I will come back to this in a couple hours; there's about 2.5 pages left.Excellent, thanks Sean!
The Bishop is quoting Alta Vendita and proceeds to suggest to the new priest to say the altered Canon of the Mass promulgated by suspected Free Mason Roncalli, and afterwards asks him to insert the name of the Pope who organizes the Human Fraternity extravaganza into the same Canon. Are we all marching under the keys of Peter? Kyrie Eleison!
...I remember listing to Fr. Hesse explain that the Archbishop used the 1962 Missal to show Pope Paul that they (the Archbishop and SSPX) does recognize Pope John and Pope Paul as a legitimate Popes. As at that time, early 1970's, the SSPX and Rome were in discussions to find a resolution. Many years later, the SAJM are not in communication with Rome, so there is no need to prove to them that the SAJM is not sedevacantist , plus Rome gives permission to use Pre-1955 liturgy. Thus, even Rome does not equate pre-1955 with being sedevacantist.
1) “The 1962 Missal was used by Lefebvre from the beginning.”
...
On what basis could Lefebvre move away from the 1965 missal, if it was not against the faith, without violating his own principle? If it was against the faith, then why was he using it?Archbishop Lefebvre initially complied with the '65 from his default of obedience. After some use, he realized that the changes in the '65 were chipping away at his own faith. It was then that he understood the '65 was a danger to the Faith, and therefore not to be obeyed. This is what +Williamson said had happened regarding this question.
Lefebvre’s move from the 1965 to 1962 Missals implicitly acknowledges that there can be other justifications for rejecting a missal (or, we must all go back to the 1965).
I remember listing to Fr. Hesse explain that the Archbishop used the 1962 Missal to show Pope Paul that they (the Archbishop and SSPX) does recognize Pope John and Pope Paul as a legitimate Popes. As at that time, early 1970's, the SSPX and Rome were in discussions to find a resolution. Many years later, the SAJM are not in communication with Rome, so there is no need to prove to them that the SAJM is not sedevacantist , plus Rome gives permission to use Pre-1955 liturgy. Thus, even Rome does not equate pre-1955 with being sedevacantist.Although accepting the '62 does show that we presume the popes are valid, he did not accept the '62 in order to show his presumption that the pope was valid. He accepted it because the pope is the boss concerning the liturgy. Unless of course his orders are a danger to the Faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre initially complied with the '65 from his default of obedience. After some use, he realized that the changes in the '65 were chipping away at his own faith. It was then that he understood the '65 was a danger to the Faith, and therefore not to be obeyed. This is what +Williamson said had happened regarding this question.
The Archbishop was almost feeling his way around in the dark. And he had almost no one to help him with these difficult prudential decisions. It would have been superhuman to have understood the unacceptability of the '65 right at it's release.
...When you say "our personal preference" do you mean, me and you as individuals, or the SSPX as a whole, or SAJM as a whole?
I personally suspect the wolves in Rome have noticed our personal preferences for the older books, which is why they gave permission only to the Ecclesia Dei traitors to use those books. It's like dangling another juicy carrot for us, "Just sign the Novus Ordo and Dignitatis Humanae and you can have this nice carrot too!"
....
In it, Archbishop Lefebvre explained how the priest participates in the grace of Union in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and how the Holy Mass must be monarchical, not democratic.
When you say "our personal preference" do you mean, me and you as individuals, or the SSPX as a whole, or SAJM as a whole?I think they know that we as individuals have strong sympathies towards the older liturgies. By giving permission to the Ecclesia Dei traitors to use the older books, they hoped to add another incentive for us to abandon the true fight and join the conciliar 'church'. If they could induce enough leaders of an organization, they could even catch a whole society. I'm guessing that's a large part of the reason they gave that permission at all. Not all Novus Ordo priests who also offer the True Mass belong to those groups. It would have been easy enough for the wolves to give a 'general permission' to use the older books. Instead, they specified certain congregations.
It seems that Rome "gave permission only to the Eccleisa Dei traitors" is because only the Eccleisa Dei groups are submissive to Rome in that these groups are bound to ask for permission, whereas the SSPX is in the process of trying to determine at what level to be submissive (thus the SSPX would not be asking for permissions yet), and the SAJM has a rule not to accept any agreement (not even a unilateral agreement) until Rome converts, plus there is no dialogue between Rome and SAJM, so it is unlikely Rome had them in mind.
Archbishop Lefebvre initially complied with the '65 from his default of obedience. After some use, he realized that the changes in the '65 were chipping away at his own faith. It was then that he understood the '65 was a danger to the Faith, and therefore not to be obeyed. This is what +Williamson said had happened regarding this question.Great posts, NIFH. The voting rules on this forum will not allow me to up-vote you.
The Archbishop was almost feeling his way around in the dark. And he had almost no one to help him with these difficult prudential decisions. It would have been superhuman to have understood the unacceptability of the '65 right at it's release.
The Resistance is so loyal to Abp. Lefebvre that they insist on repeating his mistakes.That is because we in the Resistance, unlike you, do not believe Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken in these matters.
It is very good for a religious community to be loyal to its founder, but this loyalty cannot be an impediment for growth and developlement.
Accepting the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments, insisting on the 1962 liturgical books. These things do no good at all.
Some progress is necessary. It is as though Traditionalists are afraid of any progress, even if it is for good.
St. Pius X is a good example. He was strongly anti-Modernist, but he was not against progress and reform if it was for a good reason.
That is because we in the Resistance, unlike you, do not believe Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken in these matters.
The Good God, in His unsearchable Providence, brought Marcel Lefebvre into this world to be the guiding light in the greatest of crises that His Church had ever seen. All that He does, He does well. God fitted him out with all the necessary attributes he would need to fulfill his mission, and he found a soul uniquely faithful. If you believe you have found a better guide, it is you who are mistaken. Ours is a holding position until the Roman authorities return to their Catholic senses.
Fine. No one is forced to agree with me.This is a very important post. And sums up today's error on bob/bod and invincible ignorance.
But it is a dangerous thing to hold a person infallible. Any person.
Even the good Archbishop changed his mind about somethings during his lifetime.
That is because we in the Resistance, unlike you, do not believe Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken in these matters.Guiding light, pillar of truth, principle of unity, unfailing faith, sure guide. You've mistaken Lefebvre for the Pope.
The Good God, in His unsearchable Providence, brought Marcel Lefebvre into this world to be the guiding light in the greatest of crises that His Church had ever seen. All that He does, He does well. God fitted him out with all the necessary attributes he would need to fulfill his mission, and he found a soul uniquely faithful. If you believe you have found a better guide, it is you who are mistaken. Ours is a holding position until the Roman authorities return to their Catholic senses.
Fine. No one is forced to agree with me.Nobody said "infallible", here or ever that I know of.
But it is a dangerous thing to hold a person infallible. Any person.
Even the good Archbishop changed his mind about somethings during his lifetime.
Nobody said "infallible", here or ever that I know of."The Good God, in His unsearchable Providence, brought Marcel Lefebvre into this world to be the guiding light in the greatest of crises that His Church had ever seen. All that He does, He does well. God fitted him out with all the necessary attributes he would need to fulfill his mission, and he found a soul uniquely faithful. If you believe you have found a better guide, it is you who are mistaken."
What I'm saying is, if I have to choose between Archbishop Lefebvre and self-appointed doctors of the Church, I don't need much time to decide.
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!
Nobody said "infallible", here or ever that I know of.Thumbs up, NIFH! That's it, precisely. God clearly chooses certain souls for special extraordinary missions in His Church, and when it comes to choosing between following the God-given guide and some self-appointed theologian, as you say, the decision should not be difficult. What we have seen in the Church since Vatican II is a profound crisis in the 'ordinary' Authority in the Church, leading to a corresponding crisis of Faith, and with it, the priesthood. God, in His mercy, gave us an 'extraordinary' authority to guide us in preserving the Faith and the priesthood, until such time as the ordinary Authority is restored.
What I'm saying is, if I have to choose between Archbishop Lefebvre and self-appointed doctors of the Church, I don't need much time to decide.
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.Good post.
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.
That is because we in the Resistance, unlike you, do not believe Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken in these matters.Once again, this is an exaggeration because of an overly-devoted attachment to a person who did much good in his life, but unfortunately had some mishaps. We can say of very few people in history that "they did all things well." We can say this of Our Lady, St. Joseph (as I maintain that he never committed a venial sin), St John the Baptist, and perhaps St. John the Evangelist, and a few others. To say that anyone fighting present-day modernism has done "all things well" is absolute nonsense.
The Good God, in His unsearchable Providence, brought Marcel Lefebvre into this world to be the guiding light in the greatest of crises that His Church had ever seen. All that He does, He does well. God fitted him out with all the necessary attributes he would need to fulfill his mission, and he found a soul uniquely faithful. If you believe you have found a better guide, it is you who are mistaken. Ours is a holding position until the Roman authorities return to their Catholic senses.
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.)
Once again, this is an exaggeration because of an overly-devoted attachment to a person who did much good in his life, but unfortunately had some mishaps. We can say of very few people in history that "they did all things well." We can say this of Our Lady, St. Joseph (as I maintain that he never committed a venial sin), St John the Baptist, and perhaps St. John the Evangelist, and a few others. To say that anyone fighting present-day modernism has done "all things well" is absolute nonsense.The word "He" referred to God. God did a good job providing the faithful remnant with a shepherd who got just about everything right.
Offer the best to God like Abel and Abraham did.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.
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.
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.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.
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.If the Preface of St. Dominic lasted until the 1960's and the modernists got rid of it, I would have assumed it to be another unfortunate alteration. What I'm saying is, it is not as easy as you may think to judge liturgical reforms. The best guide we have is undoubtedly Archbishop Lefebvre, not self-appointed doctors of the Church, whether on the Internet or in the other 49 states of this country.
The best guide we have is undoubtedly Archbishop LefebvreNope. +ABL was one of many orthodox clerics who started, organized and grew Tradition in the 1970s. +ABL does not own the Traditionalist movement, nor does the original-sspx.
The liturgy is the school of our Faith. It teaches by words, but mostly by actions and gestures. When the priest genuflects to the Blessed Sacrament throughout Mass, the Church is teaching the simple faithful that those appearances are in reality God Himself. By omitting those genuflections, the rite is at least lessening the perceived importance of this fundamental dogma in the minds of the faithful. That is danger.
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.No pre-1955 supporter here claims to know “which liturgy is best” (it's a silly question anyway), but it does not take any scholar to see that the pre-1955 liturgy is better than the post-55.
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.If the reductions (not erasing) of genuflections and Signs of the Cross are *objective* dangers to the Faith, then exactly how many genuflections and signs of the cross make the liturgy NOT dangerous to the Faith? If it's objective and not subjective, there should be an exact number. But there is no answer to this question.
In so construing your argument, all you have really done is tried to objectify that which, nevertheless, remains a subjective argument:Communion in the hand while standing is a liturgical action that is definitely an objective danger to the Faith, whether or not the person knows the intentions of the reformers. By not having the communicant kneel in the rite of Communion, the innovators are depriving the faithful of a valuable lesson of What they are receiving, and what they are in relation to It. The educational aspect of the liturgy is not to be despised either. Humans learn from how they are taught to comport themselves.
The "danger" comes not from something intrinsic to the reductions themselves, but from an extrinsic consideration (i.e., it is the intentions of the reformers behind the reductions which creates the "threat," and not the change itself).
This realization demonstrates that the "danger" is still a perceived one, and therefore subjective, since, but for the knowledge of the secret intentions of the modernist reformers, none would feel threatened in their faith by said reductions.
More simply:
Everyone's faith is threatened by an objective danger (e.g., heresy; invalid form). Not everyone's faith is threatened by a subjective or perceived danger (e.g., not ringing the bell at the elevation; fewer signs of the cross).
If the reductions were an objective threat to the faith, then reducing the number by even 1 sign of the cross would have constituted a danger (just as 1 heresy would), but I doubt anyone wants to make that argument.
PS: Exagerrating the educational aspect of the Mass was one of the errors of the modernist liturgical reformers.
would it not be in the best interest to fidelity to return to what we now know is the better form - the pre 1955 forms - thus restoring a great deal of what was lost when the 62 changes came?St. Thomas does not say to refuse an order because you judge a previous order to be better. He says 'do what your told unless the Faith is in danger.'
Communion in the hand while standing is a liturgical action that is definitely an objective danger to the Faith, whether or not the person knows the intentions of the reformers. By not having the communicant kneel in the rite of Communion, the innovators are depriving the faithful of a valuable lesson of What they are receiving, and what they are in relation to It. The educational aspect of the liturgy is not to be despised either. Humans learn from how they are taught to comport themselves.
How many genuflections can one delete before you objectively endanger the Faith? I'll defer to the Archbishop for that judgement.
No genuflections were removed in 1965. The genuflections were lessened in 1967.
St. Thomas does not say to refuse an order because you judge a previous order to be better. He says 'do what your told unless the Faith is in danger.'Judging what is happening with the neoSSPX there is cause for concern. Slow death by increments. When I am in doubt I turn to clerics whom I trust to answer queries and dispel erroneous notions.the 1962 is all most of have, so that is what we use.
PS: This is now the second time you copy the error of the innovators, who wanted to use the Mass as a catechism."Our liturgy is the school of our Faith. And it is the first school of our Faith for all people. I was in Africa as a missionary and bishop during 30 years. And I know that the liturgy was the best school of our Faith for the people. They cannot read. They have no pictures, nothing. But they can see what the priest does. They can see when the priest adores the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ, and they know that Jesus Christ is really present on the altar by the attitude of the priest. They know it. That is very important."
"Our liturgy is the school of our Faith. And it is the first school of our Faith for all people. I was in Africa as a missionary and bishop during 30 years. And I know that the liturgy was the best school of our Faith for the people. They cannot read. They have no pictures, nothing. But they can see what the priest does. They can see when the priest adores the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ, and they know that Jesus Christ is really present on the altar by the attitude of the priest. They know it. That is very important."
Fr. Schmidberger-"In the first place". Correct. The educational aspect must not be exaggerated nor despised. It has it's importance.
“Meanwhile, the objection is raised that the faithful would thus not understand the Sacred Action. In response to these objections, we answer the Holy Mass is not in the first place instruction or catechesis, but sacrifice offered to God. The content of an action is understood much more in its outward gestures than by the words used. Besides, the Holy Mass concerns an unfathomable mystery of the Faith that will never be grasped fully by our sense of reason.”
https://sspx.org/en/theology-and-spirituality-mass
Judging what is happening with the neoSSPX there is cause for concern. Slow death by increments. When I am in doubt I turn to clerics whom I trust to answer queries and dispel erroneous notions.the 1962 is all most of have, so that is what we use.Correlation does not mean causation. The Church has been on the retreat for centuries while every priest was using the old books.
The older books are out of the question according to his principle.
I am confronted with a choice:Yes, it's obvious to everyone you can't separate the man from the argument. You believe in man and man only. The human respect is palpable.
The '62 is not a danger for the Faith.
- Archbishop Lefebvre, student of Fr. LeFloch, Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Theology, God's chosen instrument to found and lead the numerically most significant organization of Catholic resistance in the Crisis of the Church
-or-
The '62 is a danger for the Faith.
- Sean Johnson
Nothing personal, please understand. You have an excellent grasp of many issues. Your contributions around here are generally magnificent. I often find myself rooting for you from behind the keyboard.
I am confronted with a choice:
The '62 is not a danger for the Faith.
- Archbishop Lefebvre, student of Fr. LeFloch, Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Theology, God's chosen instrument to found and lead the numerically most significant organization of Catholic resistance in the Crisis of the Church
-or-
The '62 is a danger for the Faith.
- Sean Johnson
Nothing personal, please understand. You have an excellent grasp of many issues. Your contributions around here are generally magnificent. I often find myself rooting for you from behind the keyboard.
Just because you and I don't know his specific objections to the '65Any objective observer can know the problems with the '65 missal. We don't need +ABL to tell us everything about our Faith. Plenty of Trad priests in the 60s knew the 65 missal was garbage and avoided it accordingly. That why, when +ABL waffled on the topic, there was pressure. Because many, many Trads had already rejected it.
But prescinding from the argument about whether those changes were great or small (you already know my opinion on that), the 1962 transitional misssal did not occur in a liturgical vaccuum, but was the spearhead of far wider reaching liturgical and related disciplinary "reforms," such as:
1) Overturning liturgical fasting laws (1957);
2) Permitting evening Masses (1953);
3) Eliminating most of the Octaves (1955);
4) Eliminating the proper Last Gospels (1955);
5) Various rubrical changes, such as permitting incense without deacon/subdeacon; bowing to the book instead of bowing the the Crucifix; eliminating the 2nd confiteor; etc, etc;
6) Permitting laymen (i.e., "capable readers") to read certain readings;
7) Permitting the congregation to recite prayers audibly (1958);
8) The priest quietly "duplicating" the Gospel, Epistle, Reproaches, Holy Saturdayprophcies, etc;
9) When Holy Communion should be distributed;
10) Modification of the ancient Canon (1962).
Many more "reforms" could be listed...
On a fundamental "first principle," Archbishop Lefebvre was factually incorrect and this causes Bishop Zendejas to give bad advice.
In Section 2 of his Ordination sermon, Bishop Zendejas quoted Abp. Lefebvre:
"What is the first principle to know what we must do in this circuмstance, in this crisis in the Church? What is the principle? This doctrine is expounded by Saint Thomas Aquinas. So what does Saint 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) (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q33.A4) […].” (AL, St. Them Aquinas Seminary, Ridgefield, 1983)"
Lefebvre was quoting from Aquinas where the Saint was speaking about "Fraternal Correction," not obedience to the authority of the Church. The specific question Aquinas was answering in that Article was "Whether a man is bound to correct his Prelate?" In other words, Aquinas's statement must be understood in the following context,
Does a man have a duty to correct his Prelate under the virtue of Charity of which Fraternal Correction is part of?
In his reply to an objection, Aquinas said:
"Reply Obj. 2: To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: Say to Archippus: Fulfill thy ministry. It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11, Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."
So, Aquinas absolutely DID NOT SAY what Lefebvre claims he said, specifically, that we may "refuse something from the authority of the Church...'only when the Faith is in question." Aquinas's comment was not even about obedience to authority specifically. It was about "publicly rebuking" a religious superior who was in verifiable error. And the context was the example of St. Paul's correction of St. Peter.
In Aquinas's actual answer to the main question about correcting a Prelate, we see the following:
"I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction. Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circuмstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim 5:1): An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father. Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church."
So Lefebvre fails to understand Aquinas's meaning. Aquinas actually says that fraternal correction of a Prelate "is an act of charity." But it must be done "in a becoming manner" when possible. Not something, as Lefebvre says, only to be done "when the Faith is in question." Aquinas is saying, rather, one DOES HAVE the duty of admonishing a Prelate always. But if the Prelate is not "an equal" is should be done "privately and respectfully." However, it should be done "even publicly if the faith were endangered" or in the case where there is "danger of scandal concerning the faith."
Is it not "scandalous" to claim that the Roman Canon in the Missal of Pius V (promulgated perpetually by a Papal Bull) can be changed willy-nilly? Is it not scandalous to say the name of a "Pope" in the Mass who daily undermines the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Faith?
But Bishop Zendejas uses that mistaken "first principle" of Lefebvre to bind the priest he is ordaining to actually promote scandal, rather than avoid it:
"Dear Fr. Blanchet, when you celebrate Holy Mass, you may be asked whether you [accept] all the rubrics of your ordination missal, i.e. the 1962 Roman Missal. Your answer should be: YES.
You may be asked if you pronounce the Pope's name at the Canon of the Mass. Your answer should be: YES."
I love Bishop Zendejas, but on these points he is wrong. So, in the spirit of what Aquinas actually taught us to do in Summa Theologiae (II II Q.33, a.4) (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q33.A4), I respectfully admonish Bishop Zendejas for his error and gently request that he consider amending his statement, because I sincerely believe, after having done my due diligence, that the use of the 1962 Missal and the belief that Jorge Bergoglio is a true Pope are scandalous to the faithful.
Not sure why you chose to bring the non-una cuм into the discussion, and muddy the waters.
That issue seems not to be pertinent to a discussion regarding the permissibility of the 1950 missal.
The non-una cuм is only an isssue for sedevacantists, and Zendejas is not a sede.
Sean, Bishop Zendejas brought up the non-una-cuм issue in his Sermon. He said:
"You may be asked if you pronounce the Pope's name at the Canon of the Mass. Your answer should be: YES."
I am morally certain that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not "the Pope" for two reasons: 1) he was not canonically-elected according to the law of papal elections, and 2) is a manifest, obstinate heretic, proven by his refusal to answer the Dubia, which causes him to automatically lose the papal office according to Canon 194 (1983 Code).
Zendejas brought up the non-una cuм, but that is not what is being debated.
The issue here is whether the Resistance should adopt the traditional Holy Week, not whether it should adopt the non-una cuм.
You are trying to turn this thread into a sede vs Resistance debate.
Why not just start another thread on the non-una cuм?
I am morally certain that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not "the Pope" for two reasons: 1) he was not canonically-elected according to the law of papal electionsDeviations from the laws of elections does not make a papacy invalid. Examples abound in Church history.
2) is a manifest, obstinate heretic, proven by his refusal to answer the Dubia, which causes him to automatically lose the papal office according to Canon 194 (1983 Code).These terms have precise definitions that I don't think you are aware of. Silence is not 'manifest.'
Deviations from the laws of elections does not make a papacy invalid. 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 and 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.
The Archbishop did address some of the items on your list that I can recall. I remember him applauding the elimination of some octaves, saying there had been too many. He also approved the reorganization of the Breviary in '62. The permitting of evening Masses and the changing of liturgical fasting rules (which later went too far!) were true adaptions to the new circuмstances of life following the Industrial Revolution. Fr. Hesse said he saw no problem with inserting St. Joseph into the Canon, in view of Pius IX recently declaring him 'Patron of the Church'.
+Lefebvre was quite aware of the items on your list, and none of them are a danger for the Faith. He may not have known what the reformers were aiming towards, but in '62 they surely had not yet succeeded in introducing anything you could call 'danger' in itself. Their intentions were indeed danger, but the books themselves are not. We cannot refuse them.
I would bet if the Preface of St. Dominic was only removed in the '60's, it would have made your list. I also would have thought it obvious. Yet that was a reform of St. Pius V. It's not so easy to judge these things for ourselves.