Are there any sedevacantist groups/priets that use the liturgy/missal/breviary right up until Vatican 2? That is, they use the Bugini reforms because even though they are seriously suspect, they were still approved by a valid pope (Pius XII)?

The CMRI uses the 1955 Missal, very very few sedevacantist priests use the 1962.

Maybe you will also find this thread interesting:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Centenary-of-Divino-afflatu

Thank you. I am reading it right now. What I cannot understand is how some sede clergy like those at SGG demand that those in the "recognize and resist" camp (aka SSPX) start obeying Benedict XVI if they claim he is really the pope, YET they themselves don't really obey the last true pope Pius XII by not using the Bugini reforms (holy Week and '55 Missal).

Yes, the 1955/Holy week reforms were probably masonically influenced by Cardinal Bugini, NEVERTHELESS, they were authorized infalliably by a true pope-Pius XII. Were they not?

I was told by a knowledgeable fellow that the changes of 1955 were published by Pope Pius XII as "experimental" and that Church law/tradition puts a 20-year expiration on expirimental changes to liturgical practice.  Now, this gentleman could not provide me with an English-language docuмent that demonstrates the 1955 changes were classified as experimental nor could he identify to me the 20-year expiration, but if this is accurate, it provides a rational explanation for those priests who use the pre-1955 liturgy.

I have tried to identify the sources of these claims, though not earnestly.  I simply don't know where to look.  Furthermore, since I've only heard this from one person and nowhere else I know has ever made this claim, I am not confident that such evidence exists and if it does, it is likely never been translated into English as such a translation would not have been needed in 1955.

I would like to note an error in the title of this topic.  There is no such thing as a "sedevacantist liturgy".  Sedevacantists use a Catholic liturgy as opposed to the Protestant liturgy used by the Conciliar church.

Every SSPX priest I've ever talked to about the Holy Week changes can't stand it, but they tolerate it out of obedience, since it was Pius XII.

I rather think they tolerate it out of obedience to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, not to Pius XII.

A bit of history – perhaps people know this already, but some may not: When the first priests were ordained at Econe (the 1965 liturgy was normal usage there until 1974) and sent out to the new 'missions', they were told to follow the 'customs of the country', i.e. to say Mass in the same way as the independent or retired parish priests who were supporting the traditional movement. In the UK these priests were all using the 1954 liturgy, so the SSPX priests followed suit. I think this was also the case in the USA, Australia and Germany. In countries where the Liturgical Movement had been more established before the Council, such as France and Switzerland, the custom became to use the liturgy of 1962.

Given that with the introduction of the Novus Ordo, all the previous rubrics had fallen into desuetude, the SSPX no doubt saw this as a sensible and practical measure and had no idea of imposing uniformity. On whose authority, after all?
Then there was a big change in 1984. Archbishop Lefebvre was involved in negotiations with Rome and it seems that he felt, with the best possible intention, that things would look better if the priests of Society could all be seen to be using the same liturgy – and he chose that of 1962 (on the grounds that this was being used at Econe, I assume). This was to become the case throughout the SSPX from Holy Week of 1984 and priests who didn’t agree would have to leave. So a practical, albeit arbitrary decision, although the Archbishop himself was certainly convinced that Bugnini was a Freemason and that the 1955/1960 changes were not good – just not bad enough to warrant their rejection.

This is no doubt correct from a theological and doctrinal point of view. BUT – it leaves out the context and background. We know Bugnini had a lot to do with these changes, even those in the time of Pius XII, and that they were all part of the modernists’ admitted attempt to get people used to constant liturgical change and to produce permanent revolution in the liturgy, with the eventual aim of abolishing it. Pius XII couldn’t see it as the time, of course, nor could anybody else. But should the SSPX and the traditional movement in general be tied to such a temporary and tendentious liturgy? Knowing what we know now, is it not asking a lot, psychologically, of traditional priests to live in a 1960’s time-warp (certainly the most destructive decade of modern times – Vatican II, 1968 revolutions) and to have to say a Mass and Office every day that was produced by a possible Freemason? The liturgy is an important part of a priest’s daily life, after all, and there’s more to it than doctrinal correctness.

And one can see the fruits. Obviously the SSPX has flourished greatly despite of it. But on the other hand there’s been a fallout. Priests who’ve left the Society because of it, and perhaps became SV’s, and laity who have given up practising the faith because of it. It’s a sad business, the result of a historical accident, nobody’s fault. But was it really necessary?

One good point, though. 'The Mass of "Blessed John XXIII"', the 'Extraordinary Form', the 'Usus Antiquior' – all these terrible phrases – and now the idea of rewriting prayers, adding new prefaces and so on. At least it’s the 1962 liturgy that is in the hands of the modernists, being said with women altar servers and Communion in the hand, as happened recently in England. And perhaps eventually becoming 'The Mass of Benedict XVI'. The liturgy of 1954 has been kept well out of it. So perhaps the Holy Ghost works where we least expect!  
 

Pius XII couldn’t see it as the time, of course, nor could anybody else.  

Is that really for us to decide? Is it up to decide what was in Pius XII's head? The fact is he as pope made the changes, and they remained binding on the church until the day he died. Since we sedevacantists acknowledge him as the last true pope, do we really have the authority to go back and override a legitimate change that a true pope made?

Excuse me, but do you have any proof to back up this statement? As far as I know, the SSPX was founded in 1969 or 1970 to train seminarians in the Tridentine Latin Mass and no other, including the hybrid 1965 Mass.

Here is a description of the Mass in the first house of the SSPX in Fribourg in Switzerland in 1969 (from Marcel Lefebvre by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, pp. 415-16):

The community Mass in the morning was the center and source of the seminarians' daily activities. The missal of St. Pius V was said in Latin with the psalm Judica me and the Last Gospel omitted according to the reforms of 1965. Moreover, up to the Credo, the priest stood at the sedilia and not at the altar. "That is the 'Mass of the Catechumens,' but afterwards the Mass is truly the concern of the priest." ([Archbishop Lefebvre,] October 29, 1969). The two readings were given from lecterns on the Epistle and Gospel side. The reading aloud of Holy Scripture while the priest faced the congregation "was meant to increase our faith." ...

However, Archbishop Lefebvre realized that he was out of step with all the other priests saying the old Mass, and in 1974 he gave up the clear separation between the "Mass of the Catechumens" and the "Mass of the Faithful." Henceforth, in the main chapel at Econe - which for a while was only a low barn with some furnishings - the entirety of the Mass took place at the altar.

Elsewhere in the book, sorry, can't find the page, Bishop Tissier says that the Archbishop decided to keep the "Mass of the Catechumens" in Latin because Fribourg was an international house. If it had been for French students only, that part of the Mass would have been in French. The Archbishop's first aim was to train "true priests" in the true faith and within a thomistic framework, and the Mass, so long as it wasn't the New Mass, was secondary to that aim.  

A priest who was ordained at Econe in 1977 told me that it was persuasion from "the American students", i.e. some of those who later became "The Nine", that persuaded the Archbishop to abandon the Mass of 1965. He also said that at that time there was no training given in how to say the Mass. It was left to each deacon to ask an older priest to go through it with him, which he himself did only on the day before his Ordination!

I'm not writing this in a spirit of criticism, but just to show how liturgy was regarded in the early 1970's, even among traditionalists, against the background of the liturgical choas that was going on at the time. At Econe they were relaxed about it. The old Mass had been swept away, whether with the rubrics of 1911, 1954 or 1962. If a priest wanted to say his office using a breviary of Leo XIII, that was fine - it was nobody's business - all that had been abolished anyway. The idea of "rubrical correctness" in the old rite first emerged from America and would have been seen as the height of legalism at that time. All that changed later, of course!

Are there any sedevacantist groups/priets that use the liturgy/missal/breviary right up until Vatican 2? That is, they use the Bugini reforms because even though they are seriously suspect, they were still approved by a valid pope (Pius XII)?

There was an independent (sedevacantist) chapel I attended for a while that used the 1958 missal.

Pius XII = Worst Pope ever.  Worse than Alexander VI.