Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: NIFH on May 13, 2022, 07:05:39 PM
-
Conference given in broken English (preserved here).
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"... What is the principle, the first principle to know what we must do in this circuмstance, in this crisis of the Church? What is the first principle? What is my principle? The principle of the Church is the principle of St. Thomas Aquinas. And this is the principle--is not my choice. Is not my idea. Is not my desire. I am nothing! I follow the doctrine of the Church. And doctrine of the Church is St. Thomas Aquinas. And what said St. Thomas Aquinas about the authority in the Church? When we can refuse something from authority of the Church? Only when the Faith is in question. Only in this case. Not other case. Only in this case: if the Faith is in question. And that you have in IIa IIae, q. 33 art. 4 ad 2um. Is a answer to somebody said that "but we cannot resist to the authority, we must obey". And that said St. Thomas Aquinas, "Sciendum tamen est quod ubi immineret periculum Fidei," 'periculum Fidei': the danger for our Faith. And so, "etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi". The subject can be opposed to the authority, to the prelate, if the Faith is in question. "Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditis Petro, propter imminent periculum scandali circa fidem, Petrum publice arguit". Paulus opposed to St. Peter because it was a danger for the Faith. And that is the principle. I cannot have another motive to resist to the pope. Is very serious to be opposed to the pope, to the church! Very serious! If we think that we must do that, we must do only to preserve our Faith, not for another motive.
And so we can now do the application of this principle. For me, I think that the liturgical reform of John XXIII has nothing against the Faith. You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Missal; what is in this book of John XXIII that is against our Faith? Nothing! And so I cannot refuse this book. He's the pope! He's the pope! And the pope give me this book! But is another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI. In the book of the reform of Pope Paul VI is a very danger for my faith. Is the 'periculum Fidei'. And so I refuse because ecuмenism is the idea of this reform. Ecuмenism is the motive of this reform. And this ecuмenism, they said themself, the Pope Paul VI and the Bugnini and all these men, they say that the motive of this reform is ecuмenism. And ecuмenism is take away all things which displease to the protestant. That is incredible! In our book of Catholic liturgy! And not only the liturgy take away all displease to the protestant, but in the Canon Law, in the institution of the Church. But what displease to the protestant? The doctrine! The Faith! The Catholic Faith! The Sacrifice of the Mass! The propitiatory sacrifice! That is that to the protestant cannot accept. And if we ask to the protestant-- and the protestant, they were present to this reform! And the definition of Article 7 of the Mass is protestant definition! And so we cannot accept! Is impossible! But I have no the same reason, the same motive for the reform of Pope John XXIII.
And not only I have no reason, but I have reason, motive to accept this, because is the same principle that in bull Divino Afflatu of the Pope Pius X. If you read this bull of St. Pius X to his liturgical reform you have the same principle that the Pope John XXIII use for his reform. The first paragraph, the first consideration of the Pope Pius X is about the Psalter. And he said that that is the essential thing in the Breviary, the Psalms. "Accedit quod in Psalmist mirabilis quaedam vis invest ad excitanda in animis omnium studio virtutum". He has a consideration for these Psalm very magnificent, magnificent. He show that the heart of our Breviary is this Psalter. And he has citation of St. Augustine. And he said, "Iure igitur optimo provisum est antiquitus, et per decreta Romanorum Pontificuм, et per canones Conciliorum, et permonasticas leges, ut homines ex utroque clero integrum Psalterium per singulas hebdomadas concineret vel recitarent": "Rightly, therefore, and most excellently as it has been provided for from ancient times and through the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs and through the canons of the councils, through the monastic laws that men of both clergys should each week sing or recite the entire Psalter". That is the tradition: say by week all Psalms. That is the rule of the Church, antique rule: say all Psalm in the week. And that is the rule of Pope John XXIII. And so after he said the prayer is very magnificent prayer he said "But with the time we have many feast of holy man, many feast, they are so numerous that we cannot say all Psalm in the week. And so many bishop and many cardinal ask to diminish the feast of the saint to--". "It is hardly remarkable therefore that many bishops from various parts of the world referred their wishes in this matter to the Holy See, above all at the Vatican Council when they asked this, amongst other things, that as far as possible the old habit of reciting each week the whole Psalter should be brought back, in such a way however that for the clergy working in the vineyard of the Lord there shouldn't be imposed a heavier burden. With these desires and wishes which predated Our own Pontificate, and which from then onwards by Our venerable brethren and by pious men were put forward, We indeed thought that it should be granted, carefully however, lest by the recitation of the entire Psalter included all in one week, anything should fall away from the worship of the saints, or lest, on the other side, the burden imposed on the clergy of the Divine Office should be wearisome". So they try to conserve the rule to say all Psalm in the week, and to have some feast, but not so many that we say always the same Psalms in the Common of the Feast, you know? And so is the same rule followed by John XXIII. Perhaps in some details we can say that perhaps it should be better so and so, but you know we have no reason very important to refuse this reform.
And really this reform was done by Pius XII. The Pope John XXIII in his decree said that, and I know that because when I was Apostolic Delegate I received from Rome the papers and letters from Rome and they said that they asked me to ask to all bishop of the delegation, in the episcopal conference in Madagascar, in Cameroon, in French Occidental Africa and in Central Africa...all...episcopal conference to ask the bishop about the reform of the Breviary. And so I know that that was during the pontificate of Pius XII.
And when they say "but they are the same men they do this reform as men they do the reform of Pope Paul VI" and I said that is not true. Perhaps in the commission is possible that you have some men. Perhaps Bugnini was member of this commission. But you know that during the pontificate of the Pope John XXIII, this pope removed Monsignor Bugnini from his teaching post in the University of the Lateran. ...was against Bugnini. And I know the president of the commission. He done this reform during the Pope John XXIII. It was Monsignor D'Amato. Monsignor D'Amato, Abbott of St. Paul Outside the Walls. He is alive now. He is always in St. Paul. Very old man, but I know him very well and I speak many times with him. It was president of the commission of liturgy during the Pope John XXIII. Very traditionalist! Very traditionalist! And after the council he was put outside because he was traditionalist and they replace him by Bugnini. That is true. That is a big change. Big change. Is not the same, is not true to say that this reform of Pope John XXIII is the beginning of the reform of Pope Paul VI. That is not true. And so I accept this reform... We must obey to the pope when we have no reason to refuse...
And I think that it is very important to obey to the pope, to have this obedience..."
-
From a later conference:
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Is not really the liturgy of Pope John XXIII. If the name of XXIII is to you sick, don't say it! ...said Pope Pius XII because really this liturgy is not of Pope John XXIII, is from Pius XII. I know that because...I work in this reform. Pope Pius XII send me the question to distribute the four episcopal conference in Africa to ask the bishop what is their thinking about the reform of Missal and Breviary, and I distribute and we discuss, in episcopal conference, I discuss with 64 bishop to give the answer to the pope, during the Pope Pius XII. The reform is not a reform of Pope John, is a reform of Pope Pius XII. Pope John sign the reform because Pope Pius XII die. ..."
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"... what is in this book of John XXIII that is against our Faith? Nothing! And so I cannot refuse this book. He's the pope! He's the pope! And the pope give me this book!
In general, I have no issues with his reasoning. Many R&R think that the Church is a free-for-all and people can do what suits them. If you were alive during the 1950s and your bishop told you to use the Pius XII Holy Week Rite, then you used the Pius XII Holy Week Rite, even if you respectfully raised your objections.
But the bold is where I have a problem. Even assuming that John XXIII was an actual pope, it's false that HE IS THE POPE. No, he WAS the Pope. He stopped being pope (if he ever was) when he died. Since then, a lot has happened. Plus, Rome has permitted use of the pre-1950s Holy Week, so if you think they're legitimate popes, then what's the problem? [I know this is more about the 1962 Mass, but still.]
And now that Bergoglio has banned the Tridentine Mass altogether, what's the difference if you used the 1962 or the pre-1962 Mass? None. In both case, you're disobeying the CURRENT "pope".
-
Dogmatic pre-55 is like dogmatic non-una cuм or any of these other rabbit holes, there's no truly coherent position when you follow it to its logical conclusion. The CMRI has an intellectually and theologically consistent position here. When (+?) Vigano calls a conclave we can get pre-55 if he sees fit and I will submit. Rather than all of these garbage debates that just rip apart families and hurt Tradition we need to pray for a man on the chair that is doing God's will and it will all work out.
As an aside my family prays nightly for (+?) Vigano to call a conclave and everyone else should pray for this intention too. RnR, Sede etc could all rally around this, IMO there's a very tight window here for a VERY strong unity and it's going to take our prayers. God's will be done though.
-
As an aside my family prays nightly for (+?) Vigano to call a conclave and everyone else should pray for this intention too. RnR, Sede etc could all rally around this, IMO there's a very tight window here for a VERY strong unity and it's going to take our prayers. God's will be done though.
Sure, even SeanJohnson, who's staunchly R&R, has written a fantasy along these lines. Of course, God's ways are not our ways. He'll decide when and how to bring an end to this crisis. +Vigano calling for a conclave would be amazing, and then the conclave should unanimously elect him pope (and then of course conditionally consecrate him). He writes and speaks like a true pastor and many of his missives read like Encyclicals.
Naturally speaking, something like that would be one of our only hopes, since +Vigano has a large following even among the conservative NO Catholics, Motarians, etc. So, basically, anyone who still has faith left could get behind a +Vigano.
-
Sure, even SeanJohnson, who's staunchly R&R, has written a fantasy along these lines. Of course, God's ways are not our ways. He'll decide when and how to bring an end to this crisis. +Vigano calling for a conclave would be amazing, and then the conclave should unanimously elect him pope (and then of course conditionally consecrate him). He writes and speaks like a true pastor and many of his missives read like Encyclicals.
Naturally speaking, something like that would be one of our only hopes, since +Vigano has a large following even among the conservative NO Catholics, Motarians, etc. So, basically, anyone who still has faith left could get behind a +Vigano.
That Fantasy is being developed into an end times novel, with the intention of suggesting a way forward, for the recovery of the Church and Tradition.
Sedes and R&R will both be able to get on board.
-
Plus, Rome has permitted use of the pre-1950s Holy Week, so if you think they're legitimate popes, then what's the problem?
This is happy news to me. Have you the ability to provide a citation? I will accept your point with joy.
Even assuming that John XXIII was an actual pope, it's false that HE IS THE POPE. No, he WAS the Pope. He stopped being pope (if he ever was) when he died. Since then, a lot has happened.
And now that Bergoglio has banned the Tridentine Mass altogether, what's the difference if you used the 1962 or the pre-1962 Mass? None. In both case, you're disobeying the CURRENT "pope".
It seems to my fallible sense of obedience that we must obey the most recent commands from Rome worthy of obedience. I refuse each reform and illegitimate ban after 1962, but I sense I have the duty to act according to my last legitimate standing order. I believe the archbishop held this idea.
-
I refuse each reform and illegitimate ban after 1962, but I sense I have the duty to act according to my last legitimate standing order. I believe the archbishop held this idea.
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.
-
Dogmatic pre-55 is like dogmatic non-una cuм...
Is there even such a thing as "dogmatic pre-55" or is this just another example of the exaggeration and histrionics typical of Traddieland?
Comparing being in favor of pre-1955 and the una cuм issue is a dog that just won't hunt. Utter nonsense, as no one is pretending mortal sin exists where there is no sin at all.
-
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.
+ABL shifted to less of an RnR position as time went on, especially after Assisi. I think the trajectory he was on is underanalyzed with RnRs, his death being seen as a sort of "closed canon" on Catholic orthodoxy.
Is there even such a thing as "dogmatic pre-55" or is this just another example of the exaggeration and histrionics typical of Traddieland?
Comparing being in favor of pre-1955 and the una cuм issue is a dog that just won't hunt. Utter nonsense, as no one is pretending mortal sin exists where there is no sin at all.
Boy do I have a page for you....
https://www.truerestoration.org/who-we-work-with/
-
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.
It may seem refreshing to think for oneself, and therefore to indeed decide what is an illegitimate ban. I defer to the man of God for our age. His reasons for refusing the illegitimate ban of the 1962 Missal remain applicable to this day.
-
It may seem refreshing to think for oneself, and therefore to indeed decide what is an illegitimate ban. I defer to the man of God for our age. His reasons for refusing the illegitimate ban of the 1962 Missal remain applicable to this day.
Thank you for confirming your cult member status. Goodbye. Whatevs...
-
I think the trajectory he was on is underanalyzed with RnRs, his death being seen as a sort of "closed canon" on Catholic orthodoxy.
No sh*t! :laugh1: ABL-cultists cannot analyze or embrace reality as it is in 2022, much less process that many of his pro-SV comments (1986) were not really that long before he died (1991), making them decades closer than we are to ANYTHING he said about ANYTHING.
-
Boy do I have a page for you....
https://www.truerestoration.org/who-we-work-with/
Heiner is and always has been (and always will be) a pseudo-intellectual, wannabe-influential, quintessential Traddieland douche-bag. Whatevs...
-
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!
-
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! :laugh1: 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...
-
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.
-
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.:laugh1:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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).
Link (https://youtu.be/xMtMbe6odh4)
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.
-
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??
-
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 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3X464pUhhxs&feature=youtu.be)
https://youtu.be/3X464pUhhxs (https://youtu.be/3X464pUhhxs)
-
Here's a video with the 1958 Conclave history. Perot, a French video reporter filmed all five minutes of white smoke (4:38).
Link (https://youtu.be/xMtMbe6odh4)
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf)
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 (https://sspx.org/en/only-when-faith-question)......
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf)
-
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.