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?

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.

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.'

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.

I don’t wish to argue with you further.

Pax tecuм.