Within some Sedevacantist circles, Pius XII, whose papal reign was from 1939 to 1958, was the last final pope before the Great Apostasy. Notwithstanding, many argue that the change in the liturgy of the Tridentine (Latin) Mass from the 1951 rubrics to the 1958 rubrics, introduced by none other than Pius XII (the “Angelic Pastor” [Lat. Pastor Angelicus]) were not only unnecessary, but actually theologically harmful and destructive. Anthony Cekada, a Sedevacantist priest, wrote the following about how, on such an important theological issue, the wool was pulled over the head of Pius XII:
2. And Pastor Angelicus? At this point in our narrative, we can see the direction the liturgical changes are taking—and it is away from the magnificent ideals for the liturgy that Pius XII himself enunciated in Mediator Dei. Did the “Angelic Pastor” himself see this? If he did, why didn’t he do something to stop it?
First, there was the character of Pius XII. While he was absolutely impeccable when it came to doctrine and theory, he seemed to lack the common sense necessary for making sound practical judgments. He was too credulous, too easily “wowed” by the appearance of treat intellectual abilities, too much a man with his head in the clouds.
Pius XII recognized that that during his reign the Church had plenty of rats in its walls—see his condemnation of the “new theology” in Humani Generis, and indeed, see the warnings to the Liturgical Movement he issued during his 1956 allocution to the Assisi Congress.
Unfortunately, Pius XII lacked the practical sense to be a sufficiently ruthless exterminator. Instead of personally preparing erudite discourses for visiting groups of gas distributors and fashion models (he was known to do his own research for papal audiences), he probably should have been over at the Holy Office, poring over the files of modernist theologians to drum out of the priesthood forever (Chenu, Schillebeeckx, Ongar, de Lubac, Rahner, Balthasar, Murray) and ferreting out their prelatial sympathizers for demotion to hospital and orphanage chaplaincies (Lercaro, Roncalli, Montini, and a large chunk of the French and German hierarchy).
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. His adoption of a “policy of controlled concession,” fit neatly into the long-term agenda that the leaders of the Liturgical Movement had already laid out.
Second, precisely because of this lack of practical judgment, one cannot discount the very real possibility that Bugnini and company pulled the wool over the eyes of the Angelic Pastor. We have already seen Bugnini mask his true colors in 1946 in order to promote the liturgical revolution, and we will see him deceive and dissimulate again for the sake of the cause. It is not hard to believe that he and his fellow revolutionaries hoodwinked Pius XII about what their real agenda was.
Indeed, Bugnini himself hints at this. After he tells us in his memoirs that the Pian commission worked in such secrecy that its 1951 Ordo for Holy Saturday caught even the Congregation of Rites by surprise, Bugnini drops the following tantalizing nugget:
The commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini and even more, on a weekly basis, by Fr. Bea, confessor of Pius XII. Thanks to them, the commission was able to achieve important results even during periods when the Pope’s illness kept everyone else from approaching him. (Bugnini, La Riforma Liturgica, 22)
The period of Pius XII’s illness mentioned here began in January 1954; he had recovered by August, but by December 1954 was so ill again that his doctors thought he was near death. It was during this period of time that Bugnini and his allies were preparing the new 1955 Holy Week rites. Archbishop Montini (later Paul VI) and Agostino Bea (later a cardinal and premier ecumenist) will prove to be Bugnini’s strongest supporters when Curial officials later have him fired for being a liturgical “iconoclast.”
We now have with benefit of hindsight that these men were set on a course to ruin the Church. But if you are a gravely ill 79-year-old pope who is a bit credulous, and your trusted Jesuit confessor brings you a document to approve, telling you it is just fine because it was all put together by that smart, young liturgist Father Bugnini, what are the chances that you will say no? (Anthony Cekada, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI [West Chester, Ohio: SGG Resources, 2010], 64-65)
No matter how one cuts it, such shows that Papal Infallibility and the purported freedom of error for decrees on the Mass and other important areas (the concept of “secondary objects of infallibility”) are nigh unto impossible to defend, whether one is a “mainstream” or even an ultra-Traditionalist Roman Catholic. Furthermore, Cekeada et al are inconsistent for rejecting Paul VI and his successors for introducing theological errors while accepting Pius as a true pope.