LAPIDES CLAMABUNT
Dico vobis quia si hii tacuerint, lapides clamabunt.
I say to you that if these are silent, the stones will cry out. Lk 19:40
Traditionis custodes: this is the incipit [“beginning” or “first words”] of the document with which Francis imperiously cancels the previous Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI. The almost mocking tone of the bombastic quotation from Lumen Gentium will not have escaped notice: just when Bergoglio recognizes the Bishops as guardians of the Tradition, he asks them to obstruct its highest and most sacred expression of prayer. Anyone who tries to find within the folds of the text some escamotage [“sleight of hand” or “trickery”] to circumvent the text should know that the draft sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for revision was extremely more drastic than the final text: a confirmation, if ever it were needed, that no particular pressure was needed from of the historical enemies of the Tridentine Liturgy – beginning with the scholars of Sant’Anselmo – to convince His Holiness to try his hand at what he does best: demolishing. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. [They make a wasteland and call it peace. – Tacitus, Agricola]
The Modus Operandi of Francis
Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches. On the one hand, there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church. And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II. Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism. His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one. It matters little if the ways in which he acts against God, against the Church and against the Lord's flock are in stark conflict with his appeals to parrhesia, to dialogue, to building bridges and not erecting walls: the church of mercy and the field hospital turns out to be empty rhetorical devices, since it ought to be Catholics who benefit from them and not heretics or fornicators. In reality, each of us is well aware that Amoris Laetitia's indulgence towards public concubinage and adulterers would hardly be imaginable towards those “rigid” ones against whom Bergoglio hurls his darts as soon as he has the opportunity.
After years of this pontificate, we have all understood that the reasons given by Bergoglio for declining a meeting with a Prelate, a politician or a conservative intellectual do not apply to the molester Cardinal, the heretic Bishop, the abortionist politician, or the globalist intellectual. In short, there is a blatant difference in behaviour, from which one can grasp the partiality and partisanship of Francis in favour of any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic. Anything that even only vaguely evokes anything Catholic seems to arouse in the tenant of Santa Marta an aversion that is disconcerting to say the least, if only in virtue of the Throne on which he is seated. Many have noted this dissociation, this sort of bipolarity of a pope who does not behave like a Pope and does not speak like a Pope. The problem is that we are not faced with a sort of inaction from the Papacy, as could happen with a sick or very old Pontiff; but rather with a constant action that is organized and planned in a sense diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Papacy. Not only does Bergoglio not condemn the errors of the present time by strongly reaffirming the Truth of the Catholic Faith – he has never done this! – but he actively seeks to disseminate these errors, to promote them, to encourage their supporters, to spread them to the greatest possible extent and to host events promoting them in the Vatican, simultaneously silencing those who denounce these same errors. Not only does he not punish fornicating Prelates, but he even promotes and defends them by lying, while he removes conservative Bishops and does not hide his annoyance with the heartfelt appeals of Cardinals not aligned with the new course. Not only does he not condemn abortionist politicians who proclaim themselves Catholics, but he intervenes to prevent the Episcopal Conference from pronouncing on this matter, contradicting that synodal path which conversely allows him to use a minority of ultra-progressives to impose his will on the majority of the Synod Fathers.
The one constant of this attitude, noted in its most brazen and arrogant form in Traditionis Custodes, is duplicity and lies. A duplicity that is a facade, of course, daily disavowed by positions that are anything but prudent in favour of a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key. We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term. This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.
Idological Extremism
Another significant element of this pontificate, taken to its extreme consequences with Traditionis Custodes, is Bergoglio’s ideological extremism: an extremism that is deplored in words when it concerns others, but which shows itself in its most violent and ruthless expression when it is he himself who puts it into practice against clergy and laity connected to the ancient rite and faithful to Sacred Tradition. Towards the Society of Saint Pius X he shows himself willing to make concessions and to establish a relationship as “good neighbours,” but towards the poor priests and faithful who have to endure a thousand humiliations and blackmail in order to beg for a Mass in Latin, he shows no understanding, no humanity. This behaviour is not accidental: Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement enjoys its own autonomy and economic independence, and for this reason, it has no reason to fear retaliation or commissioners from the Holy See. But the Bishops, priests and clerics incardinated in dioceses or religious Orders know that hanging over them is the sword of Damocles of removal from office, dismissal from the ecclesiastical state, and the deprivation of their very means of subsistence.
The Experience of the Tridentine Mass in Priestly Life
Those who have had the opportunity to follow my speeches and declarations know well what my position is on the Council and on the Novus Ordo; but they also know what my background is, my curriculum in the service of the Holy See and my relatively recent awareness of the apostasy and the crisis in which we find ourselves. For this reason, I would like to reiterate my understanding for the spiritual path of those who, precisely because of this situation, cannot or are not yet able to make a radical choice, such as celebrating or attending exclusively the Mass of St. Pius V. Many priests discover the treasures of the venerable Tridentine Liturgy only when they celebrate it and allow themselves to be permeated by it, and it is not uncommon for an initial curiosity towards the “extraordinary form” – certainly fascinating due to the solemnity of the rite – to change quickly into the awareness of the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls. There is a perfect harmony that words cannot express, and that the faithful can understand only in part, but which touches the heart of the Priesthood as only God can. This can be confirmed by my confreres who have approached the usus antiquior after decades of obedient celebration of the Novus Ordo: a world opens up, a cosmos that includes the prayer of the Breviary with the lessons of Matins and the commentaries of the Fathers, the cross-references to the texts of the Mass, the Martyrology in the Hour of Prime… They are sacred words – not because they are expressed in Latin – but rather they are expressed in Latin because the vulgate language would demean them, would profane them, as Dom Guéranger wisely observed. These are the words of the Bride to the divine Bridegroom, words of the soul that lives in intimate union with God, of the soul that lets itself be inhabited by the Most Holy Trinity. Essentially priestly words, in the deepest sense of the term, which implies in the Priesthood not only the power to offer sacrifice, but to unite in self-offering to the pure, holy and immaculate Victim. It has nothing to do with the ramblings of the reformed rite, which is too intent on pleasing the secularized mentality to turn to the Majesty of God and the Heavenly Court; so preoccupied with making itself understandable that one has to give up on communicating anything but trivial obviousness; so careful not to hurt the feelings of heretics as to allow itself to keep silent about the Truth just at the moment in which the Lord God makes himself present on the altar; so fearful of asking the faithful for the slightest commitment as to trivialize the sacred song and any artistic expression linked to worship. The simple fact that Lutheran pastors, modernists and well-known Freemasons collaborated in the drafting of that rite should make us understand, if not the bad faith and willful misconduct, at least the horizontal mentality, devoid of any supernatural impetus, which motivated the authors of the so-called “liturgical reform” – who, as far as we know, certainly did not shine with the sanctity with which the sacred authors of the texts of the ancient Missale Romanum and of the entire liturgical corpus shine.
How many of you priests – and certainly also many laypeople – in reciting the wonderful verses of the Pentecost sequence were moved to tears, understanding that your initial predilection for the traditional liturgy had nothing to do with a sterile aesthetic satisfaction, but had evolved into a real spiritual necessity, as indispensable as breathing? How can you and how can we explain to those who today would like to deprive you of this priceless good, that that blessed rite has made you discover the true nature of your Priesthood, and that from it and only from it are you able to draw strength and nourishment to face the commitments of your ministry? How can you make it clear that the obligatory return to the Montinian rite represents an impossible sacrifice for you, because in the daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil it leaves you disarmed, prostrate and without strength?
It is evident that only those who have not celebrated the Mass of St. Pius V can consider it as an annoying tinsel of the past, which can be done without. Even many young priests, accustomed to the Novus Ordo since their adolescence, have understood that the two forms of the rite have nothing in common, and that one is so superior to the other as to reveal all its limits and criticisms, to the point of making it almost painful to celebrate. It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past: here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism. Concepts that those who see their priesthood as a profession cannot even understand, just as they cannot understand the agony that a priestly soul feels in seeing the Eucharistic Species desecrated during the grotesque rites of Communion in the era of the pandemic farce.
The reductive vision of the liberalization of the Mass
This is why I find it extremely unpleasant to have to read in Traditionis Custodes that the reason why Francis believes that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated fourteen years ago lay only in the desire to heal the so-called schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. Of course, the “political” calculation may have had its weight, especially at the time of John Paul II, even if at that time the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X were few in number. But the request to be able to restore citizenship to the Mass which for two millennia nourished the holiness of the faithful and gave the sap of life to Christian civilization cannot be reduced to a contingent fact.
With his Motu Proprio, Benedict XVI restored the Roman Apostolic Mass to the Church, declaring that it had never been abolished. Indirectly, he admitted that there was an abuse by Paul VI, when in order to give authority to his rite he ruthlessly forbade the celebration of the traditional Liturgy. And even if in that document there may be some incongruent elements, such as the coexistence of the two forms of the same rite, we can believe that these have served to allow for the diffusion of the extraordinary form, without affecting the ordinary one. In other times, it would have seemed incomprehensible to let a Mass steeped in misunderstandings and omissions to be celebrated, when the authority of the Pontiff could have simply restored the ancient rite. But today, with the heavy burden of Vatican II and with the now widespread secularized mentality, even the mere liceity of celebrating the Tridentine Mass without permission can be considered an undeniable good – a good that is visible to all due to the abundant fruits it brings to the communities where it is celebrated. And we can also believe that it would have brought even more fruits if only Summorum Pontificum had been applied in all its points and with a spirit of true ecclesial communion.
The alleged “instrumental use” of the roman missal
Francis knows well that the survey taken among Bishops all over the world did not yield negative results, although the formulation of the questions made clear what answers he wanted to receive. That consultation was a pretext, in order to make people believe that the decision he made was inevitable and the fruit of a choral request from the Episcopate. We all know that if Beroglio wants to obtain a result, he does not hesitate to resort to force, lies, and sleight of hand: the events of the last Synods have demonstrated this beyond all reasonable doubt, with the Post-Synodal Exhortation drafted even before the vote on the Instrumentum Laboris. Also in this case, therefore, the pre-established purpose was the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and the prophasis, that is, the apparent excuse, had to be the supposed “instrumental use of the Roman Missal of 1962, often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of Vatican Council II itself” (here). In all honesty, one can perchance accuse the Society of Saint Pius X of this instrumental use, which has every right to affirm what each of us knows well, that the Mass of Saint Pius V is incompatible with post-conciliar ecclesiology and doctrine. But the Society is not affected by the Motu Proprio, and has always celebrated using the 1962 Missal precisely by virtue of that inalienable right which Benedict XVI recognized, which was not created ex nihilo in 2007.
The diocesan priest who celebrates Mass in the church assigned to him by the Bishop, and who every week must undergo the third degree through the accusations of zealous progressive Catholics only because he has dared to recite the Confiteor prior to administering Communion to the faithful, knows very well that he cannot speak ill of the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, because at the first syllable he would already be summoned to the Curia and sent to a parish church lost in the mountains. That silence, always painful and almost always perceived by everyone as more eloquent than many words, is the price he has to pay in order to have the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass of all time, in order not to deprive the faithful of the Graces that it pours down upon the Church and the world. And what is even more absurd is that while we hear it said with impunity that the Tridentine Mass ought to be abolished because it is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, as soon as we say the same thing – that is, that the Montinian Mass is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology – we are immediately made the object of condemnation, and our affirmation is used as evidence against us before the revolutionary tribunal of Santa Marta.
I wonder what sort of spiritual disease could have struck the Shepherds in the last few decades, in order to lead them to become, not loving fathers but ruthless censors of their priests, officials constantly watching and ready to revoke all rights in virtue of a blackmail that they do not even try to conceal. This climate of suspicion does not in the least contribute to the serenity of many good priests, when the good they do is always placed under the lens of functionaries who consider the faithful linked to the Tradition as a danger, as an annoying presence to be tolerated so long as it does stand out too much. But how can we even conceive of a Church in which the good is systematically hindered and whoever does it is viewed with suspicion and kept under control? I, therefore, understand the scandal of many Catholics, faithful, and not a few priests in the face of this “shepherd who instead of smelling his sheep, angrily beats them with a stick”(here).
The misunderstanding of being able to enjoy a right as if it were a gracious concession may also be found in public affairs, where the State permits itself to authorize travel, school lessons, the opening of activities and the performance of work, as long as one undergoes inoculation with the experimental genetic serum. Thus, just as the “extraordinary form” is granted on the condition of accepting the Council and the reformed Mass, so also in the civil sphere the rights of citizens are granted on the condition of accepting the pandemic narrative, the vaccination, and tracking systems. It is not surprising that in many cases it is precisely priests and Bishops – and Bergoglio himself – who ask that people be vaccinated in order to access the Sacraments – the perfect synchrony of action on both sides is disturbing to say the least.
But where then is this instrumental use of the Missale Romanum? Should we not rather speak of the instrumental use of the Missal of Paul VI, which – to paraphrase Bergoglio’s words – is ever more characterized by a growing rejection not only of the pre-conciliar liturgical tradition but of all the Ecumenical Councils prior to Vatican II? On the other hand, is it not precisely Francis who considers as a threat to the Council the simple fact that a Mass may be celebrated which repudiates and condemns all the doctrinal deviations of Vatican II?
Other incongruences
Never in the history of the Church did a Council or a liturgical reform constitute a point of rupture between what came before and what came after! Never in the course of these two millennia have the Roman Pontiffs deliberately drawn an ideological border between the Church that preceded them and the one they had to govern, cancelling and contradicting the Magisterium of their Predecessors! The before and after, instead, became an obsession, both of those who prudently insinuated doctrinal errors behind equivocal expressions, as well as of those who – with the boldness of those who believe that they have won, propagated Vatican II as “the 1789 of the Church,” as a “prophetic” and “revolutionary” event. Before 7 July 2007, in response to the spread of the traditional rite, a well-known pontifical master of ceremonies replied piquedly: “There is no going back!” And yet apparently with Francis one can go back on the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum – and how! – if it serves to preserve power and to prevent the Good from spreading. It is a slogan which sinisterly echoes the cry of “Nothing will be as it was before” of the pandemic farce.
Francis’ admission of an alleged division between the faithful linked to the Tridentine liturgy and those who largely out of habit or resignation has adapted to the reformed liturgy is revealing: he does not seek to heal this division by recognizing full rights to a rite that is objectively better with respect to the Montinian rite, but precisely in order to prevent the ontological superiority of the Mass of Saint Pius V from becoming evident, and to prevent the criticisms of the reformed rite and the doctrine it expresses from emerging, he prohibits it, he labels it as divisive, he confines it to Indian reservations, trying to limit its diffusion as much as possible, so that it will disappear completely in the name of the cancel culture of which the conciliar revolution was the unfortunate forerunner. Not being able to tolerate that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II emerge inexorably defeated by their confrontation with the Vetus Ordo and the perennial Catholic Magisterium, the only solution that can be adopted is to cancel every trace of Tradition, relegating it to the nostalgic refuge of some irreducible octogenarian or a clique of eccentrics, or presenting it – as a pretext – as the ideological manifesto of a minority of fundamentalists. On the other hand, constructing a media version consistent with the system, to be repeated ad nauseam in order to indoctrinate the masses, is the recurring element not only in the ecclesiastical sphere but also in the political and civil sphere so that it appears with disconcerting evidence that the deep church and deep state are nothing other than two parallel tracks which run in the same direction and have as their final destination the New World Order, with its religion and its prophet.
The division is there, obviously, but it does not come from good Catholics and clergy who remain faithful to the doctrine of all time, but rather from those who have replaced orthodoxy with heresy and the Holy Sacrifice with a fraternal agape. That division is not new today, but dates back to the Sixties, when the “spirit of the Council,” openness to the world and inter-religious dialogue turned two thousand years of Catholicity into straw and revolutionized the entire ecclesial body, persecuting and ostracizing the refractory. Yet that division, accomplished by bringing doctrinal and liturgical confusion into the heart of the Church, did not seem so deplorable then; while today, in full apostasy, they are paradoxically considered divisive who ask, not for the explicit condemnation of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, but simply the tolerance of the Mass “in the extraordinary form” in the name of the much-vaunted multifaceted pluralism.
Significantly, even in the civilized world the protection of minorities is valid only when they serve to demolish traditional society, while such protection is ignored when it would guarantee the legitimate rights of honest citizens. And it has become clear that under the pretext of the protection of minorities the only intention was to weaken the majority of the good, while now that the majority is made up of those who are corrupt, the minority of the good can be crushed without mercy: recent history does not lack illuminating precedents in this regard.
The tyrannical nature of Traditionis custodes
In my opinion, it is not so much this or that point of the Motu Proprio that is disconcerting, but rather its overall tyrannical nature accompanied by a substantial falsity of the arguments put forward to justify the decisions imposed. Scandal is also given by the abuse of power by an authority that has its own raison d’etre not in impeding or limiting the Graces that are bestowed on its adherents through the Church but rather in promoting those Graces; not in taking away Glory from the Divine Majesty with a rite that winks at the Protestants but rather in rendering that Glory perfectly; not in sowing doctrinal and moral errors but rather in condemning and eradicating them. Here too, the parallel with what takes place in the civil world is all too evident: our rulers abuse their power just as our Prelates do, imposing norms and limitations in violation of the most basic principles of law. Furthermore, it is precisely those who are constituted in authority, on both fronts, who often avail themselves of a mere de facto recognition by the rank and file – citizens and faithful – even when the methods by which they have taken power to violate, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of the law. The case of Italy – in which a non-elected Government legislates on the obligation to be vaccinated and on the green pass, violating the Italian Constitution and the natural rights of the Italian people – does not seem very dissimilar to the situation in which the Church finds herself, with a resigned Pontiff replaced by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, chosen – or at least appreciated and supported – by the Saint Gallen Mafia and the ultra-progressive Episcopate. It remains obvious that there is a profound crisis of authority, both civil and religious, in which those who exercise power do so contrary to those whom they are supposed to protect, and above all contrary to the purpose for which that authority has been established.
Analogies between the deep church and the deep state
I think that it has been understood that both civil society and the Church suffer from the same cancer that struck the former with the French Revolution and the latter with the Second Vatican Council: in both cases, Masonic thought is at the foundation of the systematic demolition of the institution and its replacement with a simulacrum that maintains its external appearances, hierarchical structure, and coercive force, but with purposes diametrically opposed to those it ought to have.
At this point, citizens on the one hand and the faithful on the other find themselves in the condition of having to disobey earthly authority in order obey divine authority, which governs Nations and the Church. Obviously the “reactionaries” – that is, those who do not accept the perversion of authority and want to remain faithful to the Church of Christ and to their Homeland – constitute an element of dissent that cannot be tolerated in any way, and therefore they must be discredited, delegitimized, threatened and deprived of their rights in the name of a “public good” that is no longer the bonum commune but its contrary. Whether accused of conspiracy theories, traditionalism, or fundamentalism, these few survivors of a world that they want to make disappear constitutes a threat to the accomplishment of the global plan, just at the most crucial moment of its realization. This is why power is reacting in such an open, brazen, and violent way: the evidence of the fraud risks being understood by a greater number of people, of bringing them together in an organized resistance, of breaking down the wall of silence and ferocious censorship imposed by the mainstream media.
We can therefore understand the violence of the reactions of authority and prepare ourselves for a strong and determined opposition, continuing to avail ourselves of those rights that have been abusively and illicitly denied us. Of course, we may find ourselves having to exercise those rights in an incomplete way when we are denied the opportunity to travel if we do not have our green pass or if the Bishop prohibits us from celebrating the Mass of all time in a church in his Diocese, but our resistance to abuses of authority will still be able to count on the Graces that the Lord will not cease to grant us – in particular the virtue of Fortitude that is so indispensable in times of tyranny.
The normality that frightens
If on the one hand, we can see how the persecution of dissenters are well-organized and planned, on the other hand, we cannot fail to recognize the fragmentation of the opposition. Bergoglio knows well that every movement of dissent must be silenced, above all by creating internal division and isolating priests and the faithful. A fruitful and fraternal collaboration between diocesan clergy, religious, and the Ecclesia Dei institutes is something he must avert because it would permit the diffusion of a knowledge of the ancient rite, as well as a precious help in the ministry. But this would mean making the Tridentine Mass a “normality” in the daily life of the faithful, something that is not tolerable for Francis. For this reason, diocesan clergy are left at the mercy of their Ordinaries, while the Ecclesia Dei Institutes are placed under the authority of the Congregation of Religious, as a sad prelude to a destiny that has already been sealed. Let us not forget the fate that befell the flourishing religious Orders, guilty of being blessed with numerous vocations born and nurtured precisely thanks to the hated traditional Liturgy and the faithful observance of the Rule. This is why certain forms of insistence on the ceremonial aspect of the celebrations risk legitimizing the provisions of the commissar and play Bergoglio’s game.
Even in the civil world, it is precisely by encouraging certain excesses by the dissenters that those in power marginalize them and legitimize repressive measures towards them: just think of the case of the no-vax movements and how easy it is to discredit the legitimate protests of citizens by emphasizing the eccentricities and inconsistencies of a few. And it is all too easy to condemn a few agitated people who out of exasperation set fire to a vaccine center, overshadowing millions of honest persons who take to the streets in order not to be branded with the health passport or fired if they do not allow themselves to be vaccinated.
Do not stay isolated and disorganized
Another important element for all of us is the necessity of giving visibility to our composed protest and ensuring a form of coordination for public action. With the abolition of Summorum Pontificum we find ourselves taken back twenty years. This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest. And it is not a given that the entire Episcopate – as we are seeing in the last few days with relief – will be willing to passively submit to forms of authoritarianism that certainly do not contribute to bringing peace to souls. The Code of Canon Law guarantees the Bishops the possibility of dispensing their faithful from particular or universal laws, under certain conditions. Secondly, the people of God have well understood the subversive nature of Traditionis Custodes and are instinctively led to wanting to get to know something that arouses such disapproval among progressives. Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated. It will be our duty, whether as Ministers of God or as simple faithful, to show firmness and serene resistance to such abuse, walking along the way of our own little Calvary with a supernatural spirit, while the new high priests and scribes of the people mock us and label us as fanatics. It will be our humility, the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls. And let us remember that, since we have received much, much will be demanded of us.
Restitutio in integrum
What father among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent instead? (Lk 11:11-12). Now we can understand the meaning of these words, considering with pain and torment of heart the cynicism of a father who gives us the stones of a soulless liturgy, the serpents of a corrupted doctrine, and the scorpions of an adulterated morality. And who reaches the point of dividing the flock of the Lord between those who accept the Novus Ordo and those who want to remain faithful to the Mass of our fathers, exactly as civil rulers are pitting the vaccinated and unvaccinated against one another.
When Our Lord entered Jerusalem seated on a donkey’s colt, while the crowd was spreading cloaks as He passed, the Pharisees asked Him: “Master, rebuke your disciples.” The Lord answered them: “I say to you that if these are silent, the stones will cry out” (Lk 19:28-40). For sixty years the stones of our churches have been crying out, from which the Holy Sacrifice has been twice proscribed. The marble of the altars, the columns of the basilicas, and the soaring vaults of the cathedrals cry out as well, because those stones, consecrated to the worship of the true God, today are abandoned and deserted, or profaned by abhorrent rites, or transformed into parking lots and supermarkets, precisely as a result of that Council that we insist on defending. Let us also cry out: we who are living stones of the temple of God. Let us cry with faith to the Lord, so that he may give a voice to His disciples who today are mute, and so that the intolerable theft for which the administrators of the Lord’s Vineyard are responsible may be repaired.
But in order for that theft to be repaired, it is necessary that we show ourselves to be worthy of the treasures that have been stolen from us. Let us try to do this by our holiness of life, by giving example of the virtues, by prayer and the frequent reception of the Sacraments. And let us not forget that there are hundreds of good priests who still know the meaning of the Sacred Unction by which they have been ordained Ministers of Christ and dispensers of the Mystery of God. The Lord deigns to descend on our altars even when they are erected in cellars or attics. Contrariisquibuslibet minime obstantibus [Anything to the contrary notwithstanding].
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop28 July 2021
Ss. Nazarii et Celsi Martyrum,
Victoris I Papae et Martyris ac
Innocentii I Papae et Confessoris
20 comments:
Archbishop Vigano,I believe you will agree that there cannot be two Popes - one is an imposter, a usurper, destroyer put by coercion (against canon law) into the PO over 8 years ago. The other made a veiled resignation in Latin in which he only renounced the 'magisterium' (administration) while keeping the 'munus' (the Office/Keys) thereby saving the Papacy itself from complete destruction. "An Index to our Articles on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation" at fromrome.info. You will need to read all links given therein but it is very explanatory of what happened at the time of PBXVI's "resignation".
Remember Our Lady of La Salette telling the children that Rome would lose the Faith & become the Seat of the Antichrist? Well we have been living through Satan's intolerable reign since the promulgation of VII, which IMO must be revoked. Our Holy Mother called it a Bad Council & a Bad Mass. Since then our Popes & Hierarchies have done nothing to hold on to the Mass of Ages & have changed in essence the Ten Commandments & Rites of the CC, hence only 1% (recently reported figure) could access the traditional rites of the OHCA Church while the remaining 99% were left with nowhere to go. The nearest traditional church is 6 hours drive there & back so is not remotely accessible to the people of my area (Malaga Diocese) who desperately desire to attend it on a daily basis. This situation was not sent by God but his arch enemy Satan whose representative in the Vatican is addressed by the title Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Pope etc. & cite his name in the Canon of the Mass by those who should know better.
As a result of the grievous canonical mistakes which have taken place over decades we, the faithful, have been left adrift. I & countless others are only in communion with Rome through PBXVI who has given himself the title of Pope Emeritus, & when he dies we shall be regarded as excommunicated without access to Mass & Sacraments of either TLM or NO, as we shall never recognise Francis the Destroyer/Idolater/Heretic/Blasphemer as the Pope. What has been most incredible is the denial & silence coming from the Vatican to the many requests, both public & private, to hold a council in order to proclaim that PBXVI's resignation in Latin was valid & the following election ignoring PJPII's Rules also valid which, it appears, is a ploy to hide the Truth, i.e. that PBXVI is still the Pope, which he has himself declared that he is & has not abandoned the Papacy only the title of Bishop of Rome. Francis himself has denied the title Vicar of Christ & doesn't like people kissing his ring as he knows he doesn't carry the full weight of the Office.
Consecutive Bishops in our Diocese, & indeed the world, have obstructed a priest's right to celebrate the Latin Mass by threats & false excuses. They have deliberately shown disobedience to SP & Pope Benedict's instruction that it was never abrogated & priests did not require his permission to celebrate it. In the same manner over many decades they have disobeyed Our Lady's request to consecrate Russia (by name) to Her Immaculate Heart in the manner requested.
As you know, Catholics are dying without the safety Extreme Unction gives, priests no longer pay hospital visits to their parishioners (only lay people - Exraordinaey Ministers of Holy Communion) who cannot hear confessions nor administer any sacrament. This is an abomination as is the fact that the Destroyer Francis & his gang of villians actually support the present genocide being enforced on mankind by the NWO & expects us to also accept the Great Reset. No Vicar of Christ would wish this Satanic act against humanity & must surely beg the question- when will the true successors of the First Apostles stand for Christ against Satan, even if that number is a minute one?
Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine's words have been for years twisted out of context to give the false impression that she held the Pope to be some sort of Oracle, a demigod. This is the classic protestant trick to claim that Catholics worship the Pope. Catherine wrote hundreds of letters to the Pope Gregory. She also threatened him to be "accursed..." This does not seem to be a deluded woman adoring a mere man. St.Catherine was ne of the greatest of mediaeval saints, inspired by the Holy Spirit to direct the Pope. She should be an inspiration to us in defend the Papacy. This includes it being abused by those who sit on the Throne of Peter.
The people with all the power don’t listen to him. His words will be ignored and nothing will change.
We will listen to him, and so the children are nourished and encouraged. Abp. Vigano has consistently given us sustenance and this can only be because God has allowed it. He speaks with the voice of not only authority but experience and depth of insights unique to his experiences in the church. I notice in his writing not a word is wasted. His points are well made and he speaks in a language all can understand, even though one must pause and consider what he is saying, there is much there to ponder and his intelligence jumps off the page. He expresses the same frustrations as those who love the TLM would feel, which is consoling.
Ana Milan has made a poignant plea, and reminds me that today our pastor asked us to carry the intentions of those who now cannot have access to the Roman Rite, including China, the Middle East, and good, faithful Catholics such as Ana Milan. That such Catholics are denied the Mass of the Ages while James Martin et al and Clown Masses continue unabated and even encouraged by Francis should tell anyone interested all they need to know about where we are. We need God's help and divine intervention.
David, You go too far. Imagine judging such a great saint as St. Catherine of Siena who defended the true albeit bad pope against an antipope.
Rather she should be your example. Defend the true pope, brother. Bergoglio is not now nor has he ever been the pope.
That said Viganò is a tour de force. Essential. What a Catholic Archbishop sounds like.
Long live Pope Benedict. Of the two popes today, me and mine take the Catholic one, thank you very much.
Bro. C
Clearly, my comment regarding St. Catherine of Sienna's "Sweet Christ on Earth" has caused some consternation.
I don't accept it. It is not an article of faith. I have a hard time believing that St. Peter would have called himself "Sweet Christ on Earth." This exaggerated view of the papacy and the "alter Christus" of the priesthood has led to horrors of sexual abuse and predation and an exaggerated view of the papacy that gives credence to Protestants."
It is not of Christ!
Feast of St Alphonsus Liguori
David, I cordially and enthusiastically commend to you and invite your review of Sigrid Undset's "Catherine of Sienna". A classic that gives a view on the magnanimous soul of this great Doctor of the Church.
But your chief error is referring to Bergoglio pope, Vicar of Christ and Holy Father, and his so-called motu proprio as a legitimate law. He is none of those things, and it is not binding law.
Pope Benedict is the sole, and as T. H. White might say, once and future, pope.
Cheers, and happy Portiuncola Day!
P. S. https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/RrfPDH4OJtyt0gSQkEso4cXr5iA=/774x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Catherine-of-Siena-464448069-56aa27a05f9b58b7d0010d03.jpg
You could be right.
Archbishop Carlo Vigano issued another politically correct statement while referring to Vatican Council II. I appreciate what he has said on the other issues but he continues to interpret the Council like the Times of Israel, New York Times and Associated Press and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. It was also the interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Deep State-approved version.
If the editors of his book, Brian McCall and Maike Hickson, used the TWO COLUMN approach to view Vatican Council II, they would cease to be Lefebvrists like Vigano.
If the interpreted Vatican Council II with the RATIONAL PREMISE, RATIONAL INFERENCE AND TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION, they would emerge Feeneyites on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed( Feeneyite-with no exceptions) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Feeneyite-with no known exceptions).
But they have to follow Archbishop Carlo Vigano's approach to Vatican Council II which is also that of Cardinal Claudio Hummes when he offers Holy Mass in Brazil, in the language of the Amazonians, and he will interpret the Council, with the fake premise to reject the First Commandment,’thou shalt have no other God beside me’.
This will also be the approach of Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi at the Sacred Heart Major seminary, Detroit, USA and Scott Hahn and Alan Schreck at the Theology Department of the University of Steubenville, USA.They will be at Mass in Engish without the past exclusivist ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is interpreted with the fake premise, creating a New Theology, which says outside the Church there is salvation, even among those who do not know or do not believe in Jesus Christ.
Scott Hahn, Alan Schreck, Robert Fastiggi and Ralph Martin have decided not to discuss this issue since they are obliged to teach Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake reasoning.
It’s a political interpretation of the Council which creates schism with the past Magisterium and the Tridentine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Hummes, like Vigano, is not telling the Brazilian Catholics, that there is true worship in only the Catholic Church when Vatican Council II is interpeted rationally.
At the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with the fake premise and concluded that there is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He criticized the SSPX for beleiving that outside the Church there is no salvation, since, he said, that they do not accept Vatican Council II. He was referring to Vatican Council II interpreted with the fake premise.
The SSPX also interprets the Council with the fake premise, like Cardinal Hummes, but then rejects the non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre did the same.
So the FSSP, at Dijon, France, made of the same cloth will not affirm Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion and tell Bishop Minnerath, that he is wrong in his writings to support a ‘theology of religious pluralism’ . Since there is no known salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II. There are no personally known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2021.Practically also, we cannot meet any such person.So how can the bishop propose a theology of religions when there is no known salvation outside the Church to contradit Feeneyite EENS ? The theology of religions which is the subject of some of his books was condemned by Pope John Paul II ( Notification, CDF, Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj, 2001).
Archbishop Vigano and the SSPX supporters have never responded to so many reports on this blog over a long time, which refers to them. Well, what are they going to say? That they interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, Roberto dei Mattei and Michael Davies ?
The Times of Israel will object.
To accept anything in V2 is to cease to be Catholic.
Tom A. said...
To accept anything in V2 is to cease to be Catholic.
This is not true. VC2 is dogmatic.
It is only dogmatic if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical, invisible, implicit, subjective and speculative cases. Then they would not be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors etc.
VC 2 would not be a break with Tradition( Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q) etc).
Our entire perspective of the Council changes.It is the liberals who would have to be concerned
Vatican 2 teaches heresy. I don’t care if its dogmatic or pastoral or infallible or non infallible or binding or not binding. Montini and the modernists introduced a new religion and Vatican 2 is their bible. Associate with them at the risk of your own soul. They are demons and their god is Man. Why you would seek sacraments from their filthy heretical blasphemous hands is besides me. Why anyone would want anything to do with heretics or those who cozy up to heretics is besides me. Stop treating them as the Catholic hierarchy, they and those who enable them (Burke, Schneider) simply keep you trapped and enslaved in their modernist sect.
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.
How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance),for example ?
For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious.
How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he is interpreting Vatican Council II and it is different from the rational way I interpret the Council.I consider the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise Magisterial, since it is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.
John Henry Weston in a follow up program to the one on outside the Church there is no salvation , has to clarify, since Catholics are confused, that, there is an extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) being exceptions and there is an EENS with BOD and I.I not being exceptions.
The EENS with BOD and I.I being exceptions is the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) version and the EENS with BOD and I.I not being exceptions is the St. Benedict Centers(SBC) version.
Then he needs to clarify that there is a Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being exceptions to EENS and there is a Vatican Council II with LG 8, etc not being exceptions to EENS.
Vatican Council II with LG 8 etc being exceptions to EENS is the common interpretation of the Council. It’s official.
Vatican Council II with LG 8 not being exceptions to EENS is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of the Council.
It would be helpful for John Henry Weston to talk to Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, NH, USA. He could speak on the difference between speculative and practical theology and how it is important not to confuse the two, with reference to EENS and Vatican Council II.
Tom A. said...
Vatican 2 teaches heresy.
Yes if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are practical exceptions to the 16th century understanding of outside the Church there is no salvation.
But if you look at LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 as referring to only hypothetical, theoretical and spesculative cases only, always, then they are not exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which states all need Catholic faith for salvation. This Creed does not mention any exceptions.
So it is the same Vatican Council II before the two us. For you there are exceptions for Tradition (EENS etc) and for me there are none.
Obviously there are not physically visible cases of LG 8 etc in 2021 so if you state that it is an exception to EENS then you imply that it is a physically visible case. This is the official error of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pope Francis.
_________________
I don’t care if its dogmatic or pastoral or infallible or non infallible or binding or not binding. Montini and the modernists introduced a new religion and Vatican 2 is their bible.
But we can re-intepret the Council in harmony with Tradition and so undo their work. We are not obligated to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,which are always invisible as being visible.
The SSPX has to show Pope Francis that his interpretation of Vatican Council II is schismatic and so would be unacceptable and that they choose a rational and non traditional version.
So the SSPX would be in schism, as the media states, if they did not accept Vatican Council II. But there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One is rational and the other irrational. One is with the false premise and the other without it.Pope Francis and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refer to the irrational version.
So the SSPX simply has to affirm the rational version and tell Pope Francis and the CDF to do the same.Otherwise they would be in schism.
With their false premise, there would be the expected break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Athanasius Creed with no known exceptions and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with no known exceptions.Now there is a break with the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q,27Q-other religions, need for conversion) and the Council of Trent ( exclusive salvation).
The SSPX must realize that the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise cannot be Magisterial.Since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and confuse invisible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc are being examples of salvation in 2021 and so them project them as practical exceptions to EENS etc.
So under no condition must the SSPX accept Pope Francis’ irrational and schismatic version of Vatican Council II when the rational and non schismatic is available.Check the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II on the Internet ( Blog eucharistandmission ).
Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition and he calls it the work of the Holy Spirit, in the Letter which accompanies Traditionis Custode.
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies Traditionis Custode(Emphasis added)
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html
How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake and use a false premise to interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance),for example ?
For me LG 14 and LG 16 refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases always. They are always speculative and not real people saved outside the Church in the present times, 1965-2021. This is something obvious.
How can LG 14, LG 16 etc be exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed and Syllabus of Errors ? Yet this is how he is interpreting Vatican Council II and it is different from the rational way I interpret the Council.I interpret the Council with the rational premise ( invisible people are invisible) and consider it Magisterial.Since it is not a rupture with the past Magisterium. Pope Francis cannot say the same.
The SSPX could simply affirm Vatican Council II without the fake premise and also come back to Tradition, since Tradition would not be contradicted with Vatican Council II, with the rational premise.So they should tell Pope Francis that his interpretation of Vatican Council II is irrational and schismatic.He has to switch to the rational one for them to accept the Council.
Vatican 2 does not need interpretation. It is pretty clear to me, it teaches a new false religion. You all delude yourself coming up with all these interpretations and exceptions. It is like putting square pegs into round holes. It cannot be done. There is no interpreting v2 in light of anything. The Holy Ghost does not give us ambiguity. He gives us clear concise teachings that Holy Mother Church then teaches to Her flock. To suggest V2 was given to us by Holy Mother Church, assisted by the Holy Ghost is pure blasphemy. Stop apologizing and making wxcuses for V2, the NO, and Bergoglio. All three need to be dumped and anathema. All who adhere to V2, NO, and Bergoglio likewise need to be dumped and anathema.
Vatican 2 does not need interpretation.
It does. Since the Council Fathers were using a false premise to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were using a false premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. With this error they came to the Council meeting. They were wrong. There were factually wrong.
But now we know what precisely is the error. When we read UR 3, NA 2 ,LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II this is the result of using the false premise. We have to go deeper.
When you have noticed the false premise, simply avoid it. You go back to the old theology of the Catholic Church and you neutralize the bad work of the Council Fathers.
____________________
It is pretty clear to me, it teaches a new false religion.
Yes if LG 8, LG 16 etc are practical exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. But can they be exceptions ? Can you know someone saved outside the Chruch with the baptism of desire ? No.
_______________________
You all delude yourself coming up with all these interpretations and exceptions. It is like putting square pegs into round holes. It cannot be done. There is no interpreting v2 in light of anything. The Holy Ghost does not give us ambiguity.
Correct. The Holy Ghost does not give us ambiguity and the Council Fathers were ambiguous. Even the present official interpretation of Pope Francis is not Magisterial.
But we can avoid it when we know precisely what creates the hermeneutic of rupture or continuity with Tradition. We do not have to depend upon Pope Francis.
_______________________
He gives us clear concise teachings that Holy Mother Church then teaches to Her flock. To suggest V2 was given to us by Holy Mother Church, assisted by the Holy Ghost is pure blasphemy.
In principle at Vatican Council II, the Council Fathers confused what is implicit as being explicit, what is invisible as being invisible.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
But the nature of the error is such that we can avoid it simply, and go back to Tradition.
When we are back to Tradition we are back to the teachings of the Holy Spirit for the Catholic Church.
___________________
Stop apologizing and making wxcuses for V2, the NO, and Bergoglio. All three need to be dumped and anathema. All who adhere to V2, NO, and Bergoglio likewise need to be dumped and anathema.
As long as they do not interpret the Council as a break with Tradition, there is no problem. Since we are back to Tradition. The SSPX could affirm Vatican Council II interpreted with the rational premise and also Tradition - and then ask Pope Francis to do the same.
Anon, please re read your last comment and tell us how many times you affirm what I say but then add the “but” clause. This is exactly what was done in Vatican 2 and is exactly how the modernist false church operates. You cannot let your Yes be Yes and your No be No. Always some sort of “but” or “if” or “when” clause to allow one to apply subjective reasoning to whatever you just claimed to affirm.
Tom A.
Anon, please re read your last comment and tell us how many times you affirm what I say but then add the “but” clause. This is exactly what was done in Vatican 2 and is exactly how the modernist false church operates. You cannot let your Yes be Yes and your No be No. Always some sort of “but” or “if” or “when” clause to allow one to apply subjective reasoning to whatever you just claimed to affirm.
FOR ME:
For me Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance ) refers to Aphysically visible case in 1965-2021. This is my YES.It is also youR YES. Since it is something obvious.It is common sens. You cannot meet someone saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and the baptism of water. You cannot see or meet someone saved in invincible ignorance.So LG 16 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions, it does not contradict the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation- and there are no practical exceptions for me.There just are not exceptions.
Similarly LG 8,LG 14,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are all hypothetical and speculative cases always. ALWAYS.They can only be theoretical and so we should read Vatican COuncil II in this way. The Council will be in harmony with EENS etc. Since there will be nothing in the Council-text to contradict Tradition. Let Pope Francics, Cardinal Kasper and the liberals reject Vatican Council II.
Post a Comment