Mendacious Masters of Ideological Misrepresentation

The conciliar “popes” and their factotums have perfected the art of misappropriating the work of Holy Mother Church’s Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and other learned scholars in a constantly unremitting effort to make defenders of the Holy Faith appear to be prophets of everything to do with the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s Modernist “updating” of dogma and a veritable “renewal” of what are claimed to be the “ancient sources” of the Sacred Liturgy.

The late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, for example, constantly tried to coerce perjury from the Apostles, Fathers, Doctors, and other Saints in a “new theological” effort to make it appear to the uninformed that his own falsehoods were perfectly in accord with the teaching that has been handed down from Apostolic times to the present.

Even though most defenders of all things Ratzinger/Benedict acted as veritable Mister Magoos when their mythical “restorer of tradition” tried to turn Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Saint Paul the Apostle into veritable witnesses on behalf of the impure, blasphemous, and heretical revolutionary named Martin Luther:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On the journey we have undertaken under the guidance of St. Paul, we now wish to reflect on a topic that is at the center of the controversies of the century of the Reformation: the issue of justification. How is a man just in the eyes of God? When Paul met the Risen One on the road to Damascus he was a fulfilled man: irreproachable in regard to justice derived from the law (cf. Philippians 3:6); he surpassed many of his contemporaries in the observance of the Mosaic prescriptions and was zealous in upholding the traditions of his forefathers (cf. Galatians 1:14).

The illumination of Damascus changed his life radically: He began to regard all his merits, achievements of a most honest religious career, as "loss" in face of the sublimity of knowledge of Jesus Christ (cf. Philippians 3:8). The Letter to the Philippians gives us a moving testimony of Paul's turning from a justice based on the law and achieved by observance of the prescribed works, to a justice based on faith in Christ: He understood all that up to now had seemed a gain to him was in fact a loss before God, and because of this decided to dedicate his whole life to Jesus Christ (cf. Philippians 3:7). The treasure hidden in the field, and the precious pearl in whose possession he invests everything, were no longer the works of the law, but Jesus Christ, his Lord.

The relationship between Paul and the Risen One is so profound that it impels him to affirm that Christ was not only his life, but his living, to the point that to be able to reach him, even death was a gain (cf. Philippians 1:21). It was not because he did not appreciate life, but because he understood that for him, living no longer had another objective; therefore, he no longer had a desire other than to reach Christ, as in an athletic competition, to be with him always. The Risen One had become the beginning and end of his existence, the reason and goal of his running. Only concern for the growth in faith of those he had evangelized and solicitude for all the Churches he had founded (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:28), induced him to slow down the run toward his only Lord, to wait for his disciples, so that they would be able to run to the goal with him. If in the previous observance of the law he had nothing to reproach himself from the point of view of moral integrity, once overtaken by Christ he preferred not to judge himself (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:3-4), but limited himself to run to conquer the one who had conquered him (cf. Philippians 3:12).

It is precisely because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus that Paul places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ. The alternative between justice through the works of the law and justice through faith in Christ thus becomes one of the dominant themes that runs through his letters: "We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified" (Galatians 2:15-16).

And, he reaffirms to the Christians of Rome that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:23-24). And he adds: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Ibid. 28). Luther translated this point as "justified by faith alone." I will return to this at the end of the catechesis.

First, we must clarify what is the "law" from which we have been freed and what are those "works of the law" that do not justify. Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. So, the words "panta mou estin" (everything is licit for me) circulated in Corinth. It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.

Therefore, what is the meaning of the law from which we have been freed and that does not save? For St. Paul, as well as for all his contemporaries, the word law meant the Torah in its totality, namely, the five books of Moses. In the Pharisaic interpretation, the Torah implied what Paul had studied and made his own, a collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man -- particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc. These behaviors often appear in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries. All these observances that express a social, cultural and religious identity had come to be singularly important at the time of Hellenistic culture, beginning in the 3rd century B.C.

This culture, which had become the universal culture of the time, was a seemingly rational culture, an apparently tolerant polytheist culture, which constituted a strong pressure toward cultural uniformity and thus threatened the identity of Israel, which was politically obliged to enter into this common identity of Hellenistic culture with the consequent loss of its own identity, loss hence also of the precious inheritance of the faith of their Fathers, of faith in the one God and in God's promises.

Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened Jewish identity but also faith in the one God and his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith; this wall would consist precisely of the Jewish observances and prescriptions. Paul, who had learned these observances precisely in their defensive function of the gift of God, of the inheritance of the faith in only one God, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of Christians: That is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ's resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the only true God became the God of all peoples.

The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.

That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).

Paul knows that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same in next Sunday's Gospel for the solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What I ask is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked? So justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel, we can say: love alone, charity alone. However, there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St. Paul. It is the same vision, the one according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the realization of communion with Christ. Thus, being united to him we are just, and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray to the Lord so that he will help us to believe. To really believe; belief thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can really be just in the eyes of God. (General Audience of 19 November 2008: Saint Paul (13). The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith.)

The entire premise of Ratzinger/Benedict's "general audience" address sixteen years ago was based on the implication that Saint Paul the Apostle has a teaching on the Doctrine of Justification that is different than that defined by the Council of Trent. There is not one reference anywhere in Ratzinger/Benedict's remarks, quoted in full above, to the following dogmatic definition of the Doctrine of Justification made by the Council of Trent, whose infallible decrees must bind the consciences of every person on the face of this earth, Catholic and non-Catholic.

Nowhere in the text of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's is there any reference at all to the six dispositions must exist in a soul to be in a state of Justification. Here are those six dispositions once again as listed in Bishop Sanborn's critical analysis:

The Council of Trent teaches that there are six dispositions required for justification:

      (1) faith, which consists in believing and holding as true those things which God has revealed and promised;

      (2) fear of divine justice;

      (3) hope that God will treat us mercifully through love for Jesus Christ;

      (4) A beginning of the love of God, whom we must love as the source of all justice;

      (5) Hatred and detestation for sin.

      (6) The resolution to receive baptism (or the sacrament of penance in the case of those already baptized and in mortal sin), in order to begin a new life and to observe the commandments of God and of the Church. (As found in: Bishop Donald J. Sanborn’s Critical Analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.) 

The late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s discussion of Faith in his "general audience" address on November 19, 2008, did not discuss these dispositions, nor were these dispositions discussed in his Wednesday, November 26, 2008, "general audience" address that continued deconstructing the Catholic Church's Doctrine of Justification. Not once in either of these addresses did the then false "pontiff" mention the solemn, infallible decrees of the Council of Trent, decrees to which every human being on the face of this earth must assent without any shadow of dissent.

As was his Modernist wont, Ratzinger/Benedict discusses "faith" in nebulous, ambiguous, obscure terms that appeal to a "personal" adherence to and love for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by making it appear as though there is a bifurcation between "faith" in Our Lord and belief in everything that He has revealed to us through the Deposit of Faith that He has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church. To be "just" is to "be with Christ," according to Ratzinger:

The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary.  (General Audience of 19 November 2008: Saint Paul (13). The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith.)

What does it mean to "be with Christ and in Christ"?

Does it mean to be a member of the Catholic Church in a state of Sanctifying Grace whose soul has the six dispositions necessary for justification?

Does it mean to adhere to everything contained in the Deposit Faith as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as entrusted It to His Catholic Church?

Are these the sort of "observances," in addition to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law from which Our Lord has freed us, that are "no longer necessary?"

Similarly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has spent the entirety of the past nearly one hundred forty-three months misrepresentation the words of Sacred Scripture, turning the Prophet Jonas into an advocate for illegal immigration (see Jorge Mispresents the Prophet Jonas as a Champion of Illegal Immigration, part one, and Jorge Misrepesents the Prophet Jonas as a Champion of Illegal Immigration, parTt two), claiming that Saint Vincent Lerins was an advocate of dogmatic evolutionism (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio Evangelizes on Behalf of Dogmatic Evolutionism and Moral Relativism Once Again), and among so may other examples, blaspheming Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri was an advocate of moral laxism (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio Blasphemes Saint Alphonsus de Liguori).

The Argentine Apostate has also sought to make Pope Saint Pius X into a “prophet” who paved the way for the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination and, just within the past few days, has claimed that the founder of the Liturgical Movement, Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B. was responsible for the execrable conciliar “liturgical renewal” even though the holy Abbot of Solesmes was a fierce opponent of the anti-liturgical Jansenism that was given expression at the illegal Council of Pistoia, which was a veritable roadmap to the “Second” Vatican Council, and had expressed itself in opposition to the sort of pious devotions that have been mocked by many conciliar revolutionaries, including by “Pope Francis” himself.

An Antipope Claims the Opposite of what a Truly Canonized Pope Believed

Jorge Mario Bergoglio did this “right off the bat” in the address that he delivered to the Italian Liturgical Council, which was singularly important in hijacking the Liturgical Movement begun by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., and endorsed by Pope Saint Pius X, on Thursday, August 24, 2017, the Feast of Saint Bartholomew:

I welcome you all and I thank the President, His Excellency Monsignor Claudio Maniago, for the words with which he presented this National Liturgical Week, at 70 years from the birth of the Center of Liturgical Action.

This span of time is a period in which, in the history of the Church and, in particular, in the history of the liturgy, essential and not superficial events have happened. As Vatican Council II will not be able to be forgotten, so will the liturgical reform be remembered from which it issued.

The Council and the reform are two directly linked events, which did not flower suddenly but were prepared for long. It is attested by what was called the liturgical movement, and the answers given by the Supreme Pontiffs to the hardships perceived in ecclesial prayer. When a need is noticed, even if the solution isn’t immediate, there is the need to start to move.

I think of Pius X, who ordered a reordering of sacred music[1] and the celebratory restoration of Sunday,[2] and instituted a Commission for the general reform of the liturgy, knowing that it would entail a work both great and short-lived; and therefore – as he himself recognized – it was necessary for many years to pass, before this, so to speak, liturgical edifice [. . .] reappeared shining in its dignity and harmony, once it had been cleansed from the squalor of ageing.”[3] (Jorge's Intellectually Dishonest Defense of the Indefensible.)

Bergoglio’s two gratuitous claims concerning Pope Saint Pius X are nothing new as they constitute one of the liturgical revolution’s architects’ building blocks to claim that they have only “completed” what was begun by those they know are venerated by “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The liturgical revolutionaries of past decades knew—and their successors know now—that very few Catholics take the time and go to the trouble of actually reading the sources they cite in gratuitous manner with quotations taken out of context. Indeed, they count on this being the case, which is why this feat of intellectual dishonesty is employed time and time again.

Omitted by the Argentine Apostate, of course, is the fact that Pope Saint Pius X’s Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903, was issued out His Holiness’s concern that profane and secular elements were being introduced into the celebration of Holy Mass. In other words, Tra Le Sollictudni, which is the first footnoted source of Bergoglio’s address eight days ago, is a condemnation of the use of profane, irreverent music that is commonplace in the stagings of the Novus Ordo, including those staged by Bergoglio throughout his presbyteral and “episcopal” careers.

This will become very clear when one considers the concerns that prompted Pope Saint Pius X to issue his motu proprio on the Feast of Saint Cecilia in the very first year of his pontificate:

Still the good work that has been done is very far indeed from being common to all, and when We consult Our own personal experience and take into account the great number of complaints that have reached Us during the short time that has elapsed since it pleased the Lord to elevate Our humility to the supreme summit of the Roman Pontificate, We consider it Our first duty, without further delay, to raise Our voice at once in reproof and condemnation of all that is seen to be out of harmony with the right rule above indicated, in the functions of public worship and in the performance of the ecclesiastical offices. Filled as We are with a most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the faithful, We deem it necessary to provide before anything else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly upon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple.

Hence, in order that no one for the future may be able to plead in excuse that he did not clearly understand his duty and that all vagueness may be eliminated from the interpretation of matters which have already been commanded, We have deemed it expedient to point out briefly the principles regulating sacred music in the functions of public worship, and to gather together in a general survey the principal prescriptions of the Church against the more common abuses in this subject. We do therefore publish, motu proprio and with certain knowledge, Our present Instruction to which, as to a juridical code of sacred music (quasi a codice giuridice della musica sacra), We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)

In other words, Pope Saint Pius X acted on reports of innovations in the Sacred Liturgy just as his canonized predecessor, Pope Saint Pius V, had done in 1570 to standardize the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by forbidding any local usage that was not more than two hundred years old, thereby excluding all of the unauthorized adaptations that had been made in various places, especially in the German states, to make incorporate the “concerns” of Jan Hus, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Pope Saint Pius X wanted to prevent the use of secular melodies that profane the Sacred Liturgy that the conciliar revolutionaries consider as evidence of their “openness” to the world.

First and foremost in the mind of Pope Saint Pius X was the restoration of Gregorian Chant, which is hardly the foundation of the work of most “liturgical committees” within formerly Catholic parishes that have been in the captivity of the counterfeit church of conciliarism for over half a century:

These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.

On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.

The ancient traditional Gregorian Chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship, and the fact must be accepted by all that an ecclesiastical function loses none of its solemnity when accompanied by this music alone.

Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.

4. The above-mentioned qualities are also possessed in an excellent degree by Classic Polyphony, especially of the Roman School, which reached its greatest perfection in the sixteenth century, owing to the works of Pierluigi da Palestrina, and continued subsequently to produce compositions of excellent quality from a liturgical and musical standpoint. Classic Polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian Chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church, such as those of the Pontifical Chapel. This, too, must therefore be restored largely in ecclesiastical functions, especially in the more important basilicas, in cathedrals, and in the churches and chapels of seminaries and other ecclesiastical institutions in which the necessary means are usually not lacking. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)

The conciliar revolution has not been particularly noteworthy for its use of Gregorian Chant and Classic Polyphony. Unless, that is, one considers to be compositions of the St. Louis Jesuits to be examples of either, which I do not. 

One can see from the following words of Pope Saint Pius X that he made careful distinctions between what sorts of more recent musical compositions could be used in the Sacred Liturgy and what of that genre was forbidden, noting specifically that the theatrical genre of music, which is featured in all manner of “papal” extravangaza liturgies and in a whole lot of parishes under conciliar control:

The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages — always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.

Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s contention that Pope Saint Pius X’s “reordering of sacred music” to be a harbinger of the liturgical conciliar “renewal.”

Moreover, our last truly canonized pope elaborated on the inadmissibility of the theatrical style of music into the Sacred Liturgy and he stressed the Latin, not the vernacular, was the language of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, explaining that no part of Holy Mass or the Divine Office may be sung in the vernacular:

Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.

The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions — much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)

Once again, this demonstrates two things.

First, that whoever wrote the text of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s address to the Italian Liturgical Council sought deliberately to misuse Tra Le Sollicitudini in defense of the sort of liturgical “renewal” that took place during and after the “Second” Vatican Council. Pope Saint Pius X forbade Latin; Sacrosanctum Concilium,  December 4, 1963, the first document of the “Second” Vatican Council, called for its use according to the decisions of national episcopal conferences, and used it would be in the Ordo Missae that went into effect on November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent:

57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.

58. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.

59. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.

VI. FACULTY OF REPEATING COMMUNION ON THE SAME DAY (SC art. 55)

60. The faithful who receive communion at the Mass of the Easter Vigil or the Midnight Mass of Christmas may receive again at the second Mass of Easter and at one of the Day Masses of Christmas.

Chapter III. The Other Sacraments and Sacramentals

1. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR (SC ART. 63)

61. The competent territorial authority, on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular for:

a. the rites, including the essential sacramental forms, of baptism, confirmation, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage, and the distribution of holy communion;
b. the conferral of orders: the address preliminary to ordination or consecration, the examination of the bishop-elect at an episcopal consecration, and the admonitions;
c. sacramentals;
d. rite of funerals.

Whenever a more extensive use of the vernacular seems desirable, the prescription of the Constitution art. 40 is to be observed. (INTER OECUMENICI, Sepember 26, 1964.)

The nature and the extent of the changes were bound to--and did in fact--bewilder at least a few ordinary Catholics. This is why the following announcement was inserted into the parish bulletin of Saint Matthew's Church in Norwood, Ohio, a facility that is now Immaculate Conception Church, which operates today under the auspices of the Society of Saint Pius V, on November 29, 1964, to tell the sheep just to do what they were told as a revolution unfolded before their very eyes and with their own "full, active and conscious participation:"

Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the beginning of the Church's new liturgical year. Today we begin our "New Liturgy". Beginning today many parts of Holy Mass will be said in English. We ask each of you to do your very best to join the priest in the prayers of the Mass. Leaflets with the official text of these prayers were given most of your last Sunday. (For those of you who were unable to obtain your copies last Sunday, you may obtain one at the bulletin stands today.) For the Masses with singing (including the 9:45 a.m. High Mass), you are asked to use the cards found in the pews. Kindly stand, sit and kneel, according to the directions on your leaflet or the card. At the Masses today, seminarians will be on hand to help and guide you in this new participation. We wish to thank Msgr. Schneider, Rector of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary, for his kindness in sending us his students; and also the young men themselves for their generosity in helping us. We know that it will take a while (perhaps even months) before we have this new method of participating in Holy Mass perfected; we earnestly ask each one to cooperate loyally and faithfully to the best of his or her ability to make the public worship of God in St. Matthew Parish a true and worthy "sacrifice of praise." [Historical note: the Mount Saint Mary's Seminary referred to in the bulletin was known as Mount Saint Mary's Seminary of the West, located in Norwood, Ohio.]

It the height of intellectual dishonesty, therefore, to claim that Pope Saint Pius X’s reordering of music had anything to do with presaging the conciliar revolution. Pope Saint Pius X forbade the use of Latin in the singing of the Mass; the conciliar revolution permitted it even in its early phases.

Second, Pope Saint Pius X’s concern about innovations in the use of inappropriate music and even of the vernacular in some Italian parishes at the turn of the Twentieth Century tells us that it was no accident that the Italian Liturgical Council became a chief instrument of the hijacked Liturgical Movement in the post-World War II era leading up to the “election” of Angelo Roncalli as the first in the current line of antipopes to pave the way the conciliar liturgical revolution.

Among the many other contrasts with the underlying thrust of the conciliar liturgical revolution (false ecumenism and an “opening up to the world”) found in Tra Le Sollicitudini was the absolute prohibition of the piano during Holy Mass and the admission of wind instruments only under special circumstances:

The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.

21. In processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious associations which take part in the procession. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)

Please note that Pope Saint Pius X forbade the use of the vernacular in the singing of the parts of Holy Mass (the Introit, the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei), not in processions that took place outside of the church. This is a vital distinction as an intellectually dishonest person might claim that the sainted pontiff from Riese, Italy, gave “permission” for the vernacular in the parts of the Mass. He did not.

Thus, there is no justification for Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s gratuitous reference to Tra Le Sollicitudini in order to claim Pope Saint Pius X as a perjured witness in behalf of a liturgical “renewal” that offends God and has produce a vast wreckage of soul as part of its “fruit.”

The restoration that Pope Saint Pius X sought was that of Gregorian Chant in the Sacred Liturgy, not of a “reconciliation with the world” and the use of the Sacred Mysteries as a means to introduce ceaseless change as the norm in the life of Catholics in order to accustom them to the false belief that everything, including Catholic Faith and Morals, can undergo similarly rapid and ceaseless changes or “evolutions,” if you will.

It was thus an exercise of rank intellectual dishonesty for Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries to claim that Pope Saint Pius X’s work to effect a genuine reform of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, sought the sorts of anti-liturgical changes that would be wrought with great speed during the false “pontificate” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and in the aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council by Giovanni Maria Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI. The Argentine Apostate, you see, would have us believe that Abhinc Duos Annos, October 23, 1913, authorized a process of general reform that, though interrupted by World War II, resulted in a seamless and completely organic manner to the issuance of Montini/Paul VI’s Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969.

What was Abhinc Duos Annos?

It was a Motu Proprio issued by Pope Saint Pius X to express the principles that should govern a reform of the Breviary, an effort that would involve a reform of the Missale Romanum itself:

"Two years ago, in publishing Our Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu, We had especially in sight the recitation, as far as possible in its entirety, of the Psalter on weekdays, and the restoration of the ancient Sunday offices. But Our mind was occupied by many other projects – some mere plans, others already on the way to realization – relating to reform in the Roman breviary.

However, because of the numerous difficulties preventing Us from executing them, We had to postpone them for a more favourable moment. To change the composition of the Breviary to make it in accordance with Our desires, that is, to give it a finished perfection in every part would involve:

-restoring the calendar of the Universal Church to its original arrangement and style, retaining meanwhile the splendid richness, which the marvelous fruitfulness of the Church, the Mother of Saints, has brought to bear upon it.

-utilising appropriate passages of Scripture, of the Father and doctors, after having reestablished the authentic text;

-prudently correcting the lives of the Saints according to documentary evidence

Perfecting the arrangement of numerous point of the liturgy, eliminating superfluous elements. But in the judgment of wise and learned persons, all this would require considerable work and time. For this reason, many years will have to pass before this type of liturgical edifice, composed with intelligent care for the spouse of Christ to express her piety and faith, can appear purified of the squalidness brought by time, newly resplendent with dignity and fitting order.

In the meantime, through correspondence and conversations with a number of bishops, We have learnt of their urgent desire – shared by many priests – to find in the Breviary, together with the new arrangement of the Psalter and its rubrics, all the changes which have already come or which might come with this new Psalter. They have repeatedly asked Us, indeed they have repeatedly manifested their earnest desire that the new psalter be used more often, that the Sundays be observed more conscientiously, that provision be made for the inconvenience of transferred offices, and that certain other changes be affected which seem to be justified. Because they are grounded in objectivity and completely conform to Our desire, We have agreed to these requests and We believe the moment has come to grant them. (Pope Saint Pius X, Abhinc Duos Annos, October 13, 1913. English translation found in: The Liturgy Documents, Volume Three: Foundational Documents on the Origins and Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium (e-book. Foreword by Francis “Cardinal” George, OMI; Rev. Robert L. Tuzik; Jakob K. Rinderknecht; Rev. Anthony Ruff, OSB; Michael R. Prendergast; S. Judith M. Kubicki, CSSF; Rev. Richard Fragomeni; David W. Fagerberg; Corinna Laughlin; Deacon Francis L. Agnoli; Steven R. Janco; Rev. Msgr. Kevin Irwin; Rev. Msgr. Joseph DeGrocco; Rev. Msgr. Richard B. Hilgartner; Rev. Giblert Ostdiek, OFM; Rev. Paul Turner; Rev. Daniel J. Merz; Mary Elizabeth Sperry; S. Joyce Ann Zimmerman, CPPS; Richard E. McCarron; Christopher Carstens.)

The narrative spun by the contributors of The Liturgy Documents, Volume Three: Foundational Documents on the Origins and Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium agrees with that repeated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio on August 24, 2017, the Feast of Saint Bartholomew, in his address to the Italian Liturgical Council, namely, that the “liturgical reform” of “Pope Paul VI” brought Pope Saint Pius X’s own project of reform to its proper conclusion. This is complete intellectual dishonesty.

The great defender of Catholic doctrine knew all too well the intentions of Modernists with respect to the liturgy, something that he noted very clearly in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This is, of course, what happened from the outset of the counterfeit church of conciliarism under Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and is continuing to the present day under the tutelage of the wicked enabler of those steeped in lives of moral perdition, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Pope Saint Pius had explained earlier in Pascendi Dominci Gregis that the Modernists project onto to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ what their own false beliefs, making a false distinction between the “Christ of history” and the “Christ of faith,” who is whatever the “believer” wants Him to be. This false distinction, the Holy Father said, extended even to their plans for the Sacred Liturgy, which must be examined according to the Modernists’ historical-critical method of deconstruction:

Hence we have that distinction, so current among the Modernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith; the Church of history and the Church of faith; the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith, and so in similar matters. Next we find that the human element itself, which the historian has to work on, as it appears in the documents, is to be considered as having been transfigured by faith, that is to say, raised above its historical conditions. It becomes necessary, therefore, to eliminate also the accretions which faith has added, to relegate them to faith itself and to the history of faith. Thus, when treating of Christ, the historian must set aside all that surpasses man in his natural condition, according to what psychology tells us of him, or according to what we gather from the place and period of his existence. Finally, they require, by virtue of the third principle, that even those things which are not outside the sphere of history should pass through the sieve, excluding all and relegating to faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in harmony with what they call the logic of facts or not in character with the persons of whom they are predicated. Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done.

Is this not precisely what Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is a caricature of a textbook Modernist, has done throughout the course of his life as a lay Jesuit revolutionary? Bergoglio and his band of doctrinal, moral, liturgical and pastoral revolutionaries must distort and/or completely reject anything in the writings of the Holy Mother Church’s Fathers, Doctors, saints and general councils that do not accord with they have attributed to Our Lord because it is what that, the Modernists, would have done in like circumstances. There is a word for this: paganism.

Our last canonized Holy Father then explained the methods used by the Modernists to accomplish this end:

31. As history takes its conclusions from philosophy, so too criticism takes its conclusions from history. The critic on the data furnished him by the historian, makes two parts of all his documents. Those that remain after the triple elimination above described go to form the real history; the rest is attributed to the history of the faith or, as it is styled, to internal history. For the Modernists distinguish very carefully between these two kinds of history, and it is to be noted that they oppose the history of the faith to real history precisely as real. Thus, as we have already said, we have a twofold Christ: a real Christ, and a Christ, the one of faith, who never really existed; a Christ who has lived at a given time and in a given place, and a Christ who never lived outside the pious meditations of the believer — the Christ, for instance, whom we find in the Gospel of St. John, which, according to them, is mere meditation from beginning to end.

32. But the dominion of philosophy over history does not end here. Given that division, of which We have spoken, of the documents into two parts, the philosopher steps in again with his dogma of vital immanence, and shows how everything in the history of the Church is to be explained by vital emanation. And since the cause or condition of every vital emanation whatsoever is to be found in some need or want, it follows that no fact can be regarded as antecedent to the need which produced it — historically the fact must be posterior to the need. What, then, does the historian do in view of this principle? He goes over his documents again, whether they be contained in the Sacred Books or elsewhere, draws up from them his list of the particular needs of the Church, whether relating to dogma, or liturgy, or other matters which are found in the Church thus related, and then he hands his list over to the critic. The critic takes in hand the documents dealing with the history of faith and distributes them, period by period, so that they correspond exactly with the list of needs, always guided by the principle that the narration must follow the facts, as the facts follow the needs. It may at times happen that some parts of the Sacred Scriptures, such as the Epistles, themselves constitute the fact created by the need. Even so, the rule holds that the age of any document can only be determined by the age in which each need has manifested itself in the Church. Further, a distinction must be made between the beginning of a fact and its development, for what is born in one day requires time for growth. Hence the critic must once more go over his documents, ranged as they are through the different ages, and divide them again into two parts, separating those that regard the origin of the facts from those that deal with their development, and these he must again arrange according to their periods. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Domininci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X was thus both aware of and vehemently opposed to the very kinds of Modernist presuppositions that would be used as the foundation of the conciliar “liturgical renewal.”  No one can claim this sainted Successor of Saint Peter as any kind of witness in behalf of the wreckage of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals that has been made possible by one false conciliar doctrine after another and by the Novus Ordo service itself and the “liberated” style in which Bergoglio himself believes best suits the “needs” of the people. Yeah, “Pope Francis” loves a “liberated” style of liturgy and of doctrine itself—liberated from the truths and authentic traditions of the Catholic Faith.

Alas, Pope Saint Pius X died on August 20, 1914. The Modernists had gone underground but had not gone away, and they took advantage of the death of their great foe to plan for what the “Mass of the future. Indeed, for a very early look at what the revolutionaries wanted done, one can take a look at the text of The Mass of the Future, which was written by Father Gerald Ellard, S.J., and published in 1948, a full year after Pope Pius XII used Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, to warn against the very sort of developments favored by Father Ellard. Father Ellard wanted "Youth Masses," "Labor Masses," Mass facing the people, a simpler liturgy, etc.)

All manner of Modernist "opinions" were propagated in books published between the two world wars and in the thirteen years between the end of World War II and the advent of the age of conciliarism under Roncalli/John XXIII. The Modernist authors were careful to conceal their teaching by artfully crafted devices and endless nuances taught in seminaries and universities. They spoke at academic conferences. And they received protection from many bishops, a fact that was made clear to Pope Pius XI in 1923 at a time he was considering calling a general council:

A little-known drama that unfolded during the reign of Pope Pius XI demonstrates that the underground current of Modernist thought was alive and well in the immediate post-Pius X period.

Father Raymond Dulac relates that at the secret consistory of May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI questioned the thirty Cardinals of the Curia on the timeliness of summoning an ecumenical council. In attendance were such illustrious prelates as Cardinals Merry del Val, De Lai, Gasparri, Boggiani and Billot. The Cardinals advised against it.

Cardinal Billot warned, "The existence of profound differences in the midst of the episcopacy itself cannot be concealed . . . [They] run the risk of giving place to discussions that will be prolonged indefinitely."

Boggiani recalled the Modernist theories from which, he said, a part of the clergy and of the bishops were not exempt. "This mentality can incline certain Fathers to present motions, to introduce methods incompatible with Catholic traditions."

Billot was even more precise. He expressed his fear of seeing the council "maneuvered" by the worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists, who are already getting ready, as certain indications show, to bring forth the revolution in the Church, a new 1789."

In discouraging the idea of a council for such reasons, these Cardinals showed themselves more apt at recognizing the "signs of the times" than all the post-Vatican II theologians combined. Yet their caution may have been rooted in something deeper. They may also have been haunted by the writings of the infamous illumine, the excommunicated Canon Roca (1830-1893), who preached revolution and Church "reform" and who predicted a subversion of the Church that would be brought about by a council. [John Vennari, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, pp. 15-16.]

This having been noted, however, Pope Pius XI did grant at least one major concession to the use of “dialogue” on the part of specific groups of people, most typically members of religious congregations, on ad experimentum basis in 1922. Truth be told, though, this concession was made after the practice had been employed in an unauthorized manner between 1914 and 1922 in Germany and Belgium, both of which featured liturgists intent on “reconciling” with the world and with “canonizing” false ecumenism.

Some of the Modernists who were at work between the two world wars produced books and monographs that became the basis of at least some of the liturgical "reforms" that were presented to Pope Pius XII as "restorations" of past practices even though they were examples of the very antiquarianism (projecting back on to the past a false "history" that never existed) that he had specifically condemned in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, and would, of course become the very foundation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo itself.

Wearied and demoralized by World War I and the tremendous toll that it had taken upon the psyche of formerly Catholic Europe, these Modernists saw a glimmer of what they thought was "hope" for mankind in the nascent "ecumenical" movement that had begun in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a meeting of Protestants under the banner of the "World Missionary Conference," which met from June 14, 1910, to June 23, 1910. "World peace" could result if men could put aside their doctrinal differences for the "betterment" of mankind, a belief that is nothing other than an expression of Judeo-Masonry. It is no accident, of course, that this meeting, which served as the very foundation of conciliarism's own false ecumenism. This is no accident at all.

Some of the pioneers of the hijacked Liturgical Movement of the 1920s, such as Father Pius Parsch, C.R.S.A. (Canons Regular of Saint Augustine), would have been, it should be noted, aghast at the sorts of changes that eventually took place as a result of what some, including Michael Davies in his book Liturgical Time Bombs, referred to as "young wolves" (Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M.) sought to implement in the 1950s and thereafter. As hs been noted regularly on this site in the past twenty-one years (minus fourteen days), revolutions do produce unintended consequences that their progenitors do not foresee and are at a loss to explain, consequences that defy their every gargantuan effort to bring the revolution back to its "original intent." This is as true of social revolutions (American, French, Russian, et al.) as it is of theological-liturgical revolutions.

The late anti-sedevacantist Michael Davies demonstrated the connection between false ecumenism and the hijacked Liturgical Movement that had begun with Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., in the Nineteenth Century and resulted in the issuance of the Missal of Pope Saint Pius X in 1910, restoring the chanting of Gregorian chant by the people, in a review that he wrote for the late Father Didier Bonneterre's Liturgical Revolution: Roots, Radicals, Results (Angelus Press, 2002):

If there is a villain of the book he is Dom Lambert Beauduin, but Father Bonneterre has no hesitation in paying tribute to the great contribution that he made to the movement in its early years:

The merit of having understood all that could be learned from the teaching of St. Pius X falls to Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960). Alas, this monk was unable to maintain throughout his life this hierarchy of the ends of the liturgy, i.e., worship first, teaching second, as we shall see in the course of this study, but let us not anticipate.

Dom Lambert Beauduin at first was a priest of the diocese of Liege, a "workers' missionary" under Pope Leo XIII. In 1906, at the age of thirty-three, he entered the Abbey of Mont Cesar, which had been founded by the monks of Maredsous at Louvain a few years earlier (1899). Because of his previous activity among the secular clergy, his mind had become habitually occupied by the problems of the apostolate and pastoral work, and so he viewed the liturgy in light of his habitual preoccupations. Very speedily he "discovered" in the liturgy, following St. Pius X, a wonderful method for forming the faithful in the Christian life. In 1909 he launched a Liturgical Movement at Mont Cesar which was an immediate success.

It is important to set the Liturgical Movement within the context of the Modernist crisis which is documented in my book Partisans of Error. Father Bonneterre writes:

Crushed by St. Pius X, the Modernists understood that they could not penetrate the Church by theology, that is, by a clear exposé of their doctrines. They had recourse to the Marxist notion of praxis, having understood that the Church could become modernist through action, especially through the sacred action of the liturgy. Revolutions always use the living energies of the organism itself, taking control of them little by little and finally using them to destroy the body under attack. It is the well-known process of the Trojan horse.

The Liturgical Movement of Dom Guéranger, of St. Pius X, and of the Belgian monasteries, in origin at any rate, was a considerable force in the Church, a prodigious means of spiritual rejuvenation which, moreover, brought forth good fruits. The Liturgical Movement was thus the ideal Trojan horse for the modernist revolution. It was easy for all the revolutionaries to hide themselves in the belly of such a large carcass. Before Mediator Dei, who among the Catholic hierarchy was concerned about liturgy? What vigilance was applied to detecting this particularly subtle form of practical Modernism?

It was from the 1920's onward that it became clear that the Liturgical Movement had been diverted from its original admirable aims:

Dom Beauduin first of all favored in an exaggerated way the teaching and preaching aspect of the liturgy, and then conceived the idea of making it serve the "Ecumenical Movement" to which he was devoted body and soul. Dom Parsch tied the movement to Biblical renewal. Dom Casel made it the vehicle of a fanatical antiquarianism and of a completely personal conception of the "Christian mystery." These first revolutionaries were largely overtaken by the generation of the new liturgists of the various preconciliar liturgical commissions.

This new generation is described by Father Bonneterre as the “young wolves.” In any revolution it is almost routine for the first moderate revolutionaries to be replaced or even eradicated by more radical revolutionaries, as was the case with the Russian Revolution when the Mensheviks (majority) were ousted by the Bolsheviks (minority).

Faced by this excessive acceleration of the movement, Dom Beaudin was frightened... We witness here the first phenomena of “permanent excesses,” a feature of all revolutions: yesterday’s managers are overtaken by today’s agitators, the first revolutionaries are overtaken by today’s agitators.

Just as nothing could prevent the rise to power of the Bolsheviks, nothing could prevent the triumph of the young wolves:

After the Second World War, the movement became a force that nothing could stop. Protected from on high by eminent prelates, the new liturgists took control little by little of the Commission for Reform of the Liturgy founded by Pius XII, and influenced the reforms devised by this Commission at the end of the pontificate of Pius XII and at the beginning of that of John XXIII. Already masters, thanks to the Pope, of the preconciliar liturgical commission, the new liturgists got the Fathers of the Council to accept a self-contradictory and ambiguous document, the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Lercaro and Fr. Bugnini, themselves very active members of the Italian Liturgical Movement, directed the efforts of the Consilium which culminated in the promulgation of the New Mass.

How could Pope Pius XII, the Pastor Angelicus, the most scholarly Pope of the century, and one whose orthodoxy could not possibly be questioned, have allowed the young wolves of the liturgical movement to consolidate their power during his pontificate? Father Bonneterre makes it clear that this saintly pontiff was well-aware of the subversive elements within the Liturgical Movement. In His Encyclical Mediator Dei, perhaps the most sublime exposition of the true nature of the Mass ever to be written, Pope Pius wrote: “We observe that certain people are too fond of novelty and go astray from the oaths of sound doctrine and prudence.... They sully this sacred cause with errors, errors which affect the Catholic faith and ascetical teaching.” Father Bonneterre insists that, alas:

Pope Pius XII did not know the true position of the Liturgical Movement. Its most dangerous leaders were being supported and protected by the highest dignitaries of the Church. How could the Pope have suspected that the "experts" who were so highly praised by Cardinals Bea and Lercaro were in fact the most dangerous enemies of the Church?

He laments the fact that: “Thus Pius XII gave the most inopportune encouragement to the congress at Assisi:

The Liturgical Movement is like an indication of the plans of divine providence for the present time, like the wind of the Holy Ghost blowing through the Church, bringing men closer to the mysteries of the faith and the treasures of grace, which flow from the active participation of the faithful in the life of the liturgy.”

Father Bonneterre comments: “This declaration could have been true and timely before 1920; in 1956 it was no longer so. In the intervening years, the Liturgical Movement had denied its origins and abandoned the principles laid down by Dom Guéranger and St. Pius X.”

The most influential of the new liturgists, the great architect of the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution, was Father Annibale Bugnini. Father Bonneterre recounts a visit by Father Bugnini to a liturgical convention held at Thieulin near Chartres at which forty religious superiors and seminary rectors were present, making clear the extent of the influence of the liturgical Bolsheviks on the Church establishment in France. He cites a Father Duployé as stating:

Some days before the reunion at Thieulin, I had a visit from an Italian Lazarist, Fr. Bugnini, who had asked me to obtain an invitation for him. The Father listened very attentively, without saying a word, for four days. During our return journey to Paris, as the train was passing along the Swiss Lake at Versailles, he said to me: "I admire what you are doing, but the greatest service I can render you is never to say a word in Rome about all that I have just heard."

Father Bonneterre comments:

This revealing text shows us one of the first appearances of the "gravedigger of the Mass," a revolutionary more clever than the others, he who killed the Catholic liturgy before disappearing from the official scene. So it was at this date that the "Counter-Church" completely pervaded the Liturgical Movement. Until then it had been occupied by the modernist and ecumenical forces: after the war it was rotten enough for Freemasonry to take direct control of the reins: Satan got into the Trojan Horse.

The reference to Freemasonry is based on the fact that in 1975 Pope Paul VI removed Bugnini, an Archbishop by then, from his position as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dissolved the entire Congregation, and in 1976 exiled him as Nuncio to Iran. Pope Paul did this because he had been given documentation which convinced him that the Archbishop was a freemason. Bugnini denied that he was a mason, but accepted that he was dismissed because the Pope believed him to be a member of the Brotherhood. All the relevant documentation is contained in Chapter 24 of my book Pope Paul’s New Mass.

Father Bonneterre explains that:

Although the reforms of Pius XII had given some satisfaction to the leaders of the Movement, the implacable orthodoxy that the Pope had maintained throughout had not been to their taste. New and more daring reforms were called for, and they needed a pope who understood the problem of ecumenism and who was a wholehearted supporter of the Movement.

He claims that “The news of the death of the Angelic Pastor was received with almost delirious joy by the deviated Liturgical Movement.” The aged Dom Lambert Beauduin had not the least doubt as to the cardinal he hoped would be elected, and confided his hopes to Father Bouyer:

If they elect Roncalli," he said "all will be saved. He will be capable of calling a Council and canonizing ecumenism..." Silence fell; then, with a return of his old mischievousness, he said with flashing eyes, "I believe we have a good chance. Most of the cardinals are not sure what to do. They are capable of voting for him.

Father Bonneterre comments:

To consecrate ecumenism, yes, indeed, but also to consecrate the Liturgical Movement, such would be the task of the long-awaited Council. For more than forty years the new liturgists had been spreading their errors, they had succeeded in influencing a considerable portion of the Catholic hierarchy, and they had won some encouraging reforms from the Holy See. All this patient underground work was about to bear fruit. The liturgical revolutionaries took advantage of the Constitution on the Liturgy to get their ideas accepted. Then, when they were appointed members of the Consilium, they only had to draw the extreme conclusions from the principles of Vatican II.

Father Bonneterre insists that:

This new rite carries on in its turn all the errors which have come forth since the beginning of the deviations of the "Movement." This rite is ecumenical, antiquarian, community-based, democratic, and almost totally desacralized; it also echoes the theological deviations of the modernists and the Protestants: toning down the sense of the Real Presence and diminution of the ministerial role of the priesthood, of the sacrificial character of the Mass, and especially of its propitiatory character. The Eucharist becomes much more a communal love feast than the renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

It is thus with the New Mass that the Liturgical Movement which had started so well ended so badly. The 1959 liturgy of the Protestant Taizé community is printed as an appendix to the book, and shows some disturbing similarities to the New Mass. Father Bonneterre does not, however, refer to the alarming correspondence of the changes, principally omissions, made to the Order of Mass in the Missal of St. Pius V in the concoction of the order of Mass in the 1970 Missal and the almost identical omissions from the Sarum Missal made by Thomas Cranmer in concocting his 1549 Communion Service. These are documented in great detail in my book Pope Paul’s New Mass. Nor does he refer to the equally alarming correspondence between the liturgical principles permeating the Mass of Paul VI and those of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia condemned as pernicious by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem Fidei of 1794. I would also say that, in places, Father Bonneterre seems to presume that the rite of Mass concocted by Father Bugnini’s Consilium represents what the leading members of the Liturgical Movement were aiming at.

This might be true in the case of the “young wolves” who took over the movement, but is certainly not true of priests such as Beauduin, Casel, Parsch, or Bouyer. The principal aim of these men was to use the existing liturgy to achieve their pastoral aims, and not to impose a radical reform which made the liturgy that they knew, loved, and celebrated daily unrecognizable.

In fairness to Father Bonneterre he does state that the leading figures of the original movement were frightened by the thinking of the young wolves. I have quoted him to this effect in this review. It would have been useful had he quoted the reaction of a priest such as Father Louis Bouyer, whom he cites quite often, to the actual reform that has been foisted upon us. He stated in 1969 that "We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church"[12]; and "Perhaps in no other area is there a greater distance (and even formal opposition) between what the Council worked out and what we actually have”[13]; and that, in practice, “those who took it upon themselves to apply [?] the Council’s directives on this point have turned their backs deliberately on what Beauduin, Casel, and Pius Parsch had set out to do, and to which I had tried vainly to add some small contribution of my own.”[14] 

In 1975, Father Bouyer stated:

"The Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more acceptable to the secularised masses, but in reality to conform it with the buffooneries that the religious orders were induced to impose, whether they liked it or not, upon the other clergy. We do not have to wait for the results: a sudden decline in religious practice, varying between twenty and forty per cent among those who were practising Catholics.... Those who were not have not displayed a trace of interest in this pseudo-missionary liturgy, particularly the young whom they had deluded themselves into thinking that they would win over with their clowning.[15] (The Liturgical Movement.) 

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo did not just "happen." It emerged after the first generation of Modernist ecumenists, spawned by the events of World War I, was succeeded by a second intent on turning the Sacred Liturgy into a grand laboratory in which they could assemble various of the condemned propositions of the illegal Council of Pistoia, redolent of Jansenism, into the life of ordinary Catholics and thus use what they purported was the Holy Mass to serve as the means of teaching and institutionalizing their doctrinal errors. Moreover, the true history of The Liturgical Movement is not at all the fable spun by the conciliar revolutionaries and repeated anew two weeks ago by Bergoglio.

Both generations of postwar liturgical revolutionaries were protected by cardinals and bishops. Both published books with imprimaturs. Behold the results as the seeds of revolutionary change were approved with episcopal approval and as the Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII, himself approved changes, although certainly not heretical in se, were based upon false representations that his trusted lieutenants knew would establish a road map to their true goal, the destruction of the Roman Rite.

The role of Pope Pius XII, whose Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947,  was also referenced in an intellectually dishonest manner by Jorge Mario Bergoglio seven and one-half years ago now, in the liturgical changes he authorized in the 1950s will be examined in depth in part three of this series. Suffice it to say for the moment, though, that our last true pontiff thus far was in favor of liturgical change according to right principles. Pope Pius XII simply did not realize that those he had put in charge of liturgical reform were just waiting for him to die so that they could build on the significant changes they got him to authorize if they should get the “liberal” pope for which they had been hoping.

A

The Liturgical Movement as hijacked by Dom Lambert Beauduin and Pius Parsch that snookered Pope Pius XII after World War II had nothing to do with Pope Saint Pius X’s restoration of Gregorian Chant nor with his issuing of Divino Afflatu on November 1, 1911, and the restoration of Office of Sundays that had theretofore downgraded to commemorations in favor of the feast days of Saints.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s gratuitous references in 2017 to a canonized saint who fought Modernism as the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, Pope Saint Pius X, were a form of mocking him as the farm boy from Riese, Italy, as our last truly canonized saint would never have approved of the Novus Ordo and its efforts to “reconcile” with the world and with false religions, including Talmudism, whose “table forms” are the foundation of the “Preparation of the Gifts” that took the place of the Offertory in the “new Mass.”

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X told us what he thought about liberal Catholics and their intellectual dishonesty.

Liberal Catholics are "wolves in sheep's clothing; it is more important than anything else that murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced." (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 88.)

The Novus Ordo liturgy is the very enshrinement of the ethos of The Sillon which was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. The conciliar revolutionaries believe in a falsified Christ, and it is that bogus figure of Our Lord that is “encountered” in the collects and rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Blaspheming the Abbot of Solesmes as Favoring that Which He Opposed with Vigor

As intellectually dishonest as Jorge Mario Bergoglio was with Pope Saint Pius X in 2017, his recent effort to transform Dom Prosper Gueranger into a prophet of conciliar liturgical “renewal” was a blasphemously damnable lie from beginning to end:

As you celebrate this year the 150th anniversary of the death of your founder, Dom Prosper Guéranger, I am pleased to join in your thanksgiving. I wish to express my encouragement and my affectionate closeness to those who have committed their lives in the wake of this servant of the Church, or who are working to make his life and work better known. Benedic anima mea Domino. This verse from Psalm 102 was one of the last words he spoke before committing his soul to the hands of the Father on 30 January 1875.

In evoking Dom Guéranger, my predecessors have underlined the various expressions of his charism received for the edification of the whole Church: his role as restorer of Benedictine monastic life in France, his liturgical knowledge placed at the service of the People of God, his ardent piety towards the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Virgin Mary, his work in support of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of papal infallibility, his writings in defence of the freedom of the Church. I would also like to highlight two aspects of this charism that correspond to two current needs of the Church: fidelity to the Holy See and the Successor of Peter, particularly in the area of liturgy, and spiritual paternity.

Dom Guéranger was undoubtedly one of the first architects of the Liturgy Movement, the fruit of which would be the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council. The historical, theological and ecclesiological rediscovery of the liturgy as the language of the Church and an expression of its faith was at the heart of his work, first as a diocesan priest and then as a Benedictine monk. This rediscovery inspired in particular his publications favouring the return of the dioceses of France to the unity of the Roman liturgy, and it was this rediscovery that prompted him to write the volumes of L’année liturgique in order to make available to priests and lay people the beauty and riches of the liturgy, which is “the first wellspring of Christian spirituality” (Apostolic Letter Desiderio desideravi, no. 61). He strongly affirmed that “the prayer of the Church is the most pleasing to the ear and heart of God, and therefore the most powerful. Happy, then, is he who prays with the Church” (Preface to L’année liturgique). May the example of Dom Guéranger inspire in the hearts of all the baptised not only love for Christ and his Bride, but also filial trust and docile collaboration cum Petro et sub Petro, so that the Church, faithful to her living Tradition, may continue to raise “one and the same prayer capable of expressing her unity” (Apostolic Letter Desiderio desideravi, no. 61). (On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the death of Dom Prosper Guéranger .)

Dom Prosper Gueranger considered was faithful to true popes who fought the influence of Protestantism, Jansenism, Gallicanism, and Masonry in the doctrinal and liturgical life of Holy Mother Church. He did not consider tradition to “living” in the sense used by the Modernist destroyers of the Sacred Liturgy.

Consider how Dom Prosper Gueranger was committed to the Roman Liturgy that had its roots in time immemorial and he praised Pope Saint Pius V for preserving that liturgy from the influence of innovators, especially in the German kingdoms, who were making unauthorized changes in the Sacred Liturgy to accommodate Protestant “objections”:

We have already met with the names of several Pontiffs on the Paschal Calendar. They form a brilliant constellation around our Risen Jesus, who, during the period between his Resurrection and Ascension, gave to Peter, their predecessor, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Anicetus, Soter, Caius, Cletus and Marcellinus, held in their hands the palm of martyrdom: Leo was the only one who did not shed his blood in the cause of his divine Master. To-day there comes before us a holy Pope who governed the Church in these latter times; he is worthy to stand amidst the Easter group of Pontiffs. Like Leo, Pius V was zealous in combating heresy; like Leo, he saved his people form the barbarian yoke.

The whole life of Pius V was a combat. His pontificate fell during those troubled times when Protestantism was leading whole countries into apostasy. Italy was not a prey that could be taken by violence: artifice was therefore used, in order to undermine the Apostolic See and thus develop the whole Christian world in the darkness of heresy. Pius defend the Peninsula with untiring devotedness from the danger that threatened her. Even before he was raised to the Papal Throne he frequently exposed his life by his zeal in opposing the preaching of false doctrines. Like Peter the Martyr, he braved every danger and was the dread of the emissaries of heresy. When seated on the Chair of Peter, he kept the innovators in check by fear, roused the sovereigns of Italy to energy and by measures of moderate severity drove back beyond the Alps the torrent that would have swept Christianity from Europe had not the Southern States thus opposed it. From that time forward, Protestantism has never made any further progress: it has been wearing itself out by doctrinal anarchy. We repeat it: this heresy would have laid all Europe waste, had it not been for the vigilance of the pastor who animated the defenders of truth to resist it where it already existed, and who set himself as a wall against its invasion in the country where he himself was the master. . . .

The zeal of this holy Pope for the reformation of Christian morals, his establishment of the observance of the laws of discipline prescribed by the Council of Trent and his publication of the new Breviary and Missal have made his six years’ pontificate to be one of the richest periods of the Church’s history. Protestants have frequently expressed their admiration of this vigorous opponent of the so-called Reformation. ‘I am surprised,’ said Bacon, ‘that the Church of Rome has not canonized this great man.’ Pius V did not receive this honour till about a hundred and thirty years after his death; so impartial is the Church, when she has to adjudicate this highest of earthly honors even to her most revered Pastors!

Of the many miracles which attested the merits of this holy Pontiff, even during his life, we select the two following: As he was one day crossing the Vatican Piazza, which is on the site of the ancient Circus of Nero, he was overcome with a sentiment of enthusiasm for the glory and courage of the martyrs who had suffered on that very spot in the first persecution. Stooping down, he took up a handful of dust from the hallowed ground which had been trodden by so many generations of the Christian people since the peace of Constantine. He put the dust into a cloth which the Ambassador of Poland, who was with him, held out to receive it. When the Ambassador opened the cloth, after returning to his house, he found it all saturated with blood, as fresh as though it had been that moment shed: the dust had disappeared. The faith of the Pontiff had evoked the blood of the martyrs, which thus gave testimony against the heretics that the Roman Church, in the sixteenth century, was identically the same as that for which those brave heroes and heroines laid down their lives in the days of Nero.

The heretics attempted more than once to destroy a life which baffled all their hopes of perverting the faith of Italy. By a base a sacrilegious stratagem, aided by treachery, they put a deadly poison on the feet of the crucifix which the Saint kept in his Oratory, and which he was frequently seen to kiss with great devotion. In the fervour of prayer, Pius was about to give this mark of love to the image of his crucified Master, when suddenly the feet of the crucifix detached themselves from the Cross and eluded the proffered kiss of the venerable old man. The Pontiff at once saw through the plot whereby his enemies would fain have turned the life-giving Tree into an instrument of death.

In order to encourage the faithful to follow the sacred Liturgy we will select another interesting example from the life of this great Saint. When, lying on his bed of death, and just before breathing his last, he took a parting look breathing his last, he took a parting look at the Church on earth, which he was leaving for that of heaven, he wished to make a final prayer for the flock which he knew was surrounded by danger; he therefore recited, but with a voice that was scarcely audible, the following stanza of the Paschal hymn: ‘We beseech thee, O Creator of all things! that in these days of Paschal joy, thou defend thy people from every assault of death!’ (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B.,The Liturgical Year, Paschal Time: Book II.)

There is much in this brief account of the life and the work of the holy Dominican, who was the Successor of Saint Peter from January 7, 1566, to May 1, 1572, that condemns the work of the enemies of Christ the King in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with the fact that the Catholic Church is very, very slow to canonize a true pope who has not been martyred for the Faith as the holding of the papacy carries with it a weighty responsibility to preserve the integrity of Faith, Morals and Worship and to administer Holy Mother Church well by appointing worthy men as Successors of the Apostles. Anyone who can say that Karol Wojtyla/”SaintJohn Paul II,” who perverted the beatification and canonization processes to suit his own personal conciliarist predilections, is comparable to Pope Saint Pius V is not thinking very clearly (see the Novus Ordo Watch Wire commentary, written by “Athanasius,” The “Canonization” of John Paul II: A Catholic Perspective.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger was opponent of heresy.

The conciliar “popes” have made terms with heresy, doing precisely the opposite of how what passes for the Mass in the conciliar structures to have a Protestant flavor to it, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has rendered into an unapologetic celebration of perversity, indecency, and godlessness.

Dr. Adrian Fortescue, who wrote in the early part of the Twentieth Century, noted the following about the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V:

Essentially, the Missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the [Fourth] Century. So the Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world, and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of some unresolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours

The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, said pretty much the same thing in his The Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

The reform introduced by St. Pius V did not create anything new. It was simple a comprehensive review of the Missal, editing out some additions and changes that, over time, had found their way into the text. Even so, older unique rights, if they dated back at least two hundred years were left untouched–demonstrating a spirit of amazing tolerance at that time in history. (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The reform of Pope Saint Pius V to safeguard Catholicism was not the revolution fostered by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI to seek the favor of Protestants.

Dom Prosper Gueranger praised the unwillingness of Saint Fidelis Sigmaringen, O.F.M., Cap, to make any accommodation to heresy or error:

Pope Saint Pius V sought to protect the integrity of the Catholic Faith in the Holy Mass while Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonia Maria Montini/Paul VI sought to make wh Our Risen Lord would have around him a bright phalanx of martyrs. Its privileged members belong to the different centuries of the Church’s existence. Its ranks open to-day to give welcome to a brave combatant, who won his palm, not in a contest with paganism, as those did whose feasts we have thus far kept, but in defending his mother, the Church, against her own rebellious children. They were heretics that slew this day’s martyr, and the century that was honoured with this triumph as the seventeenth.

Fidelis was worthy of his beautiful name. Neither difficulty nor menace could make him fail in his duty. During his whole life, he had but the glory and service of his divine Lord in view: and when the time came for him to face the fatal danger, he did so, calmly but fearlessly, as behooved a disciple of that Jesus who went forth to meet his enemies. Honour, then, be to-day to the brave son of St. Francis ! truly he is worthy of his seraphic Patriarch, who confronted the Saracens, was a martyr in desire !

Protestantism was established and rooted by the shedding of torrents of blood; and yet Protestants count it as a great crime that, here and there, the children of the true Church made an armed resistance against them. The heresy of the sixteenth century was the cruel and untiring persecutor of men, whose only crime was their adhesion to the old faith–the faith that had civilized the world. The so-called Reformation proclaimed liberty in matters of religion, and massacred Catholics who exercised this liberty, and prayed and beleved as their ancestors had done for long ages before Luther and Calvin were born. A Catholic who gives heretics credit for sincerity when they talk about religious toleration proves the he knows nothing about the past or the present. There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. Heresy starts with an attempt to annihilate them that remain faithful; when it has grown tired of open persecution it vents its spleen in insults and calumnies; and when these do not produce the desired effect, hypocrisy comes in with its assurances of friendly forbearance. The history of Protestant Europe, during the last three centuries, confirms these statements; it also justifies us in honouring those courageous servants of God who, during that same period, have died for the ancient faith.  (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Fidelis of Sigmarincgen, April 24.)

As Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen said before he was put to death the wretched sect of men known as Calvinists, “I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it.”

The conciliar revolutionaries have come to create a liturgy that embraces heresy, not to extirpate it.

The Liturgy wrought by the conciliar revolutionaries to be an instrument of propagating false doctrines, including false ecumenism and of the sort of anthropocentrism associated with Marxism, was the product of the hijacking of the Liturgical Movement, which had begun by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., the author of The Liturgical Year, in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, by Dom Lambert Beauduin in the 1920s following the end of World War I on November 11, 1918.

The goal of the hijacked Liturgical Movement was to produce a “new liturgy” for a “new” ecumenical religion, one that could be an instrument of obliterating the sensus Catholicus of unsuspecting Catholics by accustoming them to ceaseless change and instability as ordinary features of what purported to be Catholic worship. The revolutionaries knew that such impermanence, which will be examined a length later in this book, would lead Catholics into concluding that everything about Faith and Morals was subject to change and adaptation to the “needs” and “sensibilities” of the mythical entity known as “modern man.”

To reiterate, Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., was a  firm opponent of the anti-liturgical Jansenism that comes of its own in the 1950s and then became the basis of what Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII did when he suppressed such feast proper to some places as the Translation of the House of Loreto, the Espousal of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Flight into Egypt, the Lance and the Nails, the Crown of Thorns, the Holy Sepulcher, the Finding of the Body of Saint Stephen, the Finding of the Holy Cross, Saint Peter’s Chains, and among a number of others, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome,.

A detailed commentary in the sedeplenist Adoremus Bulletin provided a summary of how Dom Prosper Gueranger defended Tradition against the anti-liturgical Jansenism that, whether or not the author of the study accepts is true, is indeed the foundation of the hijacked liturgical movement and the mainspring of the conciliar sect’s ongoing and ever-evolving liturgical revolution:

Dom Prosper Guéranger has been called the “grandfather” of the Liturgical Movement, a century-long effort within the Catholic Church to inspire deeper understanding and greater appreciation for the liturgy of the Roman rite through liturgical piety, which Dom Alcuin Reid defines as “drawing one’s spiritual nourishment from active and conscious contemplation of the faith of the Church as it is celebrated and expressed in the liturgical rites and prayers throughout the annual round of seasons and feasts of the liturgical year, as distinct from the practice of an unrelated, however worthy, devotional exercise.” Alongside his many other efforts which contributed to this project, Guéranger summarized the errors which he and many future proponents of the Liturgical Movement sought to correct in popular approaches to the liturgy through what he called the “anti-liturgical heresy.”

The development of the liturgy can be measured according to Guéranger’s description of this heresy as he found it in the early Church, the Protestant Revolution, and through the errors of the Jansenists and Gallicans of Guéranger’s own time, as well as the varied threads of this heresy which were woven into the Liturgical Movement in the 20th century. Guéranger divided the anti-liturgical heresy into 12 distinct criteria: (1) hatred of Tradition; (2) substitution of ecclesiastical formulae for readings exclusively from Scripture; (3) fabrication of innovative formulae; (4) antiquarianism; (5) demystification of the liturgy; (6) “pharisaical coldness”⁴ in liturgical prayer; (7) removal of all intermediaries (Marian devotion, communion of saints, etc.); (8) replacement of sacred languages with the vernacular; (9) simplification of rites and easing of religious duties; (10) rejection of papal authority; (11) laicization, denying the sacramental nature of the ministerial priesthood; and (12) confusion of the roles of priests and laity in liturgical reform.

Hatred of Tradition

Guéranger begins his formulation of the anti-liturgical heresy with its most overriding criterion: hatred of tradition. He explains that the liturgy, “which is Tradition at its strongest and best,” acts as the buttress against all doctrinal error. As such, those in history who wished to introduce innovative doctrines only had to deform the liturgy, to substitute the heritage of Tradition which it maintains for their own hymns, prayers, and lessons, for the faithful to be subjected to and formed in their falsehoods. Through these cunning and often subtle changes, “the faith of the people was henceforth without defense.”

Liturgical innovators who seek to violate tradition and form the faithful in false doctrines have tended to uphold one common criterion: the need for all the formulae of the liturgy to derive exclusively from Scripture, as Guéranger explains: “This involves two advantages: first, to silence the voice of Tradition of which sectarians are always afraid. Then, there is the advantage of propagating and supporting their dogmas by means of affirmation and negation. By way of negation, in passing over in silence, through cunning, the texts which express doctrine opposed to errors they wish to propagate; by way of affirmation, by emphasizing truncated passages which show only one side of the truth, hide the other [from] the eyes of the unlearned.”

Guéranger begins his formulation of the anti-liturgical heresy with its most overriding criterion: hatred of tradition.

Ultimately, this second criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy falls prey to the same weaknesses as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura: the choice of readings and even the canon of the Bible, as well as its interpretation, rely entirely upon “the caprice of the reformer, who, in final analysis, decides the meaning of the word itself.” On the other hand, the formulae inherited from Tradition reflect the infallible teaching of the Church and the integral meaning of Scripture; many of them were composed by saints and, like the creeds and definitions of the ecumenical councils, they codify and explicate the truth of God without bias. In place of these traditional formulae, and as his third criterion, Guéranger explains that the heretics “fabricate and introduce various formulas, filled with perfidy, by which the people are more surely ensnared in error.” These innovations prove to be the true motive for the application of sola scriptura to liturgical tradition.

Antiquarianism

Alongside sola scriptura, liturgical deformers will also frequently commit themselves to Guéranger’s fourth criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy: antiquarianism. Proponents of this heresy claim that only what is most ancient is truly pure, whereas later developments are those which “the errors and passions of man have mixed in.” As a result, antiquarianism seeks to purge the liturgy “from whatever is ‘false’ and ‘unworthy of God.’” Accordingly, “they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.”

This “pruning” can include the deletion of practices which are considered to be mere late “accretions”⁵ yet are later proven not to be so, such as ad orientem prayer which “the early Church…regarded as an apostolic tradition” since “it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and, indeed, of private prayer).”⁶ It would also involve the exclusion of cherished customs, such as the elevatio at the Consecration or the reading of the Last Gospel, which developed from centuries of pious devotion. In rejecting later developments in tradition, antiquarianism, in Guéranger’s words, “cut[s] them [the Christian faithful] off from the entire past.”

Pope Pius XII clearly condemned antiquarianism only a few years before the Second Vatican Council: “[I]t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device…; one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See…. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise” (Mediator Dei, §62, 64).  (The Voice of Tradition: Prosper Guéranger’s “Anti-Liturgical Heresy”. This commentary, no matter how accurately it summarizes Dom Prosper Gueranger’s oppoisiton to anti-liturgical Jansenist heresy, suffers, however, from its belief that the “Second” Vatican Council’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, November 1, 1963, was represented a “legitimate development” in the “organic growth of the liturgy, which was certainly not the case at all.)

The conciliar revolutionaries have been and continue be nothing other shameless in their misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and the use of an abominable liturgy to advance very kind of false ecumenism to which Dom Prosper Gueranger was entirely opposed, to say nothing this false liturgy being malleable enough to celebrate both natural and unnatural sins against Holy Purity. None of this is of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity.

On the Feast of Saint Agatha

Saint Agatha, whose feast we celebrate today, refused to compromise on any point of the Faith. Unlike the conciliarists, many of whom have bowed down before the images of false gods and/or have permitted their "ministers" to conduct services in once Catholic churches, including the Chapel of the Apparitions at the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, Saint Agatha condemned the false gods when praising them could have saved her very life:

S. Agatha the virgin was right fair, noble body and of heart, and was rich of goods. This glorious virgin served God in the city of Catania, leading a pure and holy life. Quintianus the provost of Sicily, being of a low lineage, was lecherous, avaricious, and a miscreant and pagan, and for to accomplish his evil desires fleshly, and to have riches, did do take S. Agatha to be presented and brought tofore him, and began to behold her with a lecherous sight; and for to have her himself, he would have induced her to make sacrifice unto the idols. And when he saw her firm in her purpose, he put her in the keeping of a woman named Aphrodisia, which had nine daughters, over foul, like unto the mother. This did he for to induce S. Agatha to do his will within thirty days. Aphrodisia and her daughters entreated the holy virgin to consent to the will of the provost, and sometime they made to her great promises of temporal goods and of great eases, and sometimes they made to her menaces of grievous torments for to suffer, and great pains, to which S. Agatha answered freely: My courage and my thought be so firmly founded upon the firm stone of Jesu Christ, that for no pain it may not be changed; your words be but wind, your promises be but rain, and your menaces be as rivers that pass, and how well that all these things hurtle at the foundement of my courage, yet for that it shall not move. In this manner answered she, and alway wept in making her prayers, and much great desire had she to come to Jesu Christ by martyrdom and by torments. When Aphrodisia saw well that in no wise she would be moved, she went to the provost Quintianus, and said to him: Sooner should the stones wax soft, and iron turn to soft lead, than turn the courage of this maid, or to take from her the christian faith. I and my daughters have done none other thing night ne day, one after another, but to labour how we might turn her heart to your consenting. I have promised her in your name your precious adornments, clothes of gold, houses, lands, towns, servants, and great meinys, and all this she despiseth and reputeth them at no value. When Quintianus heard this, anon he made her to come tofore him in judgment, and demanded her of her lineage, and at the last he would constrain her to make sacrifice unto the idols. And S. Agatha answered that they were no gods, but were devils that were in the idols made of marble and of wood, and overgilt. Quintianus said: Choose one of two; or do sacrifice to our gods, or thou shalt suffer pain and torments. S. Agatha said: Thou sayst that they be gods because thy wife was such an one as was Venus, thy goddess, and thou thyself as Jupiter, which was an homicide and evil. Quintianus said: It appeareth well that thou wilt suffer torments, in that thou sayst to me villainy. S. Agatha said: I marvel much that so wise a man is become such a fool, that thou sayest of them to be thy gods, whose life thou ne thy wife will follow. If they be good I would that thy life were like unto theirs; and if thou refusest their life, then art thou of one accord with me. Say then that they be evil and so foul, and forsake their living, and be not of such life as thy gods were. Quintianus said: What goest thou thus vainly speaking? make sacrifice unto the gods, or if thou do not I shall make thee to die by divers torments. S. Agatha abode firm and stable in the faith. Then Quintianus did do put her in a dark prison, and she went also gladly, and with as good will as she had been prayed to go to a wedding. (The Life of S. Agatha.)

This is quite a contrast to yesterday’s “International Day of Human Fraternity” as the man most people alive today consider to be “Pope Francis” put himself on a level of equality with leaders of false sects that deny the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity and the Sacred Divinity of the very Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in His Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio made not one reference to Our Lord, Christ the King, as he kept chattering away endlessly about a “fraternity” that is of the devil, the author of all false religions, including conciliarism, and ends up sending its adherents to hell. Saint Agatha refused any kind of fellowship with false gods. The conciliar “popes,” including Comrade Bergoglio, are downright chummy with them.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., wrote the following panegyric to Saint Agatha:

How lovely are thy Palms, Agatha! But how long and cruel was thy combat for them! The day was thine; thy faith and thy virginity triumphed but the battle-field was streamed with thy blood, and thy glorious wounds bear testimony to the Angels how stern was the courage of thy fidelity to Jesus, thy Spouse. When thine enemies left thee, it was to Him thou didst look up; and then thy soul flew to its rest, in the Bosom of thy King and God. The whole Church keeps feast to-day, praising her Lord in thee, great Martyr and Virgin! She knows the love thou bearest her, and how, amidst the joys of heaven, her interests and her wants are the object of thy prayers. Thou art our Sister; be, too, our Mother, by interceding for us. Centuries have passed away since that day, whereon thy soul quitted the body thou hadst sanctified by purity and suffering; but the great battle between the spirit and the flesh is still waging here on earth, and will so to the end of time. Assist us in the struggle; keep up within our hearts the holy fire, which the world and our passions are ever seeking to quench.

It is now the season, when every Christian should renew his whole being by repentance and compunction. We know the power of thy prayer; let it procure us these gifts: the fear of God, which keeps down the workings of corrupt nature; the spirit of penance, which repairs the injuries caused by our sins; and a solid love for our dear Lord, which sweetens the yoke, and ensures perseverance. More than once, a whole people has witnessed how a relic of thine, thy Veil, has checked the stream of lava which rolled down the sides of Etna; we are threatened with a torrent of vice, which will drive the world back to pagan corruption, unless Divine Mercy stay its wild fury; and prayers such as thine can obtain it for us. Delay not, O Agatha! – each day gives strength to the danger. Not a nation but what is now infected with the poison of a literature that is infidel and immoral; by thy prayers keep the poisonous cup from them that have not tasted, neutralise its power in them that have drunk its venom of death. Oh! spare us the shame of seeing our Europe the slave of sensuality, and the dupe of hell. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

With confident assurance in the intercession of Our Lady, especially by means of our daily recitation of her Most Holy Rosary, as we seek to offer up the trials of the present time as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, without looking for results while tenderly clinging to her so that we can avoid the pitfalls of the present era and die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of Holy Mother Church, she who makes no room for idols or falsehoods and is alone in keeping the Holy Faith intact and inviolate.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Philip of Jesus, pray for us.