and Una Cum on others. I do not.

      Remember too, the idea that "all ecclesiastical cease to bind" is the case with many clergy de facto, but NOT de jure.

      Some problems with the idea that Canon Law completely ceases to bind:

      (a) At what point does the Law cease to bind? When the pope dies until the next one is elected, or is there some exact time period? What is that period?

      (b) Does it cease to exist only after ALL bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction are gone? Most of them? All of them? Bishop Kurz never lost Ordinary Jurisdiction, if he were the last bishop with such jurisdiction, can he enforce the laws universally or just for those within his personal prelature? If the latter, then the rest of us can do whatever we please but not those under Bp. Kurz?

      (c) The idea that "laws don't bind" lead to the "election" of "Pope" Michael by his mommy, his daddy, two nice neighbors, and the female "theologian" who engineered it, because the ordinary laws (she tells us) don't bind. (She went ack to being Home Alone and "excommunicated" by the very anti-pope she "elected."

      Again, Tom, “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Tom, Thank you for explaining why no one should be a Sede. I left the Sede sect for the very reasons you spelled out in this post and many more. No authority = the Roman Catholic Church defected. Thanks Tom for summing it all up.

      Delete
    3. @anonymous7:38
      The Church Herself taught about this Great Apostasy through which we are living!
      As I explained in the comments above, according to theologian Dorsch,
      “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

      According to Theologian Berry;
      "The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church."

      (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 119)

      No authority = the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. Anyone who says differently doesn't understand Church teaching. They will end up with Bergoglio and "Uncle Ted" in the V2 sect, a very confused R&R or in an Eastern Schismatic/Heretical Sect.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Exactly what chapter and verse in Revelation does it speak of “Satan will imitate the Church of Christ” and the Church will “be driven underground”?

      Delete
    5. @anon7:38, while the authoriity is a mystery, it is still a better explanation of this great apostasy than the idea that a non catholic can be head of the catholic church. The position that the Church can teach evil is worse than having no visible head. Unless you actually accept V2 and the modernist garbage, the Church seems to either defected in visibility or loss of unity of faith or its teaching error. I find it is easier to accept that her visibility is obscured than to have to admit as the sedeplenists must, that Holy Mother Church gave us Vatican 2 and all the resulting modernist claptrap. So yes, authority is an issue but it certainly does not prove that a heretic can be Pope and anyone who knows the Faith must know that The conciliar popes are all heretics.

      Delete
    6. Introibo, if I need a dispensation to miss Mass due to my work schedule who do I go ask? Who is the authority to give me relief from the law? Answer: no one. So how am I bound by the law when there is no earthly authority? If you answer that in that case I must follow my conscience, then you have in essence just made my case. We are bound in conscience by the moral law to follow ecclesial law as best we can. Since there is no authority to settle the interpretation of that law, some people will conclude in good faith to stay home on Sunday and some will conclude in good faith to use the pre '55 Missal and some will conclude in good faith to hold a conclave and elect a new pope. And being there is no authority to comdemn any of this, who can denounce any of this? We can offer our opinions to each other and try to explain how we interpret these laws but at the end of the day this great apostasy has set us all adrift. And as I said earlier, I rather be in my little life raft alone and confused than stuck on the SS Novus Ordo on its way to hell with its false teaching and protestant worship service.

      Delete
    7. @anonymous2:01
      Where in the Bible does it say, “Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven”? Not everything is explicit in Scripture. To buy the book by Theologian Berry: The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise https://www.amazon.com/dp/1606088025/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_meAxBb26CBDF4 You can then read it in full and get a better understanding.

      @Tom
      I agree with the V2 sect being the worst, but do you really think rejecting David Bawden as “pope” Michael is merely a possibility that you can accept or reject? If you need a dispensation for work you can ask any Traditionalist priest in the Confessional. The law can be dispensed without Ordinary jurisdiction by cessation when there is necessity and from whom those with Ordinary jurisdiction cannot be found. If you are without a priest, you can assume it given: think of the Catholics in Japan during the persecutions. The jurisdiction was absent de facto.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. The sedeprivationists try to solve this authority issue with their thesis. I think the Japanese scenario has many similarities to our own time. For hundreds of years they had no contact with the legitimate authority of the Church but maintained their faith by observing the moral law. Today, we few remaining faithful Catholics has had our contact with legitimate authority severed. It is still there somewhere, but like the Japanese, we are cut off. This does not mean a defect of the Church as the RR crowd claims. It means we are temporarily adrift. Valid clerics can offer us advise and administer valid sacraments because of the dire circumstamces, but until valid legitimate Catholic Authority once again commands our obedience, we are left with the moral law. PS: I dont agree with David Bawden's position or claim, but I can understand how he came to the conclavist position. If enough traditional clergy came to the same conclavist position, I would follow who they elected. I may be in error but so was half of Christendom during the Great Western Schism. Again for anon7:38, following the NO apostates can never be an option. Else you are following heretics.

      Delete
    9. Tom A.

      I'll tell you what's ridiculous. Is that you can go to any Mass you want, do away with any law, liturgy, etc. you don't like, believe what you want to believe, and do what you want to do. This makes you apart of the R&R movement. I'm telling you that you follow the laws of the Church, the liturgy, doctrines etc. up the last true pope.

      Delete
    10. @anon 6:20, you may consider it ridiculous, but without a final authority to consult, individuals have no option other than to draw their own conclusions. You have decided for yourself that it is best to remain with the laws of the last known Pope. Others believe that those laws may be harmful and thus cease to bind. Who's to say who is right? That's the job of a true Pope.

      Delete
    11. Tom, what is most ridiculous is that you are still a Sedevacantist.

      Delete
    12. The only other option is to be a NO V2 type of catholic. I cannot do that. One must assent to the magisterium of the Church. The conciliar church presents a magisterium at odds with the pre V2 magisterium. When someone explains to me how I can reconcile these two magisteriums I will reconsider my position. To date no one has even attempted to make this reconciliation. Just saying there is a hermuenetic of continuity doesnt make it so.

      Delete
    13. "Others believe that those laws may be harmful and thus cease to bind. Who's to say who is right?" If you are right that it's okay to to say any law, liturgy, etc. is harmful then you are condemned by a dozen popes who say otherwise. Hence, they are the ones who say what is right and if you don't agree with them, then that's your problem.

      Delete
    14. Yup, it is my problem. Thats what we get with no Pope. Everything becomes our own problem to solve since there is no authority to give us a definitive answer. Old dead Popes do not command us, their laws and commands can guide us but since they are no longer here, we have to use our own judgment, and we do use our own judgment, as to what is harmful or not. You have made your choice but think you have some sort of authority to insist everyone see it your way. Well, without authority, good luck enforcing it.

      Delete
    15. If "Old dead popes" don't command us anymore then why follow anything they ever said especially when it comes to the liturgy? You follow Pope St. Pius V don't you regarding the Tridentine Mass but you won't follow Pope Pius XII and his reforms. You are just another trady who picks and chooses what he wants to believe and makes endless excuses like "Oh I have no authority now, so I might as well follow my consciences." I insist that people follow the last popes authority, not my authority. What is wrong with you?

      Delete
    16. Council of Trent forbids the changing of liturgy.
      We are upholding Tradition following the pre-1950 missal.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    17. @Andrew
      The Council of Trent did no such thing. The Missal Of 1570 was changed numerous times. There was never any question of the pope’s authority to make changes in the Roman Missal when Pope Clement VIII made changes in 1604 or when Pope Urban VIII made changes in 1634 or when Pope St. Pius X made revisions in 1914.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    18. These revisions were not outright completely new sets of liturgy ala Pius XII 1951-1958.
      - Andrew

      Delete
    19. Andrew,
      There are no limits placed on the pope as Supreme Legislator. He can make any changes. There is nothing that restricts him. The Pian changes were beneficial in many ways, and were not (could not) be evil or heretical. It’s fine to prefer the Old Rites, as do I!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    20. Anon, we are not under obedience to a dead Pope. We are always to assent to his teachings and those of all Popes, but there is a huge distinction between obedience and assent to dogmas. You are being dogmatic in matters of ecclesial law. You are not making this distinction even though it has been pointed out to you several times. Pius XII has no ability to bind me in temporal issues of action and discipline. In dogma however, his teachings are subject to our assent since it is what the Church has always believed.

      Delete
    21. Tom,
      When Fr. C said “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." Which parallels in principles and practices are Fr. Cekada referring to? 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? 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. The burden of proof for its application should be provided not by claims but by its fruits. You are under obedience because you assent to true popes teachings whether it be dogma or disciplines. This is why you don't follow yourself when there is no pope because if that is the case we would have all kinds of popes running around. You fail to make that distinction.

      Delete
  26. PS, I also find it quite ironic that one would have a much easier path to salvation following the "magesterium" of David Bawden than following the "magesterium" of Jorge Bergolio. We truly are living the Great Apostasy as foretold by many. God have mercy on us all. This has been a great topic and most interesting discusion. Keep up the good work. It's nice to see that individuals can differ on matters in a civil manner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Thank you for your contributions to this discussion. This is a blog that seeks to inform, warn, give Traditional Church teaching, and allow for respectful disagreements because we all can learn from each other!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  27. A close family member has just told me that they think Benedict is still Pope as his resignation was invalid. I have discussed sedevacantism with them. Does anyone know how I can dispute with clarity this family member’s belief that Benedict is Pope? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      It’s simple: Ratzinger was a heretic who could not have been pope in the first place! The last pope to profess the Integral Catholic Faith was Pope Pius XII. Ratzinger was one of the driving forces of V2 and the heretical ecclesiology. There’s even a name for your family member’s belief:Resignationism! Here are 2 excellent articles from Novus Ordo Watch:
      https://novusordowatch.org/2013/12/kramer-resignationists/

      https://novusordowatch.org/benedict-xvi/

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo



      Delete
    2. Introibo, Thanks much for the above links regarding Resignationism. Now I understand where my family member is drawing his conclusions regarding Benedict being Pope. I think that Francis being the raging heretic he is makes Benedict and JPII look good in comparison. My family member thinks JPII and Benedict were Popes not realizing that they were just as bad as Francis. Thanks again!

      Delete
    3. Glad I could help, Joann!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  28. I was suggested this blog by means of my cousin. I am not certain whether or not this post is written through him as nobody
    else realize such particular approximately my problem.
    You're amazing! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anonymous12:32
      Glad you like my blog, my friend!

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
  29. I really think the question of the Pius 12 Holy Week and a few other things from his time are nothing more than a friendly discussion between priests that laypeople misinterpret as a serious argument and mutual condemnation. Nobody on either side of this debate has ever (to my knowledge) accused the other side of sin in using the other Holy Week, liturgical calendar, fast rules, or anything else. All they have ever done, which includes Fr. Cekada and various CMRI priests, has been to explain why they have their position and why they disagree with the other side. Of course that can't be done without explaining why they believe the other side to be wrong. None of these priests has ever told any of their parishioners they would be sinning if they attend to other liturgy, and still less has anyone been refused Holy Communion.

    There is a common misconception that the priests of St. Gertrude do not have a cordial relationship with the CMRI. As someone who attended St. Gertrude's, I can say this is completely false. People freely and publicly went from St. Gertrude's to the CMRI and back again and the priests knew about it and nobody made any objection. In fact, if you look at St. Gertrude's website, they have a list of recommended Mass locations for their parish members who are traveling, and in that list they have a link to the Mass directory of the CMRI, thus giving the whole world a blanket recommendation to attend any of the CMRI chapels:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/locations/

    Trads aren't always going to agree on difficult and disputed questions today, and people need to get used to that. It's just a sign of the times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the charitable and informative comment. I agree with all you wrote, with just one caveat. I don’t think it’s right when Fr Cekada starts talking about their Holy Week at SGG being “Bugnini free.” Even if in jest, many will take it seriously. It implies that the Pian reform is the work of a Freemason and not the Holy Ghost, and it also carries the implication that the Old Rites are superior. Both implications are wrong.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  30. Even though Pope Pius XII wrote several very good encyclicals (Mystici Corporis and Mediator Dei), we must admit overall that his failings in his pontificate paved the way for what followed, that is the Great Apostasy and the disastrous Vatican Council II.
    He gave free reign to Annibale Bugnini and his modernist partners to begin the work of destroying the liturgy.
    He promoted two evildoers Roncalli and Montini.
    He allowed evolution to be taught.
    He allowed and thus furthered the practice of contraception.
    He opened the door to the acceptance of the major heresy of our day which is the possibility of salvation outside the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your criticism doesn’t hold. There was nothing wrong with the Pian changes. He did not “promote” Montini or Roncalli as explained above. He allowed a evolution of the body to be taught, so what? Furthered the practice of contraception? Hardly ! He promoted authentic NFP. He always maintained the dogma EENS.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  31. "He allowed a evolution of the body to be taught, so what?"

    Is there any Church Father who would have agreed? Who would not have violently disagreed?

    Btw, document, since Humani Generis doesn't mention any licence to teach it, only to defend it in a scientific debate.

    "He promoted authentic NFP."

    Of which St Thomas would have said what?

    "He always maintained the dogma EENS."

    I am not a Feeneyite. It seems rand miller is. Now, who condemned Fr Leonard Feeney? So, if he maintained it, quite possible, it was at least not in a Feeneyite sense, if that was what rand miller was about.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Fr. Cekada lists certain "false principles and practices," such as: the vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy, the priest’s role is reduced, lay participation must ideally be vocal, etc."

    Interestingly, the Latin Mass basically was in vernacular (in parishes where Romance language was spoken) from Pope St Damasus to AD 800.

    It's not being vernacular among Celts and Germanic tribes was exceptional, up to then.

    Romance vernacular and Latin as in liturgy were separated between 800 and 813 and written clearly vernacular and now therefore non-Latin texts were somewhat later in appearing.

    Ultreya e suseya is not Spanish, it is Latin as in Spanish liturgy prior to some 11th C. Council which repeated the linguistic process of Tours diocese. In Latin spelling, it would be "ultrerior et surserior", I finally grasped. Useless to search either that or the phrase as heard by pilgrims with Spanish spelling in a normal Latin dictionary, since these are based on Latin of Cicero to Tacitus and Sueton.

    There are also two prior to XXTh C. exceptions in which Latin Mass of Tridentine rite was translated to a vernacular. Glagolitic Mass in Croatian and the Huron translation. Yes, St Jean de Brébeuf was celebrating in Wyandot. (H/T to Mark Shea who thought this was a good argument for Novus Ordo).

    ReplyDelete