CathInfo.com

This is an interesting theory, but how can we conciliate this with Cardinal Siri's embrace of Modernism after the council?

He said the Novus Ordo Mass, he did not oppose any errors publicly. He was pretty much a regular post-Vatican II cardinal.

This is why I find it hard to believe that he was the hidden and good sucessor of Pius XII.

This whole story could be true, but the facts kind of work against it.

I would like to be convinced of the contrary.

Then, if as you say, +ABL had such a command of Catholic theology, why did he cooperate with heretics to make the Society kosher?



B. The John XXIII (Bugnini) Missal

The John XXIII (*D'Amato) Missal

The evolution of liturgical practices in the Society of St.
Pius X will one day make a fascinating topic for someone’s
doctoral dissertation. In the early days of Ecône, the “tradi-
tional Mass” celebrated there was a mish-mash of the 1962
John XXIII rite and the interim Paul VI modifications
(1964–67), combined with things “the archbishop liked,”
“what one did in France,” and an occasional dash of the
pre-1955 practice.

How deceived we Americans felt we were, when we
arrived at Ecône only to find a “modernized” Tridentine
Mass! Psalm 42 dropped from the Prayers at the Foot of the
Altar, the priest sitting at the side (as in the Novus Ordo),
the Epistle and Gospel read at Low Mass from lecterns fac-
ing the people, and other innovations.

In the progression of reforms following 1962, it was not immediately clear in the archbishop's mind where the 'periculum Fidei' began.  His brief acceptance of some unacceptable reforms is forgiveable, like his brief prudential error concerning the Protocol of 1988.

During this same period of time, some of the English-
speakers in SSPX, notably the seminarian Daniel Dolan,
took an interest in the history of the post-1955 liturgical
changes. These were in large part, it turned out, the work
of Fr. Annibale Bugnini, the creator of the 1969 Novus Ordo
Mass. Bugnini was quite clear in stating that the slew of
liturgical changes that began in the 1950s were “a bridge to
the future” and part of the same process that would pro-
duce the New Mass.

Likely due to the president of the liturgical commission at the time (the very traditionalist Monsignor D'Amato), the reforms through 1962 did not attain 'periculum Fidei', and we are therefore unable to disobey them.

When in the 1970s SSPX priests were ordained and
returned to their respective countries, they followed the
local practices there. In English-speaking countries and
Germany, the pre-1955 Missal, Rubrics and Breviary were
used. France, in principle, used the John XXIII books.
The liturgical issue came up at the SSPX “General
Chapter” in 1976. There it was decided that Society priests
should continue to follow the existing practice in their
countries — a sensible enough rule. So, in our U.S. chapels
and seminary, we followed the pre-1955 liturgical books
and practices.

In the early 1980s, however, Abp. Lefebvre decided to
impose the 1962 Missal and Breviary of John XXIII on eve-
ryone in SSPX.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"...And so they condemn me.  And they condemn the Ecône.  And how is possible that they condemn the bishop was given them their ordination?  All these priests when they were in Ecône they accept this liturgy.  When I give them ordination with the liturgy of Pope John XXIII they accept this liturgy.  They accept during two years, three years, four years, they accept this liturgy.  And when they left the Ecône they change and they take another orientation.  And they decide to abandon that it was in Ecône and to keep... the liturgy of St. Pius X.

...And if I tolerate, and sometime I know that some father when they are going return in their countries, they use of liturgy of the St. Pius X.  I know that, but I tolerate.  But I was surprise that they change the liturgy we have in Ecône.  But in this time these father they don't say that they are against the liturgy of Ecône.  They don't say that.  But I think that they accept the liturgy of St. Pius X and they accept the liturgy of John XXIII.  But now, with this fact of Fr. Zapp, now I know that they don't accept, they refuse!  And they speak against this liturgy.  And so I cannot accept that.  That is a rupture!  Is a division in the fraternity!  How is possible that we accept that we are against in the fraternity?

... And so they are very now intolerant.  I was tolerant for them and now they are intolerant for me, for Ecône, for the fraternity.  That is a bad very sad situation.  Very sad situation.

... Perhaps is my fault because I am waiting too long.  If I take decision before, three four years before, perhaps the situation is not like now.  But perhaps I am too tolerant, too good?  Because I don't like go against my brother, my priest.  And so I tolerate, I tolerate, I think perhaps next year the thing can change, but today is nothing change and is not better, is worse.  And so we must pray.  We must pray. ..."

This again, we would later learn, was con-
nected with the archbishop’s “negotiations” with Ratzinger
and John Paul II. He was asking them for the right to use
the 1962 Missal — the one whose use would later be pre-
scribed for the Indult Mass, the Fraternity of St. Peter and
for the Motu Mass authorized by Ratzinger (Benedict XVI)
in July 2007.

In autumn of 1982, therefore, over the protests of Fr.
Sanborn, the U.S. seminary Rector, Abp. Lefebvre imposed
the use of the John XXIII Missal and Breviary on St. Tho-
mas Aquinas Seminary, then located in Ridgefield CT. This
did not go down well at all, with either the faculty or most
of the seminarians.

The introduction of the 1962 liturgical changes at the
seminary made it obvious that the rest of the priests in the
Northeast would be the archbishop’s next targets for “li-
turgical reform.”

Now not even the head of a real religious order like the
Cistercians has the power to impose new liturgical prac-
tices on members — and Abp. Lefebvre was nothing more
than a retired bishop heading a priests’ association that

had no canonical existence. He had no right to dictate li-
turgical practices to anyone.

The archbishop invoked the authority of Rome in his insistence on the use of the 1962 Missal, not his own authority.  As an aside, the Society has never lost canonical existence, which is not relevant to this accusation but may be important to understand in other discussions.

Apart from the legal issue, there was the principle it-
self. These liturgical reforms were the work of the Mason
Bugnini. They were one stage in his program to destroy the
Mass and replace it with the Novus Ordo assembly-supper.
Knowing that, there was no way I and my fellow priests
would use his Missal.

See previous comments on Monsignor D'Amato.

C. Summary Expulsions of Priests

In early 1983 Abp. Lefebvre threatened to expel Fr.
Zapp from SSPX because he refused to follow the John
XXIII reforms.

The archbishop’s threat contradicted canon law and
the tradition of the Church, which required that any bishop
who ordained a priest had to insure that the priest had a
“canonical title,” that is, a permanent means of temporal
sustenance. Even when a bishop ordained a priest without a
true canonical title (as Abp. Lefebvre did), canon law
obliged the bishop and his successors to support the priest
as long as he lived.

Abp. Lefebvre made a regular practice of threatening
priests with expulsion or actually expelling them from the
Society, and then making no provision whatsoever for
their support. By 1983, this was part of the archbishop’s
standard operating procedure — cross him and you were
out in the street with no appeal.

If the author could cite the canons invoked, I suspect we would find stipulations in the law concerning disobedient priests and/or circuмstances that may frustrate the conclusion of this argument.

D. Usurpation of Magisterial Authority

Here the problem was that Abp. Lefebvre and SSPX
acted as if they possessed magisterial authority. When it
came to matters such as the validity of the New Mass or
vacancy of the Holy See, the archbishop began to insist on
imposing on members adherence to his positions du jour.

All of the positions insisted on by the archbishop rest solidly on the teaching of the Church, and not on pretended magisterial authority.


This, again, was done with a view to cutting a deal with
Ratzinger and John Paul II.

The archbishop knew that he had the duty to use the 1962 Missal, regardless of what Modernist Rome recognized.  His correspondence with Rome was conducted for the sole purpose of getting the Romans to acknowledge the righteousness of the Society's actions as far as he could, for the Romans' own sake and for the sake of confused Catholics.  Using the term 'deal' presumes that each party relinquishes standpoints for the sake of unity.  The archbishop backed down on no standpoint whatsoever, and in fact only accelerated and intensified his criticisms of Modernist Rome during this correspondence.  Contrast the Society today!

But merely external compliance was not enough. To
this was added a requirement for internal submission to the
SSPX party line. This was evident from a November 8, 1982
letter that Abp. Lefebvre’s hand-picked successor, Fr.
Franz Schmidberger, wrote to a young priest:

“If you remain with our Society, you have to gradually
clarify your inner viewpoint and have to return to the at-
titude of the Priestly Society, which seems to us to be the
only right one, under the given circumstances, as a talk
with theologians this past weekend has shown me again.
Think about it seriously, because with this decision your
temporal and so much more your eternal welfare is at
stake to the highest degree. I will continue to pray for
you for divine enlightenment and humble submission.”

Return to the attitude of the Society? Your eternal wel-
fare is at stake? Humble submission? For us, this was nuts.
Only the Church has the right to require internal submis-
sion at the price of one’s “eternal welfare” — not the ca-
nonical counterpart of the Sacred Heart Auto League.
We joined up to fight modernism, not submit to an
alternate magisterium.

F. Loyalty to SSPX above All


The Nine vs. Lefebvre:

Source