In this time of uncertainty and chaos, there is a persistent debate within the faithful remnant of the One True Church. That is ---which liturgy should we go with--- the one we had from, basically, the 400’s through 1955, or that which came before 1961/2. There is some uncertainty, both as to whether John 23 was a valid pope or not, and whether the changes he made to the liturgy was something a valid pope could do nor not. Bishop Sandborn has said something to the effect that a valid pope can create a liturgy from scratch if he so desired and we would be obliged to follow it. So, the question is not whether a valid pope can change the liturgy or not, nor if we should obey him or not, but during this almost 70 year interregnum, with all the hindsight we have now, whether Catholic Priests can, in good conscience, offer the same liturgy, standardized in the most solemn way by Pope Saint Pius V, we have had for the vast majority of our history.
I hope this is clear to any sedevacantist who believes that the changes under the name of Pope Pius XII were in themselves an incentive to impiety or worse. There is no legitimate reason we should doubt any part of the papacy of Pope Pius XII. As far as I know (I have researched the topic myself and found nothing), he never bound on the Church any heresy or discipline which was harmful to souls. He was a suffering pope. As an apologist against the Feeneyites, he is a pope I admire very much as I have become quite familiar with his writings against that position.
The way I would explain to any sedevacantist who believes Pius XII’s liturgy was an incentive to impiety or worse, is as follows:
Suppose we had no liturgy, liturgical calendar, octaves or anything in the history of the Church which we could compare it to apart from what Pope Pius XII established in 1955. By itself, there is nothing wrong with it at all. Most of it is beautiful and any part of it which might rub some the wrong way (more lay involvement, dialogue Mass, Priest facing the people at times, part of the liturgy offered in the vernacular, Eucharistic fast, evening Masses, changing how Masses are ranked, eliminating octaves and vigils) has nothing harmful in it at all objectively speaking. It is a great treasure. The greatest treasure on earth.
The purported problem lies with an objective look at how the liturgy formed during persecutions in the early centuries of the Church, organically developed until the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in comparison with the Pian changes. No discussion can be had apart from the core foundation that Pope Pius XII was a valid pope and that the changes he mandated were not in themselves harmful in any way.
The great pioneers of our movement, our traditional heroes in a certain sense, in which Father DePauw was certainly a key figure, included Father Martin Stepanich and “The Nine” which shortly after became “The 12” (Fathers Colins, Ahearn and McMahon) all (with the exception of Father DePauw) went with the pre-55 liturgy. This, by itself, should speak loudly to us, at least in regard to the plausibility of their position.
In my opinion, at the very least, priests on this side of the issue should not be condemned for their position, nor characterized as certainly erring, even if in good faith. But what is worse, and certainly unacceptable, is believing, and stating publicly, that they do this “merely because they prefer it." That is a reprehensible statement. The idea that they would risk their souls (that is what a priest does if he disobeys a pope) over a mere preference is a shallow and unfounded proposition at best.
From the Mouth of the Solid, Sound and Reputable Mario Derksen
To get to the meat of this subject I should like to quote Mario Derksen’s public comments on this very issue:
It may be fairly well known that not all sedevacantists are in agreement with each other regarding the use of the revisions of Pope Pius XII made to the Holy Week liturgy in 1955. Every year when Holy Week rolls around, you will find that some sedevacantist chapels use the revised liturgy of 1955 in obedience to the liturgical law that was on the books when Pius XII died in 1958. Whereas other sedevacantists use the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites, convinced that in our current circumstances, Pius XII himself would want us to revert back to the earlier form. In the present podcast, we are not trying to address that dispute, much less settle it. [Note from J.G. - Mario is not shy when it comes to defending the truth on any issue pertaining to our Catholic Faith. Why not settle it if it is obvious, and easily proved that the pre-55 priests cannot, with a properly formed conscience, expect a pleasant Judgement, due to their “disobedience to the Pope”? Could it be because it cannot be easily settled?] Instead, we want to focus on and refute the position of Father Mawdsley. To do that, we need to call to mind some facts which no one can, and no one does dispute.
First, the Catholic Church teaches that it is impossible for a true pope to approve a liturgical rite for the universal church that is “in itself” evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious or harmful to souls.
Secondly, in 1955, Pope Pius XII did in fact approve the revised Holy Week liturgy and made it mandatory to be used starting in 1956 in every church in the world that uses the Roman Rite.
Third, beginning in 1956, every Roman Rite Church did in fact use the new Holy Week liturgy for the short remainder of Pius XII’s pontificate. Meaning also in 1957 and 58. Not everyone agreed with the revisions. Not everyone thought they were a good idea, but everyone complied, at least as far as I know. In other words, both versions of Holy Week, the one from 1955 and the pre-55 one were in fact used by the entire church at their respective times.
Fourth, it follows that neither liturgy can possibly be in itself evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious or harmful. Now notice that the qualification “in itself” is very import here because it is possible that an approved liturgical rite should become dangerous or harmful by circumstance. Even God’s own written word for example if it is not read and understood according to the mind of Holy Mother Church. That is why for example Saint Peter wrote about the divinely inspired epistles of Saint Paul that in them “are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also other scriptures to their own destruction." That’s found in 2 Peter 3:16.
Likewise, it is possible that given certain circumstances, a papally approved or mandated liturgical change be imprudent. For example, when in 1910, Pope Saint Pius X decreed that Holy Communion could now be received by children as young as the age of reason as long as they were properly catechized and properly disposed. This was considered an unwise move by some who thought that it would lead to many unworthy Communions. Before that time, children were not allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament until they were at least 12 years old.
But regardless of what one personally thinks about a liturgical or sacramental decision by a reigning pope, one must obey it. Which is why everyone complied and used Pius XII Holy Week reforms beginning in 1956.
Even the sedevacantsts who don’t use the Holy Week changes today and instead revert back to the pre-1955 liturgy only do so in the absence of a pope who could settle the dispute here and now and that is the essential difference between the sedevacantist position and that of Father Mawdsley. Mawdsley tells his audience that the decrees of a reigning pope can and ought to be rejected by the faithful if they believe they go against tradition as recognize and resisters like to put it. Now, if Mawdsley thinks he can find that idea in any magisterial document from before Vatican II or even just any approved pre-Vatican II theological manual, I would encourage him to start digging. Meanwhile, what we do find in the Pope’s magisterium is very much the opposite.
All right. So, hopefully I’ve clarified this difference sufficiently so no one can say that some sedevacantists are doing the same thing Father Mawdsley is doing.
No, they’re not. Sedevacantists disagree with each other on what the right thing to do is while the shepherd is struck while there is no pope to consult for guidance. Father Mawdsley, on the other hand, wants you to rebel against the known will of a presently reigning pope because he’s not following tradition. So that is the essential difference.
Inevitably someone will argue now well if that’s what you believe then why don’t you embrace the new mass and other liturgical changes of Paul 6? (Notice he did not mention John 23 – J.G.) The short answer is that these changes can be shown to be in themselves evil, sacrilegious, heretical, impious and or harmful thereby proving that they could not have come from a true pope but must have come from an impostor, from a false pope.
Father Martin Stepanich
All that has been stated thus far in the article should be enough for all to agree that it is at least plausible, that our good Catholic Priests, loyal to the Magisterium, can in good conscience, offer the liturgy in place for almost the entire history of the Catholic Church. But we will follow up and conclude now, with what one of the greatest heroes of our movement, Father Martin Stepanich, the only traditional priest that existed since I became sedevacantist (2004) who had a doctorate in pre-Vatican II theology, had to say on this very topic.
FATHER MARTIN
STEPANICH’S QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
For July, August, and September 2010
The time for writing this trimestral newsletter approached just as we were finishing up a string of high-ranking octaves on the truly traditional liturgical calendar – that is, the Ascension octave (May 13-20), the Pentecost octave (May 23-30), the Corpus Christ octave (June 3-10), and the Sacred Heart octave (June 11- 18).
What is beyond belief is the fact that three of those rightly untouchable octaves – Ascension, Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart – were declared suppressed by the tradition-breaking and plainly modernist-flavored decree of March 23, 1955, issued strangely in the name of reputedly fully traditional Pope Pius XII. Just try and figure that one out!
At the time — 1955 — we did not have the faintest idea that hidden hardcore modernists held important positions of power and influence on the Vatican staff of none other than Pope Pius XII. It took many years for us to wake up to the fact that those hidden Modernists definitely played a decisive role in the suppression of nearly all of the long-time traditional octaves, as well as in bringing about other tradition-breaking changes in the Liturgy and in the Catholic way of life and thinking.
What does that say of the greatly admired and supposedly firmly traditional Pius XII? It hurts just to think about it.
While we are at it, let us say an extra word or two about the great Corpus Christi octave, which we again observed with special attention and devotion this year, early in June. Just as we did in days of old, long before the modernist infiltration of the Vatican, we truly and fully traditional priests and religious again prayed the traditional Corpus Christi office and offered the traditional Corpus Christi Mass every single day during that highly privileged octave, with feast of Saints having to give way to the Corpus Christi Office and Mass.
One extra special feature of the Corpus Christi octave from time immemorial was the practice, at the principal Masses in cathedral and parish churches and monastery chapels, of exposing the Blessed Sacrament in the Monstrance and setting it above the Tabernacle, there to let it stay all during the Masses of the octave. The Modernists surely wanted to put a stop to that. But Pius XII? Is that what he wanted?
Is it any wonder that it has been
said that the turning point for the eventual Modernist complete take-over of
the Vatican was the reign of Pope Pius XII?
FATHER
MARTIN STEPANICH’S QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
For April, May, and June of 2011
One significant thing about Easter, and the Easter Season, is the fact that a mere one-day commemoration of the Resurrection of Our Lord would never have been enough for the Number One Feast of the Liturgical Year. As Our Lord Himself devoted 40 days to manifesting the reality of His Resurrection to His joyful Mother and to His Apostles, so as to confirm them ever more and more in the faith, so does His Church also devote that same amount of time to celebrating Easter, so as to confirm all of us in our belief in Our Lord’s Resurrection, as well as in all the other unchangeable truths of our Catholic Faith.
That 40-day period begins with the Octave of Easter, and that Octave sets an example for many other feasts of the Church year that from time immemorial deserved to continue to be commemorated and celebrated for eight full days. Octaves of certain feasts have always been an integral part of the Church’s traditional observance of those feasts. To abolish those octaves, as had been done by tradition-breaking modernists, beginning already during the reign of Pope Pius XII, is wholly contrary to the traditional mind of the Church and can therefore be quite confusing to the faith of true tradition-minded Catholics.
The first feast to be celebrated with an octave after Easter is the Feast of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, which has traditionally been observed on the third Wednesday after Easter. The traditional Church’s purpose for adding a second Feast of Saint Joseph to the liturgical calendar was to make more solemn a Feast that could not be given enough solemnity on March 19, which always comes up in Lent. And not only was the second Feast of Saint Joseph solemnized, but a solemn Octave – Deo Gratias! - was added to it.
The hardcore Modernists who became firmly fixed in the Vatican of Pope Pius XII (believe it or not!) somehow managed to have the traditional Feast of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph abolished altogether and replaced by a secular-slanted and secular flavored Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker. Though that was all done by them supposedly in the name of Pius XII, it was very plainly in accord with the anti-traditional Modernist mind, but not in accord with the traditional mind of the Church.
One very prominent Octave of a major Feast of Our Lord during the Easter Season that the modernists succeeded in wiping out, already during the reign of Pius XII (again, believe it or not!), was the Octave of the Ascension of the Lord, thereby downgrading and minimizing the importance of that supremely important Feast. Miraculously though, the solemn top-ranking Octave of Pentecost escaped suppression by the Modernists! How did they miss that one?
Especially outstanding among the Feasts of Our Lord during the Church Year is the sublime Feast of Corpus Christi, which so glorifies the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. And magnificent was the way the 13th century Saint Thomas Aquinas, in obedience to the command of Pope Urban IV, composed the full text of the Corpus Christi Mass and Divine Office. While doing so, the Angelic Doctor, who so richly deserves to be acclaimed also as the Doctor of the Holy Eucharist, composed a number of Eucharistic hymns that have through the centuries become very familiar to truly traditional Catholics.
Among those Eucharistic hymns are, for example, the never to be forgotten O Salutaris and Tantum Ergo that have long been traditionally sung during Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament. Then, too, there is the well known Adoro Te Devote hymn (Devoutly I adore Thee) and the incomparable Corpus Christi sequence, Lauda Sion Salvatorem, which follows the Epistle of the Corpus Christi Mass. All praise and all thanksgiving to Saint Thomas Aquinas for all his inspired Eucharistic hymns!
All the liturgical changing in the 1950s, all the rearranging and suppressing of the Church’s traditional liturgical set-up, not just for Corpus Christi, but for other liturgical feasts, was naturally bound to cause, and definitely did cause, much confusion and consternation and division among traditional Catholics.
The first fact that all took into consideration was the fact that the liturgical changes of the 1950s were legislated with the name of Pope Pius XII attached to the pertinent decrees. And the reaction of all of us at that time was to accept the liturgical changes in obedience to the Holy Father. Normally, that would have been enough.
However, that did not tell us the full story of the 1950s liturgical changes. It did not give us the complete picture of all that was involved in bringing about those changes.
So, we have to realize that there was a second fact that stood out and it was the abrupt and drastic break from long-standing and even centuries-old traditions that the liturgical changes of the 1950s brought about. We old-timers who were for a long time well acquainted with the pre-1950s traditions and practices saw right away that the new 1950s liturgical changes were plainly tradition-braking changes.
Those who were not yet born in the 1950s, or who were at that time still quite young, were not particularly upset by the sharp break from the traditions that they never knew personally. For them, the liturgical changes were made by Rome and that was all there was to it. Some even strangely imagined that those changes were themselves “traditional,” even though they were plainly being introduced as something new.
Here we need to realize that Modernists have precisely the same mistaken notion of what tradition is. For them, any new idea or practice of their own that they introduce goes by the name of “tradition,” no matter what long-standing genuine Catholic tradition they thereby terminate and replace. Actually, Modernist “tradition” is nothing but an evolutionary, and therefore unstable and changeable, type of “tradition” that is not really tradition at all, but just a Modernist innovation.
The third fact that we dare not ignore, while considering the liturgical changes made under Pius XII in the 1950s, is the presence of hardcore Modernists on that Pope’s Vatican staff. It took us old-timers some years before we became fully aware of their presence in the Vatican. We knew their names very well, but without for a longtime knowing that they were Modernists. But Pius XII, didn’t he know? How did the Modernists manage to establish themselves in his office?
Conclusion (Still Fr. Stepanich)
Let us now take an extra look at
the contradictory and confusing picture of things that the foregoing three
facts put before us. First, a reputed strongly traditional Pope
introduces supposedly but not really traditional liturgical changes; secondly,
those supposedly traditional liturgical changes are in reality, and as plainly
as could be, tradition-breaking liturgical changes; thirdly, anti-traditional
hardcore Modernists work with a reputed strongly traditional Pope to issue
traditional-breaking liturgical changes.
How can such a mixture of contradiction possibly make sense? To get away from and stay away from all that, isn’t it best simply to stay with what was always surely traditional and surely free of all Modernist error? Of course it is! (All emphasis in the original)
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity!
Omnia pro Jesu per Mariam.
Thank you John Gregory for mentioning Father Stepanich in the post. Father Stepanich was one of the few Franciscans who refused Vatican II. In fact when I was still a baby in 2006 having been born in Illinois, my mom and baby me came passing by Father. He said that I will become a traditionalist when I grow up. In Sept. 2006 me and mom returned back to Cebu, the Philippines.
ReplyDelete