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.
Good Morning, PV-
Just a couple considerations regarding your post:
1) With regard to Fr. Hewko, my praise was specific to his adoption of the true Holy Week. That said, with the arrival of +Vigano as a rallying point for the Resistance (both branches), I do have hopes that the rift between him and our four bishops can be healed, since in +Vigano (the principal of unity) neither side finds objections. It can be difficult for the combatants to ask forgiveness, and rallying around +Vigano can provide an expedient means by which such difficult acts can be circuмvented. In time, by public mutual agreement with +Vigano, the old wounds can heal, and the Resistance can emerge stronger.
Perhaps I am dreaming, but that was my good intention when I wrote the words you reference.
2) Regarding the old Holy Week, there is no doubt you have accurately reproduced Archbishop Lefebvre's position. I would just note that that explanation transpired amidst a contentious battle in which he was being disobeyed, and felt the need to act in a way which
he had not previously acted (i.e., suppressing the use of the old missal).
Had it not been for the Nine, would Lefebvre still have felt a compulsion to use the 1962 Missal (a compulsion he apparently had not felt before the matter of the Nine came to a head)?
You can argue that it doesn't matter: He laid out a principle which remains (i.e., If the Missal is promulgated by the Pope, and is not against the Faith, we must use it).
Its a strong argument.
However, +Lefebvre rejected the 1965 Missal, likewise promulgated by Pope Paul VI, and despite its representing a significant degradation compared to the 1962, was much better than the Novus Ordo of 1969.
Note that the 1965 was not called a Novus Ordo. It contains many terrible changes made upon the same archaeologistic basis as those made in the 1956 Holy Week (e.g., removal of the prayers at the foot of the altar, on the grounds that 1000 years ago, priests said these prayers in the sacristy; it allows the introduction of the vernacular - a principle first invented in the 1956 Holy Week).
Was the 1965 Missal against the Faith?
Like the 1956 Holy Week, it contained many new features which seemed to represent Protestantized liturgical principles, but the definition of the Mass had not changed, as it would in the Novus Ordo. The theology of the 1965 Missal did not "represent a striking break from the theology of the Mass as defined at Trent," even if many of the individual innovations did.
My point here is merely to wonder how rigidly +Lefebvre's principle (if it was a principle) is to be applied. I fully agree with his rejection of the 1965 Missal (promulgated by a pope, and containing nothing against the Faith).
One last thought regarding the spreading of liturgical confusion you mention: I'm not sure how big a danger it is, or how much "confusion" will really be spread if the Resistance reverted to the old Holy Week. The FSSP says both the new and the old Holy Week, and they do not seem to be concerned about sending mixed messages. The ICK (at least used to) say only the old Holy Week. Rome is even giving permission to the captured groups to use it. And again, the SSPX used to permit it before the Nine made a flag of the old Missal.
Anyway, you made a good post, and these are just reflections, not a rebuttal. It could be I am mistaken about a great many things I have addressed, and if you think I am, it would be charitable of you to point them out to me.