Sedevacantist
Watch…
HYPOCRISY ALERT:
FR. CEKADA RECOGNIZES AND RESISTS
POPE PIUS XII
In our book “True or False Pope?, we devote an entire chapter to explaining the
Church’s theology behind the “Recognize and Resist” position, that is, the
necessity to recognize a Pope or bishop’s authority to rule while, at the same
time, resisting any erroneous teachings or evil commands. In the chapter, we
provide many quotations from saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church who
explicitly advocated the position as part of Catholic teaching, and provide
real life, historical examples of saints putting this teaching into practice. These
teachings and practical examples of the saints will help to guide confused
Catholics through today’s crisis.
Because Fr. Cekada has an erroneous
understanding of papal infallibility (which we also expose in great detail in
our book), he believes the teachings and disciplines of a true Pope can never
be “resisted” because a true Pope, according to Cekada, “cannot give error or
evil.” In fact, Fr. Cekada actually calls those who resist the novelties of the
conciliar Popes (that is, Traditional Catholics) heretics. In addressing their
resistance to the New Mass, he writes:
“While many traditional Catholics adhere to the position that the New
Mass was illegally promulgated, advocates are especially numerous among the
members and supporters of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X
(SSPX). The theory fits neatly into what one can only term the Society’s
Jansenist/Gallican [Nota Bene: heretical]
concept of the papacy: The pope is ‘recognized,’ but his laws and teachings
must be ‘sifted.’ You get all the sentimental benefits of theoretically having
a pope, but none of the practical inconveniences of actually obeying him.”[1]
In his typical bitter spirit, Fr. Cekada engages in name-calling and ridicule - even
calling his opponents heretics - for acknowledging that Paul VI was a true
Pope, while resisting the New Mass. But, in labeling heretics those who acknowledge that Paul VI was a
true Pope, while resisting the non-binding liturgical reforms issued during his
Pontificate, Fr. Cekada indicts himself
of the crime by his own standards, since he himself does precisely what he
claims to be forbidden. As Scripture says: “Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O
man, … For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost
the same things which thou judgest.” (Rom. 2:1).
What is the act for which Fr. Cekada
“judgest another,” while he himself “dost the same things”? He rejects the
liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII, whom he recognizes as a true Pope! That’s
right, Cekada does exactly what he ridicules others for doing – namely,
“recognizing” Pius XII as a valid Pope, while he “sifts” and even rejects his
liturgical legislation.[2]
He even claims that the 1955 liturgical reforms of Pius XII are “harmful,”
while simultaneously claiming that it is impossible
for a true Pope to give harmful liturgical laws.
How, you may be wondering, does Fr.
Cekada justify such a blatant contradiction between his teaching and his praxis? He does so by claiming that the
liturgical laws of Pius XII only became
harmful after they were promulgated (based,
of course, to his own private judgment). In explaining his position, he wrote:
“A human ecclesiastical law that was
obligatory when promulgated can become harmful (nociva) through a change of circumstances after the passage of
time…this principle…applies equally to the 1955 reforms.”[3]
You see, Fr. Cekada cannot accuse Pius
XII of promulgating a harmful
universal discipline, since this is exactly what he accuses Paul VI of doing, and
what he cites as “proof” that Paul VI was not a true Pope. Hence, to get around
the obvious contradiction, Fr. Cekada argues that Pius XII did not promulgate
harmful laws. Rather, argues Fr. Cekada, Pius XII promulgated good laws that
only became harmful at a later date (the
next decade!), due to “a change of circumstances.” That is the argument Fr.
Cekada is forced to use to justify doing precisely what he mocks and ridicules
others for doing.
Specifically, Cekada conveniently argues
that Pius XII’s changes to the Holy Week rites in 1955, while not harmful in
themselves, transformed into harmful reforms with the benefit of “hindsight” - at
which time, he claims (based, of course, on his own private judgment), that
they “ceased” to be law. He claims
they became harmful in the
Traditional rite when they were incorporated into the Novus Ordo Missae a decade later. This is how he justifies his refusal to obey
the liturgical laws promulgated by Pius XII.
This argument is as laughable as it is fallacious, since the 1955 reforms (which were legally promulgated by Pius XII) were made to the Traditional rite itself (not the Novus Ordo). Hence, the Pius XII’s reforms must be judged in the context of the Traditional rite, on their own merits (or demerits). But based on his own authority (rooted in private judgment) Fr. Cekada claims that the laws “became” harmful, and consequently he refuses to obey these liturgical laws when he celebrates Holy Week. The question is: Are the 1955 reforms of Pius XII harmful to the Traditional rite or not? Whether some of these changes were also incorporated into the Novus Ordo later is irrelevant to that question. If the 1955 reforms are considered harmful in the Traditional Roman Rite (which Cekada effectively concedes because he eliminates them from the rite he celebrates) then they would have to be considered harmful in and of themselves, and therefore harmful when promulgated by Pius XII.
We answer this question in True or False Pope? by going into much
detail about Pius XII’s reforms, and thus won’t repeat it here. For now, it
suffices to note that Pius XII introduced some of the most drastic changes to
the Roman liturgy in the Church’s history, especially with respect to the rites
for Holy Week. For the most solemn
celebration in the Church’s liturgical year, Pius XII abolished ancient
prayers, eliminated parts of the Mass, created new rites, introduced the priest
facing the people and desired a greater physical
participation of the laity, even including their recitation of vocal prayers in the vernacular during the Mass! And Pius
XII did so under the same rationale of the conciliar revolutionaries – for
better “conformity” to “ancient liturgical traditions.” However, the truth is
that many of these changes under Pius XII were
completely without precedent in the history of the Roman Rite. Such reforms
certainly did not develop organically from the traditional Roman Rite, and many
of them can even be traced to Protestant (Luther/Cramner) influences. Can you
guess, dear reader, what Sedevacantists would have said about these reforms had
they originated with Paul VI or John Paul II? Would they not have declared them
evil in themselves, violative of the Church’s disciplinary infallibility, and
further “proof” that they were not true Popes?
For
Fr. Cekada to argue that these changes were not harmful under Pius XII, but only became harmful during the reign of Paul VI
(which is how he justifies not using the revised missal of Pius XII) only
reveals how barren his “harmful in hindsight” theory is. It is the proverbial
case of “having your cake and eating it too.” In Cekada’s own words, Pius XII’s
papacy is “recognized,” but his liturgical laws must be “sifted.” Cekada gets
“all the sentimental benefits of theoretically having a Pope (Pius XII), but
none of the practical inconveniences of actually obeying” his liturgical
legislation. Thus, Fr. Cekada continues to recognize Pius XII as a true Pope,
but rejects his laws and says Mass at his Sedevacantist chapels according to
pre-1950 rubrics.[4]
If Fr. Cekada were consistent, he would simply declare, on his own authority,
that Pius XII was a false Pope, and cite the harmful liturgical laws he
promulgated as “proof” (just like he does with Paul VI). But consistency is not something we have come
to expect from Fr. Cekada.
To further justify his novel “harmful in hindsight” theory, Fr. Cekada
conveniently claims that Pius XII’s liturgical reforms were “mere human
ecclesiastical laws, subject
to the general principles of interpretation for all church laws,” and thus “they no
long [sic] bind on two grounds.”[5] He
goes on to argue that Pius XII’s legislation “lacked one of the essential
qualities of a law — stability or perpetuity — and are therefore no longer
binding.”[6]
Such
nonsensical arguments only backfire for Cekada, since if the legislation of
Pius XII, which radically transformed the Roman Rite, can be disregarded as “mere
human ecclesiastical laws,” which lack “stability and perpetuity,” then
certainly the liturgical legislation of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
under Paul VI (which was not
promulgated by Paul VI), can be disregarded for the same reason, since they are
also “human ecclesiastical laws” which have been in a state of continuous aggiornamento even since they were
introduced. Furthermore, it is not correct to say Pius XII’s legislation “lacked
stability” since most of the legal changes were
made a permanent part of the Traditional rites, irrespective of their
incorporation into the Novus Ordo
years later.
Perhaps recognizing the weakness of his own novel arguments, Cekada is
ultimately forced to make excuses for Pope Pius XII. For example, in his book Work of Human Hands, he claims that Pius
XII “seemed to lack the common sense necessary for making sound practical
judgments.”[7]
He goes on to say: “This lack of practical judgment, I think, blinded Pius XII
to the disconnect between the teaching of Mediator
Dei and the liturgical changes he permitted to be introduced during his
reign.”[8] But
didn’t Cekada say the liturgical changes were just fine when promulgated by
Pius XII, and only became harmful years
later, in 1969? Isn’t this how Fr. Cekada justifies not obeying them? And if
the laws were just fine when promulgated by Pius XII, why claim that Pius XII
possessed a poor practical judgment that “blinded” him? Cekada also claims that
Pius XII was tricked into the reforms by alleged Freemason, Annibale Bugnini,
and consequently the reforms can be “ignored.” But again, why argue that he was
“tricked” when the laws were supposedly good when they were promulgated?
This
is more convenient and fluid argumentation from Fr. Anthony Cekada, which
further backfires on him. If Pius XII can be excused for lacking “practical
sense” and “practical judgment” in liturgical matters, then why can’t Paul VI
be excused for the same reasons? If Bugnini could have fooled Pius XII, then
why could he not have also fooled Paul VI?
Since Pius XII had already
approved many of the changes that Bugnini sought to introduce into the New
Mass, why not excuse Paul VI on the grounds that he was simply continuing the
work initiated by his venerable predecessor and relying on the same advisors
that Pius XII himself had trusted with the work? What is conceded for Pius XII
(misinformation, deception, lacking practical judgment) must also be conceded
for Paul VI, as a matter of equity and fairness.
All
of this demonstrates that Fr. Cekada is being completely inconsistent and quite
hypocritical for rejecting Pius XII’s liturgical reforms as being “harmful”
while recognizing him as Pope, yet at the same time claiming that the harmful
liturgical reforms that occurred during the reign of Paul VI (many of which
were approved by Pius XII) “prove” that Paul VI was not a true Pope. Thus, it
is Fr. Cekada, and not Traditional Catholics, who has the “Jansenist/Gallican
concept of the papacy,” since he not only “sifts” the liturgical laws of the
Popes he chooses to recognize, but also “sifts” the Popes themselves, telling
his followers just who is a valid Pope and who is not. It’s quite amazing how
Fr. Cekada can hold these positions publicly with a straight face. What is perhaps even more incredible is how
those who parrot his arguments against the Recognize and Resist position don’t
see (or don’t want to see) the
blatant contradiction in Fr. Cekada’s positions.
And it is not only the liturgical laws of Pius XII that Fr. Cekada rejects. He also refuses to say the Leonine prayers after Mass – prayers mandated by Pope Leo XIII that Cekada certainly cannot reject on the basis that they have become “harmful”. Fr. Cekada’s fellow Sedevacantist and former parishioner, Thomas Droleskey, who stopped attending Fr. Cekada’s church following a messy, Protestant-style split (more bad fruits of Sedevacantism), wrote about Fr. Cekada’s refusal to obey the liturgical laws mandating the recitation of the Leonine prayers, which were further enforced by Pius XI and Pius XII. Drolesky explains:
“There were always two major compromises that we had to
make in order to assist at Saint Gertrude the Great Church. The first of
these consisted of the refusal to say the prayers after low Mass. Sharon
and I both believe that this is gravely erroneous and offensive to the
ecclesial sense, that it is to attack popular piety and the good of Holy Mother
Church to exclude these prayers. This was a wound on our consciences from the
very beginning of our association with Saint Gertrude the Great Church. A
true pope mandated the recitation of these prayers. A true pope and no one
else can given the order to eliminate them. We need to pray three Ave
Marias and the shorter version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer after
most low Masses now more than ever before.”[9]
Once again, Fr. Cekada’s
“Jansenist/Gallican concept of the papacy” allows him to “recognize” Leo XIII,
Pius XI and Pius XII as valid Popes, but “sift” their liturgical legislation to
suit his own liturgical preferences. By refusing to say the Leonine
prayers after Mass, Fr. Cekada’s practice actually follows the liturgical
reforms under Paul VI, who Cekada claims is an
antipope.[10] And Fr.
Cekada has the gall to call Traditional Catholics “heretics” for adhering to
the binding declaration of St. Pius V in Quo
Primum while resisting the non-binding
liturgical reforms of Paul VI. As the reader will discover in our book True or False Pope?, such blatant hypocrisy – especially among priests and bishops of
the sect (or rather sects)- is quite common in the confused world of Sedevacantism.
[1] Did Paul VI
“Illegally” Promulgate the New Mass? (2000) by Rev. Anthony Cekada
[2] See Fr. Cekada’s
articles: “Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms ‘Illegal’?” (April 27,
2006); and “The Pius XII Reforms: More on the ‘Legal Issue,’”(July 11, 2006).
[3] “Is Rejecting the
Pius XII Liturgical Reforms ‘Illegal’?” http://www.traditionalmass .org/articles/
article.php?id=78&catname=6.
[4] We have confirmed
that when Fr. Cekada celebrates Mass at St. Hugh of Lincoln (a Sedevacantist
parish in Salza’s hometown of Milwaukee), he uses pre-1950 rubrics. And, in
another example of hypocrisy, Sedevacantist bishop Dan
Dolan celebrates on occasion Missae cantatae, a concession to bishops
allowed by Paul VI in Inter oecumenici (1964). Thus, according to his own
standards, Dolan acknowledges and follows a law of a “false Pope.”
[5] “Is Rejecting the Pius XII Liturgical Reforms
‘Illegal’?” http://www.traditionalmass .org/articles/
article.php?id=78&catname=6.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Cekada, Work of Human Hands (West Chester, Ohio:
Philothea Press, 2010), p. 64.
[8] Ibid.
[10] Pope Paul VI suppressed the
Leonine prayers by approving the Concilium’s Instruction Inter Oecumenici.
