A good friend of mine sent me this letter in e-mail this morning. He is a sede, and you can see where his loyalties and ideals lie :)  Just thought it was interesting, so enjoy...

One cannot dismiss 1955 changes while simultaneously recognizing Pope Pius XII as a true Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  The 1955 changes are result of exercising Papal Power in the Roman Church.  After the death of Pius XII, Pope John XXIII published the additional changes made by his predecessor in 1960.  He simplified the rankings of the feasts and eliminated the second Confiteor before distribution of Communion to the faithful.

In 1962, Pope John XXIII added new prefaces in the Tridentine Mass, which were taken from the ancient Gallican Missal which had been celebrated in France for centuries.

In Fr. Perez's chapel and in Fr. Cekada's group of radical sedevacantists, we see a contradiction to Our Catholic Faith, which in my opinion, is point-blank schismatic.  They refuse to accept the 1955 changes of Pius XII and the feast of St. Joseph the Workman on May 1st.  But they recognize Pius XII's change for fasting before Holy Communion.  This behavior is Cafeteria Catholic and not the behavior of a true Roman Catholic.

More further, they also refuse to recognize Pope John XXIII's changes (which is odd because this Pontiff fired Msgr. Annibale Bugnini for Modernism and Liberalism), forbade women to serve the altar, and made a declaration at the opening of Vatican II, for the Council Fathers to remain faithful to the Councils of Vatican I and Trent.

No one can change the Roman Liturgy in the Church, except the Pope himself.  In fact Pope Pius XII taught that Catholic bishops only,

"Have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship."

Pope Pius XII also noted that unlike the Pope himself, Father Perez and traditional Catholics who hate the 1955 changes cannot protest and must simply assent and acquiesce because,

"Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters..."

Now, is it okay for Fr. Perez and the radical sedevacantists to reject changes made by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII???

The changes made by Pope Paul VI were indeed revolutionary and heretical but the changes made his predecessors cannot be placed on the same footing
with a Pontiff who desired to pervert Our Holy Mother the Church's sacred worship with Protestant worship and Jєωιѕн meal prayer services.

Fr. Perez's argument..

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm

The right not to accept the 1962 Missal

In conclusion I wish to note that, with the possible exception of the new rites of Holy Week, none of these changes are heretical or contrary to the powers of the papacy to accomplish. Pius XII and John XXIII undoubtedly possessed the juridical, if not the moral, right to make them. This being so, would it not, then, be an act of disobedience to reject the 1962 Missale for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass as its advocates claim? I claim that not only is it not an act of disobedience to reject this Missal and, indeed, every version of the Missale going back to when the new rite of Holy Week was first introduced into it, but that it is, in fact, what reason would dictate that one must do if one is indeed serious about returning to and/or upholding the liturgical tradition of the Church.



A 1962 Roman Catholic Missal compiled from the Missale Romanumfor the use of the faithful  
Look at it this way: All of these changes were masterminded by Annibale Bugnini, a proven Freemason, whose intention as a member of that secret society planted within the very highest echelons of the Vatican was to do as much damage as possible to the Church, Her Faith, and the faith of Her members. Although he would accomplish this most effectively later on with the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae, the changes already introduced into the 1962 Missale were nonetheless intended for that same purpose. The 1962 Missale is corrupted, and substantially discordant with the Missale Romanum as promulgated in fulfillment of the commands of the Council of Trent by Pope Saint Pius V. Neither can the claim that none of these changes is heretical in content be used as an argument in favor of its use, for neither is the employment of hula girls, fireworks, and mariachis strictly speaking heretical in itself, but they belong to that class of novel and profane things that do not belong in the Mass.

I might add that the fact that the 1962 Missale was either accepted and/or used by one or another prelate or priest who were in themselves good men of virtue does not excuse its use now in light of the facts I have just presented.

When it comes down to it, if one can justify the use of the 1962 Missal to oneself in spite of all this, then one has no good and valid reason left to proffer for not accepting and using the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, which, it is claimed, likewise contains no specific heresy (since the original introduction, which did in fact contain an heretical definition of the Mass, was corrected), and was introduced by a validly reigning pope.

This, I believe, is the reasoning behind the recent Roman docuмents insisting on the use of the 1962 Missale and no other. Celebration of the immemorial Liturgy of Rome as codified by the Council of Trent ought properly to be done using an edition of the Missale which does not vary substantially from that codified on the orders of that same council. The Missale Romanum of 1962 contains not only changes, but important and substantial ones which violate the injunctions of Quo Primum and the whole of the Church’s liturgical tradition.

One further difficulty is presented by the fact that at the time of the writing of this article, nobody has had the funding, or perhaps even the interest, to reprint an editon of the Missale which antedates the inclusion of these changes. Reproductions of the 1962 version are, on the other hand, relatively cheap and plentiful. Should this plea reach a benefactor with the means to undertake the costly task of reprinting one of the later but incorrupt editions, I would gladly offer one of my older Missals, some of which are still in the box, for the project.

On the other hand, the fact that Bugnini has since been proven to be a Freemason gives those who reject the 1955 changes good reason to presume that the changes will also be rejected by a future Pope.  

I'm not sure it would be wrong to reject the 1955 changes, but it would be wrong to say they were outright damaging to the faith.  They were promoted by the Church.  Crafted by a Freemason as they may be, the Holy Ghost protected them from anything that would be an "incentive to impiety," as Trent says.  Sort of a case of "The Pharisees sit in the temple, do what they say and not what they do."  The Holy Ghost can make use of even a Freemason if He wants to.

You can't say the 1955 changes are evil in themselves, but you can say they are "less good," how's that?

As for the 1962 changes, you can reject them if you think that John XXIII was a false Pope.  

Once you realize who Bugnini was and what his intentions were then it is not wrong to reject his changes.  It's not schismatic to reject the things he did.  If one said that Pius XII authorized heretical changes, that would be a problem - but I don't think it's a problem to recognize that Pius XII made an error of judgment in permitting Bugnini to tinker with the mass.

It doesn't matter that Bugnini was a part of the changes. Remember: "Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters..." I think he was as much of douche as they come, but I think the point is that the teachings (in this case) of Pius XII are not against Catholic teaching.

I'm not sure it would be wrong to reject the 1955 changes, but it would be wrong to say they were outright damaging to the faith. They were promoted by the Church. Crafted by a Freemason as they may be, the Holy Ghost protected them from anything that would be an "incentive to impiety," as Trent says. Sort of a case of "The Pharisees sit in the temple, do what they say and not what they do." The Holy Ghost can make use of even a Freemason if He wants to.

Some say this about all the Post-VCII changes.

Of course Pius XII authorized the liturgical changes, Tele.  He promulgated a decree around the 1955 Holy Week changes, Maxima Redemptionis.

His genius move ( sarcasm ) of putting Bugnini at the head of a new liturgical commisson is one of the many, many reasons I used to essentially think he was an anti-Pope, while not usually saying as much outright.  Now I just think he was a really bad Pope.  Like, REALLY bad i.e. the worst, worse than Alexander VI.  Unless John XXIII was a true Pope...

Apart from that, I agree with the letter that opened the thread.

I don't consider Pius XII a REALLY bad Pope, but obviously he was no Pius X.