Author Topic: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy (Read 5874 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #15 on:** December 19, 2023, 09:14:40 AM »

One of the top 5 things i'm looking forward to, after we get a truly orthodox pope, is for the petty bickering and emotional logic between sede CLERICS and the sspx CLERICS to stop. They're responsible, for a large part, of the Traditional mindset. If they can't get along with other Trads, then the laity won't either. It's so childish and i'm done with it.

Incredulous · « **Reply #16 on:** December 19, 2023, 02:40:52 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 17, 2023, 06:54:03 PM

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.

Wow... no objections from CI's pacified members?

PV, there are some CI members who are going to push-back at your promotion of the "ghost Bishop's" endorsement of the 1962 Liturgy.

Excerpt from:

"Letter of “The Nine” to Archbishop Lefebvre
(March 25, 1983)
by Nine American Priests of SSPX

The grave problems in the Society of St. Pius X

3. Liturgical Changes

The First General Chapter of the Society, held at Ecône in 1976, adopted the principle that the Districts and the Houses of Formation should follow the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics which were customary at that time. This decision was never rescinded or even discussed at the Second General Chapter held last year at which your successor was selected. In the case of the United States, we have always followed the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of our holy patron, Pope St. Pius X, which practice was sanctioned by the First General Chapter.

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?

Is not this, in the light of recent history, beyond belief? Would we not be far more guilty in accepting this first step than the priests of twenty years ago who did not have the historical precedent that we have before our eyes? As you well know, John XXIII made his original changes as merely temporary steps in preparation for Vatican II. Father Kelly wrote to you of this matter last year when it was announced that you would strive to introduce the reforms of John XXIII in the United States.

To quote from Father Kelly's letter of March 23, 1982: It seems to me that the very nature of Rubricarum Instructum is a temporary one, and, of course, it only remained in vigor for four years. Thus in its text, John XXIII said that his reform of July 25, 1960 was made with the understanding "that the more important principles governing a general liturgical reform should be laid before the members of the hierarchy at the forthcoming ecuмenical council," which he said he decided to convene "under the inspiration of God." It is not difficult, then, for it to be seen as the type of gradualism which eventually embraced the reform. Our people would be shocked by any liturgical change. To introduce a change in the direction of the Council would be seen as one step toward the changes of the 1960's.

We simply could not stand up in front of our congregations and tell them that we were abandoning the Missal, Calendar and Breviary of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X, for that of John XXIII — one, the greatest pope of the century, the other, the originator of the aggiornamento whose effects remain with us today. In our opinion, for us to accept the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of John XXIII would be to accept the first steps toward the "liturgical reform" of Vatican II, which steps lead gradually to the New Mass, and such would be the way the laity in America would interpret it. Furthermore, and with all due respect, religious superiors do not, under the canons and traditions of the Church, have any power to legislate in liturgical matters. Such power belongs to the Roman Pontiffs who are themselves limited. For though the power of a pope is very great, it is neither arbitrary nor unrestricted.

"The pope," as Cardinal Hergenroether once said, "is circuмscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficial use of the duties attached to his privileges.... He is also circuмscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy—to 'feed'— ...." (Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. XII, “Pope,” pp. 269-270) Thus obedience in matters liturgical belongs to a religious superior only insofar as what he demands is demanded by the Church and the legitimate demands of a Roman Pontiff.

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 jew-pope, Paul VI.

Incredulous · « **Reply #17 on:** December 19, 2023, 02:47:41 PM »

Quote from: Horatius on December 18, 2023, 04:38:47 AM

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.

I'm guessing you're subtly asking if Bp. Zendejas genuflects for the jews on Good Friday?

Who on this forum gets to attend the Bishop's Holy Week? His schedule is always a mystery.

In any case, most 62" Liturgy fans adhere to the genuflection for the jews as "No big deal".

Stubborn · « **Reply #18 on:** December 19, 2023, 02:55:27 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on December 19, 2023, 02:40:52 PM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** December 19, 2023, 03:13:38 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 17, 2023, 06:54:03 PM

I believe such a change would be ill-considered, just now when we are claiming to be the faithful heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre.

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.

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** December 19, 2023, 03:17:17 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 19, 2023, 02:55:27 PM

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").

2Vermont · « **Reply #21 on:** December 19, 2023, 03:27:53 PM »

Oh goodie. Like there weren't enough false accusations against The Nine a couple of weeks ago.

Stubborn · « **Reply #22 on:** December 19, 2023, 03:29:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 19, 2023, 03:17:17 PM

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.

Aside from themselves, who cares what they objected to and who cares if it was (it was not) contrary to previous direction after +ABL explained the reason for using it? They made bs excuses in that snip I quoted, completely ignoring +ABL's explanation as if it did not exist, claiming the issue stemmed from something it never did and was not about, same as you are doing. Read the OP to see +ABL's reasons.

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** December 19, 2023, 03:39:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 19, 2023, 03:13:38 PM

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. […]

Now, not only they dispute the liturgy but also about the Pope. They are in their hearts, against the fact that there is a Pope in Rome. […] - OP

And you keep saying the same ridiculous thing, that "he could very well be a sedevacantist right now," pure ignorance. To even consider sedeism, one must cease to believe what he preached and believed: "The truth is that the Pope, even though he is Pope, can err. Apart from cases where the Pope engages his infallibility, he can err. Today we see the Pope err and spread the error and even heresies. To denounce it is not a sign of sedevacantism, but of Catholicism."

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #24 on:** December 19, 2023, 03:42:29 PM »

Quote

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).

But none of these things are heretical, or against doctrine, or evil. Why? Because 1) Pope Pius XII introduced the Holy Week changes and 2) the calendar changes are minor.

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** December 19, 2023, 04:03:07 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2023, 03:42:29 PM

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.

Yeah, those SVs who reject the 1955 Holy Week Rites apply what they call the principle of epikeia. Since Pius XII is no longer around, their argument goes along the lines of the theory that a Traditional Pope would roll back those changes given the 20/20 hindsight of their place in the larger Liturgical Revolution. They do walk a fine line because their claims about the defects in the 1955 Rites militate against their assertion that a legitimate Pope cannot approve defective Rites. I've never really heard a good articulation of this from them, though I obviously haven't read everything they've produced over the years. In point of fact, eliminating a prayer here or there, changing the color of some vestments, occasionally having the priest face the congregation, etc. ... the types of things in the 1955 Rites ... there's nothing intrinsically wrong with those things, but just in a relative sense given how or why they were introduced and where they were leading. Of course, R&R hold that a Pope can promulgate liturgical defects. I have a slightly different view, where (in addition to not seeing anything intrinsically wrong with these 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. I doubt he had the strength or the energy the inspect the entire thing, and Bugnini and co. could easily have "snuck" something in. I think these types of changes are analogous to his loosening the fasting regulations or when a Pope eliminates certain feasts. One could argue that the old ones were better, but there's nothing intrinsically harmful or wrong about doing those things.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #26 on:** December 19, 2023, 04:23:21 PM »

Quote

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.

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.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #27 on:** December 19, 2023, 04:30:03 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2023, 04:23:21 PM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** December 19, 2023, 04:43:31 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2023, 04:23:21 PM

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.

I never said they were "evil", and I'm not sure The Nine would characterize them as evil. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with them, as I said ... changing the color of some vestments, removing some prayers, having the priest face the congregation. There's nothing inherently wrong with them and the Rite still remained essentially Catholic. This is just a side speculation regarding whether Pius XII really approved these Rites or intended to approve them. Yes, the Holy Ghost would prevent him from APPROVING evil, but my speculation is that he didn't approve these changes, but that they were snuck in while he was in ill health, and I don't consider them to be evil or even intrinsically defective. Similarly, I don't think he approved of the so-called Suprema Haec either, and that those were some more shenanigans pulled off by the Modernist infiltrators.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #29 on:** December 19, 2023, 04:46:47 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on December 19, 2023, 04:30:03 PM

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.

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?

Author Topic: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy (Read 5874 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Incredulous

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Incredulous

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Stubborn

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

2Vermont

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Stubborn

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Stubborn

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Pax Vobis

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Pax Vobis

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Giovanni Berto

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy