Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform  (Read 2641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8408
  • Reputation: +4972/-1528
  • Gender: Male
Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2022, 11:03:03 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I’m sure +ABL and Fr Wathen knew about Bugnini.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the 62 missal did not alter the mass in any essential way.  

    The Holy Week changes are liberal but are they heretical?  They don’t affect the mass so I don’t see how such changes are monumentally wrong.  Should they be reversed?  Absolutely.  

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11982
    • Reputation: +4647/-767
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #31 on: May 16, 2022, 04:43:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Then, if as you say, +ABL had such a command of Catholic theology, why did he cooperate with heretics to make the Society kosher?.......

    The Nine vs. Lefebvre:

    Source
    It's interesting how the stories differ, this is a very short version of the story, it's the "other side of the coin" from +ABL's position......

    Only when the Faith is in question
    Archbishop Lefebvre's 1983 Ridgefield Conference

    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:

    1. "Sciendum tamen est quod ubi immineret periculum fidei." Periculum fidei, i.e., the danger to our faith...
    2. "etiam publice essent praelate a subditis arguendi.", i.e., the subject can be opposed to the authority if the Faith is in question ("periculum fidei");
    3. "Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditus Petro, propter imminens periculum scandali circa fidem, Petrum publice arguit," i.e., St. Paul opposed St. Peter because it was a danger for the Faith (cf. Galatians 2:11).

    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.

    Those who abandon the Society on the left, they now use the rite of the New Mass... they are Progressivists... they are not against Progressivism any more.

    Those who abandon us to the right, for them, there is no more any relations with Rome, no more relation with the Church, and they look (for a pope elsewhere)...as in the case of Fr. G--, where he went to Spain to see if the famous Palmar De Troya [a schismatic “traditionalist” cult in Spain who elected their own “pope”—Ed.], i.e., Clemente… he went there to see if Clemente is the true pope! Because such priests (who defect to the right) they look for authority; (by nature) they cannot remain without authority… because they have none... they have none.

    (...)

    This situation is very sad because I thought that I was helping my priests, (since I gave them) all my prayers, all my spirit, all my heart.

    I gave all this to these priests... [“The Nine” who were expelled—Ed.] and they did good work… But it is a pity now… what will happen to the faithful? ...the poor faithful, if they know that five or six or seven priests are no more members of the Society of St. Pius X?

    What has happened? They will be bewildered to hear that it is true, these priests are not members of the Society any more… [with great distress and heartache]; ...it is very sad, very sad for the faithful. I know these American faithful... they are very good people... and now... what can I do?"

    Perhaps it is my fault, because I waited too long... if I took this decision three or four years ago, perhaps the situation would not be as grave as now. But perhaps I am too lenient, too tolerant, too good to them, because I do not like to go against my brothers, my priests.

    So I tolerated them... I thought perhaps next year, or some time, things would change... but truly nothing has changed... it’s not better... in fact things have gotten worse with time.

    Thus, we must pray... we must pray.

    I hope, slowly, slowly, they can return in the good way, in the good progress of the seminary... and I hope I can give you ordination. We need priests... but we do not need priests that disobey, no.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30623
    • Reputation: +18036/-4522
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #32 on: May 16, 2022, 06:59:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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??

    You repeatedly embarrass yourself with these effeminate meltdowns.  Grow up, would you?

    What's eminently Protestant is the R&R assertion that the Catholic Church can become corrupt and fundamentally veer away from the Church's Tradition.  That allegation of corruption is at the very heart of Protestantism, and R&R declares that it's OK to separate from Rome because Rome has become corrupt in both faith and in worship (precisely the allegations made by the Prots).

    Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly asserted the Catholic principle (which you reject) that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and that what's taking place is not possible, and where he asserted the SVism is in fact a possible explanation.  He merely refrained from coming out publicly with it (his words) out of an abundance of prudence.  But he repeatedly asserted that SVism is possible and that it's not heretical, and at times considered it likely.  Around the time of Assisi he said that he may have to come out as an SV.  Father Ringrose cited all these statements by Lefebvre when he became SV.

    I find it incredibly humorous that your buddy Salza, whom you guys all touted as the champion of R&R, turned on your clowns, and took is principles to their logical conclusions (which SVs called out as eroneous from the outset) and declared you to be outside the Church.  :laugh1:  Now you guys are "refuting" Salza using the same arguments that SVs had against him in the first place.

    See, the difference between SVism and R&R in terms of rendering the "unity of the mystical body ... an impossibility" is that SVs hold that this is an extraordiary situation due to the obvious infiltration and takeover of the Church.  There have been regular Antipopes throughout Church history and disputes over the identity of the real pope.  That is nothing new, and has a ton of precedents.  What's absolutely novel ... and heretical ... is the assertion that even when you have a legitimate pope, it's permissible for Catholics to reject their Magisterium, their Rite of Mass, etc. ... when they think they know better.  Even when a new legitimate pope is elected, there's no way ever to roll that garbage back, and the "new normal" created by R&R is a situation where anyone can at any time second-guess the Magisterium.  Your principles destroy the Church.  An extraordinary takeover situation (in many ways like the Great Western Schism scenario) does not fundamentally destroy the Church.  Canonists have repeatedly asserted (have been quoted here) that one is not in schism for refusing submissioin to a Pope if the refusal is based on doubts about his election or his person.  Corollary to that is of course that if you have no doubts about his person, then you are schismatic to behave the way you behave.

    We you in the seminary for about 3 days?  Or were you asleep during all your classes?  You obviously learned nothing about Catholic theology while you were there.
    You would have thought tath

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7872
    • Reputation: +7664/-762
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #33 on: May 16, 2022, 07:32:57 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Virgin, from the time of Our Lady of LaSalette stated that the Pope will suffer much.

    Pope Gregory XVII was threatened with the annihilation of his family and the decapitation of the Roman Curia via a tactical nuke. 

    The Chiesa Viva expose docuмents that.

    He was the Pope in hiding. Surely he was ashamed of himself. Still he was the papal favorite for three consecutive conclaves and in each case, ʝʊdɛօ-masonry bumped him out. 
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30623
    • Reputation: +18036/-4522
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #34 on: May 16, 2022, 07:51:07 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Virgin, from the time of Our Lady of LaSalette stated that the Pope will suffer much.

    Pope Gregory XVII was threatened with the annihilation of his family and the decapitation of the Roman Curia via a tactical nuke. 

    The Chiesa Viva expose docuмents that.

    He was the Pope in hiding. Surely he was ashamed of himself. Still he was the papal favorite for three consecutive conclaves and in each case, ʝʊdɛօ-masonry bumped him out.

    THIS^^^

    It's very clear what happened.  Combine Catholic teaching regarding the protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit along with Fatima, LaSalette, and an abundance of Catholic prophecy, then the conclusion is obvious.  Catholic Church was taken over (outwardly) by the Judaeo-Masonic-Communists (the errors of Russia).


    Online SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11647
    • Reputation: +7872/-2777
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #35 on: May 16, 2022, 08:17:20 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You repeatedly embarrass yourself with these effeminate meltdowns.  Grow up, would you?

    What's eminently Protestant is the R&R assertion that the Catholic Church can become corrupt and fundamentally veer away from the Church's Tradition.  That allegation of corruption is at the very heart of Protestantism, and R&R declares that it's OK to separate from Rome because Rome has become corrupt in both faith and in worship (precisely the allegations made by the Prots).

    Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly asserted the Catholic principle (which you reject) that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and that what's taking place is not possible, and where he asserted the SVism is in fact a possible explanation.  He merely refrained from coming out publicly with it (his words) out of an abundance of prudence.  But he repeatedly asserted that SVism is possible and that it's not heretical, and at times considered it likely.  Around the time of Assisi he said that he may have to come out as an SV.  Father Ringrose cited all these statements by Lefebvre when he became SV.

    I find it incredibly humorous that your buddy Salza, whom you guys all touted as the champion of R&R, turned on your clowns, and took is principles to their logical conclusions (which SVs called out as eroneous from the outset) and declared you to be outside the Church.  :laugh1:  Now you guys are "refuting" Salza using the same arguments that SVs had against him in the first place.

    See, the difference between SVism and R&R in terms of rendering the "unity of the mystical body ... an impossibility" is that SVs hold that this is an extraordiary situation due to the obvious infiltration and takeover of the Church.  There have been regular Antipopes throughout Church history and disputes over the identity of the real pope.  That is nothing new, and has a ton of precedents.  What's absolutely novel ... and heretical ... is the assertion that even when you have a legitimate pope, it's permissible for Catholics to reject their Magisterium, their Rite of Mass, etc. ... when they think they know better.  Even when a new legitimate pope is elected, there's no way ever to roll that garbage back, and the "new normal" created by R&R is a situation where anyone can at any time second-guess the Magisterium.  Your principles destroy the Church.  An extraordinary takeover situation (in many ways like the Great Western Schism scenario) does not fundamentally destroy the Church.  Canonists have repeatedly asserted (have been quoted here) that one is not in schism for refusing submissioin to a Pope if the refusal is based on doubts about his election or his person.  Corollary to that is of course that if you have no doubts about his person, then you are schismatic to behave the way you behave.

    We you in the seminary for about 3 days?  Or were you asleep during all your classes?  You obviously learned nothing about Catholic theology while you were there.
    You would have thought tath

    :facepalm::jester:
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2614
    • Reputation: +1169/-182
    • Gender: Female
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #36 on: May 16, 2022, 09:19:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Virgin, from the time of Our Lady of LaSalette stated that the Pope will suffer much.

    Pope Gregory XVII was threatened with the annihilation of his family and the decapitation of the Roman Curia via a tactical nuke. 

    The Chiesa Viva expose docuмents that.

    He was the Pope in hiding. Surely he was ashamed of himself. Still he was the papal favorite for three consecutive conclaves and in each case, ʝʊdɛօ-masonry bumped him out.
    I think it's the most plausible explanation.

    How do you think this works with the "two popes" prophecies?

    Offline NIFH

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 27
    • Reputation: +16/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #37 on: May 16, 2022, 08:20:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is possible (and I am personally inclined to believe) that skullduggery was involved in the 1958 conclave.  The Church does not declare pontifical reigns invalid because of skullduggery.  Examples abound in Church history.  Particularly amusing is the history of the papacy during the 1040's:

    1044: Benedict IX (who obtained the Papal office through bribes in 1032) is chased from Rome by its citizens.

    Jan. 1045: Sylvester III is elected.

    March 1045: Benedict IX returns to Rome and deposes Sylvester III.

    May 1045: Benedict IX sells the office to Gregory VI.

    1046: Gregory VI resigns and is replaced by Clement II.

    1047: Benedict IX again seizes the throne upon the death of Clement II.

    1048: Benedict IX is driven from Rome by the German emperor, to be replaced by Damasus II.

    Plenty of material is here to raise doubts about the validity of the beginnings of endings of various pontificates, yet each one is recognized by the Church and is listed in the Annuario Pontificio, including all three reigns of Benedict IX.

    Assuming one day one of the various conjectures concerning Cardinal Siri were proved true, the Church would still recognize the pontificate of John XXIII.


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7872
    • Reputation: +7664/-762
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #38 on: May 16, 2022, 08:21:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think it's the most plausible explanation.

    How do you think this works with the "two popes" prophecies?
    Thanks for the question MP.

    We've had a hard time producing Sr. Melanie's original account of Our Lady of La Salette. This apparition was heavily slandered and suppressed, but made a bit of a comeback at the end of the 19th Century.  If you do some searches you can find her true life story.

    A Frenchman I know, says the original account is locked in the reserve room of a French gov't controlled library (Grenoble?) Can't recall?

    But, we do have a brief analysis from Father Hesse, circa 2004,(youtube) in which he discusses Our Lady of La Salette's prophecy of "Two worm ridden Popes". She claimed they would die on the same night.

    At the time Father Hesse did this recording, I believe JPII was still alive?  But the jist of Father Hesse's talk was: "What could Mother Mary have meant?"

    So, in 2022, we have the unique situation... where two worm ridden men, making some claim to the Seat... are still alive.   :popcorn:


    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 94
    • Reputation: +48/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #39 on: May 17, 2022, 11:37:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Virgin, from the time of Our Lady of LaSalette stated that the Pope will suffer much.

    Pope Gregory XVII was threatened with the annihilation of his family and the decapitation of the Roman Curia via a tactical nuke. 

    The Chiesa Viva expose docuмents that.

    He was the Pope in hiding. Surely he was ashamed of himself. Still he was the papal favorite for three consecutive conclaves and in each case, ʝʊdɛօ-masonry bumped him out.

    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. 

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7872
    • Reputation: +7664/-762
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #40 on: May 18, 2022, 12:56:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    True.  TIA demonstrated that the deposed Pope, capitulated as Cardinal Siri and cooperated with modernist usurper Popes.

    But, if it was a papal coup d’etat in 1958, wouldn’t it mean that the successive Popes were imposters?

    By definition, they would be anti-popes.
     
     Anacletus II has been deemed by the Church to have held the seat for 8 years as an anti-Pope.

    When the Church recovers, it can still re-identify Roncali, Montini, Wojtyla and Bergolio for what they are.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30623
    • Reputation: +18036/-4522
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #41 on: May 18, 2022, 12:59:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    I don't really see the problem.  Popes are not protected from error as private persons, only in their public teaching capacity.  From a late interview, I got the impressions that his conscience was tortured by what took place at the conclaves, but he felt himself under oath not to speak of what went on.  Right after the Roncalli conclave, Roncalli made the unprecedented move of requiring the electors to stay after the results were promulgated, and he reportedly bound them by some oath under pain of excommunication not to reveal what went on.

    He did at one point say that V2 was the greatest disaster in Church history, but that's about as far as he went.  He was a weak man, no doubt, and he was somehow convinced that he could not violate the oath of secrecy without danger of damnation.

    Offline NIFH

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 27
    • Reputation: +16/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #42 on: May 19, 2022, 05:10:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    (196467), 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 w
    ould 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

    Offline NIFH

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 27
    • Reputation: +16/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Lefebvre: SSPX must use 1962 reform
    « Reply #43 on: May 19, 2022, 05:37:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Antipope Anacletus II seized Rome by the force of his supporters there, forcing the true pope, Innocent II, to flee.  The true pope governed the Church in exile with the support of the majority of the Church.  Upon the death of the antipope, the schismatics placed antipope Victor II in Rome, who quickly surrendered to Innocent II.

    This history is vastly different from the various conjectures about Cardinal Siri, whose supposed situation closely resembles the events of the 1040's, related previously.