Some people might ask you: “Do you name Pope Francis in the Roman Canon of Mass?” You should respond: YES.
As a Catholic Priest is a principle of monarchical order, he is the Lieutenant of our Lord Jesus Christ’s Royal Kingdom on earth, and according to his rank of authority, a Priest is sent by his bishop to proclaim the Kingship of Christ to his flock. Otherwise, it would be like a democratic priest, who chooses to say or not, to preach or not, his own personal kingdom.
So, the reason of these and other questions is because in following the 1955 Liturgical books, there are some priests who omit the rubric “una-cuм-Francisco” at the Roman Canon of the Mass, or at the celebration of the Holy Week ceremonies. What one might think about purposely omitting the Pope’s name, as the schismatic and Protestant ministries do?
...
Dear Abbé Blanchet, if you celebrated Mass and prayed your Breviary, according to the rubrics of 1955, it would certainly be a valid Mass and you would conform to the recitation of the Breviary, but you would most certainly be moving away from the spirit and attitude of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ...
So he dedicated the entire sermon at an ordination to whether or not you'd use the 1962 Missal. There are very good reasons (promoted by some of the Resistance) for rejecting even the 1955 Rites and going pre-1955. Outside of the CMRI, few "sedevacantists" actually use the 1955, but the pre-1955, which has nothing to do with sedevacantism, since they all believe that Pius XII was a legitimate pope. It's actually a bit R&R-ish of them to reject the 1955 Liturgy, which is probably why the CMRI use it.Interesting observation, thanks Ladislaus. No, his sermon was more extensive than that, I provided the link if you wish to read the whole thing.
Here is part of the Archbishop's conference to the US seminarians in 1983 from which Bishop Zendejas takes some of his quotes:
Some people might ask you: “Do you name Pope Francis in the Roman Canon of Mass?” You should respond: YES.
+ABL:
So, I have said concerning this reform [1962] we must obey the Pope, especially since we have no reason to refuse it!”
Resistance should be cautious about using quotes from that period because by and large they back the neo-SSPX position.It is not caution in quoting the Archbishop that is required, but understanding, especially of context. For those who have but a superficial understanding of the reality, they may indeed be easily deceived by appearances, just as the Catholics in the Conciliar Church are deceived by apparent obedience, when in fact the reality is the exact opposite. Bishop Williamson is the beacon of light and truth that has been given us in this 'Vatican IIb' crisis as he calls it, for exposing the reality behind the appearances.
It is not caution in quoting the Archbishop that is required, but understanding, especially of context. For those who have but a superficial understanding of the reality, they may indeed be easily deceived by appearances, just as the Catholics in the Conciliar Church are deceived by apparent obedience, when in fact the reality is the exact opposite. Bishop Williamson is the beacon of light and truth that has been given us in this 'Vatican IIb' crisis as he calls it, for exposing the reality behind the appearances.Proof of this, for those who have eyes to see, is not only what the SSPX did in 2012, but what the neo-SSPX has continued to do since. What honest person can imagine Archbishop Lefebvre playing games with Conciliar Bishop Huonder and ignoring a valiant defender of the Faith like Archbishop Vigano? What a scandal! The Archbishop must be rolling in his grave.
The interesting thing about criticism of the 1962 missal is that people need a whole lot of study to understand what happened behind to scenes to be able to understand the criticisms.
It was obviously a step towards the New Mass and the Council revolution in general, but the same could be said about the election of Pius XII, for instance. Yet, there is not one single group who says that the was not Pope, even though he endorsed the 1955 Holy Week.
The Bishop's advice here with regards staying faithful to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the question of the 1962 Liturgy is the obvious default position of the Resistance. Yet not all in the Resistance agree, and we have already seen division. We have heard much on this forum from the proponents of the pre-1955 Holy Week, especially in the wake of Dr Carol Byrne's work. Is now the time for the Resistance to change? I believe such a change would be ill-considered, just now when we are claiming to be the faithful heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre.
That there could be a case for considering some of these reforms illegitimate I do not deny, but I think it is far from certain and it is a question we should leave for Rome in better days. All in the SSPX and Resistance agree that Archbishop Lefebvre was raised up by God for this extraordinary mission of preserving the Faith and the priesthood in this crisis. We have seen the good fruits. ABL was the guide that the Good Lord gave us, and there was no one better qualified to make these decisions. The Pius XII Holy Week reform had already been accepted in the Church for 10 years before the conclusion of Vatican II. Let us continue our holding action as he bequeathed it to us and wait for the return of Rome to Tradition. I believe that to change things now would only lead to scandal and further division.
Has anyone here witnessed a Holy Week celebrated by Bp. Zendejas?
I wonder if he employs any of the customary changes to the reformed Holy Week, as the majority of the SSPX priests.
If he believes that celebrating the reformed Holy Week is a matter of legitimacy then he should celebrate it exactly as the books specify. Normally it would be a grave sin to alter a rubric substantially.
Of late, however, an attempt has been made to force all the priests and seminarians in the United States to accept the liturgical reforms of Pope John XXIII on the grounds of uniformity and loyalty to the Society, thereby implying that adherence to the non-reformed traditional Rites of St. Pius X constitutes disloyalty. Can it be that the Society has come to look upon loyalty to tradition as disloyalty to the Society? Most recently, to our shock and dismay, a newly-ordained priest was given an ultimatum — either to accept the reforms of John XXIII and to begin saying Mass according to the John XXIII missal or to leave the Society. Is it possible that the Society which has been persecuted because of its loyalty to tradition now persecutes priests for their loyalty to tradition? What has happened? Can it be that the Society now uses the same tactic which the reforming hierarchy used to impose the reform that has destroyed our people and our churches?Actually Incred, "the Nine" altogether ignored +ABL's reasoning for going with the 1962 Missal, instead they played it off as tho it was a crime against tradition committed by +ABL of which they could not imbibe. OTOH, had they considered his reasons for going with the 1962 missal, they could not, honestly, say what they said above. Which is to say if they actually did consider his reasons yet still said what they said above, then one way or the other their intent was malicious.
I believe such a change would be ill-considered, just now when we are claiming to be the faithful heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Actually Incred, "the Nine" altogether ignored +ABL's reasoning for going with the 1962 Missal, instead they played it off as tho it was a crime against tradition committed by +ABL of which they could not imbibe.
Yes another distortion of what actually happened (you've been caught in several now). The Nine objected to the imposition of the 1962 Missal more than to the Missal itself, especially since it came out of the blue and was contrary to the previous direction set forth by the last General Chapter of the Society. They never characterized it, as you claim, as some kind of "crime against tradition". I know one of The Nine priests who has no objection his faithful assisting at Masses offered according to the 1962 Missal (and also "una cuм").Read the OP then come back and say this.
What is this nonsense? I thought we're interested in the truth and not some kind of political machinations around who can rightly lay claim to some meaningless title such as "faithful heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre"? Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind over the course of the years, and could very well be a sedevacantist right now given the phenomenon of Bergoglio. He nearly went SV at Wojtyla's Assisi meeting, and Bergoglio makes Wojtyla look like St. Pius X by comparison.So, these priests condemned it… and they condemned me… and they condemned Écône… How is this possible? […] That they condemned the bishop who gave them their ordination? When these priests were at Écône they accepted this liturgy; when they were ordained, they accepted during the years they were at Écône. When they left, they changed, and took another orientation. […]
In hindsight, the traditional Catholic remnant realizes that +ABL made a mistake by endorsing the 1962 Missal, a Liturgy where Holy Week was butchered by the masonic Msgr. Annibal Buginni in the early 1950's. Later to be endorsed by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Jєω-pope, Paul VI.The only problems with the "original/1st edition" of the 62 missal are 1) Holy Week changes of 55 and 2) the deletion of feasts in the new calendar. (the addition of St Joseph to the canon was not part of the original 62 missal).
If people believe that Pius XII was a true pope, then they can't complain about Bugnini, because at the end of the day, Pius XII approved the Holy Week changes.
I'm not even 100% sure that Pius XII really approved them. By 1955, Pius XII was barely functioning due to a collapse of his health, and it's very possible that these changes were pushed in by the Modernists around him, and that he didn't really approve of them or intend to approve of them. In the docuмent he issued introducing the Holy Week changes, he wrote almost exclusively of the time change (which I believe was actually a very good move), but he made no mention of anything else in the changes. So that makes me wonder whether, given his fragile health, he even noticed what was in there.No offense, but this is weak. If Pius XII was truly the pope, then the Holy Ghost would've prevented him/enlightened him from approving evil. That's the sede argument.
No offense, but this is weak. If Pius XII was truly the pope, then the Holy Ghost would've prevented him/enlightened him from approving evil. That's the sede argument.
The facts show that these changes did not substantially change doctrine/theology, so (however much they are watered-down) God allows a pope to "loose" such things. Most people don't want to admit this, but it's true.
No offense, but this is weak. If Pius XII was truly the pope, then the Holy Ghost would've prevented him/enlightened him from approving evil. That's the sede argument.
The facts show that these changes did not substantially change doctrine/theology, so (however much they are watered-down) God allows a pope to "loose" such things. Most people don't want to admit this, but it's true.
That would start another big discussion, because he appointed some pretty horrible cardinals and bishops, who were much more damaging to the Church than the 1955 Holy Week.
As extreme as most Sedevacantists are, they have to accept and obey everything that Pius XII ordered. It is like they go to far to the right in the spectrum.
It seems to me that a possible balanced position is possible. I don't think that obedience to the Pope was historically understood as Sedevacantists put it. But an attitude like SSPX R&R would be also scandalous in the previous centuries, as I understand it. You cannot simply choose what orders to obey.
If people believe that Pius XII was a true pope, then they can't complain about Bugnini, because at the end of the day, Pius XII approved the Holy Week changes.
No one has ever held that a Pope is infallible or guided by the Holy Spirit in terms of his appointments. You're conflating this with the Holy Ghost's protection over the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline (the Public Worship) of the Church. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with "obedience". What are we supposed to obey, since all of the Cardinals and Bishops appointed by Pius XII are now dead?
What is this nonsense? I thought we're interested in the truth and not some kind of political machinations around who can rightly lay claim to some meaningless title such as "faithful heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre"? Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind over the course of the years, and could very well be a sedevacantist right now given the phenomenon of Bergoglio. He nearly went SV at Wojtyla's Assisi meeting, and Bergoglio makes Wojtyla look like St. Pius X by comparison.I was hoping that this post would not degenerate into this same old quarrel, though I half expected it. I was really posting for the benefit of the Resistance, which is why I posted in that section, for those of us who had already decided on these "issues of the Nine". Suffice to say in response to all your questions and accusations, Ladislaus, that it is not puerile to follow in these matters the prince of the Church that God gave us. Nothing has substantially changed since the time of Archbishop Lefebvre, and there is no certain reason for us to change direction guided by the Catholic principles that he so clearly enunciated.
Is +Lefebvre some kind of infallible rule of faith or something? Did he have a single consistent position on every issue during his entire life? During the early 1980s, his thinking differed very little from that of +Fellay and his neo-SSPX now. As Matthew pointed out, the situation had changed since then. And it's changed again since the Archbishop passed away. So what makes anyone sure whether or not he would have changed again in response to Jorge? Nothing.
We seek the truth and not some political nonsense about being THE faithful heirs of +Lefebvre. To outsiders, this is ludicrous. "We're the faithful heirs of +Lefebvre. No, you aren't, we are. You're unfaithful to +Lefebvre. I know you are, but what am I? I dare you. I double dare you. I double dog dare you." How puerile.
Part of this comes form the fact that R&R want to fill the vacuum of not having (what they claim to be) the Magisterium as their rule of faith, by coming up with a substitute rule of faith to fill the vacuum, and so they set +Lefebvre up in that role, something which I'm sure he would have eschewed.
I would imagine that the Sedevantantists would be bound to obey the 1955 Holy Week, since it was approved by a legitimate Pope.
Yes, so that's where their argument from epikeia comes in, that if we had a Traditional pope now (since Pius XII is no longer the pope), given the benefit of hindsight, he would roll back the 1955 changes.
Now, some sedevacantists, notably the CMRI, do use the 1955 Holy Week Rites.
Suffice to say in response to all your questions and accusations, Ladislaus, that it is not puerile to follow in these matters the prince of the Church that God gave us. Nothing has substantially changed since the time of Archbishop Lefebvre, and there is no certain reason for us to change direction guided by the Catholic principles that he so clearly enunciated.
+Lefebvre repeatedly stated that SV is a legitimate theological position (citing St. Robert and others who discussed the matter) IN PRINCIPLE, but questioned whether it applied to the case of Wojtyla. So the difference isn't in the principle, which he consistently agreed was viable, but about its application.
Pius XII was of a Jєωιѕн banker family background... no?.
Pretty creative, in my opinion.What position do you hold GB? I can't seem to figure it out based on your posts.
They know how a future Pope will think and what he will do.
They accuse the SSPX of "pick and choose", and, yet, they do the same.
I have never had any contact with them, but it seems to me that this CMRI is the most reasonable Sedevacantist group.
No, what I was referring to as puerile is this dispute about the competing claims that this group or the other group are the "true heirs" of +Lefebvre. As for "following" +Lefebvre's "principles that he so clearly enunciated," apart from some core tenets that he always held to, with regard to the question of SVism vs. R&R, there was absolutely nothing "clear" about them, nor was he consistent over the years.There is no greater appellation for a religious than to be called a true son of the founder. 'The true sons of St Benedict', 'The true sons of St Dominic', 'The true sons of St Alphonsus'. It attests to their fidelity: fidelity to their founder and so fidelity to their vocation and fidelity to the Church. That is obvious. That is not puerile.
What position do you hold GB? I can't seem to figure it out based on your posts.
Honestly, I don't really know.Ok, thanks GB. That explains why a position doesn't seem to come thru your posts. I wasn't trying to judge you as a person.
I go to the SSPX for lack of viable options, but I don't really care for their R&R thesis.
I like the Cassiciacuм Thesis, but that Una cuм thing is completely nonsense to me.
I really don't like dogmatic people, be it R&R, Sedevacantism or whatever.
My personal situation does not require me to have a clear position. I am not a priest. I just want to be a Catholic. Am I a bad person for that? Some will probably think so.
It seems kind of puerile to me to have a strong position either way. I find the "mitigated" Sedevacantist positions to be more probable. Can't we be like St. Alphonsus and tolerate probable opinions?
My biggest ambition is to have valid sacraments and solid Catholic sermons. I can be happy with this much.
The only thing that I won't accept at all are Novus Ordo Holy Orders. This is non-negotiable to me.
Ok, thanks GB. That explains why a position doesn't seem to come thru your posts. I wasn't trying to judge you as a person.
It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre did have a principle and a final decision on this matter of the liturgy. So too with sedevacantism, for which I refer you to my recent posting on sedevacantism from the Benedictine website. His final position, even after the meetings of Assisi and a Pope who had kissed the Koran, was that the Church has not settled this matter and that we should presume in favour of his being Pope, pray for him, yet "it is therefore a strict duty for any priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith".
Even though Archbishop Lefebvre died accepting John Paul II as pope, this does NOT mean that he would have accepted Jorge Bergoglio as pope if he were alive today. As per his 1986 talk published in the Angelus Magazine, his position was that the evidence determines whether a claimant is pope or not.Evidence like kissing the Koran and Assisi meetings? Read 'Peter Lovest Thou Me'.
One cannot accuse anyone of being a formal heretic so easily.