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, Archbishop
