Ambrose - War can change a man(and a Pope). And, do you have with amnesia?  We have been into this before on the forum; you 100% agreed that he approved of rhythm for grave reasons(and you accepted it).  

I do not have amnesia, but thanks for your concern about my health.

Regarding the teaching of Pius XII, yes, I agreed that he taught the lawful use of the sterile times for grave reasons.  This is a matter of public record, so anyone with the ability to read, and access to his teaching will agree on what he taught.  

That is not the same as saying in a vague manner that he taught birth control, as you implied.

Ambrose -  2+2=4.  2+2 cannot = 4 and = 5!  

"which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral"

A new "aim" is now allowed(for "grave reasons")!

The latter came later, and Pius xii died in the latter!

I agree, 2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 5

So, the question remains as to whether the "resistance" will take advantage of this opportunity to dispense with the Conciliar extraordinary missal and adopt an earlier and unquestionably sound and Catholic missal?

I do not believe that they should feel bound to ABL's accommodation to the Conciliarists nor should they feel compelled to make the same compromise to what is clearly an apostate entity.

Let us see what they are made of, and if they are willing to resist something beyond Bishop Fellay.

Interestingly, this was one of the points of contention of the original "Resistance," the Nine, in their 1983 letter to the Archbishop:

3.   Liturgical Changes

      The First General Chapter of the Society, held at Econe in 1976, adopted the principle that the Districts and the Houses of Formation should follow the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics which were customary at that time. This decision was never rescinded or even discussed at the Second General Chapter held last year at which your successor was selected.

      In the case of the United States, we have always followed the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of our holy patron, Pope St. Pius X, which practice was sanctioned by the First General Chapter. Of late, however, an attempt has been made to force all the priests and seminarians in the United States to accept the liturgical reforms of Pope John XXIII on the grounds of uniformity and loyalty to the Society, thereby implying that adherence to the non-reformed traditional Rites of St. Pius X constitutes disloyalty.

      Can it be that the Society has come to look upon loyalty to tradition as disloyalty to the Society?

      Most recently, to our shock and dismay, a newly-ordained priest was given an ultimatum — either to accept the reforms of John XXIII and to begin saying Mass according to the John XXIII missal or to leave the Society.

      Is it possible that the Society which has been persecuted because of its loyalty to tradition now persecutes priests for their loyalty to tradition? What has happened? Can it be that the Society now uses the same tactic which the reforming hierarchy used to impose the reform that has destroyed our people and our churches? Is not this, in the light of recent history, beyond belief? Would we not be far more guilty in accepting this first step than the priests of twenty years ago who did not have the historical precedent that we have before our eyes?

      As you well know, John XXIII made his original changes as merely temporary steps in preparation for Vatican II. Father Kelly wrote to you of this matter last year when it was announced that you would strive to introduce the reforms of John XXIII in the United States. To quote from Father Kelly's letter of March 23, 1982:

It seems to me that the very nature of Rubricarum Instructum is a temporary one, and, of course, it only remained in vigor for four years. Thus in its text, John XXIII said that his reform of July 25, 1960 was made with the understanding "that the more important principles governing a general liturgical reform should be laid before the members of the hierarchy at the forthcoming ecuмenical council," which he said he decided to convene "under the inspiration of God." It is not difficult, then, for it to be seen as the type of gradualism which eventually embraced the reform.

Our people would be shocked by any liturgical change. To introduce a change in the direction of the Council would be seen as one step toward the changes of the 1960's. We simply could not stand up in front of our congregations and tell them that we were abandoning the Missal, Calendar and Breviary of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X, for that of John XXIII — one, the greatest pope of the century, the other, the originator of the aggiornamento whose effects remain with us today.

      In our opinion, for us to accept the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of John XXIII would be to accept the first steps toward the "liturgical reform" of Vatican II, which steps lead gradually to the New Mass, and such would the way the laity in America would interpret it.

      Furthermore, and with all due respect, religious superiors do not, under the canons and traditions of the Church, have any power to legislate in liturgical matters. Such power belongs to the Roman Pontiffs who are themselves limited. For though the power of a pope is very great, it neither arbitrary nor unrestricted. "The pope," as Cardinal Hergenroether once said, "is circuмscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficial use of the duties attached to his privileges.... He is also circuмscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy—to 'feed'—...." (Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. XII, “Pope,” pp. 269-270)

      Thus obedience in matters liturgical belongs to a religious superior only insofar as what he demands is demanded by the Church and the legitimate demands of a Roman Pontiff.