The Pius XII Reforms: More on the Legal Issue by Rev. Anthony Cekada (2006)
Despite Bugnini, why not just obey “the last true pope”?
In April 2006 I posted a short article on the Internet that explained briefly why rejecting the Pius XII Holy Week reforms and adhering to the previous liturgical practices was not really “illegal,” arbitrary, or a case of “picking and choosing” à la SSPX.
I pointed out that, by applying the general principles for the interpretation of ecclesiastical laws, the laws imposing the reforms could no longer be considered binding because:
1. They lacked one of the essential qualities of a law, stability (or perpetuity); and
2. They became harmful (nociva) because of a change of circumstances, and hence automatically ceased to bind.
To support the factual claims for each argument, I quoted extensively from a 1955 work by Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who was not only involved in formulating the Pius XII reforms, but also the person most directly responsible for the creation of the Novus Ordo in 1969.
Bugnini repeatedly described the reforms as provisional or as steps leading to measures that would be even more far-reaching (read: the Novus Ordo).
Despite Bugnini, why not just obey “the last true pope”?
In April 2006 I posted a short article on the Internet that explained briefly why rejecting the Pius XII Holy Week reforms and adhering to the previous liturgical practices was not really “illegal,” arbitrary, or a case of “picking and choosing” à la SSPX.
I pointed out that, by applying the general principles for the interpretation of ecclesiastical laws, the laws imposing the reforms could no longer be considered binding because:
1. They lacked one of the essential qualities of a law, stability (or perpetuity); and
2. They became harmful (nociva) because of a change of circumstances, and hence automatically ceased to bind.
To support the factual claims for each argument, I quoted extensively from a 1955 work by Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who was not only involved in formulating the Pius XII reforms, but also the person most directly responsible for the creation of the Novus Ordo in 1969.
Bugnini repeatedly described the reforms as provisional or as steps leading to measures that would be even more far-reaching (read: the Novus Ordo).
Despite Bugnini, why not just obey “the last true pope”?
In April 2006 I posted a short article on the Internet that explained briefly why rejecting the Pius XII Holy Week reforms and adhering to the previous liturgical practices was not really “illegal,” arbitrary, or a case of “picking and choosing” à la SSPX.
I pointed out that, by applying the general principles for the interpretation of ecclesiastical laws, the laws imposing the reforms could no longer be considered binding because:
1. They lacked one of the essential qualities of a law, stability (or perpetuity); and
2. They became harmful (nociva) because of a change of circumstances, and hence automatically ceased to bind.
To support the factual claims for each argument, I quoted extensively from a 1955 work by Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who was not only involved in formulating the Pius XII reforms, but also the person most directly responsible for the creation of the Novus Ordo in 1969.
Bugnini repeatedly described the reforms as provisional or as steps leading to measures that would be even more far-reaching (read: the Novus Ordo).