I would be surprised if he responded any differently, and yet, there it is, +ABL explaining what he believes una cuм  means. Per the link, +ABL says it means, and I quote him here: "WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION."

Now we are supposed to believe that +ABL decided not to pray for the pope any more, after he just said that he believes the above? This is reasonable, how?

When I said "he" I was referring to Bishop Roy.

When I said "he" I was referring to Bishop Roy.

Yes, so was I. I'd be surprised if he reacted any differently.

And although I would highly doubt Fr C would have changed his ways/views before death, there is always a possibility. Then again he rarely waffled whereas there are numerous quotes from ABL that don't condemn sedevacantism.

Well, I agree, but +ABL preached repeatedly that he believed he was praying for the pope una cuм, this is what he believed in. 

Fr. Cekada preached ad nauseam that he did not believe the pope was the pope and believed it wrong (a sin?) to pray for a heretic pope una cuм, this is what he believed in.

What the OP video is telling us, is that +ABL did not believe what he repeatedly preached, the other shoe says the same about Fr. Cekada.

Yes, I know. I was agreeing with you and providing evidence. Here is the only official docuмent signed by John XXIII regarding the 1962 update of the Missal:

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/es/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html

It was referred to as an update to the "rubrics" only. Definitely not mentioning any change to "the Roman Canon."

Dear Angelus and Pax Vobis,

"It pertains exclusively to the Holy See to control sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books (c.1257)" L. Bouscaren S.J, A.C Ellis S.J "Canon Law, A Text and Commentary", 1958.

"58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify these he judges to require modification." Pope Pius XII "Mediator Dei".

Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, born 25 Nov 1881, died 3 June 1963.
The date of the Decretum authorizing insertion of the name of St. Joseph into the Canon is 13 Nov 1962.
There is no way the Pope was not aware of it. He did not reverse it, he therefore authorized it. If you can prove that he was nonresponsive from 13 Nov 1962, until 3 June 1963, the guilt will be transferred onto his Successor.
For now, objectively, Pope John XXIII is under anathema of Trent. Let him be anathema. "Anathema sit" is iussive subjunctive, and it is directed to any soul alive, not only to clergy or popes. The curse is the source of our confusion. Until its source is removed, we will just keep arguing with each other. The good part is that we learn our religion, which will help us learn our Faith.

If the 1962 liturgy was never promulgated by the Pope, it is certainly illicit and should not be used. Either way, why is SSPX and the Resistance (in agreement with Fr. Ratzinger) adamant about using the affected book? Is the law of self defense a good reason? Why did Abp. Lefebvre make such a terrible concession?

There is nothing wrong with the ORIGINAL edition of the 1962 missal.  Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.

Dear Pax Vobis,
Please tell me where to find a copy of the original edition of the 1962 missal.  Is it different from the one used by the SSPX priests today?  Thank you for your help in this matter.

Lots of places still sell them; brand new.  Try the FSSP website.  The original editions don't have St Joseph.  The later editions come with a "sticker" to place on the canon page, which includes St Joseph.
Do you even know the difference between the 62 missal and the 55 missal?  It sounds like you don't.  Outside of Holy Week and the updates to the calendar, the 55 is exactly the same as the 62.  Holy Week changes were introduced by Pius XII, so unless you're saying he wasn't a pope, the new Holy Week is ok too.

Are the 62 missal and Holy Week changes perfectly pleasing to God?  Probably not.  Are they heretical and sinful?  No.

Dear Pax Vobis,
Thank you so much!  I did not know that there were mulitple versions of the 1962 Missale Romanum.  What a relief!

Pax, you are correct about the lawfully-promulgated Missale Romanum, the one published during the year 1962, uses the exact same Ordo and Canon as the 1955 (traditional Pius V) Missal. Only the changes to rubrics and calendar were lawfully-promulgated and published during the year 1962.

The change made to the Roman Canon (adding St. Joseph) was not part of the any officially-approved Missale Romanum that was published in 1962. That deceptive and unlawful change did not happen until after 1962.

And besides, if you believe the opinion of St. Francis de Sales, that St. Joseph was assumed body and soul into heaven at the Ascension, then this probably means that he was baptized, received Holy Communion, and received Confirmation, making him the chief member of the Church, alongside Our Lady.  I have no problem with St. Joseph being in the Canon.  In fact, I endorse it.   

My understanding on his non-inclusion was twofold: 1) the Canon goes back to remote antiquity unchanged - to the very early days of the Church and 2) because he isn't a martyr.  

Haven't looked at that one in a while though.