Stand at a mirror in your best hat.  Take a breath and slowly start to say, "I know better than Archbishop Lefebvre which Missal we must use".  I don't think you will finish that sentence!

Many of the questionable judgments (I want to say “errors“) +Lefebvre made with regard to the missal are mentioned in the very sermon of +Zendejas.  Here are several of them:

#1: “The 1955 Holy Week was not a preparation or groundwork for the Novus Ordo.” The consensus of liturgical scholars today recognizes it was.

#2: “The same people who revised the Bugnini Holy Week rites were not the same people who created the Novus Ordo.”  In fact, there’s a good deal of overlap in personnel, as one might expect, given that only 13 years separated the 1956 experimental rites, and the 1969 Novus Ordo.

#3: “There is nothing harmful in the Pian Rites.”  On the contrary, most of the changes are based upon condemned archaeologism, and were destabilizing enough to the faithful that the Archbishop of Dublin and New York wrote to Rome of their concerns, papal MC, Mgr. Gromier called them an act of vandalism, and faithful like Evelyn Waugh felt threatened in their very faith.

#4: Being oblivious to the aims and errors of the preconciliar modernist liturgical movement (of which we were all taught in the SSPX seminary, with Matthew as my witness in my liturgy class!), which served to condition him to believe the aberrations only occurred after the Council: Dialogue Mass and Pian Holy Week changes are therefore considered “traditional” (despite the dialogue Mass existing nowhere in the world prior to 1915 (+/-), and the extinct Pian Holy Week rites having only a 13 year history in the Church).

#5: Inconsistency in the application of his principle that, “If it is not against the faith, we must accept.”  We’re this true, +Lefebvre would not have been able to regress from the 1964 missal to the 1962.  Also, all priests of the SSPX would logically be compelled to recite the revised Psalter of Pius XII in their daily breviaries, rather than the pre-Pian traditional psalter: Far from being against the faith, the Pian Psalter is a more accurate translation, though it has lost the poetic aspect of the traditional one.

What I do appreciate in the defenders of +Lefebvre’s liturgical decisions, is their honesty in acknowledging their fidelity to them is based mostly (not completely) on human respect, rather than the merits of the missals themselves.

I note in conclusion that Vigano has called for a reversion to the traditional Holy Week rites and missal, as he does not labor under the impediment of the 1962 missal.

As +Williamson once said to me, “Jesus and Mary once walked the earth, but since then nobody has been perfect.”  Implicitly, that truism includes even my here, Archbishop Lefebvre.

The sentimentalism is deplorable. Stop using the late Archbishop as an excuse to stick to the 1962 Missal & Breviary and impose it on others, and stop trying to make people feel guilty for (gasp!) disagreeing with the Archbishop.

We are in 2023 and we can now see many things clearer than he did in the 70s and 80s. Just as he could see the reality of the 1965 Missal clearer in the 70s than say, in 1967.

He did not choose to abandon the 1965 Missal because it had errors, his own reason was something along the lines of “I noticed my faith getting diminished...” which was an entirely subjective (but not invalid) reason. Paul VI could have said to him, “Your Excellency, you may have found your faith diminishing, but many bishops and priests around the world found their faith growing since using the Missal of 1965. You should practice humility, ignore your personal sentiments and keep using this authorized Missal, do not disrupt the unity among us, perhaps in a few years you will come to appreciate it like the rest of us...” (By the way, this sounds like something Menzingen/an SSPX District Superior would say to someone with regards to the 1962.)

If one wants to be loyal to the 1962 Missal & 1955 Holy Week, then do what it prescribes with exactitude, don't “embellish” it with older rubrics and practices. By doing so, you admit that it's a deficient missal. Offer the best to God like Abel and Abraham did.

I say, good on the younger Resistance priests for wanting to use the pre-Pian Missal & Breviary. They should not feel any guilt for it, it's simply their Catholic sense telling them to do the right thing. May God grant them fortitude.

The sentimentalism is deplorable. Stop using the late Archbishop as an excuse to stick to the 1962 Missal & Breviary and impose it on others, and stop trying to make people feel guilty for (gasp!) disagreeing with the Archbishop.

We are in 2023 and we can now see many things clearer than he did in the 70s and 80s. Just as he could see the reality of the 1965 Missal clearer in the 70s than say, in 1967.

He did not choose to abandon the 1965 Missal because it had errors, his own reason was something along the lines of “I noticed my faith getting diminished...” which was an entirely subjective (but not invalid) reason. Paul VI could have said to him, “Your Excellency, you may have found your faith diminishing, but many bishops and priests around the world found their faith growing since using the Missal of 1965. You should practice humility, ignore your personal sentiments and keep using this authorized Missal, do not disrupt the unity among us, perhaps in a few years you will come to appreciate it like the rest of us...” (By the way, this sounds like something Menzingen/an SSPX District Superior would say to someone with regards to the 1962.)

If one wants to be loyal to the 1962 Missal & 1955 Holy Week, then do what it prescribes with exactitude, don't “embellish” it with older rubrics and practices. By doing so, you admit that it's a deficient missal. Offer the best to God like Abel and Abraham did.

I say, good on the younger Resistance priests for wanting to use the pre-Pian Missal & Breviary. They should not feel any guilt for it, it's simply their Catholic sense telling them to do the right thing. May God grant them fortitude.

Good post.

I'm always suspicious of this push to impose 62 on us.

Clergy who we don't know anything about, who are assiduous in controlling the information written online about them, are also suspect in my book. When you see these individuals and how they treat their fellow clergy, it makes me wonder about their true intentions.  It certainly displays a moral weakness, which is long-term the road to liberalism.

As +Williamson once said to me, “Jesus and Mary once walked the earth, but since then nobody has been perfect.”  Implicitly, that truism includes even my here, Archbishop Lefebvre.

Correct.  +ABL didn't work in a vacuum, on his own, especially in the crazy, chaotic days of the 70s.  He had all kinds of advice from other Trads in Europe and America.  Traditionalism didn't start because of one, single man. 

The sentimentalism is deplorable. Stop using the late Archbishop as an excuse to stick to the 1962 Missal & Breviary and impose it on others, and stop trying to make people feel guilty for (gasp!) disagreeing with the Archbishop.

Right.  There is no place for 'hero worship' in Catholicism.  The only 'hero' is Our Lord.  All others are fallible and we can't have some cult following of them.  (Even though, in our days, with no hierarchy to speak of, I understand that Trads search for leaders.  Humanly speaking, it's understandable, but we must rise above human inclinations.)

I think the erasing of genuflections and Signs of the Cross is an objective danger to the Faith in the '65.  I'd love to have asked the Archbishop for other specific problems.

We can conjecture about what St. Thomas might have said, but what we know is what he did say.

It is dangerous to imagine yourself as judge of what liturgy is best.  Some people will come to conclusions that St. Pius X's reform cannot be accepted.  Then perhaps they will look at St. Pius V's reform of 1570 and denounce how he discarded the beautiful sequence of St. Augustine or the magnificent Preface of St. Dominic.  Leave these questions in the hands of people like +Lefebvre.  He was no fool.  "The best" we can offer to God is our obedience.  By obedience, we give Him our closest attachment: our very wills.

I think the erasing of genuflections and Signs of the Cross is an objective danger to the Faith in the '65.  I'd love to have asked the Archbishop for other specific problems.

We can conjecture about what St. Thomas might have said, but what we know is what he did say.

The word "He" referred to God.  God did a good job providing the faithful remnant with a shepherd who got just about everything right.

You sound very strange, like some kind of SSPX agent among us.

Do you also support blind obedience SSPX-style and the "trust your superiors" mentality?

It is dangerous to imagine yourself as judge of what liturgy is best.  

You attend the Novus Ordo?

It is dangerous to imagine yourself as judge of what liturgy is best.  Some people will come to conclusions that St. Pius X's reform cannot be accepted.  Then perhaps they will look at St. Pius V's reform of 1570 and denounce how he discarded the beautiful sequence of St. Augustine or the magnificent Preface of St. Dominic.  Leave these questions in the hands of people like +Lefebvre.  He was no fool.  "The best" we can offer to God is our obedience.  By obedience, we give Him our closest attachment: our very wills.

Both Sts Pius V and Pius X were popes and saints.  +ABL may at some point be canonized, but he wasn't a pope, and neither was he a roman authority on the liturgy.  So, yes, his opinion/actions can be questioned.  The actions of popes', in the case of liturgical reform, cannot be questioned.  Your comparison is nonsense...apples-to-peanuts.