As for the bolded portion of text, do you believe that is still an accurate assumption/deduction?  I do not.

JohnGrey said:

Quote

... I know of no SV congregation that observes the 3-hour mitigation.  SSPX, or any group using the John XXIII missal would no doubt use the same fast.  This was done to appease modern weakness, and was introduced during the experimental period between 1950 - 1956.

The CMRI which is the biggest SV congregation in the world, most likely, definitely observes this reduced fast.  I personally don't, but I don't say others are wrong to do so.

If Pius XII was a true Pope, as pretty much everyone believes he is, then this is a discipline that can't be questioned.

The same goes for the Holy Week changes under Bugnini in 1955.  If Pius XII was the Pope, then God was still protecting what sits in Rome, and all disciplines, all changes in the liturgy were protected by the Holy Ghost.  Remember what the Council of Trent says about saying the true Church can promote a liturgy that is an "incentive to impiety..."

God can use Bugnini just as he can use an immoral Pope for his own ends.
 
I must confess, the SSPX is more logical in this one case, at least.  There is no real way to prove that John XXIII wasn't a Pope.  If you say "He was a Mason," show me the proof.  If you say "He convened the Council," so what?  It hadn't yet been put into place, you can't assume he knew what direction it would take.  Besides that, Pius XII spoke of a future Council that would be convened by his successor.  If you're going to judge internal intentions based on external impressions, then you'd better eliminate Pius XII too, who said some extremely questionable things.  I tried to do that once, it didn't take, so my new theory is that Pius XII was a true Pope but a weak one.

The exact line of demarcation that divides the true Church from the non-Church is not easy to spot.  But where all sedes agree, if not the SSPX, is that from Paul VI on we have had nothing but non-Popes, so that everything after the VII Council was signed is null.  

Changing the length of the fast doesn't change the Faith.  Nevertheless, it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.

The Encyclical Pacem in Terris supported religious liberty.

it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.

Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.  

Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church.  Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life.  He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.

Quote

it could very well have been a bad decision, judging from subsequent events.

Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.  

Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church.  Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life.  He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.

This argument does not track.  A distinction must be understood between a valid, licit discipline which over time loses its utility or positive effect, and one that, by its ingrained theology, overthrows the infallible doctrine and espouses heresy by its very promulgation.  The profane supper of Montini is such a "discipline."

That said, if there is probable evidence that the following of ecclesiastical law will cause harm to the faith, the precepts of canon law not only allow but necessitate its abandonment.  That is the very founding principle of epikea.

Quote from: Ambrose

It is the words of the Pope.  I leave it at that.  He is the shepherd, we are the sheep.

Yet, this does not apply to MANY words of V2-era popes?  How do you explain that one?  You do accept them as legitimate pontiffs, yes?

When I speak of Pius XII, I am referring to a Pope.  The Vatican II claimants, are just that, claimants.  I reject their claim based on their promulgation of evil laws and erroneous official teaching, things that Popes cannot do.

My attitude towards a Pope can be summed up in the quote from St. Pius X below.  I have that love for our deceased Holy Father, Pius XII.  This teaching of Pope St. Pius X cannot be faithfully applied to the post Vatican II claimants, yet one more proof among many that they are anti-popes.

"How must one love the Pope? Not only with words but with actions, as well, and with sincerity . . . When one loves the Pope, one must not discuss on what He advises or demands, as to find out which are the duties of obedience, and to limit there one's obligations. When one loves the Pope, one does not object that He has not spoken clearly enough, as if He was to tell each and everyone His will clearly expressed many times, not only in speech, but in His letters and public docuмents; one may not doubt His orders under the pretext that they do no emanate from Him directly, but from His entourage; one may not limit where He may and must exercise His will; one may not oppose the authority of the Pope against that of others, no matter how well educated, who differ from the Pope's mind. Besides, whatever their knowledge, sanctity is lacking in them, for there could not be sanctity where this is disagreement with the Pope." (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

Latin original from the Acta:
"Perciò quando si ama il Papa, non si fanno discussioni intorno a quello che Egli dispone od esige, o fin dove debba giungere l'obbedienza, ed in quali cose si debba obbedire; quando si ama il Papa, non si dice che non ha parlato abbastanza chiaro, quasi che Egli fosse obbligato di ripetere all'orecchio d'ognuno quella volontà chiaramente espressa tante volte non solo a voce, ma con lettere ed altri pubblici docuмenti; non si mettono in dubbio i suoi ordini, adducendo il facile pretesto di chi non vuole ubbidire, che non è il Papa che comanda, ma quelli che lo circondano; non si limita il campo in cui Egli possa e debba esercitare la sua autorità; non si antepone alla autorità del Papa quella di altre persone per quanto dotte che dissentano dal Papa, le quali se sono, dotte non sono sante, perchè chi è santo non può dissentire dal Papa."  (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

Quote from: Ambrose

Subsequent events do not prove that the liturgical changes of Popes St. Pius X, through Pius XII were bad decisions.  

They certainly indicate it.  What started as small changes snowballed into catastrophic changes, and Bugnini was always there.  I reject Bugnini's legacy.

Quote

Another way of looking at this is to view the changes as good changes which were later hijacked by enemies of the Church.  Pius XII could not control events after his death, he could only control events in the Church during his life.  He not only approved these changes but supported them publicly as the quote shows.

The midnight fast was an immemorial tradition of the Church.

That it was changed just prior to Vatican II is no coincidence.

You have made conclusions about Pius XII's law, but I disagree. You find a connection between a law given to the universal Church and accepted by the Church, with evil laws given by anti-popes.  I do not see this connection.  

The Catholic Church in the 1950's was functioning.  The Church fed the sheep.  The Church taught, governed and sanctified the faithful.  It was for this reason that Catholics faithfully and piously accepted all of the liturgical reforms of the 20th century popes, St. Pius X through Pope Pius XII.

None of the above referenced changes or adaptions resulted from false principles nor did it end in the perversion of the liturgy itself.  One may conjecture about hidden motives, but such an endeavor is essentially fruitless if the external, verifiable object is without essential defect.  To treat the matter as if it were a "contagious disease" because the name Bugnini is attached is to replace the objective with the subjective.  Bugnini didn't create a liturgy, Roman authority augmented extrinsic discipline.

None of the above referenced changes or adaptions resulted from false principles nor did it end in the perversion of the liturgy itself.  One may conjecture about hidden motives, but such an endeavor is essentially fruitless if the external, verifiable object is without essential defect.  To treat the matter as if it were a "contagious disease" because the name Bugnini is attached is to replace the objective with the subjective.  Bugnini didn't create a liturgy, Roman authority augmented extrinsic discipline.

Well said.