While I agree with the argument of your video, I must say that the section in which you suggest necromancy is too much and can cause scandal. Father Cekada was just speaking about a hypothetical conversation; he never claimed to have spoken to Pope Pius XII after his death. It is merely a literary device used in a reasoning exercise to make his point. As a subscriber who appreciates the good work that you do, I strongly suggest, in charity, that you change the background image of a certain board, which we know Father Cekada would have never consulted, at the very least.
It IS my understanding that the changes made by Pius XII for Holy Week and other changes like Octaves were not formalized until the 1962 Missal was promulgated. I have a Missal with a date of 1956 with hand written pencil marks showing changes in Holy Week. Therefore, if true....Father Cekada and others are just following Missals formalized BEFORE the death of His Holiness (albeit weak) Pope Pius XII.
It's a prudential position based on a Church' principle called "epikeia". They are ready to submit to the authorities decisions about that, when there will be legitimate authorities able to light the situation up. That's it.
Example of epikeia: A father tell his children not to leave the house while he's gone, but a fire breaks out. It is not disobedience to leave the house because it was not the fathers intention for the children to stay in a burning house. Example of pre-55 position: A father tells the children not to leave the house Wally is gone, but the children leave anyway because they decide that the wiring is inferior and might lead to a fire in the future. Epkeia only applies to avoid some grave harm. But there is no harm to use the liturgy as it existed on the death of the last valid Pope.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 The Pius XII's reforms are not bad "in themselves" - it is useless to point it out - the problem is - as the documents show - that those reforms were inspired by the Cardinal Bea - later known as the father of ecumenism - and by Bugnini - the father of the 65' missal. The memoirs of them also show as they took advantage of the pontiff illness. For this reason - with the benefit of hindsight - a benefit that Pius XII did not have, we clearly see as those reforms (not bad in themselves, i repat myself) were the first step in a process that will lead to the missal of '65. If Pius XII had known the nature of these sulphurous men, would he have given his approval to such reforms? If there was currently a Pope would he keep those reforms inspired by two of the baddest modernist? Those are the solid reasons behind the choice to avoid - for the time being, prudentially - those reforms. As you see it's not a matter of nostalgia or taste, nor a form of disobedience against Pius XII.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 Exactly. Everywhere the reforms are applied in sedevacantist churches, there is no harm caused by using the new liturgy. So this argument of Epikeia that they use, the only one that could be valid to be honest, cannot be applied to that situation.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 You would keep THAT HORSE to remain in the citadel - you fool! Timeō Danaōs et dōna ferentēs -Laocoön If Priam only knew... his intention would be what? You obey what he said or reverse cause? We Roman Trojans reverse cause because Priam wills it so. Send back that horse and its machinations. The same is said with Pius XII. He is like fallen Priam allowing the horse of Odysseus into the citadel just like with Bugnini's new rites. To reverse course is the will of the lawgiver in both cases whether Priam or Pius. If Priam was able to survive he would will to reverse cause. You think otherwise? His trust with the Greeks was broken. Same is said with the other infiltrators. By the way there's nothing at first appearing intrinsically evil with the so-called Trojan horse except when learning the machinations hidden inside and its end goal. Therefore no way could Priam will otherwise nor any protectors of Troy. Same is said of new Troy, Rome. That horse must be sent back. This is a matter of survival.
Amen to that, Mr. Cekada and Mr. Sanborn never did not properly do their research not alone read the Holy Week Manual for Priests. Sanborn and Cekada are hypocritical of the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope Pius XII and sooner claim Roncalli as a Pope and justify his heresy. They blame all the changes that Roncalli and Montini made on Pius XII. They would not even read Mediator Dei written by Pope Pius XII. If these men are/were as smart as they claim, READ MEDIATOR DEI.
Interesting watch, thanks for sharing. We don't have much option but the pre 55 here. CMRI might have a point here but then they lose a point by allowing their faithful to attend the SSPX chapels. 🤷♂️
At least it was Catholic and not an innovation. Yet, in a true sense, it is no longer Catholic. You should share this video with your Bishop and priest. The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) firmly holds to the infallible teachings of Vatican Council I (1870), especially on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and it is for this reason that CMRI follows the liturgy approved by Pope Pius XII. Vatican Council I infallibly taught: “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors made the solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith. For it is impossible that the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who said “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18) should not be verified. And these truths have been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied and its teachings kept holy. “Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held, and the holy orthodox Doctors renewed and followed. For they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord and Savior made to the prince of His disciples, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren.’ (Luke 22:32).” The liturgy and liturgical laws are matters of the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility; Pope Pius XII, as a true pope, could not have promulgated a liturgy that was a danger to the faith. Furthermore, the Vatican Council also infallibly taught: “We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decisions.” Therefore, since Pope Pius XII was a true pope, the liturgy promulgated by him is not subject to review by anyone nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on the Pope’s decisions. Besides the “Restored Holy Week” of Pope Pius XII, this same Roman Pontiff established for the universal Church the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, May 1, and extended the Lenten fast on Holy Saturday to midnight.
This isn't worth arguing over. I attend pre 55 but I see both sides of it and don't believe the reform is harmful. We currently have no pope to settle it.
I obviously think pre 55 is better though. In the absence of a true pope to speak decisively on this, it is silly to cause division and criticise clergy for using prudence. It's like the home-aloners who think there can't be any jurisdiction for clergy to do anything since there is no pope. That's absurd.
The Pope, Pius XII, has already spoken. Obedience to authority is not a small matter. Christ gave us this example and His Bride must not depart from His example. The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) firmly holds to the infallible teachings of Vatican Council I (1870), especially on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and it is for this reason that CMRI follows the liturgy approved by Pope Pius XII. Vatican Council I infallibly taught: “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors made the solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith. For it is impossible that the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who said “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18) should not be verified. And these truths have been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied and its teachings kept holy. “Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held, and the holy orthodox Doctors renewed and followed. For they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord and Savior made to the prince of His disciples, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren.’ (Luke 22:32).” The liturgy and liturgical laws are matters of the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility; Pope Pius XII, as a true pope, could not have promulgated a liturgy that was a danger to the faith. Furthermore, the Vatican Council also infallibly taught: “We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decisions.” Therefore, since Pope Pius XII was a true pope, the liturgy promulgated by him is not subject to review by anyone nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on the Pope’s decisions. Besides the “Restored Holy Week” of Pope Pius XII, this same Roman Pontiff established for the universal Church the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, May 1, and extended the Lenten fast on Holy Saturday to midnight.
Do the CMRI hold to Session 7 Canon 13 of the Council of Trent? It says absolutely nothing is to change as does "Quo Primum" which has a curse attached to anyone who dares to alter their Missal?
Thank you for comment, and your work in general. videos showing crimes if n o very good. I didn't in anyway mean to suggest Pope Pius XII wasn't holy, good.? I just have wondered if freemasons were moving in, and might be controlling him?? He started out with holy des Lauriers as confessor, then Bea, a Jew as a "confessor" at end. I do think freemasons knew 1960 was imminent, and freemasons do like to kill Catholics. I shudder at Poor Pius XII... Absolutely no evidence. But freemasons hate Popes and Satan fears Our Lady (of Fatima). Peace/ thank you again
I find your pronunciation of "Sedevacantist" to be quite strange. Is this common amongst Americans? I am sincerely not convinced of your argument. The traditional Holy Week is one of the most ancient artifacts that we have in the Roman liturgy, and there is no justification for altering it. The further we move away from the Apostles, the further we move away from Christ. Novelty is only pleasing to people, not God.
The pope represents Jesus Christ on earth. To disobey, the pope is to disobey Jesus. Are you going to use what you believe to be the most ancient liturgy or are you going to obey the pope?
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 It is mutch more nuanced than that. Take for example Austria, where the Holy Week reforms were never adopted. What would you say in that case? Pius XII also made drastic changes to the Eucharistic Fast, yes? Would I be disobeying the Pope by holding to the traditional Fast in place of his '53 instruction?
@@4kvat You wouldn’t disobey the Pope, especially when referring to the change from fasting the day before Communion to fasting 3 hours before Communion, because it is stated as 'at least 3 hours,' meaning you can fast, in theory, for an unlimited time before receiving Communion if you so desire. However, the Pope never said you can choose between the new guideline he proposes to the universal Church and the old one. I assume, if what you've said about Austria is accurate, that there were some very specific circumstances that led the country not to adopt the reforms. Here is a lengthy quote from Pope Pius XII himself regarding not accepting the new liturgy, in his encyclical Mediator Dei: "61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man. 62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. 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 tableform; 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. 63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation. 64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation. 65. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock,[54] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,"[55] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority - even on occasion with wholesome severity - you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church." It should be enough information to decide what to do regarding that matter.
While I agree with the argument of your video, I must say that the section in which you suggest necromancy is too much and can cause scandal. Father Cekada was just speaking about a hypothetical conversation; he never claimed to have spoken to Pope Pius XII after his death. It is merely a literary device used in a reasoning exercise to make his point. As a subscriber who appreciates the good work that you do, I strongly suggest, in charity, that you change the background image of a certain board, which we know Father Cekada would have never consulted, at the very least.
Very good points! Ave Maria
It IS my understanding that the changes made by Pius XII for Holy Week and other changes like Octaves were not formalized until the 1962 Missal was promulgated. I have a Missal with a date of 1956 with hand written pencil marks showing changes in Holy Week. Therefore, if true....Father Cekada and others are just following Missals formalized BEFORE the death of His Holiness (albeit weak) Pope Pius XII.
I was told this was a hum-dinger
The ding was hummed
It's a prudential position based on a Church' principle called "epikeia". They are ready to submit to the authorities decisions about that, when there will be legitimate authorities able to light the situation up. That's it.
Example of epikeia: A father tell his children not to leave the house while he's gone, but a fire breaks out. It is not disobedience to leave the house because it was not the fathers intention for the children to stay in a burning house.
Example of pre-55 position: A father tells the children not to leave the house Wally is gone, but the children leave anyway because they decide that the wiring is inferior and might lead to a fire in the future.
Epkeia only applies to avoid some grave harm. But there is no harm to use the liturgy as it existed on the death of the last valid Pope.
Epikeia is a valid principle, but it is not a license to do what you want.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 The Pius XII's reforms are not bad "in themselves" - it is useless to point it out - the problem is - as the documents show - that those reforms were inspired by the Cardinal Bea - later known as the father of ecumenism - and by Bugnini - the father of the 65' missal. The memoirs of them also show as they took advantage of the pontiff illness. For this reason - with the benefit of hindsight - a benefit that Pius XII did not have, we clearly see as those reforms (not bad in themselves, i repat myself) were the first step in a process that will lead to the missal of '65. If Pius XII had known the nature of these sulphurous men, would he have given his approval to such reforms? If there was currently a Pope would he keep those reforms inspired by two of the baddest modernist? Those are the solid reasons behind the choice to avoid - for the time being, prudentially - those reforms. As you see it's not a matter of nostalgia or taste, nor a form of disobedience against Pius XII.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 Exactly. Everywhere the reforms are applied in sedevacantist churches, there is no harm caused by using the new liturgy. So this argument of Epikeia that they use, the only one that could be valid to be honest, cannot be applied to that situation.
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 You would keep THAT HORSE to remain in the citadel - you fool! Timeō Danaōs et dōna ferentēs -Laocoön If Priam only knew... his intention would be what? You obey what he said or reverse cause? We Roman Trojans reverse cause because Priam wills it so. Send back that horse and its machinations. The same is said with Pius XII. He is like fallen Priam allowing the horse of Odysseus into the citadel just like with Bugnini's new rites. To reverse course is the will of the lawgiver in both cases whether Priam or Pius. If Priam was able to survive he would will to reverse cause. You think otherwise? His trust with the Greeks was broken. Same is said with the other infiltrators. By the way there's nothing at first appearing intrinsically evil with the so-called Trojan horse except when learning the machinations hidden inside and its end goal. Therefore no way could Priam will otherwise nor any protectors of Troy. Same is said of new Troy, Rome. That horse must be sent back. This is a matter of survival.
Title has an error. You meant PRE not PER 1955
Thank you. I guess I'm a little dyslexic.
This video is outrageous and without any basis.
Amen to that, Mr. Cekada and Mr. Sanborn never did not properly do their research not alone read the Holy Week Manual for Priests. Sanborn and Cekada are hypocritical of the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope Pius XII and sooner claim Roncalli as a Pope and justify his heresy. They blame all the changes that Roncalli and Montini made on Pius XII. They would not even read Mediator Dei written by Pope Pius XII. If these men are/were as smart as they claim, READ MEDIATOR DEI.
RR sedevacantista
What's RR sedevacantist?
Are you serious? Your statement is outrageous and without any merit.
Interesting watch, thanks for sharing. We don't have much option but the pre 55 here. CMRI might have a point here but then they lose a point by allowing their faithful to attend the SSPX chapels. 🤷♂️
What is the particular recording for the intro?
th-cam.com/video/vmsEOsohZKM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=gwfOiAfM2bDt9Wbi
Your arguments are convincing. Do you believe it is wrong to attend a pre 55 holy week liturgy?
At least it was Catholic and not an innovation. Yet, in a true sense, it is no longer Catholic. You should share this video with your Bishop and priest.
The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) firmly holds to the infallible teachings of Vatican Council I (1870), especially on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and it is for this reason that CMRI follows the liturgy approved by Pope Pius XII.
Vatican Council I infallibly taught:
“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors made the solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith. For it is impossible that the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who said “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18) should not be verified. And these truths have been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied and its teachings kept holy.
“Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held, and the holy orthodox Doctors renewed and followed. For they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord and Savior made to the prince of His disciples, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren.’ (Luke 22:32).”
The liturgy and liturgical laws are matters of the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility; Pope Pius XII, as a true pope, could not have promulgated a liturgy that was a danger to the faith. Furthermore, the Vatican Council also infallibly taught:
“We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decisions.”
Therefore, since Pope Pius XII was a true pope, the liturgy promulgated by him is not subject to review by anyone nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on the Pope’s decisions.
Besides the “Restored Holy Week” of Pope Pius XII, this same Roman Pontiff established for the universal Church the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, May 1, and extended the Lenten fast on Holy Saturday to midnight.
This isn't worth arguing over. I attend pre 55 but I see both sides of it and don't believe the reform is harmful. We currently have no pope to settle it.
I obviously think pre 55 is better though. In the absence of a true pope to speak decisively on this, it is silly to cause division and criticise clergy for using prudence. It's like the home-aloners who think there can't be any jurisdiction for clergy to do anything since there is no pope. That's absurd.
The church provides for sede vacanti occasions and we can know what to do and what to reject
The Pope, Pius XII, has already spoken. Obedience to authority is not a small matter. Christ gave us this example and His Bride must not depart from His example.
The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) firmly holds to the infallible teachings of Vatican Council I (1870), especially on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and it is for this reason that CMRI follows the liturgy approved by Pope Pius XII.
Vatican Council I infallibly taught:
“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors made the solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith. For it is impossible that the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who said “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18) should not be verified. And these truths have been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied and its teachings kept holy.
“Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held, and the holy orthodox Doctors renewed and followed. For they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord and Savior made to the prince of His disciples, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren.’ (Luke 22:32).”
The liturgy and liturgical laws are matters of the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility; Pope Pius XII, as a true pope, could not have promulgated a liturgy that was a danger to the faith. Furthermore, the Vatican Council also infallibly taught:
“We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decisions.”
Therefore, since Pope Pius XII was a true pope, the liturgy promulgated by him is not subject to review by anyone nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on the Pope’s decisions.
Besides the “Restored Holy Week” of Pope Pius XII, this same Roman Pontiff established for the universal Church the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, May 1, and extended the Lenten fast on Holy Saturday to midnight.
Do the CMRI hold to Session 7 Canon 13 of the Council of Trent? It says absolutely nothing is to change as does "Quo Primum" which has a curse attached to anyone who dares to alter their Missal?
Was Pope Pius XII "captured" in a sense by freemason wolves around him? Was he murdered?
No. I believe Pius XII was a holy pope. There is nothing wrong with his changes.
Thank you for comment, and your work in general. videos showing crimes if n o very good.
I didn't in anyway mean to suggest Pope Pius XII wasn't holy, good.?
I just have wondered if freemasons were moving in, and might be controlling him??
He started out with holy des Lauriers as confessor, then Bea, a Jew as a "confessor" at end.
I do think freemasons knew 1960 was imminent, and freemasons do like to kill Catholics. I shudder at Poor Pius XII... Absolutely no evidence. But freemasons hate Popes and Satan fears Our Lady (of Fatima).
Peace/ thank you again
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 No
I find your pronunciation of "Sedevacantist" to be quite strange. Is this common amongst Americans?
I am sincerely not convinced of your argument. The traditional Holy Week is one of the most ancient artifacts that we have in the Roman liturgy, and there is no justification for altering it.
The further we move away from the Apostles, the further we move away from Christ. Novelty is only pleasing to people, not God.
The pope represents Jesus Christ on earth.
To disobey, the pope is to disobey Jesus.
Are you going to use what you believe to be the most ancient liturgy or are you going to obey the pope?
@@catholiccrusaderfilms3974 It is mutch more nuanced than that. Take for example Austria, where the Holy Week reforms were never adopted. What would you say in that case?
Pius XII also made drastic changes to the Eucharistic Fast, yes? Would I be disobeying the Pope by holding to the traditional Fast in place of his '53 instruction?
@@4kvat You wouldn’t disobey the Pope, especially when referring to the change from fasting the day before Communion to fasting 3 hours before Communion, because it is stated as 'at least 3 hours,' meaning you can fast, in theory, for an unlimited time before receiving Communion if you so desire. However, the Pope never said you can choose between the new guideline he proposes to the universal Church and the old one. I assume, if what you've said about Austria is accurate, that there were some very specific circumstances that led the country not to adopt the reforms.
Here is a lengthy quote from Pope Pius XII himself regarding not accepting the new liturgy, in his encyclical Mediator Dei:
"61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. 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 tableform; 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.
63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.
65. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock,[54] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,"[55] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority - even on occasion with wholesome severity - you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church."
It should be enough information to decide what to do regarding that matter.