A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Thursday 5 August 2021
Tuesday 3 August 2021
Sunday 1 August 2021
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on Traditionis Custodes
LAPIDES CLAMABUNT
Dico vobis quia si hii tacuerint, lapides clamabunt.
I say to you that if these are silent, the stones will cry out. Lk 19:40
Traditionis custodes: this is the incipit [“beginning” or “first words”] of the document with which Francis imperiously cancels the previous Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI. The almost mocking tone of the bombastic quotation from Lumen Gentium will not have escaped notice: just when Bergoglio recognizes the Bishops as guardians of the Tradition, he asks them to obstruct its highest and most sacred expression of prayer. Anyone who tries to find within the folds of the text some escamotage [“sleight of hand” or “trickery”] to circumvent the text should know that the draft sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for revision was extremely more drastic than the final text: a confirmation, if ever it were needed, that no particular pressure was needed from of the historical enemies of the Tridentine Liturgy – beginning with the scholars of Sant’Anselmo – to convince His Holiness to try his hand at what he does best: demolishing. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. [They make a wasteland and call it peace. – Tacitus, Agricola]
The Modus Operandi of Francis
Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches. On the one hand, there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church. And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II. Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism. His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one. It matters little if the ways in which he acts against God, against the Church and against the Lord's flock are in stark conflict with his appeals to parrhesia, to dialogue, to building bridges and not erecting walls: the church of mercy and the field hospital turns out to be empty rhetorical devices, since it ought to be Catholics who benefit from them and not heretics or fornicators. In reality, each of us is well aware that Amoris Laetitia's indulgence towards public concubinage and adulterers would hardly be imaginable towards those “rigid” ones against whom Bergoglio hurls his darts as soon as he has the opportunity.
After years of this pontificate, we have all understood that the reasons given by Bergoglio for declining a meeting with a Prelate, a politician or a conservative intellectual do not apply to the molester Cardinal, the heretic Bishop, the abortionist politician, or the globalist intellectual. In short, there is a blatant difference in behaviour, from which one can grasp the partiality and partisanship of Francis in favour of any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic. Anything that even only vaguely evokes anything Catholic seems to arouse in the tenant of Santa Marta an aversion that is disconcerting to say the least, if only in virtue of the Throne on which he is seated. Many have noted this dissociation, this sort of bipolarity of a pope who does not behave like a Pope and does not speak like a Pope. The problem is that we are not faced with a sort of inaction from the Papacy, as could happen with a sick or very old Pontiff; but rather with a constant action that is organized and planned in a sense diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Papacy. Not only does Bergoglio not condemn the errors of the present time by strongly reaffirming the Truth of the Catholic Faith – he has never done this! – but he actively seeks to disseminate these errors, to promote them, to encourage their supporters, to spread them to the greatest possible extent and to host events promoting them in the Vatican, simultaneously silencing those who denounce these same errors. Not only does he not punish fornicating Prelates, but he even promotes and defends them by lying, while he removes conservative Bishops and does not hide his annoyance with the heartfelt appeals of Cardinals not aligned with the new course. Not only does he not condemn abortionist politicians who proclaim themselves Catholics, but he intervenes to prevent the Episcopal Conference from pronouncing on this matter, contradicting that synodal path which conversely allows him to use a minority of ultra-progressives to impose his will on the majority of the Synod Fathers.
The one constant of this attitude, noted in its most brazen and arrogant form in Traditionis Custodes, is duplicity and lies. A duplicity that is a facade, of course, daily disavowed by positions that are anything but prudent in favour of a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key. We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term. This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.
Idological Extremism
Another significant element of this pontificate, taken to its extreme consequences with Traditionis Custodes, is Bergoglio’s ideological extremism: an extremism that is deplored in words when it concerns others, but which shows itself in its most violent and ruthless expression when it is he himself who puts it into practice against clergy and laity connected to the ancient rite and faithful to Sacred Tradition. Towards the Society of Saint Pius X he shows himself willing to make concessions and to establish a relationship as “good neighbours,” but towards the poor priests and faithful who have to endure a thousand humiliations and blackmail in order to beg for a Mass in Latin, he shows no understanding, no humanity. This behaviour is not accidental: Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement enjoys its own autonomy and economic independence, and for this reason, it has no reason to fear retaliation or commissioners from the Holy See. But the Bishops, priests and clerics incardinated in dioceses or religious Orders know that hanging over them is the sword of Damocles of removal from office, dismissal from the ecclesiastical state, and the deprivation of their very means of subsistence.
The Experience of the Tridentine Mass in Priestly Life
Those who have had the opportunity to follow my speeches and declarations know well what my position is on the Council and on the Novus Ordo; but they also know what my background is, my curriculum in the service of the Holy See and my relatively recent awareness of the apostasy and the crisis in which we find ourselves. For this reason, I would like to reiterate my understanding for the spiritual path of those who, precisely because of this situation, cannot or are not yet able to make a radical choice, such as celebrating or attending exclusively the Mass of St. Pius V. Many priests discover the treasures of the venerable Tridentine Liturgy only when they celebrate it and allow themselves to be permeated by it, and it is not uncommon for an initial curiosity towards the “extraordinary form” – certainly fascinating due to the solemnity of the rite – to change quickly into the awareness of the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls. There is a perfect harmony that words cannot express, and that the faithful can understand only in part, but which touches the heart of the Priesthood as only God can. This can be confirmed by my confreres who have approached the usus antiquior after decades of obedient celebration of the Novus Ordo: a world opens up, a cosmos that includes the prayer of the Breviary with the lessons of Matins and the commentaries of the Fathers, the cross-references to the texts of the Mass, the Martyrology in the Hour of Prime… They are sacred words – not because they are expressed in Latin – but rather they are expressed in Latin because the vulgate language would demean them, would profane them, as Dom Guéranger wisely observed. These are the words of the Bride to the divine Bridegroom, words of the soul that lives in intimate union with God, of the soul that lets itself be inhabited by the Most Holy Trinity. Essentially priestly words, in the deepest sense of the term, which implies in the Priesthood not only the power to offer sacrifice, but to unite in self-offering to the pure, holy and immaculate Victim. It has nothing to do with the ramblings of the reformed rite, which is too intent on pleasing the secularized mentality to turn to the Majesty of God and the Heavenly Court; so preoccupied with making itself understandable that one has to give up on communicating anything but trivial obviousness; so careful not to hurt the feelings of heretics as to allow itself to keep silent about the Truth just at the moment in which the Lord God makes himself present on the altar; so fearful of asking the faithful for the slightest commitment as to trivialize the sacred song and any artistic expression linked to worship. The simple fact that Lutheran pastors, modernists and well-known Freemasons collaborated in the drafting of that rite should make us understand, if not the bad faith and willful misconduct, at least the horizontal mentality, devoid of any supernatural impetus, which motivated the authors of the so-called “liturgical reform” – who, as far as we know, certainly did not shine with the sanctity with which the sacred authors of the texts of the ancient Missale Romanum and of the entire liturgical corpus shine.
How many of you priests – and certainly also many laypeople – in reciting the wonderful verses of the Pentecost sequence were moved to tears, understanding that your initial predilection for the traditional liturgy had nothing to do with a sterile aesthetic satisfaction, but had evolved into a real spiritual necessity, as indispensable as breathing? How can you and how can we explain to those who today would like to deprive you of this priceless good, that that blessed rite has made you discover the true nature of your Priesthood, and that from it and only from it are you able to draw strength and nourishment to face the commitments of your ministry? How can you make it clear that the obligatory return to the Montinian rite represents an impossible sacrifice for you, because in the daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil it leaves you disarmed, prostrate and without strength?
It is evident that only those who have not celebrated the Mass of St. Pius V can consider it as an annoying tinsel of the past, which can be done without. Even many young priests, accustomed to the Novus Ordo since their adolescence, have understood that the two forms of the rite have nothing in common, and that one is so superior to the other as to reveal all its limits and criticisms, to the point of making it almost painful to celebrate. It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past: here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism. Concepts that those who see their priesthood as a profession cannot even understand, just as they cannot understand the agony that a priestly soul feels in seeing the Eucharistic Species desecrated during the grotesque rites of Communion in the era of the pandemic farce.
The reductive vision of the liberalization of the Mass
This is why I find it extremely unpleasant to have to read in Traditionis Custodes that the reason why Francis believes that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated fourteen years ago lay only in the desire to heal the so-called schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. Of course, the “political” calculation may have had its weight, especially at the time of John Paul II, even if at that time the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X were few in number. But the request to be able to restore citizenship to the Mass which for two millennia nourished the holiness of the faithful and gave the sap of life to Christian civilization cannot be reduced to a contingent fact.
With his Motu Proprio, Benedict XVI restored the Roman Apostolic Mass to the Church, declaring that it had never been abolished. Indirectly, he admitted that there was an abuse by Paul VI, when in order to give authority to his rite he ruthlessly forbade the celebration of the traditional Liturgy. And even if in that document there may be some incongruent elements, such as the coexistence of the two forms of the same rite, we can believe that these have served to allow for the diffusion of the extraordinary form, without affecting the ordinary one. In other times, it would have seemed incomprehensible to let a Mass steeped in misunderstandings and omissions to be celebrated, when the authority of the Pontiff could have simply restored the ancient rite. But today, with the heavy burden of Vatican II and with the now widespread secularized mentality, even the mere liceity of celebrating the Tridentine Mass without permission can be considered an undeniable good – a good that is visible to all due to the abundant fruits it brings to the communities where it is celebrated. And we can also believe that it would have brought even more fruits if only Summorum Pontificum had been applied in all its points and with a spirit of true ecclesial communion.
The alleged “instrumental use” of the roman missal
Francis knows well that the survey taken among Bishops all over the world did not yield negative results, although the formulation of the questions made clear what answers he wanted to receive. That consultation was a pretext, in order to make people believe that the decision he made was inevitable and the fruit of a choral request from the Episcopate. We all know that if Beroglio wants to obtain a result, he does not hesitate to resort to force, lies, and sleight of hand: the events of the last Synods have demonstrated this beyond all reasonable doubt, with the Post-Synodal Exhortation drafted even before the vote on the Instrumentum Laboris. Also in this case, therefore, the pre-established purpose was the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and the prophasis, that is, the apparent excuse, had to be the supposed “instrumental use of the Roman Missal of 1962, often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of Vatican Council II itself” (here). In all honesty, one can perchance accuse the Society of Saint Pius X of this instrumental use, which has every right to affirm what each of us knows well, that the Mass of Saint Pius V is incompatible with post-conciliar ecclesiology and doctrine. But the Society is not affected by the Motu Proprio, and has always celebrated using the 1962 Missal precisely by virtue of that inalienable right which Benedict XVI recognized, which was not created ex nihilo in 2007.
The diocesan priest who celebrates Mass in the church assigned to him by the Bishop, and who every week must undergo the third degree through the accusations of zealous progressive Catholics only because he has dared to recite the Confiteor prior to administering Communion to the faithful, knows very well that he cannot speak ill of the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, because at the first syllable he would already be summoned to the Curia and sent to a parish church lost in the mountains. That silence, always painful and almost always perceived by everyone as more eloquent than many words, is the price he has to pay in order to have the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass of all time, in order not to deprive the faithful of the Graces that it pours down upon the Church and the world. And what is even more absurd is that while we hear it said with impunity that the Tridentine Mass ought to be abolished because it is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, as soon as we say the same thing – that is, that the Montinian Mass is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology – we are immediately made the object of condemnation, and our affirmation is used as evidence against us before the revolutionary tribunal of Santa Marta.
I wonder what sort of spiritual disease could have struck the Shepherds in the last few decades, in order to lead them to become, not loving fathers but ruthless censors of their priests, officials constantly watching and ready to revoke all rights in virtue of a blackmail that they do not even try to conceal. This climate of suspicion does not in the least contribute to the serenity of many good priests, when the good they do is always placed under the lens of functionaries who consider the faithful linked to the Tradition as a danger, as an annoying presence to be tolerated so long as it does stand out too much. But how can we even conceive of a Church in which the good is systematically hindered and whoever does it is viewed with suspicion and kept under control? I, therefore, understand the scandal of many Catholics, faithful, and not a few priests in the face of this “shepherd who instead of smelling his sheep, angrily beats them with a stick”(here).
The misunderstanding of being able to enjoy a right as if it were a gracious concession may also be found in public affairs, where the State permits itself to authorize travel, school lessons, the opening of activities and the performance of work, as long as one undergoes inoculation with the experimental genetic serum. Thus, just as the “extraordinary form” is granted on the condition of accepting the Council and the reformed Mass, so also in the civil sphere the rights of citizens are granted on the condition of accepting the pandemic narrative, the vaccination, and tracking systems. It is not surprising that in many cases it is precisely priests and Bishops – and Bergoglio himself – who ask that people be vaccinated in order to access the Sacraments – the perfect synchrony of action on both sides is disturbing to say the least.
But where then is this instrumental use of the Missale Romanum? Should we not rather speak of the instrumental use of the Missal of Paul VI, which – to paraphrase Bergoglio’s words – is ever more characterized by a growing rejection not only of the pre-conciliar liturgical tradition but of all the Ecumenical Councils prior to Vatican II? On the other hand, is it not precisely Francis who considers as a threat to the Council the simple fact that a Mass may be celebrated which repudiates and condemns all the doctrinal deviations of Vatican II?
Other incongruences
Never in the history of the Church did a Council or a liturgical reform constitute a point of rupture between what came before and what came after! Never in the course of these two millennia have the Roman Pontiffs deliberately drawn an ideological border between the Church that preceded them and the one they had to govern, cancelling and contradicting the Magisterium of their Predecessors! The before and after, instead, became an obsession, both of those who prudently insinuated doctrinal errors behind equivocal expressions, as well as of those who – with the boldness of those who believe that they have won, propagated Vatican II as “the 1789 of the Church,” as a “prophetic” and “revolutionary” event. Before 7 July 2007, in response to the spread of the traditional rite, a well-known pontifical master of ceremonies replied piquedly: “There is no going back!” And yet apparently with Francis one can go back on the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum – and how! – if it serves to preserve power and to prevent the Good from spreading. It is a slogan which sinisterly echoes the cry of “Nothing will be as it was before” of the pandemic farce.
Francis’ admission of an alleged division between the faithful linked to the Tridentine liturgy and those who largely out of habit or resignation has adapted to the reformed liturgy is revealing: he does not seek to heal this division by recognizing full rights to a rite that is objectively better with respect to the Montinian rite, but precisely in order to prevent the ontological superiority of the Mass of Saint Pius V from becoming evident, and to prevent the criticisms of the reformed rite and the doctrine it expresses from emerging, he prohibits it, he labels it as divisive, he confines it to Indian reservations, trying to limit its diffusion as much as possible, so that it will disappear completely in the name of the cancel culture of which the conciliar revolution was the unfortunate forerunner. Not being able to tolerate that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II emerge inexorably defeated by their confrontation with the Vetus Ordo and the perennial Catholic Magisterium, the only solution that can be adopted is to cancel every trace of Tradition, relegating it to the nostalgic refuge of some irreducible octogenarian or a clique of eccentrics, or presenting it – as a pretext – as the ideological manifesto of a minority of fundamentalists. On the other hand, constructing a media version consistent with the system, to be repeated ad nauseam in order to indoctrinate the masses, is the recurring element not only in the ecclesiastical sphere but also in the political and civil sphere so that it appears with disconcerting evidence that the deep church and deep state are nothing other than two parallel tracks which run in the same direction and have as their final destination the New World Order, with its religion and its prophet.
The division is there, obviously, but it does not come from good Catholics and clergy who remain faithful to the doctrine of all time, but rather from those who have replaced orthodoxy with heresy and the Holy Sacrifice with a fraternal agape. That division is not new today, but dates back to the Sixties, when the “spirit of the Council,” openness to the world and inter-religious dialogue turned two thousand years of Catholicity into straw and revolutionized the entire ecclesial body, persecuting and ostracizing the refractory. Yet that division, accomplished by bringing doctrinal and liturgical confusion into the heart of the Church, did not seem so deplorable then; while today, in full apostasy, they are paradoxically considered divisive who ask, not for the explicit condemnation of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, but simply the tolerance of the Mass “in the extraordinary form” in the name of the much-vaunted multifaceted pluralism.
Significantly, even in the civilized world the protection of minorities is valid only when they serve to demolish traditional society, while such protection is ignored when it would guarantee the legitimate rights of honest citizens. And it has become clear that under the pretext of the protection of minorities the only intention was to weaken the majority of the good, while now that the majority is made up of those who are corrupt, the minority of the good can be crushed without mercy: recent history does not lack illuminating precedents in this regard.
The tyrannical nature of Traditionis custodes
In my opinion, it is not so much this or that point of the Motu Proprio that is disconcerting, but rather its overall tyrannical nature accompanied by a substantial falsity of the arguments put forward to justify the decisions imposed. Scandal is also given by the abuse of power by an authority that has its own raison d’etre not in impeding or limiting the Graces that are bestowed on its adherents through the Church but rather in promoting those Graces; not in taking away Glory from the Divine Majesty with a rite that winks at the Protestants but rather in rendering that Glory perfectly; not in sowing doctrinal and moral errors but rather in condemning and eradicating them. Here too, the parallel with what takes place in the civil world is all too evident: our rulers abuse their power just as our Prelates do, imposing norms and limitations in violation of the most basic principles of law. Furthermore, it is precisely those who are constituted in authority, on both fronts, who often avail themselves of a mere de facto recognition by the rank and file – citizens and faithful – even when the methods by which they have taken power to violate, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of the law. The case of Italy – in which a non-elected Government legislates on the obligation to be vaccinated and on the green pass, violating the Italian Constitution and the natural rights of the Italian people – does not seem very dissimilar to the situation in which the Church finds herself, with a resigned Pontiff replaced by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, chosen – or at least appreciated and supported – by the Saint Gallen Mafia and the ultra-progressive Episcopate. It remains obvious that there is a profound crisis of authority, both civil and religious, in which those who exercise power do so contrary to those whom they are supposed to protect, and above all contrary to the purpose for which that authority has been established.
Analogies between the deep church and the deep state
I think that it has been understood that both civil society and the Church suffer from the same cancer that struck the former with the French Revolution and the latter with the Second Vatican Council: in both cases, Masonic thought is at the foundation of the systematic demolition of the institution and its replacement with a simulacrum that maintains its external appearances, hierarchical structure, and coercive force, but with purposes diametrically opposed to those it ought to have.
At this point, citizens on the one hand and the faithful on the other find themselves in the condition of having to disobey earthly authority in order obey divine authority, which governs Nations and the Church. Obviously the “reactionaries” – that is, those who do not accept the perversion of authority and want to remain faithful to the Church of Christ and to their Homeland – constitute an element of dissent that cannot be tolerated in any way, and therefore they must be discredited, delegitimized, threatened and deprived of their rights in the name of a “public good” that is no longer the bonum commune but its contrary. Whether accused of conspiracy theories, traditionalism, or fundamentalism, these few survivors of a world that they want to make disappear constitutes a threat to the accomplishment of the global plan, just at the most crucial moment of its realization. This is why power is reacting in such an open, brazen, and violent way: the evidence of the fraud risks being understood by a greater number of people, of bringing them together in an organized resistance, of breaking down the wall of silence and ferocious censorship imposed by the mainstream media.
We can therefore understand the violence of the reactions of authority and prepare ourselves for a strong and determined opposition, continuing to avail ourselves of those rights that have been abusively and illicitly denied us. Of course, we may find ourselves having to exercise those rights in an incomplete way when we are denied the opportunity to travel if we do not have our green pass or if the Bishop prohibits us from celebrating the Mass of all time in a church in his Diocese, but our resistance to abuses of authority will still be able to count on the Graces that the Lord will not cease to grant us – in particular the virtue of Fortitude that is so indispensable in times of tyranny.
The normality that frightens
If on the one hand, we can see how the persecution of dissenters are well-organized and planned, on the other hand, we cannot fail to recognize the fragmentation of the opposition. Bergoglio knows well that every movement of dissent must be silenced, above all by creating internal division and isolating priests and the faithful. A fruitful and fraternal collaboration between diocesan clergy, religious, and the Ecclesia Dei institutes is something he must avert because it would permit the diffusion of a knowledge of the ancient rite, as well as a precious help in the ministry. But this would mean making the Tridentine Mass a “normality” in the daily life of the faithful, something that is not tolerable for Francis. For this reason, diocesan clergy are left at the mercy of their Ordinaries, while the Ecclesia Dei Institutes are placed under the authority of the Congregation of Religious, as a sad prelude to a destiny that has already been sealed. Let us not forget the fate that befell the flourishing religious Orders, guilty of being blessed with numerous vocations born and nurtured precisely thanks to the hated traditional Liturgy and the faithful observance of the Rule. This is why certain forms of insistence on the ceremonial aspect of the celebrations risk legitimizing the provisions of the commissar and play Bergoglio’s game.
Even in the civil world, it is precisely by encouraging certain excesses by the dissenters that those in power marginalize them and legitimize repressive measures towards them: just think of the case of the no-vax movements and how easy it is to discredit the legitimate protests of citizens by emphasizing the eccentricities and inconsistencies of a few. And it is all too easy to condemn a few agitated people who out of exasperation set fire to a vaccine center, overshadowing millions of honest persons who take to the streets in order not to be branded with the health passport or fired if they do not allow themselves to be vaccinated.
Do not stay isolated and disorganized
Another important element for all of us is the necessity of giving visibility to our composed protest and ensuring a form of coordination for public action. With the abolition of Summorum Pontificum we find ourselves taken back twenty years. This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest. And it is not a given that the entire Episcopate – as we are seeing in the last few days with relief – will be willing to passively submit to forms of authoritarianism that certainly do not contribute to bringing peace to souls. The Code of Canon Law guarantees the Bishops the possibility of dispensing their faithful from particular or universal laws, under certain conditions. Secondly, the people of God have well understood the subversive nature of Traditionis Custodes and are instinctively led to wanting to get to know something that arouses such disapproval among progressives. Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated. It will be our duty, whether as Ministers of God or as simple faithful, to show firmness and serene resistance to such abuse, walking along the way of our own little Calvary with a supernatural spirit, while the new high priests and scribes of the people mock us and label us as fanatics. It will be our humility, the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls. And let us remember that, since we have received much, much will be demanded of us.
Restitutio in integrum
What father among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent instead? (Lk 11:11-12). Now we can understand the meaning of these words, considering with pain and torment of heart the cynicism of a father who gives us the stones of a soulless liturgy, the serpents of a corrupted doctrine, and the scorpions of an adulterated morality. And who reaches the point of dividing the flock of the Lord between those who accept the Novus Ordo and those who want to remain faithful to the Mass of our fathers, exactly as civil rulers are pitting the vaccinated and unvaccinated against one another.
When Our Lord entered Jerusalem seated on a donkey’s colt, while the crowd was spreading cloaks as He passed, the Pharisees asked Him: “Master, rebuke your disciples.” The Lord answered them: “I say to you that if these are silent, the stones will cry out” (Lk 19:28-40). For sixty years the stones of our churches have been crying out, from which the Holy Sacrifice has been twice proscribed. The marble of the altars, the columns of the basilicas, and the soaring vaults of the cathedrals cry out as well, because those stones, consecrated to the worship of the true God, today are abandoned and deserted, or profaned by abhorrent rites, or transformed into parking lots and supermarkets, precisely as a result of that Council that we insist on defending. Let us also cry out: we who are living stones of the temple of God. Let us cry with faith to the Lord, so that he may give a voice to His disciples who today are mute, and so that the intolerable theft for which the administrators of the Lord’s Vineyard are responsible may be repaired.
But in order for that theft to be repaired, it is necessary that we show ourselves to be worthy of the treasures that have been stolen from us. Let us try to do this by our holiness of life, by giving example of the virtues, by prayer and the frequent reception of the Sacraments. And let us not forget that there are hundreds of good priests who still know the meaning of the Sacred Unction by which they have been ordained Ministers of Christ and dispensers of the Mystery of God. The Lord deigns to descend on our altars even when they are erected in cellars or attics. Contrariisquibuslibet minime obstantibus [Anything to the contrary notwithstanding].
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop28 July 2021
Ss. Nazarii et Celsi Martyrum,
Victoris I Papae et Martyris ac
Innocentii I Papae et Confessoris
Saturday 31 July 2021
Living rent free in the mind of "Reverend" Michael Coren. Still!
Michael, I know you'll read this. I might live rent-free in your mind but if you are going to quote me, be sure to use attribution, that is the cost of it and your rent payment is months behind. This is not the first time you've done this, old buddy, old Knight of Columbus brother. However, given that you misattributed a quote from me before on CBC News to a journalist they fired, and which you and all at The National were forced to retract, I can see your concern.
Vox Cantoris: Living rent-free in "Reverend" Michael Coren's brain.
Vox Cantoris: Michael Coren declares that Vox Cantoris makes a "heavy mark!"
I seem to recall you were a great "fan" of the Traditional Latin Mass when you were a regular and "loyal" member of the Oratory parishes of St. Vincent de Paul and Holy Family.
Thomas J. Rosica
Michael Coren
Next?
Toronto priest, George Edward Keays arrested for sexual assault
A Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, George Edward Keays, 71 of Innisfil, Ontario, was arrested yesterday and charged with sexual assault. Toronto Police report the allegation that a 28-year-old man was sexually assaulted over a seven-month period from January to July of this year. Police were called to a sexual assault on Thursday in the area of Queen Street East and Parliament Street. Father Keays is or was the Chaplain at The Good Shepherd Mission located at 412 Queen Street East in the immediate vicinity of Queen and Parliament Streets. Confidential sources indicate he may be on medical leave.
A 2018 article on The Good Shepherd Mission in the Toronto Sun featured Father Keays.
Martin Mosebach on Bergoglio's attempt to destroy the traditional Holy Mass
First Things features a piece by Mosebach on the cruel, uncharitable and vindictively unjust and illegal action of Bergoglio in his attempt to create the church of the new paradigm.
I have commented on this blog, on social media and in the discussion that this illegal attempt at suppression by Bergoglio, (he will not succeed), is not essentially about the form of the liturgy or the language. It is not about smells and bells and chants. Those are all part of a properly offered Novus Ordo. No, it is about something more. It is about what the Mass of All Time represents. It is what it signifies, it is what it teaches and proclaims. It is about the perpetual sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and right worship to Almighty God and it is about one word, doctrine! It is about a new church, a new paradigm and worship of the Second Vatican Council as a new Pentecost, a lie and deception if ever there were one.
Moseback agrees.
Perhaps the Mass is not what most concerns the pope. Francis appears to sympathize with the “hermeneutic of rupture”—that theological school that asserts that with the Second Vatican Council the Church broke with her tradition. If that is true, then indeed every celebration of the traditional liturgy must be prevented. For as long as the old Latin Mass is celebrated in any garage, the memory of the previous two thousand years will not have been extinguished.
Wednesday 28 July 2021
No, Michael Swan of Toronto's Catholic Register - the Missal of 1962 WAS NOT ABROGATED by the Second Vatican Council and Marcel Lefebvre was never declared a "Schismatic!'
Dioceses review Latin Mass restrictions (catholicregister.org)
Toronto's Catholic Register has written on the matter of Bergoglio's cruel and vindictive punishment of faithful Catholics attached to the traditional Holy Mass. Michael Swan, never known for his accuracy has at least proved himself consistent.
Once again, this blogger must correct Mr. Swan the Assistant to the Editor of the little read and mostly ignored Catholic Register.
He states that the "1962 Mass was abrogated by the Second Vatican Council." First, Swanny Boy, it is not the 1962 Mass it was the last Typical Edition of the Missal. But what does Michael know? Further, he outright contradicts Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum when he said that the Missal "was never abrogated!" If that is not enough, he declares Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre a "schismatic," something that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI ever did. The excommunication for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate and in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the event was referred to as "a schismatic act" which is a far cry from a formal declaration of personal or corporate schism.
A little education for little Mikey. Buddy, go and read Sacrosanctam Concilium and tell us all where it was "abrogated." Read there about the use of Latin, Gregorian chant and that there was no call to set aside the Mass and come up with a new one. Go and take a look in your archives for a 1965 Roman Missal and tell us what that was. That, Mikey, was the Mass of Vatican II. What came after was not, it was an "on the spot banal product," as per then Cardinal Ratzinger.
This is, however, what we have come to expect from Toronto's Catholic Register.
Line your bird cage with it or train your puppy, that's about what it's worth.
Tuesday 27 July 2021
While Bergoglio attacks the faithful and the Mass he ignores the Vatican perverts on hook-up app!
As if the putrid Vatican can get any more disgusting. From financial malfeasance to perversions and gay hook-up apps, Bergoglio ignores all these and distracts with attacks on the faithful and the Mass. Some days, or weeks for that matter, this blog writes itself. These are those days.
Monday 26 July 2021
Dutch Bishop says Bergoglio has "Shot himself in the foot!"
The statements from bishops in many places with regards to the action by Bergoglio to attempt to abrogate the Holy Mass codified by Pope Pius V continues. This one by Bishop Robertus Gerardus Leonia Maria Mutsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop of ’s-Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-Duc), Netherlands hits pretty hard. My emphasis.
Pope Francis promotes synodality: everyone should be able to talk, everyone should be heard. This was hardly the case with his recently published motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, an ukase [imperial edict] that must put an immediate termination on the traditional Latin Mass. In so doing, Francis puts a big bold line through Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict’s motu proprio that gave ample scope to the old Mass.
The fact that Francis here uses the word of power without any
consultation indicates that he is losing authority. This was already evident earlier when the German Bishops’ Conference took no notice of the Pope’s advice regarding the synodality process. The same occurred in the United States when Pope Francis called on the Bishops’ Conference not to prepare a document on worthy Communion. The pope must have thought that it would be better [in this case] not to give advice any more, but rather a writ of execution, now that we’re talking about the traditional Mass!The language used looks very much like a declaration of war. Every pope since Paul VI has always left openings for the old Mass. If any changes were made [in that opening], they were minor revisions—see, for example, the indults of 1984 and 1989. John Paul II firmly believed that bishops should be generous in allowing the Tridentine Mass. Benedict opened the door wide with Summorum Pontificum: “What was sacred then is sacred now.” Francis slams the door hard through Traditionis Custodes. It feels like a betrayal and is a slap in the face to his predecessors.
By the way, the Church has never abolished liturgies. Not even Trent [did so]. Francis breaks completely with this tradition. The motu proprio contains, briefly and powerfully, some propositions and commands. Things are explained in more detail by means of an accompanying longer statement. This statement contains quite a few factual errors. One of them is the claim that what Paul VI did after Vatican II is the same as what Pius V did after Trent. This is completely far from the truth. Remember that before that time [of Trent] there were various transcribed manuscripts in circulation and local liturgies had sprung up here and there. The situation was a mess.
Trent wanted to restore the liturgies, remove inaccuracies, and check for orthodoxy. Trent was not concerned with rewriting the liturgy, nor with new additions, new Eucharistic prayers, a new lectionary, or a new calendar. It was all about ensuring uninterrupted organic continuity. The missal of 1570 harks back to the missal of 1474 and so on back to the fourth century. There was continuity from the fourth century onwards. After the fifteenth century, there are four more centuries of continuity. From time to time, there were at most a few minor changes—an addition of a feast, commemoration, or rubric.
In the conciliar document Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II asked for liturgical reforms. All things considered, this was a conservative document. Latin was maintained, Gregorian chants retained their legitimate place in the liturgy. However, the developments that followed Vatican II are far removed from the council documents. The infamous “spirit of the council” is nowhere to be found in the council texts themselves. Only 17% of the orations of the old missal of Trent can be found in the new missal of Paul VI. You can hardly speak of continuity, of an organic development. Benedict recognized this, and for that reason gave ample space to the Old Mass. He even said that no one needed his permission (“what was sacred then is still sacred now”).
Pope Francis is now pretending that his motu proprio belongs to the organic development of the Church, which utterly contradicts the reality. By making the Latin Mass practically impossible, he finally breaks with the age-old liturgical tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Liturgy is not a toy of popes; it is the heritage of the Church. The Old Mass is not about nostalgia or taste. The pope should be the guardian of Tradition; the pope is a gardener, not a manufacturer. Canon law is not merely a matter of positive law; there is also such a thing as natural law and divine law, and, moreover, there is such a thing as Tradition that cannot simply be brushed aside.
What Pope Francis is doing here has nothing to do with evangelization and even less to do with mercy. It is more like ideology. BINGO!
Go to any parish where the Old Mass is celebrated. What do you find there? People who just want to be Catholic. These are generally not people who engage in theological disputes, nor are they against Vatican II (though they are against the way it was implemented). They love the Latin Mass for its sacredness, its transcendence, the salvation of souls that is central to it, the dignity of the liturgy. You encounter large families; people feel welcome. It is only celebrated in a small number of places. Why does the pope want to deny people this? I come back to what I said earlier: it is ideology. It is either Vatican II—including its implementation, with all its aberrations—or nothing! The relatively small number of believers (a number growing, by the way, as the Novus Ordo is collapsing) who feel at home with the traditional Mass must and will be eradicated. That is ideology and evil.
If you really want to evangelize, to be truly merciful, to support Catholic families, then you hold the Tridentine Mass in honor. As of the date of the motu proprio, the Old Mass may not be celebrated in parish churches (where then?); you need explicit permission from your bishop, who may only allow it on certain days; for those who will be ordained in the future and want to celebrate the Old Mass, the bishop must seek advice from Rome. How dictatorial, how unpastoral, how unmerciful do you want to be!
Francis, in Article 1 of his motu proprio, calls the Novus Ordo (the present Mass) “the unique expression of the Lex Orandi of the Roman Rite.” He therefore no longer distinguishes between the Ordinary Form (Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine Mass). It has always been said that both are expressions of the Lex Orandi, not just the Novus Ordo. Again, the Old Mass was never abolished! I never hear from Bergoglio about the many liturgical abuses that exist here and there in countless parishes. In parishes everything is possible—except the Tridentine Mass. All weapons are thrown into the fray to eradicate the Old Mass.
Why? For God’s sake, why? What is this obsession of Francis to want to uproot that small group of traditionalists? The pope should be the guardian of tradition, not the jailer of tradition. While Amoris Laetitia excelled in vagueness, Traditionis Custodes is a perfectly clear declaration of war.
I suspect that Francis is shooting himself in the foot with this motu proprio. For the Society of St. Pius X, it will prove to be good news. They will never have been able to guess how indebted they’d be to Pope Francis….
+ Rob Mutsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop
An evil oekaze of Pope Francis – Fortes in Fide
Sunday 25 July 2021
It is Sunday in Toronto - Get thee to a Latin Mass - there is a Mass for you!
The late Very Reverend Jonathan Robinson, C.O. offers the Holy Mass
at the Toronto Oratory Church of the Holy Family
What we must do, as faithful in Christ, is to not despair and not abandon Our Mother, the Church at this time of Her suffering from abuse and a hostile takeover by malefactors.
In Toronto and elsewhere, go to the Traditional Latin Mass. Go today and always. If you have never been, go anyway. Don't worry about not understanding or knowing what to do. Just go.
St. Vincent de Paul at 9:30 A.M.
St. Patrick's Schomberg at 11:00 A.M.
St. Lawrence the Martyr at 1:00 P.M.
If so inclined.
Church of the Transfiguration at 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M.
Cathedral of the Transfiguration in Markham at 5:00 P.M. NO PRE-REGISTRATION!
Saturday 24 July 2021
Raymond Cardinal Burke on Bergoglio's evil action - the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes
Many faithful – laity, ordained and consecrated – have expressed to me the profound distress which the Motu Proprio «Traditionis Custodes» has brought them. Those who are attached to the Usus Antiquior (More Ancient Usage) [UA], what Pope Benedict XVI called the Extraordinary Form, of the Roman Rite are deeply disheartened by the severity of the discipline which the Motu Proprio imposes and offended by the language it employs to describe them, their attitudes and their conduct. As a member of the faithful, who also has an intense bond with the UA, I fully share in their sentiments of profound sorrow.
As a Bishop of the Church and as a Cardinal, in communion with the Roman Pontiff and with a particular responsibility to assist him in his pastoral care and governance of the universal Church, I offer the following observations:
1. In a preliminary way, it must be asked why the Latin or official text of the Motu Proprio has not yet been published. As far as I know, the Holy See promulgated the text in Italian and English versions, and, afterwards, in German and Spanish translations. Since the English version is called a translation, it must be assumed that the original text is in Italian. If such be the case, there are translations of significant texts in the English version which are not coherent with the Italian version. In Article 1, the important Italian adjective, “unica”, is translated into English as “unique”, instead of “only.” In Article 4, the important Italian verb, “devono”, is translated into English as “should”, instead of “must.”
2. First of all, it is important to establish, in this and the following two observations (nos. 3 and 4), the essence of what the Motu Proprio contains. It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church, namely the UA. According to the Holy Father, those who worship according to this usage make a choice which rejects “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’,” a choice which “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”
3. Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action, not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis, a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force. The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation regarding the worship of God, the most important aspect of their life in the Church, with a view to its implementation. The legislation, in fact, contains many elements that require study regarding its application.
4. What is more, the legislation places restrictions on the UA, which signal its ultimate elimination, for example, the prohibition of the use of a parish church for worship according to the UA and the establishment of certain days for such worship. In his letter to the Bishops of the world, Pope Francis indicates two principles which are to guide the Bishops in the implementation of the Motu Proprio. The first principle is “to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.” The second principle is “to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God’.”
5. Seemingly, the legislation is directed to the correction of an aberration principally attributable to the “the desire and wishes” of certain priests. In that regard, I must observe, especially in the light of my service as a Diocesan Bishop, it was not the priests who, because of their desires, urged the faithful to request the Extraordinary Form. In fact, I shall always be deeply grateful to the many priests who, notwithstanding their already heavy commitments, generously served the faithful who legitimately requested the UA. The two principles cannot help but communicate to devout faithful who have a deep appreciation and attachment to the encounter with Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite that they suffer from an aberration which can be tolerated for a time but must ultimately be eradicated.
6. From whence comes the severe and revolutionary action of the Holy Father? The Motu Proprio and the Letter indicate two sources: first, “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” through “a detailed consultation of the bishops” conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, and, second, “the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Regarding the responses to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire” sent to the Bishops, Pope Francis writes to the Bishops: “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”
7. Regarding the sources, is it to be supposed that the situation which preoccupies and saddens the Roman Pontiff exists generally in the Church or only in certain places? Given the importance attributed to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire,” and the gravity of the matter it was treating, it would seem essential that the results of the consultation be made public, along with the indication of its scientific character. In the same way, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was of the opinion that such a revolutionary measure must be taken, it would seemingly have prepared an Instruction or similar document to address it.
8. The Congregation enjoys the expertise and long experience of certain officials – first, serving in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and then in the Fourth Section of the Congregation – who have been charged to treat questions regarding the UA. One must ask whether the “opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” reflected the consultation of those with the greatest knowledge of the faithful devoted to the UA?
9. Regarding the perceived grave evil constituted by the UA, I have a wide experience over many years and in many different places with the faithful who regularly worship God according to the UA. In all honesty, I must say that these faithful, in no way, reject “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’.” Neither have I found them out of communion with the Church or divisive within the Church. On the contrary, they love the Roman Pontiff, their Bishops and priests, and, when others have made the choice of schism, they have wanted always to remain in full communion with the Church, faithful to the Roman Pontiff, often at the cost of great suffering. They, in no way, ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology.
10. The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.” The movement in question is the Society of Saint Pius X. While both Roman Pontiffs desired the healing of the schism in question, as should all good Catholics, they also desired to maintain in continuance the UA for those who remained in the full communion of the Church and did not become schismatic. Pope Saint John Paul II showed pastoral charity, in various important ways, to faithful Catholics attached to the UA, for example, granting the indult for the UA but also establishing the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a society of apostolic life for priests attached to the UA. In the book, Last Testament in his own words, Pope Benedict XVI responded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202). In fact, many who presently desire to worship according to the UA has no experience and perhaps no knowledge of the history and present situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. They are simply attracted to the holiness of the UA.
11. Yes, there are individuals and even certain groups which espouse radical positions, even as is the case in other sectors of Church life, but they are, in no way, characteristic of the greater and ever increasing number of faithful who desire to worship God according to the UA. The Sacred Liturgy is not a matter of so-called “Church politics” but the fullest and most perfect encounter with Christ for us in this world. The faithful, in question, among whom are numerous young adults and young married couples with children, encounter Christ, through the UA, Who draws them ever closer to Himself through the reform of their lives and cooperation with the divine grace which flows from His glorious pierced Heart into their hearts. They have no need to make a judgment regarding those who worship God according to the Usus Recentior (the More Recent Usage, what Pope Benedict XVI called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) [UR], first promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI. As one priest, member of an institute of the consecrated life, which serves these faithful, remarked to me: I regularly confess to a priest, according to the UR, and participate, on special occasions, in the Holy Mass according to the UR. He concluded: Why would anyone accuse me of not accepting its validity?
12. If there are situations of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and the discipline of the Church, justice demands that they be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. Justice is the minimum and irreplaceable condition of charity. Pastoral charity cannot be served, if the requirements of justice are not observed.
13. A schismatic spirit or actual schism is always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA fosters schism. For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like me, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty. I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it. Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation. For those who have come to the UA for the first time, its rich beauty, especially as it manifests the action of Christ renewing sacramentally His Sacrifice on Calvary through the priest who acts in His person, has drawn them closer to Christ. I know many faithful for whom the experience of Divine Worship according to the UA has strongly inspired their conversion to the Faith or their seeking Full Communion with the Catholic Church. Also, numerous priests who have returned to the celebration of the UA or who have learned it for the first time have told me how deeply it has enriched their priestly spirituality. This is not to mention the saints all along the Christian centuries for whom the UA nourished a heroic practice of the virtues. Some have given their lives to defend the offering of this very form of divine worship.
14. For myself and for others who have received so many powerful graces through participation in the Sacred Liturgy, according to the UA, it is inconceivable that it could now be characterized as something detrimental to the unity of the Church and to its very life. In this regard, it is difficult to understand the meaning of Article 1 of the Motu Proprio: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the only (unica, in the Italian version which seemingly is the original text) expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The UA is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so. From the very time of the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, in recognition of the great difference between the UR and the UA, the continued celebration of the Sacraments, according to the UA, was permitted for certain convents and monasteries and also for certain individuals and groups. Pope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to the Bishops of the World, accompanying the Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificum», made clear that the Roman Missal in use before the Missal of Pope Paul VI, “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”
15. But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline that has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church. [Emphases added]
16. It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.
17. Pope Francis states in his letter to the Bishops: “Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique [only] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The total abrogation in question, in justice, requires that each individual norm, instruction, permission and custom be studied, to verify that it “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”
18. Here, it is necessary to observe that the reform of the Sacred Liturgy carried out by Pope Saint Pius V, in accord with the indications of the Council of Trent, was quite different from what happened after the Second Vatican Council. Pope Saint Pius V essentially put in order the form of the Roman Rite as it had existed already for centuries. Likewise, some ordering of the Roman Rite has been done in the centuries since that time by the Roman Pontiff, but the form of the Rite remained the same. What happened after the Second Vatican Council constituted a radical change in the form of the Roman Rite, with the elimination of many of the prayers, significant ritual gestures, for example, the many genuflections, and the frequent kissing of the altar, and other elements which are rich in the expression of the transcendent reality – the union of heaven with earth – which is the Sacred Liturgy. Pope Paul VI already lamented the situation in a particularly dramatic way by the homily he delivered on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1972. Pope Saint John Paul II laboured throughout his pontificate, and, in particular, during its last years, to address serious liturgical abuses. Both Roman Pontiffs, and Pope Benedict XVI, as well, strove to conform the liturgical reform to the actual teaching of the Second Vatican Council, since the proponents and agents of the abuse, invoked the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council” to justify themselves.
19. Article 6 of the Motu Proprio transfers the competence of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life devoted to the UA to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The observance of the UA belongs to the very heart of the charism of these institutes and societies. While the Congregation is competent to respond to questions regarding the canon law for such institutes and societies, it is not competent to alter their charism and constitutions, in order to hasten the seemingly desired elimination of the UA in the Church.
There are many other observations to be made, but these seem to be the most important. I hope that they may be helpful to all the faithful and, in particular, to the faithful who worship according to the UA, in responding to the Motu Proprio «Traditionis Custodes» and the accompanying Letter to the Bishops. The severity of these documents naturally generates a profound distress and even a sense of confusion and abandonment. I pray that the faithful will not give way to discouragement but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors, and in their love of the Sacred Liturgy.
In that regard, I urge the faithful, to pray fervently for Pope Francis, the Bishops and priests. At the same time, in accord with can. 212, §3, “[a]ccording to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” Finally, in gratitude to Our Lord for the Sacred Liturgy, the greatest gift of Himself to us in the Church, may they continue to safeguard and cultivate the ancient and ever new More Ancient Usage or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
Rome, 22 July 2021
Feast of Saint Mary Magdalene, Penitent
Friday 23 July 2021
Letter from Father Pagliarani about the motu proprio “Traditionis custodes”
THIS MASS, OUR MASS, MUST REALLY BE FOR US LIKE THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE IN THE GOSPEL, FOR WHICH WE ARE READY TO RENOUNCE EVERYTHING, FOR WHICH WE ARE READY TO SELL EVERYTHING.
Dear members and friends of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,
The motu proprio Traditionis custodes and the letter that accompanied it have caused a profound upheaval in the so-called traditionalist movement. We can point out, quite logically, that the era of the hermeneutics of continuity, with its equivocations, illusions and impossible efforts, is radically over – swept aside with a wave of a sleeve. These clear-cut measures do not directly affect the Society of Saint Pius X. However, they must be an occasion for us to reflect deeply on the situation. To do so, it is necessary to step back and ask ourselves a question that is both old and new: Why is the Tridentine Mass still the apple of discord after fifty years?
First of all, we must remember that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the continuation in time of the most bitter struggle that has ever existed: the battle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. This combat culminated at Calvary in the triumph of Our Blessed Lord. It was for this struggle and it was for this victory that he became incarnate. Since Our Lord’s victory was through the Cross and through His Precious Blood, it is understandable that its perpetuation will also be marked by conflicts and contradictions. Every Catholic is called to this combat. Our Lord reminded us of this when He said that He came “to bring the sword upon the earth” (Matt. 10:34). It is not surprising that the Mass, which perfectly expresses Our Lord’s definitive victory over sin through His atoning Sacrifice, is itself a sign of contradiction.
But why has the Mass become a sign of contradiction within the Church itself? The answer is simple and increasingly clear. After fifty years, the various elements that confirm the answer have become obvious to all well informed Catholics: the Tridentine Mass expresses and conveys a conception of Christian life – and consequently, a conception of the Catholic Church – that is absolutely incompatible with the ecclesiology that emerged from the Second Vatican Council. The problem is not simply liturgical, aesthetic or purely technical. The problem is simultaneously doctrinal, moral, spiritual, ecclesiological and liturgical. In a nutshell, it is a problem that affects all aspects of the Church’s life, without exception. It is a question of faith.
On one side is the Mass of All Times. It is the standard of a Church that defies the world and is certain of victory, for its battle is nothing less that the continuation of the battle that Our Blessed Lord waged to destroy sin and to destroy the kingdom of Satan. It is by the Mass and through the Mass that Our Lord enlists Catholic souls into His ranks, by sharing with them both His Cross and His victory. From all this follows a fundamentally militant conception of Christian life that is characterised by two elements: a spirit of sacrifice and an unwavering supernatural hope.
On the other side stands the Mass of Paul VI. It is an authentic expression of a Church that wants to live in harmony with the world and that lends an ear to the world’s demands. It represents a Church that, in the final analysis, no longer needs to fight against the world because it no longer has anything to reproach the world. Here is a Church that no longer has anything to teach the world because it listens to the powers of the world. It is a Church that no longer needs the Sacrifice of Our Blessed Lord because, having lost the notion of sin, it no longer has anything for which to atone. Here is a Church that no longer has the mission of restoring the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because it wants to make its contribution to the creation on this earth of a better world that is freer, more egalitarian and more eco-responsible – and all this with purely human means. This humanist mission that the men of the Church have given themselves must necessarily be matched by a liturgy that is equally humanist and emptied of any notion of sacredness.
This battle that has been waged for the past fifty years, which has just seen a highly significant event on July 16th, is not a simple war between two rites: it is indeed a war between two different and opposing conceptions of the Catholic Church and of Christian life – conceptions that are absolutely irreducible and incompatible with each other. In paraphrasing Saint Augustin, one could say that the two Masses have built two cities: the Mass of All Times has built a Christian city; the New Mass seeks to build a humanist and secular city.
Since Almighty God has allowed all this, it is certainly for a greater good. Firstly for ourselves, who have the undeserved good fortune of knowing the Tridentine Mass and who can benefit from it! We possess a treasure with a value we do not always appreciate, and which we perhaps preserve too much out of simple habit. When something precious is attacked or scorned, we begin to appreciate better its true value. May this “shock”, provoked by the harshness of the official texts of July 16th, serve to renew, deepen and rediscover our attachment to the Tridentine Mass! This Mass – our Mass – must really be for us like the pearl of great price in the Gospel, for which we are ready to renounce everything, for which we are ready to sell everything. He who is not prepared to shed his blood for this Mass is not worthy to celebrate it! He who is not prepared to give up everything to protect it is not worthy to attend it!
This should be our first reaction to these events that have just shaken the Catholic Church. Our reaction, as Catholic priests and as Catholic laity, must be profound and more far-reaching than all those feeble and sometimes hopeless commentaries.
Our Blessed Lord certainly has another objective in mind in allowing this new attack on the Tridentine Mass. No one can doubt that in recent years many priests and faithful have discovered this Mass, and that through it they have encountered a new spiritual and moral horizon, which has opened the door to the sanctification of their souls. The latest measures taken against the Mass will force these souls to draw all the consequences of what they have discovered: they must now choose – with all the elements of discernment that are at their disposal – what is necessary for every well-informed Catholic conscience. Many souls will find themselves faced with an important choice that will affect their faith, because – and let us say it once more – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the supreme expression of a doctrinal and moral universe. It is therefore a question of choosing the Catholic faith in its entirety and through it, choosing Our Lord Jesus Christ, with His Cross, His Sacrifice and His universal kingship. It is a matter of choosing His Precious Blood, of imitating the Crucified One and of following Him to the end, by a complete, rigorous and coherent fidelity.
The Society of Saint Pius X has the duty to assist all those souls who are currently in dismay and are confused. Firstly, we have the duty to offer them the certitude that the Tridentine Mass can never disappear from the face of the earth. This is an absolutely necessary sign of hope. Moreover, each of us, whether priest or faithful, must extend a warm helping hand to them, for he who has no desire to share the riches he enjoys is, in all truth, unworthy of possessing them. Only in this way will we truly love souls and show our love for the Church. For every soul that we win to Our Blessed Lord’s Cross, and to the immense love that He manifested through His Sacrifice, will be a soul truly won to His Church and to the charity that animates His Church, which must be ours, especially at this present time.
It is to Our Lady of Sorrows that we entrust these intentions. It is to her that we address our prayers, since no one has penetrated deeper than Our Blessed Lady, the mystery of the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His victory on the Cross. There is no one greater than Mary who has been so intimately associated with His sufferings and His triumph. It is in her hands that Our Blessed Lord has placed the whole Catholic Church. It is therefore to her that the most precious thing in the Catholic Church has been entrusted: the Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Menzingen, July 22nd, 2021.
Feast of Saint Mary Magdalen.
Don Davide Pagliarani,