Author Topic: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform (Read 4193 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #15 on:** May 14, 2022, 11:45:42 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on May 14, 2022, 11:24:14 PM

Just as I defer my opinions about my clogged drain to my plumber, and my opinions about my tax return to my accountant, I defer my opinions about modern theological problems to the champion of Tradition, who supported his judgments with the doctrine of the Church. Lord, spare me from becoming an armchair theologian!

So profound!

ABL wasn't an actual theologian, btw. Everyone in Traddieland, by necessity, is an armchair theologian. Accept it, just as you should accept that your (cult-member) "rule of faith" died over THIRTY years ago. I know it is impossible to see clearly after guzzling so many gallons of kewl-aid, but maybe someone will read this who actually possesses good will. One never knows...

Incredulous · « **Reply #16 on:** May 15, 2022, 12:16:14 AM »

By 1959, Padre Pio knew that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ had reached the slippers of the Pope. But what did +ABL know?

By 2022, we finally realize the SSPX's real function is that of the controlled opposition for the infiltrated JєωChurch.

The SSPX has always maintained an ecuмenical posture, where non baptized Jєωs, muslims and buddhists can get to Heaven. (+ABL's 4 Baptisms in his 1984 Open Letter to Confused Catholics).

The SSPX's true purpose is to keep Catholic tradition, kosher.

That the "conflicted" Jєωιѕн Pope Pius XII opened the way to liturgical reforms is no excuse.
+ABL embraced the Bugnini/Montini 1962 Missal with it's butchering of Holy Week.
He thought rejection of it was an "extremist" posture. He was wrong.

And the SSPX openly denied the coup de tat of the 1958 conclave with Cardinal Siri (Pope Gregory XVII's) papacy.

Instead, they insisted that all the mainstream media's successors to Pius XII were legitimate.
And that union with these heretics needed to be maintained.... even Francis?

Kosher tradition... this is the legacy of the SSPX for 53 years and counting.

trento · « **Reply #17 on:** May 15, 2022, 02:45:26 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on May 14, 2022, 08:23:13 PM

Who decides what is an illegitimate ban? You?

+ABL, God rest his soul, is dead. He has been for over THIRTY years. It'd be incredibly refreshing if people acted like it and thought for themselves, incorporating "new" information and insights that he did not enjoy.

I will bet that should the current SSPX leadership agrees to implement the pre55 Holy Week, there will be some bright minds out there who will criticize the SSPX as "cozying up to Conciliar Rome", "becoming like the Ecclesia Dei institutes", in essence, you can't please all the armchair theologians on the Internet.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** May 15, 2022, 07:15:07 AM »

Quote from: NIFH on May 14, 2022, 11:24:14 PM

Just as I defer my opinions about my clogged drain to my plumber, and my opinions about my tax return to my accountant, I defer my opinions about modern theological problems to the champion of Tradition, who supported his judgements with the doctrine of the Church. Lord, spare me from becoming an armchair theologian!

Well, you have to realize that EVERYONE is an armchair theologian these days, as was Archbishop Lefebvre himself. He was a great missioinary, but he was not a theologian. Now, Father, later-Bishop, Guerard des Lauriers WAS a legitimate (and top-tier) pre-V2 theologian. But even he didn't have any authority. It's OK to think for yourself a little bit and come to your own conclusions. Until the Church is restored, we're kindof all on our own theologically (apart from obviously settled matters). In other words, it's not some kind of impiety to disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre. It is even permitted to (respectfully) disagree with Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas on some contested matters. Only the Church teaches with authority. Unfortunately, I think that's part of the fallout from R&R. When you set up the principle that Catholics are allowed to second-guess the Magisterium (now THAT is true armchair theology), then people look for other substitute doctrinal authorities, and that's where Archbishop Lefebvre took on a form larger than life. He became almost a substitute rule of faith in the vaccuм. But that's really wrong and we have to be careful of ascribing to him more authority and more infallibility than we allow for the Church's Magisterium.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #19 on:** May 15, 2022, 07:33:53 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 15, 2022, 07:15:07 AM

Unfortunately, I think that's part of the fallout from R&R. When you set up the principle that Catholics are allowed to second-guess the Magisterium (now THAT is true armchair theology)...

Unfortunately, that’s part of the fallout from sedevacantism, when you set up the principle that Catholics are allowed to depose the entire hierarchy, based upon their subjective/private interpretations of heresy, despite having no authority to do so (now THAT is true armchair theology).

Ps to other sedes: I’m really only just trying to get Lad to stop stirring the pot all the time by pointing out his position has its own dilemmas too. There was no need to take this thread in the direction he did; his own post introduces that comment as an aside. Knock it off.

NIFH · « **Reply #20 on:** May 15, 2022, 12:56:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 15, 2022, 07:15:07 AM

Well, you have to realize that EVERYONE is an armchair theologian these days, as was Archbishop Lefebvre himself. He was a great missioinary, but he was not a theologian.

The archbishop was awarded two doctorates, philosophy first, and theology in 1930. He served as a seminary professor and afterwards as the rector. In the biography you will find the testimony of his ability from his personal theologian for the council. A cursory reading of his works will demonstrate his profound understanding of theology.

Incredulous · « **Reply #21 on:** May 15, 2022, 01:42:19 PM »

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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

NIFH · « **Reply #22 on:** May 15, 2022, 02:34:59 PM »

Several questions are involved in this writing, I will find the time to frame a structured reply. Can you help me find Rome's permission to use the old Holy Week? I was unaware of it.

St. Thomas teaches we must refuse orders in the case of 'periculum Fidei', not simply because a Pope happens to be full of freemasonic ideas.

When asked if he had been elected pope, Cardinal Siri, after expressing deep grief, replied "I cannot answer that question because I am bound by the oath of the conclave". Were he the pope, he could absolve himself of the oath and answer the question.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #23 on:** May 15, 2022, 03:00:26 PM »

The original 1962 missal's changes can be broken down into 3 categories:
1. Making the 1955 Holy Week changes permanent.
2. Updating the calendar of saints and streamlining the ranking of feasts
3. Changes to the actual Mass? (this is debatable. See below).

People can yell and scream all they want about pts 1 and 2 but there's nothing inherently unorthodox or heretical about these changes. Were these changes perfect? No. Are they set in stone? No, so when we get an orthodox pope, he can edit/delete this mess for the future. No problem.

The only problem you can raise about the 1962 missal is with the changes to the Mass itself...a) inclusion of St Joseph in the canon, b) removal of the 2nd confiteor, c) maybe some other minor changes.

However, the ORIGINAL/1st edition of the 1962 missal (the one approved directly by Pope John23) did NOT add St Joseph to the canon (this was added in later editions). So if +ABL used the 1962 missal without St Joseph, then there's no problem there.

I'm not sure which edition removed the 2nd confiteor but +ABL added that back in, so no problem.

So really the use of the 1962 missal by +ABL can only be criticized for the Holy Week changes and the Calendar updates. I really think this is small potatoes. Pope Pius XII ordered these changes to occur (it takes years to update a calendar, so this work was started long before Pope John was pope). Even Fr Wathen said that these changes are minor and though not perfect, don't pose a big issue.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** May 15, 2022, 03:23:10 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 15, 2022, 07:33:53 AM

Unfortunately, that’s part of the fallout from sedevacantism, when you set up the principle that Catholics are allowed to depose the entire hierarchy, based upon their subjective/private interpretations of heresy, despite having no authority to do so (now THAT is true armchair theology).

Ps to other sedes: I’m really only just trying to get Lad to stop stirring the pot all the time by pointing out his position has its own dilemmas too. There was no need to take this thread in the direction he did; his own post introduces that comment as an aside. Knock it off.

You couldn't be more wrong ... and you are pertinaciously wrong. It's precisely because the SVs reject that principle that they have adopted the SV position on the crisis. According to R&R principles, even in normal times, there's never a real doctrinal authority again in the Church short of a pope making a dogmatic definition. At least according to SVism, that prior normal of Catholics giving assent to the Magisterium will be restored when the hierarchy is restored.

I hope that I'm aroud when the restored hierarchy condemns your errors and you're forced to eat crow and when SVism is vindicated.

NIFH · « **Reply #25 on:** May 15, 2022, 03:25:10 PM »

I have heard something about the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon having some relation to the fact that a recent pope gave him the title 'Patron of the Church'.

Incredulous · « **Reply #26 on:** May 15, 2022, 04:57:30 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on May 15, 2022, 02:34:59 PM

Several questions are involved in this writing, I will find the time to frame a structured reply. Can you help me find Rome's permission to use the old Holy Week? I was unaware of it.

St. Thomas teaches we must refuse orders in the case of 'periculum Fidei', not simply because a Pope happens to be full of freemasonic ideas.

When asked if he had been elected pope, Cardinal Siri, after expressing deep grief, replied "I cannot answer that question because I am bound by the oath of the conclave". Were he the pope, he could absolve himself of the oath and answer the question.

Here's a video with the 1958 Conclave history. Perot, a French video reporter filmed all five minutes of white smoke (4:38).

Cardinal Siri was elected Pope, but was threatened and intimidated to step down. Thus, the Conclave was invalidated.

Card. Siri had accepted the Office of the Papacy and had taken a papal name, Gregory XVII.

The Papacy suffered a coup d'etat and as Our Lady of LaSallete had warned, from that point on, the Church was eclipsed.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #27 on:** May 15, 2022, 05:43:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 15, 2022, 03:23:10 PM

You couldn't be more wrong ... and you are pertinaciously wrong. It's precisely because the SVs reject that principle that they have adopted the SV position on the crisis. According to R&R principles, even in normal times, there's never a real doctrinal authority again in the Church short of a pope making a dogmatic definition. At least according to SVism, that prior normal of Catholics giving assent to the Magisterium will be restored when the hierarchy is restored.

I hope that I'm aroud when the restored hierarchy condemns your errors and you're forced to eat crow and when SVism is vindicated.

You’re kind of an idiot, aren’t you?

According to your heretical Protestant ecclesiology, any man at any time can declare the See vacant, and simply assert the “heresy” of the pope is manifest.

Pay no mind to the practical reality that since, could that heretical principal prevail, the unity of the mystical body becomes an impossibility since each man would erect his own subjective threshold and declare the See full or vacant as his own personal lights “inform” him.

Are you microdosing tonight??

Incredulous · « **Reply #28 on:** May 15, 2022, 09:26:50 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 15, 2022, 03:00:26 PM

The original 1962 missal's changes can be broken down into 3 categories:
1. Making the 1955 Holy Week changes permanent.
2. Updating the calendar of saints and streamlining the ranking of feasts
3. Changes to the actual Mass? (this is debatable. See below).

People can yell and scream all they want about pts 1 and 2 but there's nothing inherently unorthodox or heretical about these changes. Were these changes perfect? No. Are they set in stone? No, so when we get an orthodox pope, he can edit/delete this mess for the future. No problem.

The only problem you can raise about the 1962 missal is with the changes to the Mass itself...a) inclusion of St Joseph in the canon, b) removal of the 2nd confiteor, c) maybe some other minor changes.

However, the ORIGINAL/1st edition of the 1962 missal (the one approved directly by Pope John23) did NOT add St Joseph to the canon (this was added in later editions). So if +ABL used the 1962 missal without St Joseph, then there's no problem there.

I'm not sure which edition removed the 2nd confiteor but +ABL added that back in, so no problem.

So really the use of the 1962 missal by +ABL can only be criticized for the Holy Week changes and the Calendar updates. I really think this is small potatoes. Pope Pius XII ordered these changes to occur (it takes years to update a calendar, so this work was started long before Pope John was pope). Even Fr Wathen said that these changes are minor and though not perfect, don't pose a big issue.

Pax,

The following Chiesa viva audio-book (from Defeatmodernism) includes correspondence between Baun (Bugnini) and his masonic superiors on his series of liturgical manipulations. Incredibly revealing.

The scandal was exposed slowly, by Father Luigi Villas's group in 1970.

By 1982, +ABL had to know the pedigree of Bugnini/Roncali/Montini/Wojtyla liturgical changes... were anti-tradition.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3X464pUhhxs&feature=youtu.be

St Giles · « **Reply #29 on:** May 15, 2022, 10:15:10 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on May 15, 2022, 04:57:30 PM

Here's a video with the 1958 Conclave history. Perot, a French video reporter filmed all five minutes of white smoke (4:38).

Cardinal Siri was elected Pope, but was threatened and intimidated to step down. Thus, the Conclave was invalidated.

Card. Siri had accepted the Office of the Papacy and had taken a papal name, Gregory XVII.

The Papacy suffered a coup d'etat and as Our Lady of LaSallete had warned, from that point on, the Church was eclipsed.

According to this video, did Cardinal Siri go against Luke 14:26? Would his obligation have been to, knowing the risk, lay down his life for the church that some good may come of it? I would think his death would have sent a strong message, and by God's grace prevented the current crisis, or at least delay it. May God have mercy on his soul.

Author Topic: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform (Read 4193 times)

gladius_veritatis

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

Incredulous

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

trento

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

Ladislaus

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

SeanJohnson

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

NIFH

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

Incredulous

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

NIFH

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

Pax Vobis

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

Ladislaus

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

NIFH

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

Incredulous

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

SeanJohnson

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

Incredulous

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform

St Giles

Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform