Pope Pius XII was also believing everything Cardinal Bea and Bugnini told him; being cured by Our Lord doesn't mean Pius XII was immune to credulity. And also, there is the issue of the Urban VI reform of the Breviary hymns. That was promulgated, yet many resisted, particularly the clergy in the Roman basilicas, and they let the matter go, at least for them.

As for this quote:

Thus the liturgical movement has appeared as a sign of God’s providential dispositions for the present day, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church, intended to bring men closer to those mysteries of the faith and treasures of grace which derive from the active participation of the faithful in liturgical life.

I agree with Fr. Bonneterre and Fr. Cekada in saying that this statement was true in 1920, but not any more in 1956, because Pius XII went on to warn again of going against Mediator Dei. What real difference is there between the Novus Ordo Holy Week and the reformed one, other than the fact that one just has more traditional prayers?

Pope Pius XII was also believing everything Cardinal Bea and Bugnini told him; being cured by Our Lord doesn't mean Pius XII was immune to credulity. And also, there is the issue of the Urban VI reform of the Breviary hymns. That was promulgated, yet many resisted, particularly the clergy in the Roman basilicas, and they let the matter go, at least for them.

As for this quote:

Quote

Thus the liturgical movement has appeared as a sign of God’s providential dispositions for the present day, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church, intended to bring men closer to those mysteries of the faith and treasures of grace which derive from the active participation of the faithful in liturgical life.

I agree with Fr. Bonneterre and Fr. Cekada in saying that this statement was true in 1920, but not any more in 1956, because Pius XII went on to warn again of going against Mediator Dei. What real difference is there between the Novus Ordo Holy Week and the reformed one, other than the fact that one just has more traditional prayers?

One difference between the rite approved by Pius XII and the Novus Ordo is that the 1955 Holy Week Rite was approved by the Pope, therefore it came from the Church.  This means it is infallibly protected from evil and error, and can only be good and pleasing to God.

The Novus Ordo came from heretic anti-popes and has no protection from God, and it shows.  Even though I agree with Fr. Cekada on many things he says, I would never go with him on this issue.  It is not for Catholics to pick and choose what the Church gives us.  

We are the sheep, not the shepherds.  Sheep follow and obey their Shepherd, that is the path to Heaven.

So you are saying the clergy in the Roman basilicas were wrong to oppose Urban VIII's reform of the Breviary, particularly the hymns? They weren't censored, since his reform went against the tradition of St. Ambrose and other great Christian hymnists.

What about the opposition from Milan and Toledo respectively from the Pope's attempts to impose the Roman Rite on them? Were they wrong to oppose him?

I would like to see a source which states specifically that the clergy in the Roman Basilica's refused to obey the Pope in the matter.  I do not believe they exist.

There could be many reasons why clergy could have continued with other versions of the breviary, while remaining obedient to the Pope. The Pope allowed older continuous forms to remain, and he may have given indults for other reasons.  Also, in those times, copying was very slow, so it may be that clergy may have had to wait some time before adhering to the new law.

There is nothing wrong with voicing your concern to the Pope, but it should be done privately, and always with the understanding that in matters of the sacraments, the prayers of the Church, the laws of the Church, that when the Pope binds the Church on the matter, it is bound.  

St. Peter's successor retains the power given to St. Peter.  Whatever he binds shall be bound, whatever he loosens shall be loosened.

You are right, if you logically and consistently apply the principles it leads you to a conflict between two opposing Catholic principles.  One one hand, you must keep the Faith, and on the other, you must submit to the lawful successor of St. Peter.  You must as a Catholic accept as infallibly protected from evil or error all of the rites approved by the Pope.  

There is only one way out, and it is to recognize that the men who gave evil to universal Church by claiming to be the Pope, could not have been the Pope.  

You cannot change the perennial Church teachings to fit your position.  If you position cannot be reconciled with what has been taught and believed up until the time of the crisis, then the position is the problem, not the Church's teaching.

Quote from: Ambrose

You are right, if you logically and consistently apply the principles it leads you to a conflict between two opposing Catholic principles.  One one hand, you must keep the Faith, and on the other, you must submit to the lawful successor of St. Peter.  You must as a Catholic accept as infallibly protected from evil or error all of the rites approved by the Pope.  

There is only one way out, and it is to recognize that the men who gave evil to universal Church by claiming to be the Pope, could not have been the Pope.  

You cannot change the perennial Church teachings to fit your position.  If you position cannot be reconciled with what has been taught and believed up until the time of the crisis, then the position is the problem, not the Church's teaching.

And I'm not in this forum to hear sede arguments; do that somewhere else! I'm here only for the SSPX resistance.

Ok, that is fine, but I did not give you "sede" teaching, I gave you Catholic teaching.  I hope you at least will think about it.  

If we follow your interpretation, it leads to sedevacantism. But I can't hold it because there are other problems with it!

The infallibility of the Church's laws approved by the Pope is beyond dispute.  This is not my interpretation.  Read the pre-Vatican II books on this, you do not need to take it from me.  

Regarding the other points of sedevacantism, there are no problems with it if you understand it correctly.  There has been a lot of misinformation about the position over the years.  Surely you do not believe that a false caricature of a position can be substituted for the correct position.

If you think I am wrong on this read through John Lane's website and forum, which in my view provides the best and most scholarly explanation of sedevacantim on the web, and let me know what you think the weaknesses are based on the your reading.  

I am not saying this to taunt you, believe it or not my only motivation is that I care about your soul and the souls of all of the other members of this forum.

God bless you, and I will keep you in my prayers.

Let me just say I'm still convinced the SSPX position is the best one, though I am aware it has difficulties; I've read sedevacantist works and I'm still not convinced.

Ok fair enough, we will leave it at that.  God bless.