Archbishop Lefebvre taught:

Letter to American Friends & Benefactors from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

April 28, 1983
Ridgefield, Connecticut
 
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
 
What was latent for many years in the relations between most of the priests of the North-East District and the Society of St. Pius X, and was the object of continual difficulties, has just come out into the open by the support given by these priests to the refusal of the Society’s liturgy by one of the three young priests I ordained at Oyster Bay Cove on November 3, 1982.
 
Thus, their long-standing disagreement with myself and the Society has now become public rebellion. It is the result of an extremist way of thinking and a tendency to schism in the domain of the liturgy, the papacy, and the sacraments of the reform.
 
They reject the liturgy which has always been used in the Society and consider it evil, the liturgy of Pope Pius XII, signed by Pope John XXIII, and so, the liturgy preceding the Council. They think and behave as if there is no Pope, suppressing all prayers for the Pope. In practice, they tend to hold almost all the sacraments of the new rites to be invalid.
 
This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society.
 
The basic principle of the Society’s thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II, II, q. 33, a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable.
 
The Society acts on the assumption that Pope John Paul II is Pope and so prays for him and strives to bring him back to Tradition by praying for him, by meeting with those around him, and by writing to him.
 
The Society does not say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in the matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful sacraments is increasing. In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by priests imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circuмstances is necessary.
 
Many of you know the difficulties to which the attitude of these priests has given rise. Many of you have suffered from it and so will not be surprised by this clarification of the situation.
 
We regret not being able to come immediately to the assistance of those who wish to stay with the Society, but we will heed the requests of the faithful and, with the grace of God, we will come to your aid and we will keep you united to Rome and to the Church of all time.
 
So, henceforth, Fr. K---- is no longer District Superior; Fr. C---- is no longer District Bursar; Fr. S---- is no longer Rector of the Seminary. These priests, and the priests who follow them, and any seminarians who might follow them, are no longer members of the Society of St. Pius X, as of 27 April 1983. They no longer have any power, nor hold any office in the Society’s name.
 
Henceforth, if you have any inquiries concerning the Society in the North-East District, contact, at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, Fr. Richard Williamson, who has been provisionally nominated District Superior, or Fr. Roger Petit, who has been nominated District Bursar.
 
Most of the seminarians are remaining with us and we shall, God willing, proceed with ordinations in the first days of November.
 
We count on your prayers so that we can carry on the work of the Society in the North-East District and especially at the Seminary henceforth entrusted to Fr. Richard Williamson. We ask you to continue to help us so that we can continue building up the traditional Catholic Church in America. Please pray for the 24 new priests I am going to ordain on June 29th.
 
May God bless you through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
+ Marcel Lefebvre,
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X

Archbishop Lefebvre taught:

Quote

Letter to American Friends & Benefactors from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

April 28, 1983
Ridgefield, Connecticut
 
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
 
What was latent for many years in the relations between most of the priests of the North-East District and the Society of St. Pius X, and was the object of continual difficulties, has just come out into the open by the support given by these priests to the refusal of the Society’s liturgy by one of the three young priests I ordained at Oyster Bay Cove on November 3, 1982.
 
Thus, their long-standing disagreement with myself and the Society has now become public rebellion. It is the result of an extremist way of thinking and a tendency to schism in the domain of the liturgy, the papacy, and the sacraments of the reform.
 
They reject the liturgy which has always been used in the Society and consider it evil, the liturgy of Pope Pius XII, signed by Pope John XXIII, and so, the liturgy preceding the Council. They think and behave as if there is no Pope, suppressing all prayers for the Pope. In practice, they tend to hold almost all the sacraments of the new rites to be invalid.
 
This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society.
 
The basic principle of the Society’s thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II, II, q. 33, a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable.
 
The Society acts on the assumption that Pope John Paul II is Pope and so prays for him and strives to bring him back to Tradition by praying for him, by meeting with those around him, and by writing to him.
 
The Society does not say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in the matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful sacraments is increasing. In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by priests imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circuмstances is necessary.
 
Many of you know the difficulties to which the attitude of these priests has given rise. Many of you have suffered from it and so will not be surprised by this clarification of the situation.
 
We regret not being able to come immediately to the assistance of those who wish to stay with the Society, but we will heed the requests of the faithful and, with the grace of God, we will come to your aid and we will keep you united to Rome and to the Church of all time.
 
So, henceforth, Fr. K---- is no longer District Superior; Fr. C---- is no longer District Bursar; Fr. S---- is no longer Rector of the Seminary. These priests, and the priests who follow them, and any seminarians who might follow them, are no longer members of the Society of St. Pius X, as of 27 April 1983. They no longer have any power, nor hold any office in the Society’s name.
 
Henceforth, if you have any inquiries concerning the Society in the North-East District, contact, at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, Fr. Richard Williamson, who has been provisionally nominated District Superior, or Fr. Roger Petit, who has been nominated District Bursar.
 
Most of the seminarians are remaining with us and we shall, God willing, proceed with ordinations in the first days of November.
 
We count on your prayers so that we can carry on the work of the Society in the North-East District and especially at the Seminary henceforth entrusted to Fr. Richard Williamson. We ask you to continue to help us so that we can continue building up the traditional Catholic Church in America. Please pray for the 24 new priests I am going to ordain on June 29th.
 
May God bless you through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
+ Marcel Lefebvre,
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X

Ambrose-

I agree with the point you are demonstrating.

I just prefer the ancient Holy Week, for the reasons listed in the article by Fr. Carusi in the other thread.

That's all.

Happy Easter.

Sean,

Many do not hold your view of only preferring the older rite.  If it is only a preference and is done respectfully by acknowledging that Pope Pius XII's reforms are the law of the Church, then I have no problem with it.  I may suppose that if Pius XII saw this sort of attachment to the older rite among some, he may have given an indult for some priests to use the former rite.

But, among others, this is a very hot issue with schismatic undertones of a rejection of Papal authority, an elevation of private judgment, and lawlessness and disobedience against the authority of the Holy See.

With all due respect to the Archbishops, his arguments do not hold water in that they are inconsistent with what followed the 1962 Missal.  He was merely appeasing Rome with this determination against Frs Cekada, Sanborn, and Kelly.  As Bishop Sanborn stated recently in an on-line interview, he was clearly preparing the way for a Rome reconciliation and the dismissed priests were not.

Quo Primam protects the right of priests to offer the Mass, unreformed from the Mass of Pius V.  To wit, there were reforms to the Mass subsequent to 1962 and before 1969 which allowed for more of the Mass to be offered in the vernacular and did not shorten the Mass much more than the second Confiteor and the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.  And since the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted even in the pre-55 and 62 books on certain occasions, one cannot argue that this omission would be detrimental to the faith.

So using the Archbishop's reasoning and given that he considered Paul VI to be a valid Pope, why not demand that the Mass be said according to the 1964 or 1966 reforms?  The English translations are pretty much what you will find in the English translations of the 1962 Missal with the canon in tact.

The Archbishop was simultaneously appeasing a faction of the Vatican as they prepared to release the ultra-restrictive Indult of 1984  to allow the offering of the 1962 Mass, while trying to uphold a close adherence to the Mass of Pius V.  But his argument is inconsistent.  Fr. Cekada and his priests had every right, via Quo Primam, to offer the unreformed Mass and the Resistance priests have the same right, if not the duty to do the same.

Thanks Ambrose for defending the Archbishop, while many armchair theologians are having a ball being critical and trying to discredit to their hearts content.

I believe too many Trads have lost perspective.

Unfortunately Vinny, your assessment is right on target, or very close at least.

It seems to me that the Archbishop by clearly identifying the dividing line between what was Catholic and what was against the the Faith in the liturgy shows the exact time of the break between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church.

My belief is that if Archbishop Lefebvre had gone through with his declaration of sedevacante in 1986, he would have used this insight on the liturgy to determine the exact date of the rupture.  

One way that Catholics can identify the date of the break between the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church is to pinpoint when evil, impiety and that which is against the Faith had entered the liturgy.  

Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that none such evil was present in the liturgical laws of Pope Pius XII and John XXIII.  The Archbishop stated "there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable."

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Unfortunately Vinny, your assessment is right on target, or very close at least.

It seems to me that the Archbishop by clearly identifying the dividing line between what was Catholic and what was against the the Faith in the liturgy shows the exact time of the break between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church.

My belief is that if Archbishop Lefebvre had gone through with his declaration of sedevacante in 1986, he would have used this insight on the liturgy to determine the exact date of the rupture.  

One way that Catholics can identify the date of the break between the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church is to pinpoint when evil, impiety and that which is against the Faith had entered the liturgy.  

Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that none such evil was present in the liturgical laws of Pope Pius XII and John XXIII.  The Archbishop stated "there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable."

We know now that it was all a continuum (whether Pius XII was ignorant or no).  

The new Holy Week was painful for the educated Clergy and faithful when it first came out, but is so much more offensive to us now knowing the bigger revolutionary picture...

We will never know how the liturgy would have ended up under a true Pope.  The fact is that Paul VI created a hideous monster for the liturgy, but he was only able to do that because he was not a Pope.

Pope Pius XII was certainly the Pope, and in my opinion, John XXIII was a valid Pope.  The office protects the Pope from promulgating laws that are harmful to souls or establishing liturgical rites that are invalid or which could lead to impiety.  

Until a true Pope comes again, Catholics are bound to the laws promulgated by the last Pope.  I understand that there is a gray area around John XXIII, but there is no gray area with Pope Pius XII.  At the very least, that must be the line in the sand.  Pope Pius XII's laws on the liturgy are infallibly protected.

I wonder what Archbishop Lefevbre meant when he said that he "went too far...."

Methinks he meant making concessions regarding the missal.