CathInfo.com

This excellent sermon is largely a commentary on Archbishop Vigano's recent interview with (GREC) Fr. Claude Barthe, widely regarded by Resistance faithful as representing Vigano's final arrival into integral traditionalism.

A couple observations regarding Fr. Hewko's sermon:

1) At minute 37:05, he announces he has just this year reverted to the fully traditional, pre-Bugnini Holy Week.  That is a momentous and wonderful development, and it is to be hoped that the wider Resistance will follow this example.  After all, if even the indult groups like the FSSP and ICK can use the integrally Catholic Holy Week, why can't the Resistance (or for that matter, the SSPX)?

2) Why is the SSPX not championing Archbishop Vigano?  Could it be because they do not want to burn their bridge into conciliar Rome?  That while Vigano has fought his way into integral traditionalism, the SSPX is fighting its way into conciliarism?  They appear to be two ships passing in the night, in opposite directions.

3) There is nothing in Fr. Hewko's sermon which couldn't have also fallen from the lips of Bishop Williamson, Zendejas, Faure, or Thomas Aquinas.  Note that both factions of Resistance are equally supportive of Archbishop Vigano's advent into integral traditionalism.  Why?  Because both recognize truth when they hear it, and rallying around such a man as Vigano makes all differences between the two Resistance camps completely moot:

For example, who was right at Mahopac in 2015: Bishop Williamson or Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer?  Answer: If we have +Vigano, it no longer matters, and the issue is completely moot, because Archbishop Vigano has called for the abolition of the Novis Ordo.  In other words, if there is no longer any such thing as a Novus Ordo, then Bishop Williamson cannot give a pastoral permission to attend while half-converts are in transit to Tradition.  Likewise, Fr. Hewko can no longer oppose Bishop Williamson for doing so, because there will no longer be such a rite.

With Vigano at the helm, these old divisions dissipate, and the Resistance factions (even if they themselves are not conscious of it, or if they will not publicly admit it) are drawn closer together, simply by drawing closer to Vigano (the principal of unity, stemming from his proclamation of truth).

4) Note the good fruits of Archbishop Vigano!  Be sure the devil is not slow to recognize them as well.  Watch for him to attempt to frustrate this unity.  The two factions may or may not remain independent of eachother; time will tell.  But so long as they are both fighting for the same things Vigano is fighting for, then in fact, they are fighting on the same side, and in the same army (just different battalions).

Here's the sermon:

Absolutely right. (Not to derail the dedication of this thread to such an important and EXCELLENT sermon, but) from a truly objective standpoint: the '62 Missal is more transitional than traditional. It's not by accident that BXVI's MP only found acceptable the '62 missal and not the '54.

At the end of the day Lefebvre did this because he took obedience very seriously, he wanted to disobey only when he felt he *had* to disobey in conscience, not just because of his preferences.  He took the authority of the popes seriously, even the conciliar ones.  To him the '62 missal wasn't such a serious departure that he couldn't submit, but the NO was.  I tend to agree.

Now I realize Sedevacantists would of course not (usually) think John XXIII was a real pope which makes it a moot point.  And its a moot point for FSSP and ICKSP since they got *permission* from Rome to use the old one.  Heck, maybe SSPX could ask Rome for permission and get it at this point, though I know if they did so the Resistance folks would see them as "capitulating to Rome".  But I think for the SSPX to just use the pre 55 without permission would tip their position closer to "disobedience wherever prudent" rather than "obedience wherever possible" than the Archbishop intended.

1) At minute 37:05, he announces he has just this year reverted to the fully traditional, pre-Bugnini Holy Week.  That is a momentous and wonderful development, and it is to be hoped that the wider Resistance will follow this example.

Sean, you have done a lot for the Resistance for which I am very grateful, and I agree with most of your analyses. But this kind of talk from the Resistance priests and faithful really disappoints me. I think it is to be hoped, rather, that the Resistance will remain faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, the great prelate clearly raised up by God to guide us in this crisis. No, not because we think the Archbishop was infallible, but because we see in him the good shepherd, we recognize his Catholic voice, we admire the wisdom of his ways. Let us not try to reinvent the Archbishop or reinterpret him as do some of the neo-sedevacantists. We don't need new ways in these confused times, we just need to continue faithfully the SSPX along the line laid down by the holy founder.

While Archbishop Lefebvre lamented some of the liturgical reforms, he also appreciated some of the improvements, as no doubt Pope Pius XII did. He also noted that though there were modernists in the Liturgical Movement, there were also traditionalists whom he knew. I, for one, find the New Holy Week more edifying, not that that is of any great purport. I have had SSPX priests who have used and promoted the older Holy Week, always priests who trained at STAS where the (sedevacantist) influence of 'the nine' was a factor.
Archbishop Lefebvre followed Catholic principles, and the Resistance should continue in these same principles if it is not to lose its credibility and add to the confusion of the times.

Also, with regards Fr Hewko, I think it is regrettable to speak in praise of him without warning of the evil stand he has taken in the current crisis. After supporting Fr Pfeiffer in his outrageously exaggerated and unjust attack on Bishop Williamson, he separated from the Resistance, and while he has happily distanced himself from a Fr Pfeiffer going deeper and deeper into error and iniquity, he nonetheless remains attached to no bishop, one would have to say separated from the Church, leading faithful with him down a dead end, away from the hierarchy and without sacraments for long periods of time for many scattered around the world whom he allows to see in him the only (with maybe one or two exceptions) faithful priest. It is sad to have to say such things about a once fine priest, but he can no longer be held up as an example to follow. If I have misjudged him, I would be happy to be corrected, but this is my experience.

The Catholic principle followed by Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and please God, the Resistance:

On April 24, 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre gave a conference to the seminarians at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, Connecticut. The background was the opposition of nine priests (one just ordained) and a few seminarians who had disobeyed His Excellency’s instruction to follow the 1962 liturgical books.
Despite their disobedience to his directive, the Archbishop attempted to remonstrate with them, but eventually was compelled to expel them from the Society of St. Pius X for obstinate refusal to obey their superior.
As the opposition had been led by the former seminary rector, Archbishop Lefebvre prudently decided to delay the diaconate ordinations that were scheduled for that year. He wanted to ensure that the future deacons would willingly follow the SSPX’s policy concerning the liturgical books to be used.
During the conference he explained his reason for deciding upon the 1962 liturgical books and the principle upon which it was based, asking the future deacons to consider this and thus determine their decision if they intended to remain faithful members of the Society of St. Pius X.
We present here three extracts from the conference outlining Archbishop Lefebvre’s exemplar attitude and firm response in dealing with this past historical event of the SSPX.

---

Extracts from Archbishop Lefebvre's conference
What is the first principle to know what we must do in this circuмstance, in this crisis in the Church? What is my principle?
The principle of the Church, it is the principle of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is not my choice; it’s not my favor; it is not my personal desire... I am nothing... I merely follow the doctrine of the Church. This doctrine is expounded by St. Thomas Aquinas.
So what does St. Thomas Aquinas say about the authority in the Church? When can we refuse something from the authority of the Church?
Principle: Only when the Faith is in question.
Only in this case. Not in other cases... only when the Faith is in question... and that is found in the Summa Theologica (II II Q.33, a.4, ad 2m): St. Thomas' answer is that we cannot resist to the authority; we must obey:

That is the principle (of St. Thomas), and I cannot harbor another motive to resist the pope… it is very serious to be opposed to the pope, and to the Church. It is very serious, and if we think that we must do that, we must do it (resist the Holy Father) only to preserve our Faith, and not for any other motive.
We must now do an application of the principle. For me I think that the liturgical reform of Pope John XXIII has nothing against the Faith. You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Roman Missal, and… what is in these books of Pope John XXIII that is against the Faith? Nothing! And so [in an urgent tone]: ...I cannot refuse this book (of Pope John), because he is the pope, and the pope gave me this book (and I must obey).
It is quite another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI… in this book of reform of Pope Paul VI is a very grave danger to my Faith... it is precisely Periculum Fidei. So I refuse it, because ecuмenism is the idea and motive of this reform… and this ecuмenism... they say themselves, Pope Paul VI, Bugnini, etc., all say the motive of their reform is ecuмenism, and this ecuмenism takes away all (Catholic) things which are displeasing to the Protestant.
(...)
Some people abandon the Society on the left (i.e., moving towards the left), and some abandon her moving towards the right.