A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!

Saturday 31 July 2021

Living rent free in the mind of "Reverend" Michael Coren. Still!

Michael, I know you'll read this. I might live rent-free in your mind but if you are going to quote me, be sure to use attribution, that is the cost of it and your rent payment is months behind. This is not the first time you've done this, old buddy, old Knight of Columbus brother. However, given that you misattributed a quote from me before on CBC News to a journalist they fired, and which you and all at The National were forced to retract, I can see your concern.  

Vox Cantoris: Living rent-free in "Reverend" Michael Coren's brain.

Vox Cantoris: Michael Coren declares that Vox Cantoris makes a "heavy mark!"

I seem to recall you were a great "fan" of the Traditional Latin Mass when you were a regular and "loyal" member of the Oratory parishes of St. Vincent de Paul and Holy Family.

Opinion: The Pope’s reversal on Latin Mass shows the angry split inside the Catholic Church - The Globe and Mail

Thomas J. Rosica

Michael Coren


Toronto priest, George Edward Keays arrested for sexual assault

A Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, George Edward Keays, 71 of Innisfil, Ontario, was arrested yesterday and charged with sexual assault. Toronto Police report the allegation that a 28-year-old man was sexually assaulted over a seven-month period from January to July of this year. Police were called to a sexual assault on Thursday in the area of Queen Street East and Parliament Street. Father Keays is or was the Chaplain at The Good Shepherd Mission located at 412 Queen Street East in the immediate vicinity of Queen and Parliament Streets. Confidential sources indicate he may be on medical leave.

A 2018 article on The Good Shepherd Mission in the Toronto Sun featured Father Keays. 

Father Keays a "late vocation" ordained in his early 50's is entitled to his defence. Yet, serious questions must be raised. Given the proximity to the alleged sexual assault and The Good Shepherd Mission, was the alleged victim seeking help there for the last seven months and preyed upon by Keays or is it a case where the man is disturbed and has made false allegations against the priest? Or does the report in the Toronto Star indicates that "police responded to a call of sexual assault," suggest that the perpetrator was caught in the act?

Keays is scheduled to appear at the College Park courts on September 22 and Toronto Police suspect there may be more victims. Anyone with information is asked to contact Toronto Police at 416-808-5100.

Martin Mosebach on Bergoglio's attempt to destroy the traditional Holy Mass

Some of you have, no doubt, read Martin Mosebach's book, The Heresy of Formlessness, published in 2003. Four years before  Summorum Pontificum there is no doubt, at least in this writer's view, that it had an influence on then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. I read it five years ago, perhaps it is time to take it off the shelf and read it again as we once again pick up our weapons for the battle.

First Things features a piece by Mosebach on the cruel, uncharitable and vindictively unjust and illegal action of Bergoglio in his attempt to create the church of the new paradigm. 

I have commented on this blog, on social media and in the discussion that this illegal attempt at suppression by Bergoglio, (he will not succeed), is not essentially about the form of the liturgy or the language. It is not about smells and bells and chants. Those are all part of a properly offered Novus Ordo. No, it is about something more. It is about what the Mass of All Time represents. It is what it signifies, it is what it teaches and proclaims. It is about the perpetual sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and right worship to Almighty God and it is about one word, doctrine! It is about a new church, a new paradigm and worship of the Second Vatican Council as a new Pentecost, a lie and deception if ever there were one.

Moseback agrees.

Perhaps the Mass is not what most concerns the pope. Francis appears to sympathize with the “hermeneutic of rupture”—that theological school that asserts that with the Second Vatican Council the Church broke with her tradition. If that is true, then indeed every celebration of the traditional liturgy must be prevented. For as long as the old Latin Mass is celebrated in any garage, the memory of the previous two thousand years will not have been extinguished.

 Mass and Memory | Martin Mosebach | First Things

Wednesday 28 July 2021

No, Michael Swan of Toronto's Catholic Register - the Missal of 1962 WAS NOT ABROGATED by the Second Vatican Council and Marcel Lefebvre was never declared a "Schismatic!'

Dioceses review Latin Mass restrictions (catholicregister.org)


Toronto's Catholic Register has written on the matter of Bergoglio's cruel and vindictive punishment of faithful Catholics attached to the traditional Holy Mass. Michael Swan, never known for his accuracy has at least proved himself consistent. 

Once again, this blogger must correct Mr. Swan the Assistant to the Editor of the little read and mostly ignored Catholic Register.

He states that the "1962 Mass was abrogated by the Second Vatican Council." First, Swanny Boy, it is not the 1962 Mass it was the last Typical Edition of the Missal. But what does Michael know? Further, he outright contradicts Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum when he said that the Missal "was never abrogated!" If that is not enough, he declares Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre a "schismatic," something that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI ever did. The excommunication for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate and in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the event was referred to as "a schismatic act" which is a far cry from a formal declaration of personal or corporate schism.

A little education for little Mikey. Buddy, go and read Sacrosanctam Concilium and tell us all where it was "abrogated." Read there about the use of Latin, Gregorian chant and that there was no call to set aside the Mass and come up with a new one. Go and take a look in your archives for a 1965 Roman Missal and tell us what that was. That, Mikey, was the Mass of Vatican II. What came after was not, it was an "on the spot banal product," as per then Cardinal Ratzinger.

This is, however, what we have come to expect from Toronto's Catholic Register.

Line your bird cage with it or train your puppy, that's about what it's worth.

Tuesday 27 July 2021

While Bergoglio attacks the faithful and the Mass he ignores the Vatican perverts on hook-up app!

As if the putrid Vatican can get any more disgusting. From financial malfeasance to perversions and gay hook-up apps, Bergoglio ignores all these and distracts with attacks on the faithful and the Mass. Some days, or weeks for that matter, this blog writes itself. These are those days.

Location-based apps pose security risk for Holy See - by The Pillar - The Pillar (pillarcatholic.com)

Monday 26 July 2021

Dutch Bishop says Bergoglio has "Shot himself in the foot!"

The statements from bishops in many places with regards to the action by Bergoglio to attempt to abrogate the Holy Mass codified by Pope Pius V continues. This one by Bishop Robertus Gerardus Leonia Maria Mutsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop of ’s-Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-Duc), Netherlands hits pretty hard. My emphasis.

Pope Francis promotes synodality: everyone should be able to talk, everyone should be heard. This was hardly the case with his recently published motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, an ukase [imperial edict] that must put an immediate termination on the traditional Latin Mass. In so doing, Francis puts a big bold line through Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict’s motu proprio that gave ample scope to the old Mass. 

The fact that Francis here uses the word of power without any
consultation indicates that he is losing authority. This was already evident earlier when the German Bishops’ Conference took no notice of the Pope’s advice regarding the synodality process. The same occurred in the United States when Pope Francis called on the Bishops’ Conference not to prepare a document on worthy Communion. The pope must have thought that it would be better [in this case] not to give advice any more, but rather a writ of execution, now that we’re talking about the traditional Mass! 

The language used looks very much like a declaration of war. Every pope since Paul VI has always left openings for the old Mass. If any changes were made [in that opening], they were minor revisions—see, for example, the indults of 1984 and 1989. John Paul II firmly believed that bishops should be generous in allowing the Tridentine Mass. Benedict opened the door wide with Summorum Pontificum: “What was sacred then is sacred now.” Francis slams the door hard through Traditionis Custodes. It feels like a betrayal and is a slap in the face to his predecessors. 

By the way, the Church has never abolished liturgies. Not even Trent [did so]. Francis breaks completely with this tradition. The motu proprio contains, briefly and powerfully, some propositions and commands. Things are explained in more detail by means of an accompanying longer statement. This statement contains quite a few factual errors. One of them is the claim that what Paul VI did after Vatican II is the same as what Pius V did after Trent. This is completely far from the truth. Remember that before that time [of Trent] there were various transcribed manuscripts in circulation and local liturgies had sprung up here and there. The situation was a mess. 

Trent wanted to restore the liturgies, remove inaccuracies, and check for orthodoxy. Trent was not concerned with rewriting the liturgy, nor with new additions, new Eucharistic prayers, a new lectionary, or a new calendar. It was all about ensuring uninterrupted organic continuity. The missal of 1570 harks back to the missal of 1474 and so on back to the fourth century. There was continuity from the fourth century onwards. After the fifteenth century, there are four more centuries of continuity. From time to time, there were at most a few minor changes—an addition of a feast, commemoration, or rubric. 

In the conciliar document Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II asked for liturgical reforms. All things considered, this was a conservative document. Latin was maintained, Gregorian chants retained their legitimate place in the liturgy. However, the developments that followed Vatican II are far removed from the council documents. The infamous “spirit of the council” is nowhere to be found in the council texts themselves. Only 17% of the orations of the old missal of Trent can be found in the new missal of Paul VI. You can hardly speak of continuity, of an organic development. Benedict recognized this, and for that reason gave ample space to the Old Mass. He even said that no one needed his permission (“what was sacred then is still sacred now”). 

Pope Francis is now pretending that his motu proprio belongs to the organic development of the Church, which utterly contradicts the reality. By making the Latin Mass practically impossible, he finally breaks with the age-old liturgical tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Liturgy is not a toy of popes; it is the heritage of the Church. The Old Mass is not about nostalgia or taste. The pope should be the guardian of Tradition; the pope is a gardener, not a manufacturer. Canon law is not merely a matter of positive law; there is also such a thing as natural law and divine law, and, moreover, there is such a thing as Tradition that cannot simply be brushed aside. 

What Pope Francis is doing here has nothing to do with evangelization and even less to do with mercy. It is more like ideology. BINGO!

Go to any parish where the Old Mass is celebrated. What do you find there? People who just want to be Catholic. These are generally not people who engage in theological disputes, nor are they against Vatican II (though they are against the way it was implemented). They love the Latin Mass for its sacredness, its transcendence, the salvation of souls that is central to it, the dignity of the liturgy. You encounter large families; people feel welcome. It is only celebrated in a small number of places. Why does the pope want to deny people this? I come back to what I said earlier: it is ideology. It is either Vatican II—including its implementation, with all its aberrations—or nothing! The relatively small number of believers (a number growing, by the way, as the Novus Ordo is collapsing) who feel at home with the traditional Mass must and will be eradicated. That is ideology and evil. 

If you really want to evangelize, to be truly merciful, to support Catholic families, then you hold the Tridentine Mass in honor. As of the date of the motu proprio, the Old Mass may not be celebrated in parish churches (where then?); you need explicit permission from your bishop, who may only allow it on certain days; for those who will be ordained in the future and want to celebrate the Old Mass, the bishop must seek advice from Rome. How dictatorial, how unpastoral, how unmerciful do you want to be! 

Francis, in Article 1 of his motu proprio, calls the Novus Ordo (the present Mass) “the unique expression of the Lex Orandi of the Roman Rite.” He therefore no longer distinguishes between the Ordinary Form (Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine Mass). It has always been said that both are expressions of the Lex Orandi, not just the Novus Ordo. Again, the Old Mass was never abolished! I never hear from Bergoglio about the many liturgical abuses that exist here and there in countless parishes. In parishes everything is possible—except the Tridentine Mass. All weapons are thrown into the fray to eradicate the Old Mass. 

Why? For God’s sake, why? What is this obsession of Francis to want to uproot that small group of traditionalists? The pope should be the guardian of tradition, not the jailer of tradition. While Amoris Laetitia excelled in vagueness, Traditionis Custodes is a perfectly clear declaration of war. 

I suspect that Francis is shooting himself in the foot with this motu proprio. For the Society of St. Pius X, it will prove to be good news. They will never have been able to guess how indebted they’d be to Pope Francis….

+ Rob Mutsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop

An evil oekaze of Pope Francis – Fortes in Fide

Bishop Athanasius Schneider comments in The Remnant on the being beaten by the so-called, "Shepherd's" stick!

The Remnant Newspaper - TRADITION BETRAYED: Diane Montagna Interviews Bishop Schneider on “Traditionis Custodes”

The Remnant Newspaper - TRADITION BETRAYED: Diane Montagna Interviews Bishop Schneider on “Traditionis Custodes”

Sunday 25 July 2021

It is Sunday in Toronto - Get thee to a Latin Mass - there is a Mass for you!

The late Very Reverend Jonathan Robinson, C.O. offers the Holy Mass
at the Toronto Oratory Church of the Holy Family

There has been no published announcement from the Archdiocese of Toronto in reaction to Bergoglio's cruel, vindictive and malignant action against the Holy Mass in its traditional form. The current status quo applies. "Qui tacet consentit"  - silence gives consent. There will be no changes and for this, we can thank Thomas Cardinal Collins for his pastoral care and the announcements made last Sunday at all Masses that there will be "no changes." 

What we must do, as faithful in Christ, is to not despair and not abandon Our Mother, the Church at this time of Her suffering from abuse and a hostile takeover by malefactors. 

In Toronto and elsewhere, go to the Traditional Latin Mass. Go today and always. If you have never been, go anyway. Don't worry about not understanding or knowing what to do. Just go. 

St. Vincent de Paul at 9:30 A.M.

Holy Family at 11:00 A.M.

St. Patrick's Schomberg at 11:00 A.M.

St. Lawrence the Martyr at 1:00 P.M.

If so inclined.

The Society of St. Pius X

Church of the Transfiguration at 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M.

Cathedral of the Transfiguration in Markham at 5:00 P.M. NO PRE-REGISTRATION!

Saturday 24 July 2021

Raymond Cardinal Burke on Bergoglio's evil action - the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes


Many faithful – laity, ordained and consecrated – have expressed to me the profound distress which the Motu Proprio «Traditionis Custodes» has brought them. Those who are attached to the Usus Antiquior (More Ancient Usage) [UA], what Pope Benedict XVI called the Extraordinary Form, of the Roman Rite are deeply disheartened by the severity of the discipline which the Motu Proprio imposes and offended by the language it employs to describe them, their attitudes and their conduct. As a member of the faithful, who also has an intense bond with the UA, I fully share in their sentiments of profound sorrow.

As a Bishop of the Church and as a Cardinal, in communion with the Roman Pontiff and with a particular responsibility to assist him in his pastoral care and governance of the universal Church, I offer the following observations: 

1.  In a preliminary way, it must be asked why the Latin or official text of the Motu Proprio has not yet been published. As far as I know, the Holy See promulgated the text in Italian and English versions, and, afterwards, in German and Spanish translations. Since the English version is called a translation, it must be assumed that the original text is in Italian. If such be the case, there are translations of significant texts in the English version which are not coherent with the Italian version. In Article 1, the important Italian adjective, “unica”, is translated into English as “unique”, instead of “only.” In Article 4, the important Italian verb, “devono”, is translated into English as “should”, instead of “must.” 

2.  First of all, it is important to establish, in this and the following two observations (nos. 3 and 4), the essence of what the Motu Proprio contains. It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church, namely the UA. According to the Holy Father, those who worship according to this usage make a choice which rejects “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’,” a choice which “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.” 

3.  Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action, not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis, a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force. The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation regarding the worship of God, the most important aspect of their life in the Church, with a view to its implementation. The legislation, in fact, contains many elements that require study regarding its application. 

4.  What is more, the legislation places restrictions on the UA, which signal its ultimate elimination, for example, the prohibition of the use of a parish church for worship according to the UA and the establishment of certain days for such worship. In his letter to the Bishops of the world, Pope Francis indicates two principles which are to guide the Bishops in the implementation of the Motu Proprio. The first principle is “to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.” The second principle is “to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God’.” 

5.  Seemingly, the legislation is directed to the correction of an aberration principally attributable to the “the desire and wishes” of certain priests. In that regard, I must observe, especially in the light of my service as a Diocesan Bishop, it was not the priests who, because of their desires, urged the faithful to request the Extraordinary Form. In fact, I shall always be deeply grateful to the many priests who, notwithstanding their already heavy commitments, generously served the faithful who legitimately requested the UA. The two principles cannot help but communicate to devout faithful who have a deep appreciation and attachment to the encounter with Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite that they suffer from an aberration which can be tolerated for a time but must ultimately be eradicated. 

6.  From whence comes the severe and revolutionary action of the Holy Father? The Motu Proprio and the Letter indicate two sources: first, “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” through “a detailed consultation of the bishops” conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, and, second, “the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Regarding the responses to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire” sent to the Bishops, Pope Francis writes to the Bishops: “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.” 

7.  Regarding the sources, is it to be supposed that the situation which preoccupies and saddens the Roman Pontiff exists generally in the Church or only in certain places? Given the importance attributed to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire,” and the gravity of the matter it was treating, it would seem essential that the results of the consultation be made public, along with the indication of its scientific character. In the same way, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was of the opinion that such a revolutionary measure must be taken, it would seemingly have prepared an Instruction or similar document to address it. 

8.  The Congregation enjoys the expertise and long experience of certain officials – first, serving in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and then in the Fourth Section of the Congregation – who have been charged to treat questions regarding the UA. One must ask whether the “opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” reflected the consultation of those with the greatest knowledge of the faithful devoted to the UA? 

9.  Regarding the perceived grave evil constituted by the UA, I have a wide experience over many years and in many different places with the faithful who regularly worship God according to the UA. In all honesty, I must say that these faithful, in no way, reject “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’.” Neither have I found them out of communion with the Church or divisive within the Church. On the contrary, they love the Roman Pontiff, their Bishops and priests, and, when others have made the choice of schism, they have wanted always to remain in full communion with the Church, faithful to the Roman Pontiff, often at the cost of great suffering. They, in no way, ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology. 

10.  The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.” The movement in question is the Society of Saint Pius X. While both Roman Pontiffs desired the healing of the schism in question, as should all good Catholics, they also desired to maintain in continuance the UA for those who remained in the full communion of the Church and did not become schismatic. Pope Saint John Paul II showed pastoral charity, in various important ways, to faithful Catholics attached to the UA, for example, granting the indult for the UA but also establishing the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a society of apostolic life for priests attached to the UA. In the book, Last Testament in his own words, Pope Benedict XVI responded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202). In fact, many who presently desire to worship according to the UA has no experience and perhaps no knowledge of the history and present situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. They are simply attracted to the holiness of the UA. 

11.  Yes, there are individuals and even certain groups which espouse radical positions, even as is the case in other sectors of Church life, but they are, in no way, characteristic of the greater and ever increasing number of faithful who desire to worship God according to the UA. The Sacred Liturgy is not a matter of so-called “Church politics” but the fullest and most perfect encounter with Christ for us in this world. The faithful, in question, among whom are numerous young adults and young married couples with children, encounter Christ, through the UA, Who draws them ever closer to Himself through the reform of their lives and cooperation with the divine grace which flows from His glorious pierced Heart into their hearts. They have no need to make a judgment regarding those who worship God according to the Usus Recentior (the More Recent Usage, what Pope Benedict XVI called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) [UR], first promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI. As one priest, member of an institute of the consecrated life, which serves these faithful, remarked to me: I regularly confess to a priest, according to the UR, and participate, on special occasions, in the Holy Mass according to the UR. He concluded: Why would anyone accuse me of not accepting its validity? 

12.  If there are situations of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and the discipline of the Church, justice demands that they be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. Justice is the minimum and irreplaceable condition of charity. Pastoral charity cannot be served, if the requirements of justice are not observed. 

13.  A schismatic spirit or actual schism is always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA fosters schism. For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like me, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty. I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it. Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation. For those who have come to the UA for the first time, its rich beauty, especially as it manifests the action of Christ renewing sacramentally His Sacrifice on Calvary through the priest who acts in His person, has drawn them closer to Christ. I know many faithful for whom the experience of Divine Worship according to the UA has strongly inspired their conversion to the Faith or their seeking Full Communion with the Catholic Church. Also, numerous priests who have returned to the celebration of the UA or who have learned it for the first time have told me how deeply it has enriched their priestly spirituality. This is not to mention the saints all along the Christian centuries for whom the UA nourished a heroic practice of the virtues. Some have given their lives to defend the offering of this very form of divine worship. 

14.  For myself and for others who have received so many powerful graces through participation in the Sacred Liturgy, according to the UA, it is inconceivable that it could now be characterized as something detrimental to the unity of the Church and to its very life. In this regard, it is difficult to understand the meaning of Article 1 of the Motu Proprio: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the only (unica, in the Italian version which seemingly is the original text) expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The UA is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so. From the very time of the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, in recognition of the great difference between the UR and the UA, the continued celebration of the Sacraments, according to the UA, was permitted for certain convents and monasteries and also for certain individuals and groups. Pope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to the Bishops of the World, accompanying the Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificum», made clear that the Roman Missal in use before the Missal of Pope Paul VI, “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.” 

15.  But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline that has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church. [Emphases added] 

16.  It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.  

17.  Pope Francis states in his letter to the Bishops: “Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique [only] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The total abrogation in question, in justice, requires that each individual norm, instruction, permission and custom be studied, to verify that it “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”

18.  Here, it is necessary to observe that the reform of the Sacred Liturgy carried out by Pope Saint Pius V, in accord with the indications of the Council of Trent, was quite different from what happened after the Second Vatican Council. Pope Saint Pius V essentially put in order the form of the Roman Rite as it had existed already for centuries. Likewise, some ordering of the Roman Rite has been done in the centuries since that time by the Roman Pontiff, but the form of the Rite remained the same. What happened after the Second Vatican Council constituted a radical change in the form of the Roman Rite, with the elimination of many of the prayers, significant ritual gestures, for example, the many genuflections, and the frequent kissing of the altar, and other elements which are rich in the expression of the transcendent reality – the union of heaven with earth – which is the Sacred Liturgy. Pope Paul VI already lamented the situation in a particularly dramatic way by the homily he delivered on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1972. Pope Saint John Paul II laboured throughout his pontificate, and, in particular, during its last years, to address serious liturgical abuses. Both Roman Pontiffs, and Pope Benedict XVI, as well, strove to conform the liturgical reform to the actual teaching of the Second Vatican Council, since the proponents and agents of the abuse, invoked the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council” to justify themselves. 

19.  Article 6 of the Motu Proprio transfers the competence of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life devoted to the UA to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The observance of the UA belongs to the very heart of the charism of these institutes and societies. While the Congregation is competent to respond to questions regarding the canon law for such institutes and societies, it is not competent to alter their charism and constitutions, in order to hasten the seemingly desired elimination of the UA in the Church. 

There are many other observations to be made, but these seem to be the most important. I hope that they may be helpful to all the faithful and, in particular, to the faithful who worship according to the UA, in responding to the Motu Proprio «Traditionis Custodes» and the accompanying Letter to the Bishops. The severity of these documents naturally generates a profound distress and even a sense of confusion and abandonment. I pray that the faithful will not give way to discouragement but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors, and in their love of the Sacred Liturgy. 

In that regard, I urge the faithful, to pray fervently for Pope Francis, the Bishops and priests. At the same time, in accord with can. 212, §3, “[a]ccording to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” Finally, in gratitude to Our Lord for the Sacred Liturgy, the greatest gift of Himself to us in the Church, may they continue to safeguard and cultivate the ancient and ever new More Ancient Usage or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. 

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke 

Rome, 22 July 2021 

Feast of Saint Mary Magdalene, Penitent

Friday 23 July 2021

Letter from Father Pagliarani about the motu proprio “Traditionis custodes”


Dear members and friends of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,

The motu proprio Traditionis custodes and the letter that accompanied it have caused a profound upheaval in the so-called traditionalist movement. We can point out, quite logically, that the era of the hermeneutics of continuity, with its equivocations, illusions and impossible efforts, is radically over – swept aside with a wave of a sleeve. These clear-cut measures do not directly affect the Society of Saint Pius X. However, they must be an occasion for us to reflect deeply on the situation. To do so, it is necessary to step back and ask ourselves a question that is both old and new: Why is the Tridentine Mass still the apple of discord after fifty years?

First of all, we must remember that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the continuation in time of the most bitter struggle that has ever existed: the battle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. This combat culminated at Calvary in the triumph of Our Blessed Lord. It was for this struggle and it was for this victory that he became incarnate. Since Our Lord’s victory was through the Cross and through His Precious Blood, it is understandable that its perpetuation will also be marked by conflicts and contradictions. Every Catholic is called to this combat. Our Lord reminded us of this when He said that He came “to bring the sword upon the earth” (Matt. 10:34). It is not surprising that the Mass, which perfectly expresses Our Lord’s definitive victory over sin through His atoning Sacrifice, is itself a sign of contradiction.

But why has the Mass become a sign of contradiction within the Church itself? The answer is simple and increasingly clear. After fifty years, the various elements that confirm the answer have become obvious to all well informed Catholics: the Tridentine Mass expresses and conveys a conception of Christian life – and consequently, a conception of the Catholic Church – that is absolutely incompatible with the ecclesiology that emerged from the Second Vatican Council. The problem is not simply liturgical, aesthetic or purely technical. The problem is simultaneously doctrinal, moral, spiritual, ecclesiological and liturgical. In a nutshell, it is a problem that affects all aspects of the Church’s life, without exception. It is a question of faith.

On one side is the Mass of All Times. It is the standard of a Church that defies the world and is certain of victory, for its battle is nothing less that the continuation of the battle that Our Blessed Lord waged to destroy sin and to destroy the kingdom of Satan. It is by the Mass and through the Mass that Our Lord enlists Catholic souls into His ranks, by sharing with them both His Cross and His victory. From all this follows a fundamentally militant conception of Christian life that is characterised by two elements: a spirit of sacrifice and an unwavering supernatural hope.

On the other side stands the Mass of Paul VI. It is an authentic expression of a Church that wants to live in harmony with the world and that lends an ear to the world’s demands. It represents a Church that, in the final analysis, no longer needs to fight against the world because it no longer has anything to reproach the world. Here is a Church that no longer has anything to teach the world because it listens to the powers of the world. It is a Church that no longer needs the Sacrifice of Our Blessed Lord because, having lost the notion of sin, it no longer has anything for which to atone. Here is a Church that no longer has the mission of restoring the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because it wants to make its contribution to the creation on this earth of a better world that is freer, more egalitarian and more eco-responsible – and all this with purely human means. This humanist mission that the men of the Church have given themselves must necessarily be matched by a liturgy that is equally humanist and emptied of any notion of sacredness.

This battle that has been waged for the past fifty years, which has just seen a highly significant event on July 16th, is not a simple war between two rites: it is indeed a war between two different and opposing conceptions of the Catholic Church and of Christian life – conceptions that are absolutely irreducible and incompatible with each other. In paraphrasing Saint Augustin, one could say that the two Masses have built two cities: the Mass of All Times has built a Christian city; the New Mass seeks to build a humanist and secular city.

Since Almighty God has allowed all this, it is certainly for a greater good. Firstly for ourselves, who have the undeserved good fortune of knowing the Tridentine Mass and who can benefit from it! We possess a treasure with a value we do not always appreciate, and which we perhaps preserve too much out of simple habit. When something precious is attacked or scorned, we begin to appreciate better its true value. May this “shock”, provoked by the harshness of the official texts of July 16th, serve to renew, deepen and rediscover our attachment to the Tridentine Mass! This Mass – our Mass – must really be for us like the pearl of great price in the Gospel, for which we are ready to renounce everything, for which we are ready to sell everything. He who is not prepared to shed his blood for this Mass is not worthy to celebrate it! He who is not prepared to give up everything to protect it is not worthy to attend it!

This should be our first reaction to these events that have just shaken the Catholic Church. Our reaction, as Catholic priests and as Catholic laity, must be profound and more far-reaching than all those feeble and sometimes hopeless commentaries.

Our Blessed Lord certainly has another objective in mind in allowing this new attack on the Tridentine Mass. No one can doubt that in recent years many priests and faithful have discovered this Mass, and that through it they have encountered a new spiritual and moral horizon, which has opened the door to the sanctification of their souls. The latest measures taken against the Mass will force these souls to draw all the consequences of what they have discovered: they must now choose – with all the elements of discernment that are at their disposal – what is necessary for every well-informed Catholic conscience. Many souls will find themselves faced with an important choice that will affect their faith, because – and let us say it once more – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the supreme expression of a doctrinal and moral universe. It is therefore a question of choosing the Catholic faith in its entirety and through it, choosing Our Lord Jesus Christ, with His Cross, His Sacrifice and His universal kingship. It is a matter of choosing His Precious Blood, of imitating the Crucified One and of following Him to the end, by a complete, rigorous and coherent fidelity.

The Society of Saint Pius X has the duty to assist all those souls who are currently in dismay and are confused. Firstly, we have the duty to offer them the certitude that the Tridentine Mass can never disappear from the face of the earth. This is an absolutely necessary sign of hope. Moreover, each of us, whether priest or faithful, must extend a warm helping hand to them, for he who has no desire to share the riches he enjoys is, in all truth, unworthy of possessing them. Only in this way will we truly love souls and show our love for the Church. For every soul that we win to Our Blessed Lord’s Cross, and to the immense love that He manifested through His Sacrifice, will be a soul truly won to His Church and to the charity that animates His Church, which must be ours, especially at this present time.

It is to Our Lady of Sorrows that we entrust these intentions. It is to her that we address our prayers, since no one has penetrated deeper than Our Blessed Lady, the mystery of the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His victory on the Cross. There is no one greater than Mary who has been so intimately associated with His sufferings and His triumph. It is in her hands that Our Blessed Lord has placed the whole Catholic Church. It is therefore to her that the most precious thing in the Catholic Church has been entrusted: the Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Menzingen, July 22nd, 2021.

Feast of Saint Mary Magdalen.

Don Davide Pagliarani, 

LMS Chairman: Canonical guidance on Traditionis Custodes from the Latin Mass Society

The analysis of the dreadful action by Bergoglio to abrogate Summorum Pontificum continues. Joseph Shaw of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales has provided Edward Pentin with the results of assessments by a group of Canonists.

LMS Chairman: Canonical guidance on Traditionis Custodes from the Latin Mass Society

The full text is here. Trad_Cust_canonical_notes.pdf (lms.org.uk)

Latin Mass Society: ‘Traditionis Custodes’ Regulates Not Abrogrates Older Liturgy| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)

Thursday 22 July 2021

Hatred for the Mass of all time and the Question of Obedience


Foreword by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

This great and powerful article by Professor Massimo Viglione constitutes one of the most lucid and profound comments on the ominous Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes. In sharing this important intervention, I intend to offer it to the reading and reflection of all the faithful, Catholics and also non-Catholics, so that each one can draw from it prophetic clarity and apostolic courage in the very hard war that we are all called to face, a war whose inevitable outcome will be the triumph of the Bride of Christ over the unleashing of the infernal powers. 

This article by prof. Viglione deserves wide visibility also for showing the overall vision on the simultaneous and coherent strategy and action of the deep state and the deep church. At a time when discrimination against the unvaccinated is also adopted by the Bergoglian church, it is our duty and responsibility to resist with the utmost determination, raise our voices, denouncing what is happening and revealing what is being prepared. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop 


 Hatred for the Mass of all time and the Question of Obedience 

“They will throw you out of the synagogues” (Jn 16:2)  The hermeneutic of Cain’s envy against Abel 

by Massimo Viglione 

There have been many comments, one after the other, in these days following the official declaration of war – made by Francis himself – of the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the Holy Mass of all time. And more than one comment has revealed the not-at-all concealed contempt and the simultaneous absolute clarity of content and form that marks the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, written in a style and formality that is political more than theological or spiritual. It is in effect a declaration of war. It is noteworthy that there is a formal difference and also a difference in tone found in the various documents with which Paul VI, beginning in 1964, announced, planned, and implemented his liturgical reform, which was finally made official with the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum issued on 3 April 1969, by which the ancient Roman Rite was de facto replaced (this is the most appropriate term both from the point of view of intentions as well as facts) with the new vulgar Rite. In the Montinian documents we find, on several occasions, hypocritical but evident pain, regret, and remorse, and paradoxically the beauty and sacredness of the ancient Rite are celebrated. 

In contrast, in the Bergoglian document, sarcasm and hatred for the ancient Rite shine through. 

In short, it is as if Montini had said: “Dear Rite of all time, I am sending you away, but you were so beautiful!” In contrast, in the Bergoglian document, as many have noted, sarcasm and hatred for the ancient Rite shine through. A hatred such that it cannot be contained. 

Naturally, Francis is not the initiator of this war, which was begun by the modernist liturgical movement (or, if you like, with Protestantism), but rather, on the official and operative level, it was Paul VI himself. Bergoglio has only – to use the strong and popular metaphor – “shot madly” in an effort to kill once and for all a mortally wounded thing that in the course of the post-conciliar decades not only did not die but returned to life, dragging along with it, with an exponential crescendo in the last 14 years, an incalculable number of faithful all over the world. 

And this is the crux of the whole matter. The progressive and more convinced modernist clergy had to suffer Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio, dragged by the neck, but at the same time they constantly worked against the Mass of all time through hostile resistance by the majority of the world episcopate, which has always openly disobeyed what Summorum Pontificum established, beginning right in the years of the Ratzingerian pontificate, and then all the more so after the resignation up until today. 

Now, those bishops who have been constantly and undauntedly disobedient to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and one of his Motu Proprios, will be able not only to continue but even to intensify their censorship. 

The hostility of the bishops meant that in the end the task of putting the Motu Proprio into action very often fell to the courage of a few priests celebrating it anyway, even without the permission of the bishop (which was specifically not necessary according to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum). Now, those bishops who have been constantly and undauntedly disobedient to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and one of his Motu Proprios, in the name of obedience to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and one of his Motu Proprios, will be able not only to continue but even to intensify their censorship, the war that is no longer hidden but is now blatant, as is in fact already happening. 

But Francis has not limited himself to “shooting” the immortal victim. He wanted to take a further step, that of a fast and furious – to say nothing of monstruous – “burying alive” of the ancient rite, affirming that the new rite is the Lex Orandi of the Catholic Church. From which it should be deduced that the Mass of all time is no longer the Lex Orandi. 

It is well known that Our Friend [Bergoglio] doesn’t have a clue about theology (which is a bit like saying that a doctor doesn’t have a clue about medicine, or that a blacksmith doesn’t know how to use fire and iron). The Lex Orandi of the Church, in fact, is not a “precept” of positive law voted on by a parliament or prescribed by a sovereign, which can always be retracted, changed, replaced, improved, or worsened. The Lex Orandi of the Church, furthermore, is not a specific and determined “thing” in time and space, as much as it is the collective whole of theological and spiritual norms and liturgical and pastoral practices of the entire history of the Church, from evangelical times – and specifically from Pentecost – up to today. Although it obviously lives in the present, it is however rooted in the entire past of the Church. Therefore, we are not talking here about something human – exclusively human – that the latest boss can change at his pleasure. The Lex Orandi comprises all twenty centuries of the history of the Church, and there is no man or group of men in the world who can change this twenty-century-old deposit. There is no pope, council, or episcopate that can change the Gospel, the Depositum Fidei, or the universal Magisterium of the Church. Nor can the Liturgy of all time be changed. And if it is true that the ancient Rite had an essential apostolic core that then harmonically grew over the course of the centuries, with progressive mutations (even up to Pius XII and John XXIII), it is also true that these mutations – at times more appropriate and other times less so, and sometimes perhaps not appropriate at all – have always been however harmonically structured in a continuum of Faith, Sacredness, Tradition, and Beauty. 

The “new Mass” has lost in the face of history and the evidence of the facts. 

The Montinian reform broke all this apart, improvisedly inventing a new rite adapted to the needs of the modern world and transforming the sacred Catholic Liturgy from being theocentric to being anthropocentric. From the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross repeated in an unbloody manner through the action of the sacerdos, we transitioned to the assembly of the faithful led by its “presider.” From a salvific and even exorcistic instrument, we passed to a horizontal populist gathering, susceptible to continual autocephalous and relativistic changes and adaptations that are more or less “festive” and whose supposed “value” is based on winning mass consensus, as if it were a political instrument aimed at the audience, an audience however that is progressively completely disappearing. 

It is useless to continue on this path: the very results of this liturgical subversion speak to minds and hearts and cannot lie. What it is important to clarify however is the reason for this transition from Montinian hypocrisy to Bergoglian sincerity. 

What has changed? The general climate has changed. It has literally turned upside down. Montini believed that in a few years no one would remember the Mass of all time. Already John Paul II, faced with the evidence that the enemy did not die at all, was constrained – he too dragged by the neck – to grant an “indult” (as if the Sacred Catholic Liturgy of all time needed to be forgiven for something in order to continue to exist) which (no one ever says this) was even more restrictive than this latest Bergoglian document, although devoid of the hatred that characterizes the latter. But above all it was the uncontainable success among the people – and in particular among young people – that the Mass of all time found after Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio that was the triggering factor for this hatred. 

The Mass of all time, on the other hand, is the exact antithesis of all this... It is both divine and human together, like its Founder on the day of the Last Supper. 

The “new Mass” has lost in the face of history and the evidence of the facts. The churches are empty, ever more empty; the religious orders – even, and perhaps above all, the most ancient and glorious ones – are disappearing; monasteries and convents are deserted, inhabited only by religious who are now very advanced in years, and upon whose death the doors will be shuttered; vocations are reduced to nothing; even the “otto per mille” [Italian church tax] has been cut in half, despite the obsessive cloying and pathetic third-worldesque publicity it receives; priestly vocations are scarce – everywhere we see pastors with three, four, or at times even five parishes to run. The mathematics of the Council and the “new Mass” is the most merciless thing that can exist. 

But the failure is above all qualitative, from the theological, spiritual and moral point of view. Even the clergy that exists and resists is in large part openly heretical or in any case tolerant of heresy and error in the exact measure that it is intolerant towards the Tradition, no longer recognizing any objective value in the Magisterium of the Church (except for what pleases it), living instead on theological and dogmatic improvisation, and liturgical and pastoral improvisation as well, all based on doctrinal and moral relativism, accompanied by an immense flood of chatter and empty and inane slogans; nor have we even mentioned the devastating – when it is not monstruous – moral situation of a good part of this clergy. 

It’s true, there are the so-called “movements” that save the situation a little. But they save it at the cost, once again, of doctrinal relativism, liturgical relativism (guitars, tambourines, entertainment, “participation”), and moral relativism (the only sin is to go against the dictates of this society: today against the vaccine; everything else is more or less permitted). Are these movements still Catholic? And in what measure and quality? If we were to analyze their fidelity with theological and doctrinal precision, how many would pass the examination? 

It is the worldwide and multi-generational consensus against the enemy who must die, in the face of the failure of that which was supposed to bring new life and instead is withered and dying. 

“Lex orandi, lex credenda,” the Church teaches. And in fact, the Lex Orandi of the nineteen centuries prior to Vatican II and the Montinian liturgical reform have produced one type of faith, and the fifty years following it have produced another type of faith – and another type of Catholic. “You will know them by their fruits” (Mt 7:16), the Founder of the Church taught. Exactly. The fruits of the total failure of modernism (or, if you like – for the most attentive and intelligent – the triumph of the true purposes of modernism), the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, the fruits of the post-council. Where did the hermeneutic of continuity shipwreck? It shipwrecked, along with “Mercy,” in the Hermeneutic of Hatred. 

The Mass of all time, on the other hand, is the exact antithesis of all this. It is disruptive in its propagation, despite all of the constant hostility and episcopal censorship; it is sanctifying in its perfection; it is engaging precisely because it is the expression of the Eternal and Unchanging, of the Church of all time, of the theology and spirituality of all time, of the liturgy of all time, of the morality of all time. It is loved because it is divine, sacred, and hierarchically ordered, not human, “democratic” or liberal-egalitarian. It is both divine and human together, like its Founder on the day of the Last Supper. 

It is loved above all by young people, both the laity who frequent it as well as among those who are approaching the priesthood: while the seminaries of the new rite (the Lex Orandi of Bergoglio) are dens of heresy and apostasy (and it is better to be silent about what else…), the seminaries and novitiates of the world of Tradition overflow with vocations, both male and female, in an unstoppable stream. The explanation of this incontrovertible fact is found in the one Lex Orandi of the Catholic Church, which is the one willed by God Himself and from which no rebel may escape. 

It is hatred of kneeling girls wearing white veils, hatred of ladies with many children wearing black veils; hatred of men kneeling in prayer and recollection, perhaps with the rosary between their hands... 

Here is the root of the hatred. It is the worldwide and multi-generational consensus against the enemy who must die, in the face of the failure of that which was supposed to bring new life and instead is withered and dying, because the lifeblood of Grace is missing. 

It is hatred of kneeling girls wearing white veils, hatred of ladies with many children wearing black veils; hatred of men kneeling in prayer and recollection, perhaps with the rosary between their hands; hatred of priests in cassocks who are faithful to the doctrine and spirituality of all time; hatred of families that are large and peaceful despite the difficulties of this society; hatred of fidelity, of seriousness, of the thirst for the sacred. 

It is hatred of an entire world, ever more numerous, that has not fallen – or no longer falls – into the humanistic and globalist trap of the “New Pentecost.” 

At its root, that mad shooting is nothing other than a new murder of Abel by an envious Cain. And in fact, in the new Rite what is offered to God is “the fruit of the earth and the work of human hands (Cain), while in the Rite of all time what is offered is “hanc immaculatam Ostiam” (the firstborn Lamb of Abel: Gen 4:2-4). 

Will all the bishops obey? It seems not. 

Cain always wins momentarily through violence, but then without fail he suffers the punishment of his hatred and his envy. Abel dies momentarily, but then he lives forever in the sequela Christi. 

What will happen now? 

This is a more interesting and inevitable question than anyone can believe, and at many levels. Since we cannot know the future, let’s ask ourselves some fundamental questions in the meantime. 

Will all the bishops obey? 

It seems not. Apart from the great majority of them, who will fall in line quite willingly either because they share their boss’s hatred (almost all of them) or because they are afraid for their personal future, we think that there will be not a few of them who could also oppose the Bergoglian “machine gun,” as already appears to be happening in various cases in the USA and in France (we have little hope for the Italians, who are the most fearful and flattened as always), either because they are not hostile in principle [to the ancient rite] or else out of friendship with the various orders tied to the Mass of all time, or else perhaps – is this a vain hope? – out of a jolt of just pride in response to the humiliation, which could even be called grotesque, that they have received at the hands of this document, wherein first it says that the decision regarding the granting of permission falls to them, but then not only does it restrict every liberty of action, placing conditions on any minimal possibility of choice, but it also falls into the most blatant contradiction, affirming that in every case they must receive the permission of the Holy See! 

Will everyone really obey blindly, or will some cracks start to make the system of hatred shake? 

The true goal of this multi-decade war against the Sacred Catholic Liturgy, is the dissolution of the Catholic Liturgy in itself, of every form of the Holy Sacrifice, of doctrine itself, of the Church herself in the great globalist current of the universal religion of the New World Order. 

And what will happen in the so-called “traditionalist” world? 

“We will see some good ones,” to use a popular expression. Without excluding historical twists. There are those who will fall, who will survive, who perhaps will benefit from it (but beware of the poisoned meatballs of the servants of the Father of Lies!). Instead, let us trust in divine Grace, so that the faithful not only remain faithful but also grow. 

All this will be confirmed above all by an aspect that up until now no one has highlighted: the true goal of this multi-decade war against the Sacred Catholic Liturgy, which then is the true goal of the creation of the New Rite ex nihilo (better to say improvisedly [a tavolino], in some cave), is the dissolution of the Catholic Liturgy in itself, of every form of the Holy Sacrifice, of doctrine itself, of the Church herself in the great globalist current of the universal religion of the New World Order. Concepts like the Most Holy Trinity, the Cross, original sin, Good and Evil understood in the Christian and traditional sense, the Incarnation, the Resurrection and thus the Redemption, the Marian privileges and the very figure of the Mother of God who is the Immaculate Conception, the Eucharist and the Sacraments, Christian morality with its Ten Commandments and the Doctrine of the Universal Magisterium (defense of life, of the family, of rightly ordered sexuality in all its forms, with all the consequent condemnations of today’s follies) – all of this must disappear into the universal and monist cult of the future. 

The Mass of all time is the first element that must disappear, since it is the absolute bulwark of all that they want to make disappear. 

And, in this perspective, the Mass of all time is the first element that must disappear, since it is the absolute bulwark of all that they want to make disappear: it is the first obstacle to every form of ecumenism. Over time, this will inevitably involve a progressive movement closer to the Sacred Liturgy of all time by the body of the faithful who still linger in attendance at the new Rite, perhaps trying to go to those priests who celebrate it with dignity. Because in the end, sooner or later, even those priests will find themselves at the crossroads of having to choose between obedience to evil or disobedience in order to remain faithful to the Good. The comb of the Revolution, in society as in the Church, does not leave any knots: sooner or later they all fall out, if not here then there. And this will involve the search by the good ones, who are still confused, for Truth and Grace – that is, for the Mass of all time.  

Those who still linger today [at the new rite], so as not to have to deal with these “questions,” following these bishops and parish priests, know that, if they want to remain truly Catholic and truly avail themselves of the Body and Blood of the Redeemer…their days are numbered. Soon, they will have to choose. 

We have now touched on the central problem of this entire situation: how to behave in the face of a hierarchy that hates the True, the Good, the Beautiful, the Tradition, which fights against the one true Lex Orandi in order to impose another one that is pleasing not to God but to the prince of this world and his “controller” servants (in a certain sense, his “bishops”)? 

Whoever obeys men while being aware of facilitating evil and obstructing the Good, whoever they may be, in reality becomes an accomplice of evil, of lies, and of error. 

It is the key problem of obedience, over which even in the world of Tradition a dirty game is often played, often incited not by a sincere search for what is best and for the truth but by personal wars, which have today become more acute in the face of the rift caused by health totalitarianism and vaccination. 

Obedience – and this is an error that finds its deepest roots even in the pre-conciliar Church, it must be said – is not an end. It is a means of sanctification. Therefore, it is not an absolute value, but rather an instrumental one. It is a positive value, very positive, if it is ordered towards God. But if one obeys Satan, or his servants, or error, or apostasy, then obedience is no longer a good, but rather a deliberate participation in evil. 

Exactly like peace. Peace – the divinity of today’s subversion – is not an end, but rather an instrument of the Good and the Just, if it is aimed at creating a good and just society. If it is ordered towards creating or favoring a society that is Satanic, malignant, erroneous, and subversive, then “peace” becomes the instrument of hell. 

We must be “pleasing not to men, but to God, who tests our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4). Exactly! Therefore, whoever obeys men while being aware of facilitating evil and obstructing the Good, whoever they may be – including the ecclesiastical hierarchy, including the pope – in reality becomes an accomplice of evil, of lies, and of error. 

We are in the most decisive days of human history and also of the history of the Church. 

Whoever obeys in these conditions disobeys God. “Because no slave is greater than his master” (Mt 10:24). Even Judas was part of the apostolic college. Or else he falls into hypocrisy. As if – just to give an example from academia – a Catholic traditionalist, self-erected as the dispenser and judge of the seriousness of others, would openly criticize the present pontiff for Amoris Laetitiae or this latest document, but then, as regards the submission – even obligatory submission! –  to vaccinism in itself and the acceptance of the use of human cell lines obtained from fetuses that are the victims of voluntary abortion, he would declare, in order to defend himself in the face of just and obvious general indignation, that he is obedient to what the “Sovereign Pontiff” says on this matter. 

The conditio sine qua non of all seriousness lies not so much in the “tones” used (also, this is an important aspect but absolutely not primary and above all it remains subjective) but first and foremost in the doctrinal, ideal, and intellectual coherence of the Good and the Truth in their integrity, in every aspect and circumstance. In other words, we must understand whether the one who guides the Church today wishes to be a faithful servant of God or a faithful servant of the prince of this world. In the first hypothesis, obedience is due to him and obedience is the instrument of sanctification. In the second, the consequences have to be drawn out. Clearly, in respect for the norms codified by the Church and as children of the Church and also with the proper education and serenity of tone. But one must always draw out the consequences: the first concern ought to be to always follow and defend the Truth, not the cloying, obsequious, and scrupulous grovelling which is the spoiled fruit of a misunderstood Tridentinism. Neither pope nor hierarchy can be used as a referent of truth in fits and starts according to one’s personal ends. 

We are in the most decisive days of human history and also of the history of the Church. All of the authors who have commented in these days invite their readers to prayer and hope. We will obviously do this too, in the full conviction that everything that is happening in these days and, more generally, since February 2020, is the unequivocal sign that the times are drawing near in which God will intervene to save His Mystical Body and humanity, as well as the order that He Himself has given to creation and to human coexistence, in the measure He wishes to give it, in the way and time of His choosing. 

Let us pray; let us hope; let us keep vigil, and let us choose to be on the right side. The enemy helps us in the choice: in fact, he is always the same everywhere.

Originally published at: L’odio contro la Messa di sempre e la questione dell’obbedienza – Aldo Maria Valli

How can a true Shepherd of Christ protect his flock from an evil and megalomaniacal Pope!

Toronto's Thomas Cardinal Collins - Mass in the Presence of a Greater Prelate 
Vigil of Pentecost, 2014 at St. Lawrence the Martyr Parish

Much is being written around the world about the heinous action of Bergoglio with his motu proprio designed to destroy the Holy Mass according to its ancient use. Make no mistake that this is his goal. Can we take to heart that numerous bishops have invoked Canon 87 §1.? 

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.

This is what Bishop Paprocki did and surprisingly, Bishop Rick Stika of Knoxville. There have been others. The fundamental problem is that this may not mean what, on first reading, we think it means. First, the Pope is the supreme lawgiver and is not bound by Canon Law. Second, "particular disciplinary laws" would be akin to fasting. So, how does a bishop overrule a pope? Father John Zuhlsdorf believes the Canon applies

No doubt that some bishops are overjoyed to use this opportunity to destroy the Mass of the Ages and have, most would seem to me to be at least neutral. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority are saying to themselves, "do I really need this right now?" In some cases, they may not be favourable of the traditional rite but if they have one or two churches in the diocese with it, then it is in their minds "managed" and "contained." That's okay, the future is on our side.

Yet, as Sebastian Morello from The European Conservative notes, there is a goal that the faithful be "scattered and purged." Our job is to not let that happen. It is an excellent read.

Now, presumably, if Pope Francis can reject the claims of his predecessor by the click of his fingers, his successor will be free to do the same to him. Catholic faithful attached to the traditional liturgy may derive comfort from this, as there remains the possibility that the whole thing could be reversed by a future edict. Do not be consoled, for here lies the path to ever-intensifying ecclesiastical tyranny. For example, the reason why revolutionary governments become so draconian when they attain power by the overthrowing of government, immediately requiring a secret police and increasingly severe punishments, is because the revolutionary government has, in acquiring government, legitimised revolution against government. So too, in the game of predecessor repudiations, evermore draconian measures are needed to prevent any reversal by a future edict. In the case of the new Motu Proprio, the measures are so harsh that it is clearly hoped that by the time any future pope is inclined to reverse them, the faithful attached to the traditional liturgy will have been scattered and purged.

Reflections on Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio "Traditionis Custodes" - The European Conservative

It goes without saying once again that the actions of Jorge Bergoglio in this matter are heinous, mean-spirited, cruel, vindictive and lack care and charity for the faithful. That does not come from the Holy Spirit. There can be no doubt that this is an act of evil by a man so utterly devoid of true charity and compassion that he can only be described as a sociopath.