Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 20, 2021, 03:19:45 PM
-
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQPYkmS-HY&t=2850s
-
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)?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
No, the SSPX will not ask Rome for the fully Catholic Holy Week rites, because it would send the wrong message:
They are supposed to be heading towards the conciliar church, not away from it (which is what a request for the old Holy Week would represent).
And of course, occupied Rome has no qualms about giving permission to the Ecclesia Dei communities to use the old Holy Week rites, since they have proven over and over again that their “traditionalism” runs only liturgically deep (and even then, as Vigano points out, not without occasional incense offered to the modernist agenda, with celebrating the new Mass and concelebration, in addition to adopting the new theology via the hermeneutic).
But here’s the question, Byz:
Lefebvre had already planted his flag in the 1962/1956 missals as a result of his conflict with the 9 in 1983. But, had the incident with the 9 not transpired in 1983 (ie., during a time when he was hopeful and diplomatic with the seemingly conservative JPII), would he still have doubled-down after, say, 1988, when diplomacy died?
One must be allowed to doubt.
In any case, the fully Catholic missal was permitted prior to the incident with the 9, and Lefebvre had no problem with it until it seemed to risk becoming a problem with regard to Roman negotiations.
Ergo, post-1988 (ie., post-negotiations), it should not be a problem today.
All this aside, the big news from Fr. Hewko’s sermon is not that he started saying the old Holy Week (good as that is), but that in +Vigano the Resistance has found a leader around whom both factions of the Resistance can support, and therefore unify to become a force.
-
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 (https://sspx.org/en/node/1306).
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.
-
Well-said, Plenus Venter!
I would like to repeat this part:
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.
-
Yes, Fr. Hewko made some mistakes but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he learned from them. He did break from Fr. Pfeiffer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had been under the same diabolical influences as Fr. Pfeiffer.
I knew Fr. Hewko at seminary and he’s a bit more of a passive personality so that I can see him being manipulated by the aggressive assertiveness of Fr. Pfeiffer.
-
Yes, Fr. Hewko made some mistakes but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he learned from them. He did break from Fr. Pfeiffer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had been under the same diabolical influences as Fr. Pfeiffer.
I knew Fr. Hewko at seminary and he’s a bit more of a passive personality so that I can see him being manipulated by the aggressive assertiveness of Fr. Pfeiffer.
Yes, he's passive, and yes, breaking with Fr. Pfeiffer was an ounce of progress in the right direction.
But it's unjust that he's not ACTIVELY defending Bp. Williamson and atoning for any times he went overboard in the past. That includes attacking countless Resistance priests who are without significant faults to publicly criticize.
Being part of Pfeifferville and then subsequently failing to denounce specific errors during that dark chapter of his past has caused me to lose most respect I had for him. If you make a mistake, fine. Admit it, and ATONE FOR IT which includes trying to undo as many of the damages/injustices YOU participated in as possible. That is a fundamental, inescapable part of any REAL contrition or REAL change of heart.
But any Trad priest who fails to attach himself to a faithful Traditional bishop is flawed and frankly to be avoided, in my opinion.
That includes Fr. Garcia, who had no other issues that I know of. Merely choosing to be a maverick is a huge flaw. And I'm sure the Church agrees with me.
If this were 1970 and you felt/believed that the whole body of bishops abandoned you, that would be one thing. But there are several well-known faithful Traditional bishops, both sedevacantist, non-sedevacantist, and almost-Conciliar alive today.
If your position is so unique (like those belonging to the 806th Gender, population: 1) that you can't find a bishop to follow, then maybe you need to gain an ounce of humility and ask yourself why you're so darn special.
If you're the only one in the world, than MAYBE just maybe YOU'RE in the wrong.
-
Lots of the Independent Traditional priests went it alone in the earlier days of the Crisis. There’s a need for a bishop to have some Sacraments but it’s not quite the same as being a vagus before Vatican II when there were Catholic bishops who had jurisdiction.
-
But any Trad priest who fails to attach himself to a faithful Traditional bishop is flawed and frankly to be avoided, in my opinion.
?? +W is actively and openly encouraging a decentralized Trad structure; the complete opposite of the new-sspx. I think your comments are true, to a degree, but also outdated based on current circuмstances.
-
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 (https://sspx.org/en/node/1306).
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.
-
Certainly, Archbishop Lefebvre's bad experience with The Nine hardened him against some of the positions they aggressively promoted.
-
Thank you Sean, and all, for your replies.
For some reason I can't get the upvoting function to work to acknowledge all the good comments.
I do understand where you are coming from, and like you, I hope that something brings dear Fr Hewko all the way back to where he left off.
My understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre's position is that rather than 'allowing' the old missal in the early days of the SSPX, he 'tolerated' it, especially in view of the number of older non-SSPX priests who were constantly helping the Archbishop with his work. I think the fact that he did trial the 1965 missal shows just how committed he was to the principle elaborated above of obeying the Pope in all things that did not pose a danger to the Faith (that is what a Catholic is obliged to do after all!). In the end, however, I would say it became clear to him that this liturgy was not a homogeneous development of the Catholic Mass, and that it would indeed unsettle the faith of Catholics, or lead to a weakening of the faith, like the removal of the second confiteor... that is what my Catholic sense tells me, no doubt the older SSPX priests who studied at Econe could add a little clarity to that issue.
Anyway, you don't get much wrong which is why you don't hear much from me. I usually just stay in the background and hit the green arrows! Keep up the good work, you and Matthew both! God bless.
-
Thank you Sean, and all, for your replies.
For some reason I can't get the upvoting function to work to acknowledge all the good comments.
I do understand where you are coming from, and like you, I hope that something brings dear Fr Hewko all the way back to where he left off.
My understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre's position is that rather than 'allowing' the old missal in the early days of the SSPX, he 'tolerated' it, especially in view of the number of older non-SSPX priests who were constantly helping the Archbishop with his work. I think the fact that he did trial the 1965 missal shows just how committed he was to the principle elaborated above of obeying the Pope in all things that did not pose a danger to the Faith (that is what a Catholic is obliged to do after all!). In the end, however, I would say it became clear to him that this liturgy was not a homogeneous development of the Catholic Mass, and that it would indeed unsettle the faith of Catholics, or lead to a weakening of the faith, like the removal of the second confiteor... that is what my Catholic sense tells me, no doubt the older SSPX priests who studied at Econe could add a little clarity to that issue.
Anyway, you don't get much wrong which is why you don't hear much from me. I usually just stay in the background and hit the green arrows! Keep up the good work, you and Matthew both! God bless.
You're the second person I am hearing this from....
Matthew is there an issue with the voting for certain members?
-
You're the second person I am hearing this from....
Matthew is there an issue with the voting for certain members?
Once you reach 100 posts you can upvote and downvote, its an effort to fight trolls who get accounts and dislike everybody. They need to post and have a reputation.
-
I remember hearing a talk by Fr. Hesse, in which he states that the Archbishop used the 1962 Mass as an act of "self-defense" , by which Fr. Hesse explained that since the Archbishop appeared to be "outside the church" in the eyes of the Vatican hierarchy, he thus wanted to make clear that he and his SSPX do acknowledge that they recognize the Pope as true Popes and one way to show that they mean what they say (and not just empty words), he decided to use the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. Fr. Hesse then goes on to explain why he uses the Pre-1955 liturgy and excuse the SSPX for not using it do to the "self-defense" maneuver.
The question for the "Resistance" priests or those not in communication with the Vatican authorities, does the "self-defense" position still apply, especially if the FSSP and Institute of Christ the king uses it.
-
Outside of the Holy Week changes, the only changes to the 62 missal are calendar/feast day. .
The addition of St Joseph and removal of the 2nd confeteor were not part of the original 62 missal. +ABL didn’t go along with these either.
.
The Holy Week changes are minor, all things considered. Not worth the fight you’re trying to start.