But Jesus Hid Himself

Originally published in 2016.

Today is the Fifth Sunday of Lent, which marks the beginning of Passiontide. In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (Novus Ordo), this isn’t usually noticeable, as Passiontide, a distinct period, has been removed. In the traditional calendar, it’s known as the First Sunday of the Passion, with Palm Sunday being the Second Sunday of the Passion. This period continues the gradual removal of liturgical elements and embellishments that began back at Septuagesima.

From First Vespers last night until the Paschal Vigil, the Gloria Patri is omitted after the Asperges on Passion Sunday, as well as from the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Introit, Lavabo, and Communion Antiphonal Psalms. In the Office, it’s also left out of certain Verses and Short Responsories. This reflects Jesus’ loss of earthly glory, a theme echoed in the readings and psalm antiphons during Mass and the Office. Those who oppose Him are now many, just as they were when He walked the earth. Those seeking His death are stepping forward, as are those seeking the destruction of His Church, even from within. Lent now shifts in focus—while penance continues, attention turns toward the Passion of Our Blessed Lord and His saving work of redemption.

Guéranger explains the symbolic logic with striking force: the Church veils the Cross because the Gospel today shows us a God who hides Himself. :

"During the preceding four weeks, we have noticed how the malice of Jesus' enemies has been gradually increasing. His very presence irritates them; and it is evident that any little circumstance will suffice to bring the deep and long-nurtured hatred to a head. ... A God hiding himself, that he may evade the anger of men — what a mystery!”

His Passion has begun, and His glory, as at Mount Tabor, is now hidden. In the modern liturgy, one practice that sometimes remains, depending on a parish’s tradition, is the veiling of the Crucifix and statues—though not the Stations of the Cross or window imagery. Once mandatory, it’s now optional. But why? Where did this tradition originate?

The tradition is believed to have started around the 9th century in Germany. At the beginning of Lent (a term derived in many languages from the Latin Quadregesimae, meaning forty days), a cloth known as a hungertuch, or hunger cloth, was used to cover the altar. This cloth was removed on the Tuesday of Holy Week during the reading of the Passion from St. Mark’s Gospel, at the moment when “The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” In the three-year cycle of the New Lectionary, the Gospels for this period no longer reflect the symbolism and beauty of Passiontide and the veiling. Instead, they all come from St. John’s Gospel in sequence: “I am the Resurrection and the Life;” “If a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it bears much fruit;” and, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

The shift away from the one-year Lectionary, in place since the time of St. Gregory the Great, was a serious mistake. The goals of the Second Vatican Council could have been met without disrupting the Church’s long-standing tradition of readings. A Lesson could have been added to the Sunday liturgy, and weekdays could have had their own Mass texts while still honouring the Sanctoral cycle. The Advent readings in the new Lectionary, however, are beautiful and could one day be incorporated into the old Lectionary. The three-year cycle remains problematic, as the Mass is not intended to be a Bible study, and the loss of what was once read is significant. For the Mass on the Fifth Sunday of Lent in the ancient Roman Missal, the Gospel read for over 1600 years until 1969 explained both the veiling and the reason for His death.

GOSPEL ¤ John 8. 46-59 † A continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. John.

At that time Jesus said to the multitudes of the Jews: Which of you shall convince Me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me? He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. The Jews therefore answered and said to Him: Do not we say well, that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honor My Father, and you have dishonored Me. But I seek not My own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep My word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that Thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the Prophets: and Thou sayest: If any man keep My word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost Thou make Thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing: it is My Father that glorifieth Me, of whom you say that He is your God, and you have not known Him: but I know Him: and if I shall say that I know Him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know Him, and do keep His word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it and was glad. The Jews therefore said to Him: Thou art not yet fifty years old: and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

“But Jesus hid Himself.”

According to St. Augustine, in that moment, through His divine nature, Jesus actually became invisible.

“He hides not himself in a corner of the temple as if afraid or running into a cottage or turning aside behind a wall or column; but by His Divine Power making Himself invisible he passed through their midst.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following:

205 God calls Moses from the midst of a bush that burns without being consumed: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."9 God is the God of the fathers, the One who had called and guided the patriarchs in their wanderings. He is the faithful and compassionate God who remembers them and his promises; he comes to free their descendants from slavery. He is the God who, from beyond space and time, can do this and wills to do it, the God who will put his almighty power to work for this plan.

"I Am who Am"

Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you', and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'. . . this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations."

CCC 206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.

CCC 207 By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past ("I am the God of your father"), as for the future ("I will be with you").12 God, who reveals his name as "I AM", reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.

CCC 208 Faced with God's fascinating and mysterious presence, man discovers his own insignificance. Before the burning bush, Moses takes off his sandals and veils his face in the presence of God's holiness.13 Before the glory of the thrice-holy God, Isaiah cries out: "Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips."14 Before the divine signs wrought by Jesus, Peter exclaims: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."15 But because God is holy, he can forgive the man who realizes that he is a sinner before him: "I will not execute my fierce anger. . . for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst."16 The apostle John says likewise: "We shall. . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

Jesus revealed His identity to the Temple authorities, the leaders of Israel, in a way that left no doubt as to who He was. He spoke of knowing Abraham and had already declared His nature in seven profound statements: 

I Am the Bread of Life (John 6), 

I Am the Light of the World (John 8), 

I Am the Gate of the Sheepfold (John 10), 

I Am the Good Shepherd (John 10), 

I Am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11), 

I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14), and 

I Am the True Vine (John 15). 

When questioned about His age in relation to Abraham, He did not say, “Before Abraham was made, I was made,” which would have seemed delusional, but rather, “Before Abraham was made, I AM,” a declaration they fully understood. 

Now, He is hidden in our churches and chapels, unveiled only during the remembrance of His Crucifixion—“Ecce lignum Crucis,” “Behold the wood of the Cross on which hung the Saviour of the world, come let us adore Him.” In hiding Him, we also conceal the glory of His saints. Christ is shamed and humiliated by those He came to save, just as He was betrayed by the Jewish authorities of His time, and so too do we continue to betray Him today. 

Declaring Himself before all Israel to be the I AM of the Burning Bush, He was condemned to death for proclaiming Himself the very Son of God, indeed God Himself come to earth. An Anglican sermon from 1846 offers a remarkable meditation on Jesus hiding Himself, surpassing much of what is preached in many Catholic pulpits today—a period that would lead Saint John-Henry Newman home. Would that such preaching could be heard again. 

 

+ + +

SERMONS FOR SUNDAYS AND OTHER LITURGICAL OCCASIONS

CONTRIBUTED BY

BISHOPS AND OTHER CLERGY OF THE CHURCH.

EDITED BY THE REV. ALEXANDER WATSON, M.A., 

CURATE OF ST. JOHN'S, CHELTENHAM.

Second Series.  VOL. I.

OXFORD: J. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE: T. GREEN.

MDCCCXLVI. (1846)

Then took they up stones to cast at Him."

Thus are we brought down from the whole Gospel for the day to that portion of it which will engage our chief attention during the brief remainder of this morning's service. "But Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

1. Jesus "hid Himself," as man, in prudence: according to the will of His Heavenly Father. As He had been born in "the fullness of time," so it was at an appointed hour that He was to die. But "His hour was not yet come ": and He therefore avoided whatever might unduly quicken the course of events, or put forward the grand horologe of time. And this He did in obedience to the Will of His Heavenly Father. This obedience was the mainspring of His conduct throughout His earthly sojourn. "Lo I come to do Thy will, O God," was His motto from first to last; and never was it more fully translated into action than in all He did with regard to His final suffering and departure.

When that hour of mingled humiliation and glory, which compressed eternal interests within the compass of a few passing minutes; when that everlasting hour arrived, the holy and obedient Jesus yielded Himself at once into the power of His enemies. Thus, when Satan had entered into Judas Iscariot, Jesus said to the traitor, "What thou doest, do quickly." When Judas came to Him in the garden with men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, "Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said unto them, I am He." And when the impetuous Peter—the first to defend, the first to deny his Master—drew his sword and cut oft" the right ear of Malchus, the High Priest's servant, "then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" When Pilate would fain have released Him, and sought for some pretext for so doing in the replies of Jesus to his interrogatories, "Jesus gave him no answer." And at the last, when He saw that all was "finished,"—prophecy fulfilled, types realised, the preparations for His sacrificial Death complete, His Father's will wrought out,—He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost."

But until the arrival of that hour, His conduct was marked throughout by unexampled prudence. While He wrought His miracles before the multitude, and taught openly in the Temple, and in secret did nothing; while He boldly confuted and reproved the Pharisee, the Sadducee, and the Herodian, regardless of the enmity He thereby incurred; He carefully shunned the precipitation of His end. He had a mission of vast pregnancy and moment to discharge; and until this was done, He would not lay down that life which the Father had put into His power. Whenever danger became imminent, He withdrew Himself from the presence of those who sought to lay hands on Him and destroy Him. Thus, on the occasion immediately before us, when the infuriated Jews took up stones to cast at Him, "Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 

On a previous occasion, when the Pharisees held a council how they might destroy Him, Jesus “withdrew Himself from thence." On a subsequent occasion, similar to that of the text, when the Jews again sought to take Him, "he escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan." When the Sanhedrim, after the official prophecy of the unconscious Caiaphas, took counsel together to put Him to death, "Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with His disciples." Thus, throughout His whole earthly career, our Blessed Lord exercised a prudence of the highest order; enforcing by His own example the precepts He gave to His first disciples: "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves ;"—" When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another ." And these precepts, supported by this supreme example, and adapted to the exigencies of Christians at the present day, apply also to us. "As men may not be too tenacious, so neither may they be too profuse and lavish of life and the comforts of it," says Dean Stanhope; "lest, besides their present hardships, they find at last an indiscreet zeal returned, with a 'Who hath required these things at your hands?' Love indeed is apt and desirous to give over-measure, where it can: but still this must not be the effect of passion alone. Prudence should temper and direct it." 

"It is an office of prudence," says Bishop Taylor, "to serve God So that we may at the same time preserve our lives and our estates, our interest and reputation, for ourselves and our relations, so far as they can consist together. For Christian religion, carrying us to heaven, does it by the ways of a man; and by the body it serves the soul, as by the soul it serves God; and therefore it endeavours to secure the body and its interest, that it may continue the opportunities of a crown, and prolong the stage in which we are to run for the mighty prize of our salvation; and this is that part of prudence which is the defensative and guard of a Christian in the time of persecution: and it hath in it much of duty."

Thus far we have endeavoured to consider the conduct of our Blessed Lord, on the occasion under review, on its human side; as an exhibition of prudence and discretion. But it has a sublimer aspect than this; to which we now with reverence will turn.

Jesus “hid Himself," as God, in majesty; the majesty of displeasure. "He did not hide Himself," says St. Augustine, "in a corner of the Temple, as if He were afraid; or take refuge in a house, or run behind a wall, or a pillar; but, by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to His enemies, He went through the midst of them." Just before, He had said, "Before Abraham was I Am"; with evident reference to the Name revealed by the Lord to Moses, as recorded in the First Lesson for this morning's service; when He appeared to him in the burning but unconsumed bush, as he was keeping the flock of Jethro, the Priest of Midian, near the base of Mount Horeb. On that occasion, when Moses would have drawn nigh to see that great sight, the Lord forbad his nearer approach, and commanded him to unsandal his feet, because they were standing on holy ground. He, who required this reverence towards an inferior manifestation of Himself, would not permit the rude hand of violence to invade His incarnate glory. He "hid Himself" in the secret depths of His invisible Godhead.

There is, doubtless, a mystery in this; and we cannot fully understand why He, who submitted on so many occasions to endure the contradiction of sinners against Himself, refused on other occasions to undergo the indignities that wicked hands would have put upon Him. But a like mystery invested the whole of His earthly career. The darkest shades of humiliation were never permitted altogether to obscure His glory; while yet, that glory was so far hidden, that men despised Him and esteemed Him not. Great, however, as was the mystery of His commingling of glory and shame, the mystery of the manifestation of His glory alone was greater. He might have flashed forth devouring lightnings from the dark and surcharged cloud. He might have kindled into supernatural and overwhelming brightness the splendours of His Divine and resistless Presence. But He did none of these things. He manifested forth His glory by hiding Himself. When the Lord, in the days of old, would preserve righteous Lot and His prophet Elisha from the hand of violence, He smote their enemies with blindness; and so He might have done on this occasion: but, as the threatened indignity was greater, so was the punishment wherewith He visited it. "He hid Himself."

Awful are the exhibitions of Divine glory, when the Lord is raised up out of His holy habitation, and comes forth from His unseen depths to punish the ungodly. But these are as nothing when compared with the hidings of His face. When the Lord would denounce the severest judgments against Israel of old, He said to Moses, "Mine anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?" And when, on the other hand, He would confer upon His repentant people the greatest possible blessing, He said by the mouth of Ezekiel, "Neither will I hide My face from them any more: for I have poured out My Spirit upon the house of Israel."

The hidings of Jesus, in the days of His flesh, were yet more majestic and awful. He came into the world for the express purpose, among others, of manifesting the glory and the grace of God: so that to hide Himself was, as it were, to revoke His mission with regard to those from whom He thus withdrew. He abandoned them to the evil of their own hardened and unbelieving hearts, and left them to be filled with their own ways.

It is impossible to conceive anything more dreadful than the condition of the man from whom Jesus has hid Himself. Such a man sinks at once into a state of moral stupidity: he sins on without aim or purpose. Until Jesus hid Himself, the unbelieving Jews had an object against which to direct their malignant attacks; but when He could be no longer seen, their malice, though as virulent as ever, became wholly impotent and senseless. And so, when Jesus hides Himself from sinners of the present day,—who insult His majesty because it is concealed to the-eye of sense or mere reason (though not to the eye of faith), beneath mean and simple accidents,—He leaves them to perish as brute beasts. The force of argument and moral suasion having been tried upon them in vain, together with all other manifestations of the true and holy Jesus, He will no longer expose Himself to the rash temerity and blinded insolence of their invasions, but hides Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passes by.

The abstract contemplation of such a subject is too awful for man to dwell upon at any length; and we will therefore now consider it, (so hastening to a conclusion,) under its practical aspects and bearings.

But is it possible, men may ask, for persons at the present day to commit acts of insult and injury towards the Divine Jesus, akin to that of the blaspheming Jews when they took up stones to cast at Him? Alas, it is but too possible. "Certainly we cannot commit such open blasphemy; but it is another matter whether we cannot commit as great. For, often sins are greater, which are less startling; insults more bitter, which are not so loud; and evils deeper, which are more subtle." Although Christ is no longer on earth in bodily presence, He is here by His Spirit: and it is quite possible for men to repeat the offence of the blaspheming Jews by casting stones, so to speak, against either the Church, which is His Body; or the Sacraments, which are His Presence; or the Poor, who are His Brethren.

The Church is the Body of Christ, "the fullness of Him That filleth all in all:" and they who resist or blaspheme or persecute Her, do in effect resist and blaspheme and persecute Him. And such are not only, nor even chiefly, the openly wicked and profane; whose offences are of a different description: but those who deny the Divine authority of the Church, rejecting her principles for the opinions of men and the maxims of the world; those who deny her Apostolicity, treating her as a merely human and secular institution; those who invade her constitution, legislating for her on grounds of political expediency, and not according to the laws of Christ. "Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward." They refuse to acknowledge the Body of Christ in His corporate members; and He hides it from them. They are no longer permitted to behold the tokens of her presence. She becomes to them what they would have her be. In their eyes she has no form nor comeliness, although she is all-glorious within. But with these hidings of her beauty and this withdrawal of her presence, there comes not only an apparent abdication of her authority; leaving men to live as they list, according to the broad measures of the world, instead of the straight and narrow lines of eternity: but also the utter loss of her intercession and benediction. She no longer stands between the living and the dead. A silent curse spreads over the land she has abandoned to itself. The rulers have forsaken Christ, and Christ has forsaken them. The people would have it so, and their house is left unto them desolate.

"Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings:

Be learned, ye that judges of the earth.

Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,

And so ye perish from the right way,

If His wrath be kindled, yea but a little.

Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him."

Again, the Sacraments are the Presence of Christ. In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, He is present by His Spirit, Who, in answer to the prayers of the congregation, is given by our Heavenly Father to infants, when baptized, that they may be born again and be made heirs of everlasting salvation. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, He is really and spiritually present, being taken and received by the faithful as their heavenly food and divine life. 

Whoever, therefore, despises the Sacraments, despises Christ. Whoever denies their saving power, denies the Presence of the Saviour in them. Whoever in effect casts stones at these, as by cavils or contumely or neglect, does in reality thus cast stones at Christ. And then does the Son of God hide Himself from them in the majesty of displeasure; and Sacraments become to these persons what, in their rationalistic unbelief, they would have them be. 

Baptism, when administered by schismatics and pretenders to Holy Orders, fails to regenerate; and their own theory, that Baptism admits only to an outward union with a nominal church, is, in their own case, verified. The Communion is reduced to a formal commemoration of an absent Saviour. In both cases, as regards their own mere outward show of Sacraments, they are right. They have taken up stones to cast at the spiritually-present Jesus; and He has hidden Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passing by.

Lastly: the Poor are the Brethren of Jesus. They are so even in respect of their mere poverty; although it must not be concealed that the poor man who is a wilful sinner is severed from this communion and fellowship. But he, who is at once poor in this world and poor in spirit, is united by the closest bonds to the lowly Son of Mary. This is strikingly shown in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, wherein the Judge declares that whatsoever is done unto the least of the Hungry, the Thirsty, the Stranger, the Naked, the Sick, the Imprisoned,—being "the poor of this world," but " rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom," —is done unto Himself. Now, we all know how apt men are to "despise the poor." "There are kinds of distress founded on the passions, which, if not applauded, are at least admired in their excess, as implying a peculiar refinement of sensibility in the mind of the sufferer. 

Embellished by taste, and wrought by the magic of genius into innumerable forms, they turn grief into a luxury, and draw from the eyes of millions delicious tears. But no muse ever ventured to adorn the distresses of poverty or the sorrows of hunger. Disgusting taste and delicacy, and presenting nothing pleasing to the imagination, they are mere misery in all its nakedness and deformity." And therefore the many "despise the Poor." But in so doing, they despise Christ; and what is their punishment in consequence? Jesus might rend aside the veil of His humanity, and reveal Himself as God. He might put off the sordid dress of poverty, and clothe Himself with light as with a garment. But He inflicts a severer punishment than this—He hides Himself. The Poor no longer visibly bear upon them "the marks of the Lord Jesus "; and secular legislation, at once blind and self-confident, sets itself to relieve their distress by increasing their degradation. It brands the Poor Man as a Pauper, and consigns him to contempt and shame. Jesus has hidden Himself in majestic displeasure: and men of the world little dream that He will reveal Himself again at the Last Day, and avenge the cause of the poor and the oppressed!

"Oh, how much are they to be pitied, in whatever sphere they move, who live to themselves, unmindful of the coming of their Lord. When He shall come, and shall not keep silence; when a fire shall devour before Him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about Him; every thing, it is true, will combine to fill them with consternation: yet, methinks, neither the voice of the Archangel, nor the trump of God, nor the dissolution of the elements, nor the face of the Judge itself, from which the heavens will flee away, will be so dismaying and terrible to these men as the sight of the poor members of Christ; whom, having spurned and neglected in the days of their humiliation, they will then behold with amazement united to their Lord, covered with His glory, and seated on His throne! How will they be astonished to see them surrounded with so much majesty! How will they cast down their eyes in their presence! How will they curse that gold, which will then eat their flesh as with fire, and that avarice, that indolence, that voluptuousness, which will entitle them to so much misery! You will then learn that the imitation of Christ is the only wisdom: you will then be convinced it is better to be endeared to the cottage than admired in the palace; when to have wiped the tears of the afflicted, and inherited the prayers of the widow and the fatherless, shall be found a richer patrimony than the favour of princes."

H. H.

 https://books.google.ca/books?id=xogEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=text

Ireland, Ireland; Return unto the LORD thy God!

As an Irish friend would often say to me, "There are three kinds of people in the world: those who are Irish, those who wish they were Irish and those who have no ambition."

For those with and without ambition:

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

 

I ARISE TODAY

Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity

Through belief in the threeness

Through confession of the Oneness

Towards the creator.

I arise today

Through the strength of Christ with his baptism,

Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,

Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension

Through the strength of his decent for the Judgement of doom.

 

I arise today

Through the strength of the love of Cherubim

In obedience to the Angels,

In the service of the Archangels,

In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,

In prayers of patriarchs,

In predictions of prophets,

In preaching of Apostles,

In faiths of confessors,

In innocence of Holy Virgins,

In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today

Through the strength of heaven:

Light of sun

Brilliance of moon

Splendor of fire

Speed of lightning

Swiftness of wind

Depth of sea

Stability of earth

Firmness of rock.

 

I arise today

Through God’s strength to pilot me:

God’s might to uphold me,

God’s wisdom to guide me

God’s eye to look before me,

God’s ear to hear me,

God’s word to speak for me,

God’s hand to guard me,

God’s way to lie before me,

God’s host to secure me

against snares of devils

against temptations of vices

against inclinations of nature

against everyone who shall wish me ill,

afar and anear,

alone and in a crowd.

 

A summon today all these powers between me and these evils

Against every cruel and merciless power that may oppose my body and my soul,

Against incantations of false prophets,

Against black laws of heathenry,

Against false laws of heretics,

Against craft of idolatry,

Against spells of women and smiths and wizards,

Against every knowledge that endangers man’s body and soul.

 

Christ to protect me today

against poison, against burning,

against drowning, against wounding,

so that there may come abundance of reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,

Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,

Christ on my right, Christ on my left

Christ where I lie, Christ where I sit, Christ where I arise

Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,

Christ in the mouth of every man  who speaks of me,

Christ in every eye that sees me,

Christ in every ear that hears me.

 

I arise today

Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,

Through belief in the Thrones,

Through confession of the Oneness

Towards the Creator.

 

Salvation is of the Lord

Salvation is of the Lord

Salvation is of Christ

May thy salvation, O Lord, be ever with us.

From all who should wish me ill

From all who shall wish me ill

Afar and a-near

Alone and in a multitude

Against every cruel, merciless power

That may oppose my body and soul,

CHRIST!

Orémus.

Deus, qui ad praedicandam Gentibus gloriam tuam beatum Patricium Confessorem atque Pontificem mittere dignatus es: eius meritis et intercessione concede; ut, quae nobis agenda praecipis, te miserante adimplere possimus.

Per Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum: qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum.

R. Amen.

Let us pray.

O God, Who didst send forth thy Blessed Confessor and Bishop Patrick to preach thy glory among the Gentiles, mercifully grant unto us, for his sake and at his petition, whatsoever Thou commandest us to do, to have grace and power faithfully to fulfill the same.

Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.

R. Amen.

Gregorio Allegri: Miserere

Psalm 50 [1] Unto the end, a psalm of David, 2 When Nathan the prophet came to him after he had sinned with Bethsabee.

50:3 Have mercy on me, O God, * according to thy great mercy.

50:3 And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies * blot out my iniquity.

50:4 Wash me yet more from my iniquity, * and cleanse me from my sin.

50:5 For I know my iniquity, * and my sin is always before me.

50:6 To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee: * that thou mayst be justified in thy words, and mayst overcome when thou art judged.

50:7 For behold I was conceived in iniquities; * and in sins did my mother conceive me.

50:8 For behold thou hast loved truth: * the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.

50:9 Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: * thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

50:10 To my hearing thou shalt give joy and gladness: * and the bones that have been humbled shall rejoice.

50:11 Turn away thy face from my sins, * and blot out all my iniquities.

50:12 Create a clean heart in me, O God: * and renew a right spirit within my bowels.

50:13 Cast me not away from thy face; * and take not thy holy spirit from me.

50:14 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, * and strengthen me with a perfect spirit.

50:15 I will teach the unjust thy ways: * and the wicked shall be converted to thee.

50:16 Deliver me from blood, O God, thou God of my salvation: * and my tongue shall extol thy justice.

50:17 O Lord, thou wilt open my lips: * and my mouth shall declare thy praise.

50:18 For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: * with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted.

50:19 A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: * a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

50:20 Deal favourably, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion; * that the walls of Jerusalem may be built up.

50:21 Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: * then shall they lay calves upon thy altar.

V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, * and to the Holy Ghost.

R. As it was in the beginning, is now, * and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.50:3

 

Miserére mei, Deus, * secúndum magnam misericórdiam tuam.

50:3 Et secúndum multitúdinem miseratiónum tuárum, * dele iniquitátem meam.

50:4 Ámplius lava me ab iniquitáte mea: * et a peccáto meo munda me.

50:5 Quóniam iniquitátem meam ego cognósco: * et peccátum meum contra me est semper.

50:6 Tibi soli peccávi, et malum coram te feci: * ut justificéris in sermónibus tuis, et vincas cum judicáris.

50:7 Ecce enim, in iniquitátibus concéptus sum: * et in peccátis concépit me mater mea.

50:8 Ecce enim, veritátem dilexísti: * incérta et occúlta sapiéntiæ tuæ manifestásti mihi.

50:9 Aspérges me hyssópo, et mundábor: * lavábis me, et super nivem dealbábor.

50:10 Audítui meo dabis gáudium et lætítiam: * et exsultábunt ossa humiliáta.

50:11 Avérte fáciem tuam a peccátis meis: * et omnes iniquitátes meas dele.

50:12 Cor mundum crea in me, Deus: * et spíritum rectum ínnova in viscéribus meis.

50:13 Ne proícias me a fácie tua: * et spíritum sanctum tuum ne áuferas a me.

50:14 Redde mihi lætítiam salutáris tui: * et spíritu principáli confírma me.

50:15 Docébo iníquos vias tuas: * et ímpii ad te converténtur.

50:16 Líbera me de sanguínibus, Deus, Deus salútis meæ: * et exsultábit lingua mea justítiam tuam.

50:17 Dómine, lábia mea apéries: * et os meum annuntiábit laudem tuam.

50:18 Quóniam si voluísses sacrifícium, dedíssem útique: * holocáustis non delectáberis.

50:19 Sacrifícium Deo spíritus contribulátus: * cor contrítum, et humiliátum, Deus, non despícies.

50:20 Benígne fac, Dómine, in bona voluntáte tua Sion: * ut ædificéntur muri Jerúsalem.

50:21 Tunc acceptábis sacrifícium justítiæ, oblatiónes, et holocáusta: * tunc impónent super altáre tuum vítulos.

V. Glória Patri, et Fílio, * et Spirítui Sancto.

R. Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, * et in sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.

 For more on the Allegri Miserere...

FSSPX to consecrate new bishops - FIUV responds.

 Press Release - SSPX announces new Episcopal Consecrations | Latin Mass Society

Interview with the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X • Don Davide Pagliarani • LPL

1. SSPX News: Mr. Superior General, you have just publicly announced your intention to proceed with episcopal consecrations for the Society of Saint Pius X on July 1st . Why did you make this announcement today, February 2nd?

Father Davide Pagliarani: The Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary is very significant in the Fraternity. It is the day when candidates for the priesthood receive the cassock. The Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple, which we celebrate today, reminds them that the key to their formation and preparation for Holy Orders lies in self-giving, which is bestowed through the hands of Mary. It is an extremely important Marian feast, because by announcing a sword of sorrow to Our Lady, Simeon clearly demonstrates her role as co-redemptrix alongside her divine Son. We see her associated with Our Lord from the beginning of his earthly life until the consummation of his sacrifice on Calvary. Likewise, Our Lady accompanies the future priest in his formation and throughout his life: it is she who continues to form Our Lord in his soul.

2. This announcement had been a persistent rumor in recent months, particularly since the death of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in October 2024. Why did you wait until now?

Like Archbishop Lefebvre in his time, the Society has always been careful not to precede Providence but to follow it, allowing itself to be guided by its indications. Such an important decision cannot be taken lightly or hastily.

In particular, since this is a matter that obviously concerns the supreme authority of the Church, it was necessary to first approach the Holy See—which we did—and wait a reasonable amount of time for its response. This was not a decision we could make without concretely acknowledging the authority of the Holy Father.

3. In your homily, you did mention having written to the Pope. Could you tell us more about it?

Last summer, I wrote to the Holy Father requesting an audience. Having received no reply, I wrote him another letter a few months later, in a simple, filial manner, without concealing any of our needs. I mentioned our doctrinal differences, but also our sincere desire to serve the Catholic Church tirelessly: for we are servants of the Church, despite our unrecognized canonical status.

To this second letter, we received a reply from Rome a few days ago, from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it completely disregards the proposal we put forward and offers nothing that addresses our concerns.

This proposal, given the very particular circumstances in which the Fraternity finds itself, essentially consists of asking the Holy See to allow us to continue temporarily in our exceptional situation, for the good of the souls who turn to us. We have promised the Pope to devote all our energy to safeguarding Tradition and to making our faithful true sons of the Church. It seems to me that such a proposal is both realistic and reasonable, and that it could, in itself, receive the Holy Father's approval.

4. But then, if you have not yet received this approval, why do you feel you must still proceed with episcopal consecrations?

This is an extreme measure, proportionate to a real and equally extreme necessity. Of course, the mere existence of a need for the good of souls does not mean that any initiative is immediately justified in responding to it. But in our case, after a long period of waiting, observation, and prayer, it seems to us that we can now say that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls, the Fraternity, and the Church find themselves demands such a decision.

With the legacy left to us by Pope Francis, the fundamental reasons that justified the 1988 consecrations remain fully valid and, in many respects, appear even more relevant than ever. The Second Vatican Council remains, more than ever, the compass guiding Church leaders, and they are unlikely to change course in the near future. The broad outlines already emerging for the new pontificate, particularly through the last consistory, only confirm this: they reveal an explicit determination to maintain Francis's path as an irreversible course for the entire Church.

"We promised the Pope that we would devote all our energy to safeguarding Tradition, and to making our faithful true sons of the Church."

It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact: in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the necessary means to ensure their eternal salvation. This particularly concerns the full preaching of Catholic truth and morality, as well as the administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This is the essence of the situation. In this critical context, our bishops are aging, and with the continuous growth of the apostolate, they are no longer sufficient to meet the needs of the faithful throughout the world.

5. In what ways do you think last month's consistory confirms the direction taken by Pope Francis?

Cardinal Fernández, speaking on behalf of Pope Leo, invited the Church to return to Francis's fundamental intuition, expressed in Evangelii Gaudium, his key encyclical: to simplify somewhat, it involves reducing the proclamation of the Gospel to its essential, primitive expression, in very concise and impactful formulas—the " kerygma "  —for the sake of an "experience," an immediate encounter with Christ, setting aside everything else, however precious it may be—specifically, all the elements of Tradition, considered secondary and incidental. It is this method of new evangelization that has produced the doctrinal void characteristic of Francis's pontificate, which a whole sector of the Church has keenly felt.

Of course, from this perspective, we must always strive to provide new and appropriate answers to the questions that arise; but this task must be accomplished through synodal reform, and not by rediscovering the classic and still valid answers provided by Church Tradition. It is in this way, in the "breath of the Spirit" of this synodal reform, that Francis has been able to impose catastrophic decisions on the entire Church, such as authorizing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, or the blessing of same-sex couples.

In summary: the “kerygma” isolates the proclamation of the Gospel from the entire body of traditional doctrine and morality; and synodality replaces traditional responses with arbitrary, easily absurd, and doctrinally unjustifiable decisions. Cardinal Zen himself finds this method manipulative, and attributing it to the Holy Spirit blasphemous. I fear, unfortunately, that he is right.

6. You speak of service to the Church, but in practice, the Fraternity can give the impression of challenging the Church, especially when considering episcopal consecrations. How do you explain this to the Pope?

We serve the Church, first and foremost, by serving souls. This is an objective fact, independent of any other consideration. The Church, fundamentally, exists for souls: its purpose is their sanctification and salvation. All the fine speeches, the various and sundry debates, the grand themes that are discussed or could be discussed, are meaningless if they do not have the salvation of souls as their objective. It is important to remember this because there is a danger today for the Church of becoming preoccupied with everything and nothing. Ecological concerns, for example, or preoccupation with the rights of minorities, women, or migrants, risk obscuring the essential mission of the Church. If the Society of Saint Pius X strives to preserve Tradition, with all that it entails, it is solely because these treasures are absolutely indispensable to the salvation of souls, and it aims at nothing other than that: the good of souls, and that of the priesthood ordained to their sanctification.

"In an ordinary parish, the faithful can no longer find the necessary means to ensure their eternal salvation. That is what constitutes a state of necessity."

In doing so, we place at the service of the Church itself what we preserve. We offer the Church, not a museum of old and dusty things, but Tradition in its fullness and fruitfulness, the Tradition that sanctifies souls, that transforms them, that fosters vocations and authentically Catholic families. In other words, it is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure, until the day when its value is once again understood, and when a pope wishes to use it for the good of the whole Church. For it is to the Church that Tradition belongs.

7. You speak of the good of souls, but the Fraternity has no mission concerning souls. On the contrary, it was canonically suppressed more than fifty years ago. On what grounds can any mission of the Fraternity concerning souls be justified?

It is simply a matter of charity. We do not want to take on a mission we do not have. But at the same time, we cannot refuse to respond to the spiritual distress of souls who are increasingly perplexed, disoriented, and lost. They cry out for help. And after searching for a long time, it is quite naturally in the riches of the Church's Tradition, fully lived, that they find, with profound joy, light and comfort. We have a true responsibility for these souls, even if we have no official mission: if someone sees a person in danger in the street, they are obliged to help them according to their means, even if they are neither a firefighter nor a police officer.

The number of souls who have turned to us in this way has grown steadily over the years, and has even increased considerably during the last decade. To ignore their needs and abandon them would be to betray them, and thereby betray the Church itself, for, once again, the Church exists for souls, and not to fuel vain and futile talk.

This charity is a duty that governs all others. Church law itself stipulates this. In the spirit of Church law, the legal expression of this charity, the good of souls takes precedence. It truly represents the law of laws, to which all others are subordinate, and against which no ecclesiastical law prevails. The axiom "  suprema lex, salus animarum  : the supreme law is the salvation of souls" is a classic maxim of canonical tradition, explicitly reiterated, moreover, by the final canon of the 1983 Code; in the present state of necessity, the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and our mission to the souls who turn to us ultimately depends on this supreme principle. For us, it is a role of substitution, in the name of this same charity.

8. Are you aware that considering episcopal consecrations could place the faithful who rely on the Fellowship in a dilemma: either the choice of integral Tradition with all that it implies, or "full" communion with the hierarchy of the Church?

This dilemma is only apparent, in reality. It is clear that a Catholic must both maintain the integrity of Tradition and communion with the hierarchy. He cannot choose between these two goods, which are both necessary.

But we too often forget that communion is essentially based on the Catholic faith, with all that this implies: beginning with a true sacramental life, and the exercise of a government which preaches this same faith and makes it put into practice, using its authority not arbitrarily, but truly for the spiritual good of the souls entrusted to its care.

It is precisely to guarantee these foundations, these conditions necessary for the very existence of communion in the Church, that the Fraternity cannot accept anything that opposes and distorts this communion. Even when it comes—paradoxically—from those who exercise authority in the Church.

9. Could you give a specific example of something the Fraternity cannot accept?

The first example that comes to mind dates back to 2019, when Pope Francis, during his visit to the Arabian Peninsula, signed the famous Abu Dhabi Declaration with an imam. He and the Muslim leader affirmed that the plurality of religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom.

It is obvious that a communion based on, or including, the acceptance of such a statement would simply not be Catholic, for it would include a sin against the first commandment and the negation of the first article of the Creed . I find such a statement to be more than a mere error. It is simply unimaginable. It cannot be the foundation of Catholic communion, but rather the cause of its dissolution. I believe a Catholic should prefer martyrdom to accepting such a statement.

10. Worldwide, awareness of the errors long denounced by the Society is growing, particularly online. Would it not be more appropriate to let this movement develop in trust in Providence, rather than intervening with a strong public gesture such as episcopal consecrations?

This movement is certainly positive, and we can only rejoice in it. It certainly illustrates the soundness of what the Fraternity defends, and this dissemination of truth should be encouraged by all available means. That said, it is a movement that has its limits. For the fight for the faith cannot be restricted and exhausted by discussions and positions taken on the web or social media.

The sanctification of a soul depends, of course, on a genuine profession of faith, but this must lead to a true Christian life. Now, on Sundays, souls don't need to consult an internet platform. They need a priest to hear their confession and instruct them, to celebrate Holy Mass for them, to truly sanctify them and lead them to God. Souls need priests. And to have priests, we need bishops. Not "influencers." In other words, we must return to reality. That is, the reality of souls, of their concrete, objective needs. Episcopal consecrations have no other purpose: to guarantee, for the faithful attached to Tradition, the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation, Holy Orders, and all that flows from it.

11. Do you not think that, despite its good intentions, the Fraternity could in some way end up mistaking itself for the Church, or attributing to itself an irreplaceable role?

In no way does the Fraternity claim to replace the Church, or to assume its mission: on the contrary, it retains the profound awareness of existing only to serve it, based exclusively on what the Church itself has always and universally preached, believed and accomplished.

The Fraternity is also deeply aware that it is not the one who saves the Church, for Our Lord alone keeps and saves his Bride, He who never ceases to watch over her.

The Society is quite simply, in circumstances it did not choose, a privileged means of remaining faithful to the Church. Attentive to the mission of its Mother, who for twenty centuries has nourished her children with doctrine and the sacraments, the Society is filially dedicated to the preservation and defense of the integral Tradition, taking upon itself the means of unparalleled freedom to remain faithful to this heritage. In the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society is simply a work "of the Catholic Church, which continues to transmit doctrine"; its role is that of "a postman carrying a letter." And it desires nothing more than to see all Catholic pastors join it in fulfilling this duty.

12. Let us return to the Pope. Do you believe it is realistic to think that the Holy Father could accept, or at least tolerate, the Society consecrating bishops without papal mandate?

A pope is first and foremost a father. As such, he is capable of discerning a righteous intention, a sincere desire to serve the Church, and above all, a genuine case of conscience in an exceptional situation. These elements are objective, and all those familiar with the Society can recognize them, even without necessarily sharing its views.

13. This is understandable in theory. But do you think that, in practice, Rome could tolerate such a decision from the Society?

The future remains in the hands of the Holy Father and, of course, Providence. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the Holy See is sometimes capable of demonstrating a certain pragmatism, even surprising flexibility, when it is convinced it is acting for the good of souls.

Let us consider the very current case of relations with the Chinese government. Despite a genuine schism within the Chinese Patriotic Church; despite the uninterrupted persecution of the Church of Silence, faithful to Rome; despite agreements regularly renewed and broken by the Chinese government: in 2023, Pope Francis retroactively approved the appointment of the Bishop of Shanghai by the Chinese authorities. More recently, Pope Leo XIV himself ended up retroactively accepting the appointment of the Bishop of Xinxiang, designated in the same manner during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, while the bishop faithful to Rome, imprisoned several times, was still in office. In both cases, these are clearly pro-government prelates, unilaterally imposed by Beijing with the aim of controlling the Chinese Catholic Church. It is important to note that these are not simply two auxiliary bishops, but rather residential bishops, that is, ordinary pastors of their respective dioceses (or prefectures), with jurisdiction over the local priests and faithful. In Rome, the purpose for which these pastors were chosen and unilaterally imposed is well known.

"The Society of Saint Pius X aims at nothing other than this: the good of souls, and that of the priesthood ordained to their sanctification."

The case of the Society is quite different: our aim is clearly not to support a communist or anti-Christian power, but solely to safeguard the rights of Christ the King and the Tradition of the Church, in a time of general crisis and confusion when these are seriously compromised. The intentions and objectives are obviously not the same. The Pope knows this. Moreover, the Holy Father is perfectly aware that the Society in no way intends to give its bishops any jurisdiction whatsoever, which would amount to creating a parallel Church.

Frankly, I don't see how the Pope could fear a greater danger to souls from the side of the Fraternity than from the side of the Beijing government.

14. Do you think that, in relation to the traditional Mass, the need for souls is as serious as it was in 1988? After the vicissitudes experienced by the rite of Saint Pius V, its liberation by Benedict XVI in 2007, the restrictions imposed by Francis in 2021… in what direction are we going with the new Pope?

As far as I know, Pope Leo XIV has maintained a certain discretion on the subject, which is generating considerable anticipation in conservative circles. But very recently, a text by Cardinal Roche on the liturgy, initially intended for the cardinals attending last month's consistory, was made public. And there is no reason to doubt that it corresponds, in its broad outlines, to the direction desired by the Pope. It is a very clear text, and above all, logical and coherent. Unfortunately, it rests on a false premise.

In concrete terms, this text, perfectly consistent with Traditionis Custodes, condemns Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical project. According to the latter, the old and new rites are two roughly equivalent forms, expressing in any case the same faith and the same ecclesiology, and therefore mutually enriching. Concerned with the unity of the Church, Benedict XVI was thus keen to promote the coexistence of the two rites and published Summorum For many, providentially, this was a rediscovery of the traditional Mass, but in the long run, it also provoked a movement questioning the new rite; a movement that appeared problematic, and which Traditionis Custodes, in 2021, attempted to stem.

Faithful to Francis, Cardinal Roche, in turn, advocates for the unity of the Church, but according to an idea and with means diametrically opposed to those of Benedict XVI: while maintaining the affirmation of continuity from one rite to another through reform, he firmly opposes their coexistence. He sees it as a source of division, a threat to unity, which must be overcome by returning to authentic liturgical communion: “The primary good of the unity of the Church is not obtained by ‘freezing’ division, but by coming together all in the sharing of what can only be shared.” The Church “must have only one rite” in full harmony with the true meaning of Tradition.

A just and consistent principle, since the Church has only one faith and one ecclesiology, it can only have one liturgy that adequately expresses them… But a poorly applied principle since, logical with the new post-conciliar ecclesiology, Cardinal Roche conceives of Tradition as evolving, and the new rite as its only living expression for our time; the value of the Tridentine rite can therefore only be obsolete, and its use, at most a “concession”, “in no way a promotion”.

That there is therefore a "division" and current incompatibility between the two rites is now clearer. But make no mistake: the only liturgy that adequately expresses, in an immutable and unchanging way, the traditional conception of the Church, of Christian life, of the Catholic priesthood, is the one that has always existed. On this point, the Holy See's opposition appears more irrevocable than ever.

15. Cardinal Roche is at least honest enough to acknowledge that there are still some problems in the implementation of the liturgical reform. Do you think this might lead to an awareness of the limitations of this reform?

It is interesting to see that, after sixty years, a real difficulty in implementing the liturgical reform is still acknowledged, a difficulty whose richness should be explored: this is a refrain we have always heard, every time this subject is broached, and one that Cardinal Roche's text does not shy away from. But instead of sincerely questioning the intrinsic deficiencies of the new Mass, and therefore the general failure of this reform, instead of acknowledging the fact that churches are emptying and vocations are declining, instead of asking why the Tridentine Rite continues to attract so many souls… Cardinal Roche sees no other solution than the urgent prior formation of the faithful and seminarians.

Without realizing it, he enters a vicious circle: indeed, it is the liturgy itself that is supposed to form souls. For almost two thousand years, souls, often illiterate, were edified and sanctified by the liturgy itself, without any need for prior training. To fail to recognize the Novus Ordo 's inherent inability to edify souls, while demanding even better training, seems to me a sign of irremediable blindness. This leads to shocking paradoxes: the reform was intended to encourage the participation of the faithful; yet they abandoned the Church en masse because this bland liturgy failed to nourish them; and this supposedly has nothing to do with the reform itself!

16. Today, in many countries, groups outside the Society still benefit from the use of the 1962 missal. Such possibilities were almost nonexistent in 1988. Would this not be a sufficient alternative for the time being, making new episcopal consecrations premature?

The question we must ask ourselves is this: Do these possibilities correspond to what the Church and souls need? Do they adequately meet the needs of souls?

It is undeniable that wherever the traditional Mass is celebrated, it is the true rite of the Church that shines forth, with that profound sense of the sacred not found in the new rite. But one cannot disregard the context in which these celebrations take place. Now, regardless of the goodwill of those involved, the context seems clear, especially since Traditionis custodes, confirmed by Cardinal Roche: it is that of a Church where the only official "normal" rite is that of Paul VI. The celebration of the traditional rite is therefore carried out under a system of exception: adherents of this rite receive, as a gratuitous act of kindness, dispensations that allow them to celebrate it, but these dispensations are part of the logic of the new ecclesiology, and they therefore presuppose that the new liturgy remains the criterion of the faithful's piety and the authentic expression of the life of the Church.

17. Why do you say that we cannot disregard this exceptional framework? Isn't some good being done despite everything? What concrete consequences would be regrettable?

This situation results in at least three harmful consequences. The most immediate is a profound structural fragility. Priests and the faithful who enjoy certain privileges allowing them to use the Tridentine liturgy live in fear of the future: a privilege is not a right. As long as the authorities tolerate them, they can carry on their religious practice without being disturbed. But as soon as the authorities make certain demands, impose certain conditions, or suddenly revoke the granted permissions for one reason or another, priests and faithful find themselves in a conflict, without any means of defending themselves to effectively guarantee the traditional support that souls have a right to expect. Now, how can such dilemmas of conscience be avoided in the long term when, between two irreconcilable conceptions of the life of the Church, embodied in two incompatible liturgies, one is given full legitimacy while the other is merely tolerated?

Then—and this is undoubtedly more serious—the reason for these groups' attachment to the Tridentine liturgy is no longer understood, gravely compromising the public rights of Church Tradition, and thereby the good of souls. Indeed, if the Mass of all time can accept that the modern Mass be celebrated throughout the Church, and if it claims for itself only a particular privilege, linked to a preference or a specific charism, how can we understand that this Mass of all time is irremediably opposed to the new Mass, remains the only true liturgy of the whole Church, and that no one can be prevented from celebrating it? How can we know that the Mass of Paul VI cannot be recognized because it constitutes a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, and that no one can be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls effectively turned away from this poisonous liturgy, to drink from the pure sources of the Catholic liturgy?

"The Fraternity is simply, in circumstances it did not choose, a privileged means of remaining faithful to the Church."

Finally, a more far-reaching consequence stemming from the two previous ones is the need to avoid jeopardizing a fragile stability through disruptive behavior. This forces many pastors into a forced silence when it comes to speaking out against scandalous teachings that corrupt faith or morals. The necessary denunciation of errors that are destroying the Church, demanded by the very good of souls threatened by this poisonous nourishment, is thus paralyzed. One or another is enlightened in private, when the harmfulness of a particular error can still be discerned, but it is now nothing more than a timid whisper, where the truth struggles to express itself with the required freedom… especially when it comes to challenging tacitly accepted principles. Here again, it is souls that are no longer being enlightened, and that are being deprived of the bread of doctrine for which they nevertheless remain hungry: over time, this gradually alters mentalities and leads little by little to the general and unconscious acceptance of the various reforms affecting the life of the Church. Toward these souls as well, the Fraternity feels the responsibility to enlighten them and not abandon them.

This is not about casting blame or judging anyone, but about opening our eyes and acknowledging the facts. We are compelled to recognize that, insofar as the use of the traditional liturgy remains contingent upon at least the implicit acceptance of the conciliar reforms, the groups that adhere to it cannot provide an adequate response to the profound needs of the Church and its people. Conversely, to reiterate an idea already expressed, we must be able to offer Catholics today an uncompromising truth, presented without preconditions, with the means to live it fully, for the salvation of souls and the service of the entire Church.

18. That said, do you not think that Rome could be more generous in the future with regard to the traditional Mass?

It is not impossible that Rome might adopt a more open attitude in the future, as it did in 1988 under similar circumstances, when the old missal was given to certain groups in an attempt to dissuade the faithful from the Society. If this were to happen again, it would be highly political and hardly doctrinal: the Tridentine missal is meant to be used exclusively for worshipping divine majesty and nurturing faith; it cannot be used as a tool for pastoral adjustment or a means of appeasement.

That said, greater or lesser benevolence would not change the harmfulness of the framework described above, and would therefore not substantially alter the situation.

Moreover, the scenario is actually more complex: in Rome, Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche have clearly observed that expanding the use of the missal of Saint Pius V inevitably triggers a questioning of the liturgical reform and the Council, on a troubling and, above all, uncontrollable scale. It is therefore difficult to predict what will happen, but the danger of becoming trapped in political rather than doctrinal considerations is real.

19. What would you like to say especially to the faithful and to the members of the Fellowship?

I would like to tell them that the present moment is first and foremost a time for prayer, for preparing hearts, souls, and also minds, in order to dispose ourselves to the grace that these consecrations represent for the whole Church. This should be done in recollection, in peace, and in trust in Providence, which has never abandoned the Fraternity and will not abandon it now.

20. Do you still hope to be able to meet the Pope?

Yes, absolutely! It seems extremely important to me to be able to speak with the Holy Father, and there are many things I would be happy to share with him that I haven't been able to write down. Unfortunately, the response I received from Cardinal Fernández does not provide for an audience with the Pope. Instead, it mentions the threat of further sanctions.

21. What will the Fraternity do if the Holy See decides to condemn it?

First of all, let us remember that in such circumstances, any canonical penalties would have no real effect.

However, should such a fate befall us, the Fraternity would certainly accept this new suffering without bitterness, just as it has accepted past sufferings, and would sincerely offer it up for the good of the Church itself. It is for the Church that the Fraternity works. And it has no doubt that if such a situation were to arise, it could only be temporary; for the Church is divine and Our Lord does not abandon her.

The Fraternity will therefore continue to work to the best of its ability in fidelity to Catholic Tradition, and to humbly serve the Church by responding to the needs of souls. And it will continue to pray filially for the Pope, as it always has, while awaiting the day it may be delivered from these possible unjust sanctions, as was the case in 2009. We are certain that one day, the Roman authorities will gratefully recognize that these episcopal consecrations will have providentially contributed to maintaining the faith, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Interview given in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain on February 2, 2026

on the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin