Jorge Mario Bergoglio Bares His Teeth to Do the Work of Baal

I. Introduction: Modernism's War Against the Glories of the Roman Rite

One of the worst kept secrets of the past eight years, four months has been Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s absolute hatred of the Catholic Faith as It has been handed down to us from the Apostles through Holy Mother Church under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

None of the conciliar “popes,” however, have believed in the immutability of God. Each has believed, albeit in slightly different ways and with slightly different expressions, that Divine Revelation is imperfect and completely dependent upon the vagaries of human language and the historical circumstances of the times for its tentative expression and explication in differing ages of history. This belief, of course, is nothing other than classic Modernism:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

As has been the case with the social revolutionaries of the past and the present, the conciliar revolutionaries of the past and the present must hate anything and everything that occurred before their revolution and its “enlightened ideas” appeared on the scene.

Revolutionaries must first agitate the masses into believing that the "past" was bad and that they will provide a future that relies upon supposedly "simpler" and "purer" means to achieve justice and equity for all.

Revolutionaries must seek to eradicate all vestiges of the past in the name of "novelty" and "innovation" as they create "new structures" that merely give new names to what had existed in the past.

Revolutionaries must eliminate all opposition to their schemes of total control as they seek to institutionalize their schemes and to prevent them from being reversed in the future.

Revolutionaries must change even the dating of time as they circulate new calendars to date the beginning of "real history" from the outset of their revolution.

The conciliar revolutionaries have convinced most Catholics in the world that the "preconciliar past" was bad, that both Faith and Worship had become fossilized, that the need for external acts of penance belonged to a different era in the history of the Church, that everything in Catholicism was subject to change and adjustment according to various pastoral circumstances, something that the conciliar revolutionaries have told us in their very own words:

In this manner the Church, while remaining faithful to her office as teacher of truth, safeguarding "things old," that is, the deposit of tradition, fulfills at the same time the duty of examining and prudently adopting "things new" (cf. Mt 13:52). For part of the new Missal orders the prayers of the Church in a way more open to the needs of our times. Of this kind are above all the Ritual Masses and Masses for Various Needs, in which tradition and new elements are appropriately brought together. Thus, while a great number of expressions, drawn from the Church's most ancient tradition and familiar through the many editions of the Roman Missal, have remained unchanged, numerous others have been accommodated to the needs and conditions proper to our own age, and still others, such as the prayers for the Church, for the laity, for the sanctification of human labor, for the community of all nations, and certain needs proper to our era, have been newly composed, drawing on the thoughts and often the very phrasing of the recent documents of the Council. On account, moreover, of the same attitude toward the new state of the world as it now is, it seemed to cause no harm at all to so revered a treasure if some phrases were changed so that the language would be in accord with that of modern theology and would truly reflect the current state of the Church's discipline. Hence, several expressions regarding the evaluation and use of earthly goods have been changed, as have several which alluded to a certain form of outward penance which was proper to other periods of the Church's past. In this way, finally, the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have certainly been completed and perfected in many particulars by those of the Second Vatican Council, which has carried into effect the efforts to bring the faithful closer to the Sacred Liturgy that have been taken up these last four centuries and especially those of recent times, and above all the attention to the Liturgy promoted by St. Pius X and his Successors.” (2000 English Edition of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, approved by the conciliar Vatican in 2002.)

Leaving aside the gratuitous claims about the Council of Trent and Pope Saint Pius X that is without any foundation whatsoever for a bit of discussion later in this commentary, one can see in Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal the contempt that the conciliar revolutionaries have for the Catholic past, especially as regards “forms of outward penance.”

Who says that forms of outward penance were proper to other periods of the Church?

Not God.

Not His Catholic Church.

Only prideful men who pose as shepherds and who have convinced most Catholics in the world that the practices of the “past” were “bad” and that we must do “positive” things in Lent rather than “negative” things such as fasting and denying ourselves various legitimate pleasures dare to assert such a thing. Not God. Not His Catholic Church.

Many have been the times in the past one hundred months when Jorge Mario Bergoglio has attacked his favorite targets, that is, believing Catholics, by calling them “Pharisees,” “rigid,” “hateful,” “Pelagians” and other choice pejoratives, and one of the very first things he did after he became “Pope Francis” on March 13, 2013, was to initiate a veritable persecution of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata because one faction within the group was said to be causing “divisions” by its devotion to the modernized form of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on the First Sunday of Advent, December 3, 1960, that underwent a slight revision in 1962 with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of Mass, thus demonstrating that the Canon is no longer the unbreakable, unchangeable rule of the Catholic Faith. The Argentine Apostate essentially eviscerated the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata and singled them out as necessary for “correction.”

This is what Jorge Mario Bergoglio said in 2016 to “Father” Antonio Spadoro, S.J., about young Catholics who were attracted to the “extraordinary form” of the “one Roman Rite”:

I ask him: "Other than those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of habit or devotion, can this desire express something else? Are there dangers?"

[Pope:] "I ask myself about this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless. I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else... [sic] The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid." (Rorate Caeli Blogspot.)

Revolutionaries must use the “mental illness” card to denounce, belittle and disparage those who are said to be “counter-revolutionaries." Bergoglio has done this throughout his career as a lay presbyter, and he, who turns eighty-five years of age in five months, has worn out so many “mental illness cards” as “Pope Francis” that one wonders if the Vatican Printing Office has to print out new decks of such cards every week.

Bergoglio also explained his completely Modernist view of “tradition” to Spadoro:

I insist: what about tradition? Some understand it in a rigid way.

[Pope:] "But no: tradition blooms!" he responds. "There is a Traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism: it is not good. Faithfulness instead implies a growth. Tradition, in the transmission from one age to the next of the deposit of the faith, grows and consolidates with the passage of time, as Saint Vincent of Lérins said in his Commonitorium Primum. I read it always in my breviary: 'Ita etiam christianae religionis dogma sequatur has decet profectuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate' (Also the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidating with the years, developing with time, deepening with the age.)"        (Rorate Caeli Blogspot.)                                                   

Liar.

This is what Saint Vincent of Lerins wrote about tradition:

"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)

Aware that there might be a new reader or two who have happened upon this site, here are proofs from Catholic teaching that demonstrate that Catholics must adhere very firmly to the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

They [the Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . . The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an ally of perdition. He rejects the very nature of Catholic truth, which means that He rejects the very nature of God Himself as Immutability is one of His attributes. 

Moreover, Bergoglio's seething hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is premised upon the fact that he does not believe that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s propitiatory offering of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. 

The Argentine Apostate does not understand that the Sacred Liturgy is about the worship of God, not about the reaffirmation of “the people,” which is why the priest faces the altar, which is generally, although not always, of course, oriented to the East, that is, to Jerusalem and the site of Our Lord’s Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Protestant fellowship service, although this is precisely what the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was designed to be.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio caricatured the manner in which a priest offers the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as turning his "back on the people." 

Liar.

A true priest is in deep in conversation with God with the faithful who are present at Mass. Our focus in Holy Mass is upon God, not the priest's personality or celebratory style or even his own very person. A priest must be conscious of the fact that he is about to bring God down on the altar of sacrifice in the presence of His Most Blessed Mother, Saint Joseph, and all the angels and the saints, each of whom are present mystically at every valid offering of Holy Mass. Such a truth is foreign to the mocking mind of Bergoglio.

The priest, an alter Christus who acts in persona Christi at the Holy Mass, in a conversation with God as he, but a mere mortal, offers the Divine oblation to God the Father in Spirit and in Truth. Our focus in the true Roman Rite of the Catholic is Our Lord’s Redemptive Act, not on the “community.”

As I have noted on other occasions, the first person to celebrate a "liturgy" facing the people was Martin Luther. Father Joseph Jungmann, who was a supporter of "liturgical reform" but was intellectually honest about some points despite the questionable nature of much of his other research, noted, "The claim that the altar of the early Church was always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale." We do not need to look at the priest and he does not need to look at us.

Both priest and people are called to focus their attention on God, not on each other. While a particular priest celebrating a particular Mass is important in that there would be no Mass celebrated at that time without his having been ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, his individual personality is unimportant, totally irrelevant. We need to focus on the work he is doing in persona Christi by virtue of the powers given him by God at the moment of his priestly ordination. The orientation of the priest toward the High Altar of Sacrifice is an important constituent element of the solemnity befitting the Adoration of the God the Father through the God the Son in Spirit and in Truth.

Every aspect of the Mass demands solemnity, sobriety, and reverence. The priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition does not come out to greet the people as do those priests/presbyters who stage the conciliar liturgical travesty. He comes out to pray at the foot of the steps leading to the High Altar, preparing himself and the faithful gathered (if any) for the perfect prayer which is the Mass. As noted just above, a priest is in conversation with God. We unite our prayers with those of the priest. However, the focus of a priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not the people. It is Christ, the King.

Although there are responses that the choir sings in a Solemn High Mass, the priest addresses us as a priest, not as an entertainer who has to add something of his personality or his own wordiness to "make" the Mass a more "complete" experience for us. The entirety of the Mass must convey solemnity, especially at that sublime moment when the priest utters the glorious words, Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. . . . Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aerteni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. The very solemn nature of the Roman Rite does this. No priest had to exaggerate the elevation in order to convey that which is lacking in the essence of the Mass (as some do in the Novus Ordo). No priest had to improvise words to emphasize that the words of consecration are indeed the most important part of the Mass (as some do quite idiosyncratically in the Novus Ordo). Every aspect of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveyed reverence and solemnity.

Solemnity is also conveyed in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by the very positioning of the priest in conversation with God (or ad orientem, in the case of the actual, Eastward orientation of the High Altar of a particular church).

Permanence and Transcendence are two other constituent elements related to the end of Adoration found in the Mass. A rite is meant of its nature to be fixed, not ever changing. Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei in 1947 that the human elements (or accidentals) of the Mass are subject to change. If such change should occur, he noted, it should occur organically, slowly over the course of time.

Rapid change bewilders the faithful. Constant, unremitting change (and the variations that exist within parishes, among parishes, and among priests) lead people to conclude that doctrine itself must be subject to the sort of change and evolution evidenced in the liturgy. Everything is up for grabs, including the nature of God Himself. Nothing is fixed in the nature of things or by the Deposit of Faith Our Lord entrusted to the Church through the Apostles. That this is one of the chief goals of the liturgical revolutionaries is plain for all to see and is something that has been the fodder of much discussion over the past fifty years.

A liturgical rite is meant to reflect permanence. God is unchanging. Our need for Him is unchanging. His truths are unchanging. As the liturgy is meant to provide us with a sense of same sort of security we find in our earthly dwellings, our homes, as a foretaste of the security we will know in our Heavenly dwelling if we persist until our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace, it is obviously the case that it should reflect the permanence and transcendence of God and of the nature of His revelation. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveys this sense of permanence by virtue of the fixed nature of the rites (the gestures, the stability of the liturgical calendar, the annual cycle of readings, the repetition of the readings of a Sunday Mass during the following week if no feast days or votive Masses are celebrated on a particular day). It also conveys the sense of permanence and transcendence by its use of Latin, a dead language.

As Dr. Adrian Fortescue pointed out in his works, Latin is by no means a necessity for the celebration of the Mass. The various Eastern rites are offered in different idioms. And Latin itself was once the language of the people. (Indeed, one of the ways to rebut the charge made so by Protestants that gratuitously by Protestants that Catholics desired to "hide" the Bible from the people prior to the Protestant Revolt is to point out that when Saint Jerome translated the Bible from the Hebrew and the Greek into the Latin Vulgate, he did so to make it accessible to the people. Latin was the language of the people at that time.) The fall of the Roman Empire in the West, however, led to Latin's falling into disuse as the vernacular of the people. This was an "accident" of history, admitting, obviously, that all things happen in the Providence of God. This "accident," however, wound up serving to convey the sense of permanence and transcendence which is so essential to the Adoration of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

As Latin is now a dead language, it is no longer subject to the sort of ideological manipulation and deconstructionism found in a living language. A dead language is what it is. Its words have a permanent, precise meaning. This "accident" of history, which, of course, has occurred within the Divine Providence of God, has helped to convey the sense that God is permanent, His truths are permanent, our need for Him is permanent, and our worship of Him must reflect this permanence. Furthermore, Latin conveys the universality of the Faith. A dead language is beyond the ability of anyone, including a priest, to manipulate. Thus, the Mass of the Roman Rite is the same everywhere. It is the same in New York as it is Spain. It is the same in the United Kingdom as it is in Japan. It is the same in Nigeria as it is in Argentina. It is the same in its essence in 2021 as it was 1571. This furthers the sense of permanence as a constituent element of the end of Adoration.

Latin also conveys the sense of the Mysterium Tremendum. Although it is possible to pray the Mass with a priest by the use of a good Missal (such as the Father Lasance New Roman Missal), even those who are fluent in ecclesiastical and scholastic Latin understand that Latin conveys of its nature a sense of mystery. The Mass after all contains within it the mysteries of salvation. We know intellectually what the Mass is and what takes place therein. However, not even the greatest theologian in the history of the Church understands fully how these mysteries take place. We accept them as having been given us by Our Lord through Holy Mother Church. We want to plumb their depths by means of assiduous prayer and study. No human being, however, can possibly claim to understand the mystery of God's love for His sinful creatures, no less His desire to reconcile us to Himself through the shedding of His own Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Latin conveys the sense of the tremendous mystery which is the Mass.

Moreover, Latin is not an incomprehensible language, as some defenders of the new order of things contend so arrogantly.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has never been able to understand or to accept the simple fact even illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages understood the Mass as a result of their being immersed into it week after week after week. Indeed, they had a better understanding of the nature of the Mass (and of its ends) than do the lion's share of Catholics today, immersed as they have been in almost fifty-two plus years of vernacular banality and incessant “innovations,” whether “approved” or “unapproved.” Nevertheless, Latin conveys the beauty and the glory and the honor and the permanence and the transcendence and the mystery associated with God and His Revelation.

Well, although I, for one, had thought that Antichrist’s ally, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, would wait until after the death of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Antipope Benedict XVI, to rescind Summorum Pontificum, I suppose that Bergoglio’s recent hospitalization convinced him that his ninety-four-year-old predecessor on the conciliar seat of apostasy might actually outlive him or that he, Bergoglio, has plans to resign in the near future. made it necessary for him to abrogate Summorum Pontificum now rather than later.

To be sure the handwriting was on the wall as early as last September when the false “pontiff” sent a letter to his “bishops” seeking their advice concerning the “divisions” that had been caused by Summorum Pontificum, and he himself admitted that he was “preoccupied” with the “divisions” caused by the rise of interest in what his immediate predecessor called “the extraordinary form” of the Roman Rite.

Before examining the terms of his motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, that has now been inserted into his Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and, according to the conclusion reach in 1956 by the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton in the American Ecclesiastical Review, is thus binding upon all Catholics who recognize Jorge Mario Bergoglio as “Pope Francis,” perhaps it is important to review the simple fact that the whole business of granting an “indult” of any kind to give Catholics access to a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is itself a testimony to the failures of all aspects of the conciliar revolution.  

II. From the Founding of the Society of Saint Pius X to Abhinc Quttuor Annos, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, and Summorum Pontificum

First, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and his cohort of Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries were shocked that the Society of Saint Pius X had such success in attracting Catholics of all ages to its offerings of Holy Mass, although the use of Missals varied from place to place and later became one of the major breaking points for The Nine in 1983. The conciliar revolutionaries did not expect that there would be significant numbers of Catholics attached to the “old liturgy,” and they did everything possible to dissuade Catholics from attending Masses offered by the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X.

Second, although Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II was open to an immediate “reconciliation” with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre when they met on November 18, 1978, with the usual stipulations, Franz “Cardinal” Seper, an acolyte of Montini/Paul VI who hated the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, made sure that such a rapprochement did not take place. This would prompt Wojtyla/John Paul II to issue his first “indult,” Quattuor Abhinc Annos, on October 3, 1984, with the following stipulations:

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.

This concession, indicative of the common Father's solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities.

I am pleased to avail myself of this occasion to express to Your Excellency my sentiments of deep esteem.(Quattuor abhinc annos. Droleskey note: This letter was sent to the world’s conciliar bishops, a good many of whom were true bishops even at that late date, by “Archbishop” Paul Agustin Mayer, with whom I had met just days after the document had been signed by “Pope” John Paul II but had yet been publicly revealed. Silvio Cardinal Oddi was very frank with me when I met him at his office on the Via della Concilizione in Rome the day after I met with “Cardinal” Meyer, saying, that “He [Meyer] is a nice man, but he is weak!!!! The pope wants the Tridentine Mass. I want the Tridentine Mass. We will get the Tridentine Mass.” Unfortunately, the battle for the Mass, although quite understandable, was a distraction as the problem we faced then and face at this time is a matter of the Holy Faith, which has been under attack by the conciliar revolutionaries since October 28, 1958.)

As will be seen shortly, much of the text of Traditonis Custodes represents a reversion to the terms of Quattuor Abnic Annos except for the fact that “Papa” Bergoglio has now mandated the reading of the Lesson and the Gospel in the vernacular, presumably at a lectern facing the people, after the Gradual and Alleluia verse. While an instruction issued under the authority of Pope Pius XII on October 3, 1958, just six days before his death, permitted the use of “commentators” to read the Lesson and the Gospel while the priest was reading at the altar, the use of the vernacular for the Lesson and the proclamation of the Gospel passage is indeed “mixing” the two rites and recalls the 1965 Ordo Missae of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI that went into effect on Sunday, November 30, 1964. It is entirely possible that the Ordo Missae of 1965, sometimes called the “transitional Mass,” might be the future of the offering or staging of the “indult” liturgy within the conciliar structures IF enough of Jorge’s appointees to the conciliar hierarchy do not simply deny permission outright for the celebration or staging of the 1962 Missal, that is, thereby making the whole matter a moot point.

It should be noted as well that the provisions against the “mixing” of the “two rites” found in Quattuor Abinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta were honored in the breach as Paul Agustin “Cardinal” Mayer, the first President of “Pontifical” Commission Ecclesia Dei, gave what can be called an “indult within the indult” in 1990 when he permitted conciliar “bishops” to mandate the use of the Novus Ordo readings in the place of the proper readings in the 1962 Missal. Thus, the priest or presbyter read the proper readings in Latin at the Epistle and Gospel sides of the altar before reading entirely different readings in English from the pulpit or the lectern. A religious sect not founded on truth winds up creating a cacophony of confusion at almost every opportunity.

Both Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta four years later insisted that those who attended the offerings or stagings of the 1962 Missal recognize the legitimacy of the “Second” Vatican Council and the legitimacy of both its teachings and of the Novus Ordo liturgical service.

It should be noted furthermore that Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II note specifically in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had placed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (more commonly known as the Society of Saint Pius X) into schism with what is purported to be the Catholic Church by consecrating four priests as bishops without a “papal” mandate and for refusing to accept what the “canonized pope” said was “the living character of tradition”:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church. (Karol  Wojytla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II was absolutely correct to state that the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be contrary to Tradition. Some in the Society of Saint Pius X have posited a nonexistent conflict between the “authoritative magisterium” and the “governing magisterium.” There is no such distinction as no such division in the magisterium exists. It is a fabrication. The universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach error, something that has been reviewed many times on this site, including  in Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.

Unfortunately, for “Saint John Paul II,” however, his very argument in favor of the continuity between the “Second” Vatican Council and the Tradition of the Catholic Church is based upon an admission that that false council’s texts might be too obscure to understand properly “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” Holy Mother Church teaches clearly. There is nothing “new” in her teaching. The “Polish Pope” was trying to have it both ways by referring to the “living character of Tradition” to call the Society of Saint Pius X to obedience while at the same time unwittingly admitting that that there are “new” points of doctrine that need to be “understood.” This is not from the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

It is very important to emphasize at this juncture that Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, extended their gestures of “fraternity” only because they believed that an “attachment” to “some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition” was a matter of emotion, of sentimentality and had no relationship whatsoever to the integrity of the Holy Faith. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said the following in Summorum Pontificum and in his accompanying Explanatory Letter:

In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII.  Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it. (Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.)

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the 'usus antiquior,' will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.)

Ratzinger/Benedict was, in essence, saying that an attachment to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was a matter of aesthetics having nothing to do with the integrity of the Holy Faith and that more reverent stagings of the Novus Ordo service would obviate the need for people to seek out reverence in “Tridentine Masses,” which ignored the simple fact that the Novus Ordo service if offensive to God and sacramentally invalid no matter how well it is staged.

Ratzinger/Benedict repeated this theme, thereafter, explaining in his letter to the conciliar “bishops” after the lifting of the “excommunications” of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer on June 30, 1988, that his goal was to “pacify the spirits” of traditionally-minded Catholics, a “pacification” he stressed over and over again in subsequent years:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Ratzinger/Benedict’s supposed magnanimity to traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that it is the Catholic Church and the conciliar entity has true sacramental rites, true bishops, true priests and continues to have true popes was based on sentiment towards those who have a “nostalgic” or “aesthetic” attachment to an “older” liturgy, not upon a desire to protect the inviolable integrity of the doctrines of the Holy Faith. Summorum Pontificum was bound to weaken over time as it was founded upon false premises that were not clear in the ever opaque, obscurantist, Hegelian mind of Antipope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger/Benedict repeatedly contradicted himself in the explanatory letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum in 2007 and then in the explanatory letter he issued in early 2009 to explain why he lifted the ban of excommunication that his predecessor, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, had imposed upon Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alonso de Galaretta in 1988 after they had been consecrated without a “papal” mandate by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who remains “excommunicated” thirty years after his death on March 25, 1991.

No, nothing is ever stable or secure within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Well, I qualify that last statement: Nothing is ever stable or secure within the counterfeit church of conciliarism except for the revolutionary hatred of the true Catholic Faith and of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was offered by countless numbers of saints and helped to fortify the witness of most of the saints that Holy Mother Church has raised to her altars for public veneration and esteem.  

Summorum Pontificum was an effective muzzling device for Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Career-long critics of his in the “resist while recognize” movement ignored his lifelong warfare against the very nature of dogmatic truth (which is nothing other than warfare against the very nature of God Himself) and ignored each of his serial violations of the First Commandment as he personally esteemed the symbols and the places of “worship” of one false religion after another.

The Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not about one's aesthetic "likes." It is about giving the Most Blessed Trinity fitting worship as the Holy Faith itself is conveyed flawlessly, without any defect or ambiguity whatsoever.

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” to accept a menorah as a symbol of the "perennial validity of God's covenant of peace?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a copy of the Koran, which blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by denying His Sacred Divinity and is heretical in that it does that God is a Trinity of Persons, which was represented by the American conciliar "bishops" as "the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace"?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God in the very Flesh, say what Ratzinger/Benedict said in May of 2008 when he, the false "pontiff," received yet another copy of the Koran, this time in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican, called this work of blasphemy a "dear and precious book." Would Our Lord speak in such a way about a book that denies His Sacred Divinity? Restoring the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept the "metallic cube" representing the principles of Jain?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a brass incense burner (talk about a grain of incense!) with the word "Om" on it in order to "esteem" the Hindu religion?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a bell used in the false worship of Buddhism?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for a putative Roman Pontiff to call a mosque, a place of diabolical worship, or a mountain revered by the devil-worshipers known as Buddhists as "sacred"?

How was it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for an alleged Successor of Saint Peter to enter into synagogues and to treat the false, blasphemous religion of Talmudic Judaism as a valid means of sanctification and salvation for its adherents? Was Bishop George Hay wrong when he wrote that the Catholic Church's attitude about the places of false worship, including the synagogue, will always be the same? Was Pope Pius XI wrong to insist on the same doctrine?

How as it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for an alleged Sovereign Pontiff to give an audience in October of 2007 so that they could lobby him for either the elimination or for the change of the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews as found in the 1962 Missal whose use he had "liberalized" just three months previously?

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did indeed revise the prayer and mandated its use, although he pleased neither the Jews nor traditional Catholics by so doing. Far from being a "papal masterstroke," the revised prayer was a concession to the ancient enemies of Christ the King and His true Church that they can make demands to have a say in the liturgical life of the Catholic Church. Some "papal masterstroke."

Summorum Pontificum silenced most of the people in the “resist while recognize” movement to point that at least some within their number cling to the delusion that their beloved “restorer of tradition” never really resigned an office he never held authentically in the first place, namely, the papacy.

III. A Detailed Dissection of Traditonis Custodes

Although Summorum Pontificum was a matter of aesthetics and appreciation for what he considered to be “liturgical history” in an effort to “pacify the spirits” of “confused” Catholics, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Traditionis Custodes is not based in any kind of sentimentality whatsoever. Unlike his two immediate predecessors, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who constantly reaffirms hardened sinners in their sins without using any occasion to exhort them to repent and convert lest they go to hell for all eternity, has no sort of “fraternal” kindness even on a natural level for Catholics who adhere even to a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that, even though it contains nothing heretical, was based on the Jansenist, anti-liturgical principles of the hijacked Liturgical Movement as implemented by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII. Bergoglio hates the Catholic Faith, and it is because he hates the Catholic Faith that he hates those who are attached to the beauty, orderliness, solemnity, reverence, and the spirit of recollection befitting the Mysterium Tremendum that is Holy Mass.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is thus doing as “Pope Francis” what he did as the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, by attacking what he calls the “Mass of Saint Pius V,” which the 1962 is certainly not, as incompatible with his own “liberated” liturgical “style” in conformity with the liturgical “reform” of the “Second” Vatican Council. Even on this score, though, countless millions of words have been written about whether the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is in accord with the dictates of Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 1, 1963, not that this controversy matters much as the “Second” Vatican Council was a robber council convened by a Rosicrucian Mason who was under suspicion of heresy during the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.

Thus, having provided a brief background of how things in the never-never-land known as the counterfeit church of conciliarism have “evolved” to this juncture, it is time to provide an exegesis of Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021, before dissecting Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s accompanying explanatory letter, starting with the apostate’s introduction:

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2] (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number One:

It is noteworthy to point out that the conciliar “popes” rarely refer themselves as the Vicars of Christ. Obviously, the conciliar “popes” have been no popes at all. Granted. However, each of the conciliar “popes” have considered themselves to be such but have preferred in most, although not in all instances, to refer to themselves as the Bishop of Rome rather than as the Supreme Pastor, Universal Shepherd or Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The title of Bishop of Rome, which is, of course, the office that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter holds, is more “ecumenical” and “collegial” than “Supreme Pontiff,” shall we say.

To the next paragraph of Traditionis Custodes:

In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. [3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others. [4] (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Two:

Even broken clocks are right twice every 1440 minutes. Bergoglio is indeed very correct to state that the Wojtyla/John Paul II’s and Ratzinger/Benedict’s “Latin Mass” initiatives were matters of pastoral “sensitivity” having nothing to do with the Holy Faith. In other words, Wojtyla and Ratzinger considered the attachment of Catholics to “some earlier forms” of the Latin Rite, “earlier forms” that were, in all their essential elements, in place by the time of the Pope Saint Gregory the Great.

Father Adrian Fortescue wrote the following over a century ago:

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. (Michael Davies, ed., The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue) 

“Some earlier forms,” indeed.

The Mass of all ages is not some “earlier form,” unless, that is, one believes in a different religion and is thus in need of a “liturgy” wherein that different—and by definition false—religion can be expression in all its impermanence.

Yes, we return now to Traditionis Custodes:

In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Three:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “invitation” to his “bishops” was simply a means to provide cover for him to rescind Summorum Pontificum. These exercises of “collegiality” are pathetic excuses to avoid using the plenipotentiary powers of the papacy.

To be sure, our true popes have consulted the bishops about various matters, something that Pope Pius IX did when considering whether to proclaim solemnly the doctrine of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that Pope Pius XII did a century later when considering whether to proclaim solemnly the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. However, these conciliar quacks use the cover of “consultative” democracy to provide themselves with a false narrative that a certain matter, in this instance the rescission of Summorum Pontificum, is a burning issue that is need of an immediate resolution.

Although I have not been part of the indult world since 2004 when we attended what we thought was Holy Mass at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Pequannock, New Jersey, and must admit that I do not keep up with the goings on within semi-traditional circles within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, I do not believe that there has been any consternation in those dioceses where there are so-called “traditional Mass” parishes in place. It is only those dioceses headed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik, lavender-friendly, ecologically insane and socialist “bishops” where chancery officials and some other agitators may have been longing for “papal” cover to give the boot to “revanchist” Catholics.

All right, it is now time to move on to the provisions of Traditionis Custodes:

At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Four:

Bergoglio’s stating that the “liturgical books promulgated by” Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II “are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite undoes Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s absurd contention that there were “two forms of the one Roman Rite, “extraordinary and ordinary,” noting that the “two forms” absurdity did not even include the so-called Anglican Use Missal based upon the practice and the theological presuppositions of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect.

To the next provisions of Traditionis Custodes:

Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Five:

In other words, the “liberality” of Summorum Pontificum has been replaced with the restrictiveness of Quattuor Abhinc Annos.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs; (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Six:

Unlike the rather benign treatment given to traditionally-minded Catholics within the conciliar structures given by “bishops” in the 1980s and 1990s prior to Summorum Pontificum, most of whom make no inquiries as to whether those attending indult Masses accepted by the “legitimacy of the “liturgical reform,” one can be assured that this provision of Traditionis Custodes will be rigorously enforced by the likes of Blase Cupich in Chicago, Wilton Gregory in Washington, District of Columbia, John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky and others among the vast array of Bergoglians in the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world. 

§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes); (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Seven:

Perhaps “faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration” at the local American Legion Hall or the local Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall. Maybe a cooperative Knights of Columbus chapter eager to make a buck or two might rent out its hall to such “adherents,” and there are plenty of hotels with meeting rooms that can be used. This effort, very similar to the provision found in Quattuor Abhinc Annos but honored mostly in the breach, is to force the offerings or simulations of the modernized Immemorial Mass of Tradition into secular settings to rob it of any sense of sacrality, to profane it by forcing it into the world, so to speak.

§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences; (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Eight:

Although discussed earlier in this commentary, Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of Traditionis Custodes does away with the priest or presbyter’s reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in Latin. One would suppose as well that the Gradual and Alleluia verse will read in the vernacular and might even come to resemble the “Responsory Psalm” in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Out with the translations found in the Father F. X. Lasance New Roman Missal or the Saint Andrew’s Daily Missal; in with the hideous translations of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). Out with the Douay-Rheims Bible, in with the New American Bible.

Yes, there is a whole lot beneath the service in each of these provisions, and although I am ashamed not to have seen the truth earlier, my decades of experience in the Novus Ordo travesty have equipped me to understand what Jorge wants to accomplish: the complete abolition of the Latin Vulgate as the basis of proclaiming the Holy Faith. One must wonder if the Last Gospel must be read in the vernacular as well. This “open question” will be “resolved” in favor of the vernacular by the Bergoglian “bishops.”

§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful; (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Ten:

One can be assured that Bergoglio’s favored sons in the conciliar hierarchy, such as it is, will appoint presbyters who are hostile to “Latin Mass” communities while the “conservative” “bishops” will appoint presbyters who are sympathetic to the “sensitivities” of Catholics who “feel attached” to “some earlier form” or the Roman Rite. Stalinism in a lot of places, benign neglect in others.

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them; (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Eleven:

This provision will give Bergoglio’s boys a chance to eliminate longstanding “Latin Mass” parishes. Depending upon the “sensitivities” of those who are attached to “some earlier form” of the Roman Rite, the only beneficiary of this provision will be the Society of Saint Pius X, which might be Bergoglio’s real goal here so as to marginalize those he considers as “revanchist” Catholics as “schismatic” and to get these “troublemakers” out of conciliar parishes once and for all.

While there might be some who will go to the trouble of recognizing that none of this can come from the Catholic Church and decide to go to a chapel served by priest who recognize that the See of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows that his ultra-progressive Bolsheviks will shut down established “Latin Mass” communities in an effort to dispirit many so that they will simply relent and accept the Novus Ordo as the “one rite” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which, of course, it is.

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Twelve:

Jorge lays down the law from Baal: there will be no more toleration for believing Catholics.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Thirteen:

Seminarians within the conciliar structures who had hoped to make use of Summorum Pontificum are now at the mercy of their “ordinary” and of the “beneficence” of hostile conciliar authorities within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Fourteen:

So much for the celebrets granted by “Pontifical” Commission Ecclesia Dei prior to Summorum Pontificum as well for as the universal permission provided therein. One wonders how many conciliar presbyters, who are not validly ordained, of course, will flee to the Society of Saint Pius X and function as “priests” there without ever being conditionally ordained. Jorge likes to “make  a mess” of things, and this would be quite the mess if this speculation is borne out by empirical evidence over time.

Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.

Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Fifteen:

The meaning of this is quite simple: The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, et al., are now on life support. Each will be given an “apostolic visitator” ‘ere long. Each will be persecuted in the same manner as were the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Each will be required to have its priests/presbyters stage the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination on a regular basis. Each will fall away over time.

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Sixteen:

A new false “king” came to power eight years, four months, six days ago. Unlike the new Pharoah, who knew nothing of Joseph, “King” Jorge knows Joseph Alois Ratzinger and has decided to spit on him before he is dead. There is simply no honor among the thieves who have stolen the Catholic Faith and replaced it with synthetic concoction that is the realization of everything condemned and anathematized in the [First] Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Catholic Faith, April 24, 1870, and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1970, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1910, Notre Charge Apostlique, August 15, 1910, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.

Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.

FRANCIS (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Interjection Number Seventeen:

Ah, yes, the “pope” of “mercy, the “pope” of accompaniment, the “pope” of “toleration has no “mercy,” is unwilling to “accompany” or even to merely tolerate those who hates because of his seething hatred of the Catholic Faith that is expressed with beauty, perfection, order, and reverence within the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

“Pope Francis” thus provided no period of “transition” for his commands to take effect, and those who think that they can ignore a so-called “apostolic constitution” that the one they believed to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter has placed into his Acta Apostolicae Sedis, ought to reckon with the following truths stated by Pope Pius IX and summarized by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton:

While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth, which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith. We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith, to be believed by all. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not which those declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were only given to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

But since it is a matter of subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of the same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Pope Pius IX, "The Conventions of the Theologians of Germany," from the letter Tuas Libenter, to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, December 21, 1863. As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 1683-1684, pp. 427-428.)

Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church.  And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice.  There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings.  They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of theHumani generis necessary to counteract their activities.  These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements.  The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence.  It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view.  The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology.  For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth.  And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

Those who recognize the Jorge Mario Bergoglio” as “Pope Francis” have no authority found anywhere in Catholic teaching to “ignore” Traditionis Custodes. They must obey, and they must obey without complaint, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear in 1884 and 1888:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government.On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

As far as I am aware, no one in the “resist while recognize” movement has of yet “recognized” that Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum even exist, no less that each condemns the false assertion that one can openly criticize a true pope on matters of Faith and Morals. Both of these apostolic letters were entered into Pope Leo XIII’s Acta Apostolicae Sedis and are thus binding upon the consciences of every single Catholic around the world without any reservations, exceptions or qualifications whatsoever.  

IV. Dissecting on Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes

Although I would prefer not to do so as it has been painful enough to go through the provisions of Traditionis Custodes, my duty to the readers of this website compel me to offer a bit of commentary about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Explanatory Letter to his “apostolic constitution.”

The initial parts of the letter do not need much in way of comment as they are merely elaborations of the provisions contained in Traditionis Custodes. However, I will include the letter en toto below and then interject where necessary to provide important corrections:

Rome, 16 July 2021

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us. [1]

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 [2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 [3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.

Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area. [4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”, [5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”. [6]

In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”. [7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”. [8]It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”. [9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”. [10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”. [11]

With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, [12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Comment Number One:

This is all delusional.

Most of the “Latin Mass” communities within the counterfeit church of conciliarism are filled with willing little sheepies who are either willfully ignorant of and/or have decided to completely quiet about the doctrinal problems of the “Second” Vatican Council and the various apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and heretical statements of the postconciliar “popes.” Most of the presbyters within the religious communities erected under the “authority” of “Pontifical” Commission Ecclesia Dei do not say one word publicly about anything Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done. They have failed their duty as shepherds to warn the sheep of the wolves in shepherds’ clothing and have thus reaffirmed silence at a time when heresy must be hated and denounced with the spirit discussed by Father Frederick William Faber in his explication of the Sixth Dolor of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

The love of God brings many new instincts into the heart. Heavenly and noble as they are, they bear no resemblance to what men would call the finer and more heroic developments of character. A spiritual discernment is necessary to their right appreciation. They are so unlike the growth of earth, that they must expect to meet on earth with only suspicion, misunderstanding, and dislike. It is not easy to defend them from a controversial point of view; for our controversy is obliged to begin by begging the question, or else it would be unable so much as to state its case. The axioms of the world pass current in the world, the axioms of the gospel do not. Hence the world has its own way. It talks us down. It tries us before tribunals where our condemnation is secured beforehand. It appeals to principles which are fundamental with most men but are heresies with us. Hence its audience takes part with it against us. We are foreigners, and must pay the penalty of being so. If we are misunderstood, we had no right to reckon on any thing else, being as we are, out of our own country. We are made to be laughed at. We shall be understood in heaven. Woe to those easy-going Christians whom the world can understand, and will tolerate because it sees they have a mind to compromise!

The love of souls is one of these instincts which the love of Jesus brings into our hearts. To the world it is proselytism, there mere wish to add to a faction, one of the selfish developments of party spirit. One while the stain of lax morality is affixed to it, another while the reproach of pharisaic strictness! For what the world seems to suspect least of all in religion is consistency. But the love of souls, however apostolic, is always subordinate to love of Jesus. We love souls because of Jesus, not Jesus because of souls. Thus there are times and places when we pass from the instinct of divine love to another, from the love of souls to the hatred of heresy. This last is particularly offensive to the world. So especially opposed is it to the spirit of the world, that, even in good, believing hearts, every remnant of worldliness rises in arms against this hatred of heresy, embittering the very gentlest of characters and spoiling many a glorious work of grace. Many a convert, in whose soul God would have done grand things, goes to his grave a spiritual failure, because he would not hate heresy. The heart which feels the slightest suspicion against the hatred of heresy is not yet converted. God is far from reigning over it yet with an undivided sovereignty. The paths of higher sanctity are absolutely barred against it. In the judgment of the world, and of worldly Christians, this hatred of heresy is exaggerated, bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore, better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and unpopular. The mild self-opinionatedness of the gentle, undiscerning good will also take the world's view and condemn us; for there is a meek-loving positiveness about timid goodness which is far from God, and the instincts of whose charity is more toward those who are less for God, while its timidity is searing enough for harsh judgment. There are conversions where three-quarters of the heart stop outside the Church and only a quarter enters, and heresy can only be hated by an undivided heart. But if it is hard, it has to be borne. A man can hardly have the full use of his senses who is bent on proving to the world, God's enemy, that a thorough-going Catholic hatred of heresy is a right frame of man. We might as well force a blind man to judge a question of color. Divine love inspheres in us a different circle of life, motive, and principle, which is not only not that of the world, but in direct enmity with it. From a worldly point of view, the craters in the moon are more explicable things than we Christians with our supernatural instincts. From the hatred of heresy we get to another of these instincts, the horror of sacrilege. The distress caused by profane words seems to the world but an exaggerated sentimentality. The penitential spirit of reparation which pervades the whole Church is, on its view, either a superstition or an unreality. The perfect misery which an unhallowed  touch of the Blessed Sacrament causes to the servants of God provokes either the world's anger or its derision. Men consider it either altogether absurd in itself, or at any rate out of all proportion; and, if otherwise they have proofs of our common sense, they are inclined to put down our unhappiness to sheer hypocrisy. The very fact that they do not believe as we believe removes us still further beyond the reach even of their charitable comprehension. If they do not believe in the very existence our sacred things, how they shall they judge the excesses of a soul to which these sacred things are far dearer than itself? (Father Frederick Faber, The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 291-295.)

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has been awash in heresy from its beginnings as it is premised upon Modernism’s condemned precept of “the evolution of dogma” that is nothing other than a denial of the very immutability of God Himself. It is thus no exaggeration to state that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is premised upon a denial of God’s very Divine Nature as He has revealed It to us exclusively through His Catholic Church.

From the denial of God’s Divine Nature flows quite logically the heresies associated with the Divine Constitution of his Holy Catholic Church by means of the “new ecclesiology,” false ecumenism, “inter-religious prayer” services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, and “episcopal collegiality. Similarly, the denial of God’s Divine Nature is responsible for the rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King over men and their nations in favor of the heresy of “religious liberty” that is so responsible for producing havoc all throughout the supposedly “civilized world,” starting in the new places that gave birth to it, the United States of America and the “First Republic of France.”

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is awash in abominable sacrileges, starting with the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and its other false sacramentally barren rites (“episcopal consecration,” “priestly ordination,” “confirmation,” “anointing of the sick”) and the wretched displays of wanton debauchery spawned thereby.

Ah, but our relatives, former friends and acquaintances think that we are the problem for holding fast to the truths of the true Faith that Jorge despises:

We must always remember these words of Saint Athanasius:

May God console you!...What saddens you...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there -- they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way...

You are the ones who are happy. You who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to us from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from It and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. (Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.)

"What is more important, the place or the Faith?

The true Faith, obviously.

Who has lost and who has won in this struggle?

The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith and refuses to accept the fig leaf given by a figure of Antichrist for access to a supposed offering of any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

In other words, the priests/presbyters within the “indult” communities have been silent for the most part, noting that some diocesan “presbyters” such as “Father” James Altman have spoken out on various matters occasionally. Bergoglio is more than happy, though to universalize from the particular and to generalize about “divisions” when the truth of the matter is that most people who attend what they think is the “Tridentine Mass” in “approved” settings are just content to go to what they think is Holy Mass and then return home. Bergoglio is a demagogue. What else is new?

To the next of the Argentine Apostate’s explanatory letter:

At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Comment Number Two:

Stop!

This is a bald face lie.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has worn rainbow-colored vestments, staged the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service with a giant-sized figure of one his patron saints, Pinocchio, and other cartoon characters, and has done or said nothing to stop “drag queen” liturgies and other travesties during his presidency of the conciliar sect, has the temerity to denounce liturgical “abuses” on “all sides.”

What a transparent hypocrite.

Bergoglio’s gratuitous has about as much credibility as Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s twin apologies for “abuses” within the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Novus Ordo liturgical abomination, when he was the progenitor of numerous “abuses” which he met to set as “precedents” for the future.

Here are Wojtyla/John Paul II’s two apologies, separated by a space of twenty-two years:

Furthermore we should follow the directives issued by the various departments of the Holy See in this field: be it in liturgical matters, in the rules established by the liturgical books in what concerns the Eucharistic Mystery,(67) and in the Instructions devoted to this mystery, be it with regard to communication in sacris, in the norms of the Directorium de re oecumenica(68) and in the Instructio de peculiaribus casibus admittendi alios christianos ad communionem eucharisticam in Ecclesia catholica.(69) And although at this stage of renewal the possibility of a certain "creative" freedom has been permitted, nevertheless this freedom must strictly respect the requirements of substantial unity. We can follow the path of this pluralism (which arises in part from the introduction itself of the various languages into the liturgy) only as long as the essential characteristics of the celebration of the Eucharist are preserved, and the norms prescribed by the recent liturgical reform are respected.

Indispensable effort is required everywhere to ensure that within the pluralism of eucharistic worship envisioned by the Second Vatican Council the unity of which the Eucharist is the sign and cause is clearly manifested.

This task, over which in the nature of things the Apostolic See must keep careful watch, should be assumed not only by each episcopal conference but by every minister of the Eucharist, without exception. Each one should also remember that he is responsible for the common good of the whole Church. The priest as minister, as celebrant, as the one who presides over the eucharistic assembly of the faithful, should have a special sense of the common good of the Church, which he represents through his ministry, but to which he must also be subordinate, according to a correct discipline of faith. He cannot consider himself a "proprietor" who can make free use of the liturgical text and of the sacred rite as if it were his own property, in such a way as to stamp it with his own arbitrary personal style. At times this latter might seem more effective, and it may better correspond to subjective piety; nevertheless, objectively it is always a betrayal of that union which should find its proper expression in the sacrament of unity.

Every priest who offers the holy Sacrifice should recall that during this Sacrifice it is not only he with his community that is praying but the whole Church, which is thus expressing in this sacrament her spiritual unity, among other ways by the use of the approved liturgical text. To call this position "mere insistence on uniformity" would only show ignorance of the objective requirements of authentic unity, and would be a symptom of harmful individualism. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)

2. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate. 

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003.)

Piero “Cardinal” Marini boasted about the fact that the conciliar liturgical “reform” was a “matrix for other reforms, and he also said on another occasion “Saint John Paul II” wanted a “different Mass” for each of his endless numbers of pilgrimages:

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Marini told the audience, was really "a matrix for other reforms" and possible changes yet to come. It is not enough, he said, to look at the written document as a manual for reforming the church's rites.

"It was an event that continues even today to mark ecclesial life," the archbishop said. "It has marked our ecclesial life so much that very little of the church today would be as it is had the council not met."

Marini, who was master of liturgical ceremonies under Blessed John Paul II, told the liturgists that Vatican II did not give the world static documents. In an ever-evolving culture, the Catholic liturgy is incomplete unless it renews communities of faith.

"The council is not behind us. It still precedes us," Marini said. (Vatican II continues to mark ecclesial life today, Marini says.) 

Nevertheless, the book is significant because for the first time the political manoeuvring and motivations of Bugnini and Lercaro et al as they sought rapidly to bring about “a liturgy that would be more pastoral and open to the needs of the contemporary world” are openly discussed.

What is clear is that the implementation of the liturgical reform was politicised from the beginning. The “enemy”, the Congregation for Rites, which was responsible for the liturgy after the Council of Trent, “was still firmly anchored to a limited tradition since the Council of Trent and not in favour of the broad innovations desired by the Council.”

Whether the Council desired any such thing is a moot point. Nevertheless, we are told that the Curia and Congregation for Rites “were in no way suited for the implementation of the Vatican II reform. It was likely that the radical nature of the liturgical reform promoted by the Constitution on the Liturgy was not fully appreciated by the Curia.”

Hence it was necessary to establish a body that did appreciate this but which also had independence of the Curia. This took time and political effort on the part of Bugnini and Lercaro and the most fascinating facet of this book is Marini’s account of the ensuing intrigues as they wrestled to ensure for themselves exclusive authority and the interpretation implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Eventually, when Paul VI’s personal support had been harnessed, Marini was able to boast that it was the “Consilium that had the upper hand.”

And so Marini can rejoice that “the support of the Pope and the collaboration of those forces that had long awaited the liturgical renewal” combined to make it “possible for the Consilium to begin to produce the new revised rites.” This relied on “two crucial further factors: the efficient functioning of the Consilium and the marginalisation of the Congregation of Rites.” The Consilium was “competent, international, collegial, efficient, and unconstrained by precedent,” he claims, and “was greatly aided by the direct access of the president and secretary to the Pope.” Furthermore, “its innovative approach to reform which was closer to reality and more suitable for implementing a liturgical renewal able to fulfil the desire of Vatican II by meeting the needs of the modern world.”

Bugnini’s personality and efficiency were crucial. We are told that he was “continually seeking to expedite the work of reform.” He was in a hurry because “it was necessary to accomplish as much as possible during the time the Council was in session” and lest afterwards the Curia might “not only impede the reform but even thwart it.” We are also told that the secretariat of the Consilium – in which Marini worked – exerted “considerable influence over the progress and orientations of the reform.”

He admits that “it had received an extraordinary amount of authority for directing the reform in each country.” Indeed it had. And, as anyone who has perused the documents that came from the Consilium well knows, they exercised this authority at every conceivable opportunity. (Dr. Alcuin Reid reviews Piero Marini's "A Challenging Reform".)

So much for Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “apologies,” and so much for Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s gratuitously meaningless apology in his explanatory letter, to which we return at this time:

[13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” ( DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, [14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Comment Number Three:

The dynamic of tradition?

The “Second” Vatican Council was not a legitimate work of the Catholic Church as it was, as noted earlier, convened by a heretic who was never “Pope John XXIII” and taught things contrary to the Holy Faith. The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity does not “flow with the times.” There is no such thing as “new realities,” only the old sins that men seek to rationalize with the cooperation and assistance of others, in in this case men who are believed to be the officials of the Catholic Church.

Although it is wearying to have to do so, let me explain how Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s concept of the dynamic of tradition” is just dogmatic evolutionism by another name:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

• not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
• but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
• Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

Pope Saint Pius X reiterated this point in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

There is no such thing as the “dynamic of tradition.”

Well, we must return to the Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s explanatory letter:

The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy, [15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy. [16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”, [17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform. [18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”. [19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI [20] and revised by St. John Paul II. [21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”. [22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Comment Number Four:

First, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has not been reformed many times.

Pope Saint Pius V enshrined the Mass of the Roman Curia for universal use in Quo Primum in 1570 to standardize the offering of Holy Mass as there were various regional and/or local variations. He specifically forbade the use of rites that less than two hundred years old to place those rites beyond the “innovations” of the likes of John Hus and Martin Luther that inspired some Catholics to adapt in various ways for their own purposes. However, the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V was such a fitting expression of the universal experience of the Latin Rite of the preceding one thousand years that even the bishops in most of the places that could prove local usage prior to 1370 chose to use it.

While it is true that Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII made their own changes, none of these resembled the creation of a synthetic liturgy, noting as is being done in the ongoing revision of GIRM Warfare that the changes authorized by Pope Pius XII were a matter of great contention at the time but nevertheless contained nothing heretical and nothing that detracted from the expression of the Holy Faith in the proper collects of Holy Mass (see the anti-sedevacantist Dr. Carol Byrne’s discussion found of these changes at: 1951-1955: The Vatican Started the Liturgical Reform. One can follow the rest of her series from thereon. See also Pre-“Second Vatican Council” Liturgical Changes: Road to the Conciliar liturgy and Liturgical Revolution.)

In this regard, therefore, it is intellectually dishonest (what else is new?) for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to have claimed that Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, called for the sort of “full, active, and conscious participation” of the faithful in the Sacred Liturgy, although the current reigning antipope would have been on firmer ground to have cited our last true pope’s address to the congress of Italian liturgists in 1956 that was filled with praise for the reforms he authorized upon the misrepresentations made to him by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M. (see Dr. Byrne’s Tectonic Shifts & Fault Lines in Pius XII’s Assisi Address.)

Nevertheless, however, “Pope Francis” referred to Mediator Dei, not to the Assisi address of nine years later, and to claim the text of Mediator Dei on behalf of the Novus Ordo spirit of manic “participation” is indeed intellectually dishonest. Permit me a chance to explain by quoting directly from Mediator Dei:

24. But the chief element of divine worship must be interior. For we must always live in Christ and give ourselves to Him completely, so that in Him, with Him and through Him the heavenly Father may be duly glorified. The sacred liturgy requires, however, that both of these elements be intimately linked with each another. This recommendation the liturgy itself is careful to repeat, as often as it prescribes an exterior act of worship. Thus we are urged, when there is question of fasting, for example, “to give interior effect to our outward observance.”[28] Otherwise religion clearly amounts to mere formalism, without meaning and without content. You recall, Venerable Brethren, how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthily to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and wellturned phrases, like actors in a theater, and think themselves perfectly capable of working out their eternal salvation without plucking their inveterate vices from their hearts.[29] It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds — like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem — to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing. She would have them move their lips in prayer, sometimes in petition, sometimes in joy and gratitude, and in this way experience His merciful aid and power like the apostles at the lakeside of Tiberias, or abandon themselves totally, like Peter on Mount Tabor, to mystic union with the eternal God in contemplation.

25. It is an error, consequently, and a mistake to think of the sacred liturgy as merely the outward or visible part of divine worship or as an ornamental ceremonial. No less erroneous is the notion that it consists solely in a list of laws and prescriptions according to which the ecclesiastical hierarchy orders the sacred rites to be performed.

26. It should be clear to all, then, that God cannot be honored worthily unless the mind and heart turn to Him in quest of the perfect life, and that the worship rendered to God by the Church in union with her divine Head is the most efficacious means of achieving sanctity. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

Pope Pius XII did commend the efforts of those who produced missals to make the texts of the Mass easily accessible to the faithful, and he also noted that the faithful could join in the singing at High Masses. However, he also wrote that the absence of these accidentals do not detract in any way from the efficacy of a Mass offered validity by a true priest:

105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the “Roman Missal,” so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.

100. These methods of participation in the Mass are to be approved and recommended when they are in complete agreement with the precepts of the Church and the rubrics of the liturgy. Their chief aim is to foster and promote the people’s piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament. However, though they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to give it a social character. And besides, a “dialogue” Mass of this kind cannot replace the high Mass, which, as a matter of fact, though it should be offered with only the sacred ministers present, possesses its own special dignity due to the impressive character of its ritual and the magnificence of its ceremonies. The splendor and grandeur of a high Mass, however, are very much increased if, as the Church desires, the people are present in great numbers and with devotion.

107. It is to be observed, also, that they have strayed from the path of truth and right reason who, led away by false opinions, make so much of these accidentals as to presume to assert that without them the Mass cannot fulfill its appointed end. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20. 1947.)

The conciliar revolutionaries have made the accidentals essential to the “fullness” of the liturgy.

The mania for activity, a total rejection of the true concept of active participation found in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei, has resulted in the replacement of true interior participation with mindless activity and verbosity, all of which detract from the nature of the Mass, turning what purports, albeit falsely, to be the Sacred Mysteries into an anthropocentric, communitarian exercise of mutual self-congratulations.

The participation of the lay faithful in the end of Petition found in the Mass requires them to be recollect before Mass, to spend time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, to pray some of the wonderful prayers found in the various Latin-English hand missals, many of which have been reprinted in recent years. True participation in the Mass requires us to follow the Mass carefully, meditating upon the beauty of the prayers, some of which have been cited in this commentary. The Mass is ever ancient, ever new. Its fixed nature conveys the inestimable treasures contained in all its rites and prayers.

There is constant food for thought, no matter how many times we have celebrated a particular feast day or have heard a particular reading. And just as it is the case that honor and glory are added to God and grace is added to the world each time a priest celebrates Holy Mass, so is it also the case that our prayerful, interior participation in Mass (and the prayers we offer therein, as well as those we offer before and afterward) helps to build up the Mystical Body of Christ. Each ligament in the Mystical Body helps to support each other, as Saint Paul noted. None of us in the laity knows the efficacy of our prayers here in this vale of tears. But we are called to be faithful to our prayers, both the formulaic prayers found in the Mass and in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and our own mental prayer, the development of which is an important part of passing through the stages of spiritual perfection. It is the Mass which provides us the perfect framework to become more perfect lovers of the Blessed Trinity who are ever eager to serve Him in all aspects of our daily lives. Indeed, our very lives are meant to be offerings of praise and petition to God. That is why we are to be prepared for Holy Mass. For it is in the Mass that we are reminded day in and day out to conform everything about our very being to the standard of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is re-presented before our very eyes in the greatest miracle we can ever behold in this mortal life.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes not one word of this as he believes that the Catholic liturgy—as well as everything else about the Catholic Faith—must be an expression of the “times” in which men live, not an act of solemn reverence for the Most Holy Trinity as the Sacrifice of the Holy Cross is perpetuated in an unbloody manner.

It is now time to return to the next passage of the Argentine Apostate’s “explanatory letter” that “accompanied” Traditionis Custodes:

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted. [23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”, [24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation. [25] (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Comment Number Five:

This is all true if the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church and if the conciliar “popes” have been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter.

As the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s whole set of false teachings rests up its aforementioned warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than an unremitting warfare upon the nature of God, His immutability and the immutability of His Divine Revelation that has been taught without any alteration from Apostolic times, a believing Catholic understands that, quite to the contrary of what Bergoglio asserts, the counterfeit church of conciliarism cannot be the Catholic Church, and the conciliar “popes,” having ascribed to condemned and anathematized tenets long before their apparent “elections,” have not been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. For further proofs of these claims, please re-read  Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card.

As Jorge Mario Bergoglio cited Saint Augustine as a source for his authority, let me use the teaching of Saint Augustine as quoted by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, to demonstrate why Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a member of the Catholic Church and that his own religious sect is false of its hideous nature:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ"). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ"." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

No intellectually honest person can claim that the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its conciliar “popes” have adhered to everything taught from the time of the Apostles to 1958.

It is now time to dispense with the final two paragraphs of “Pope Francis’s” explanatory letter:

Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”. [26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”. [27]

Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”. [28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity. [29]This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Comment Number Six:

Bergoglio, the Distorter of true history, misrepresents the facts of the Missal of Saint Pius V as though it were some kind of “invention” of the Council of Trent. Liar. Deceiver. Blasphemer.

Let me repeat a passage from Dr. Adrian Fortescue cited earlier in this commentary:

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. (Michael Davies, ed., The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue) 

“Some earlier forms,” indeed.

The Mass of all ages is not some “earlier form,” unless, that is, one believes in a different religion and is thus in need of a “liturgy” wherein that different—and by definition false—religion can be expression in all its impermanence.

Back to the end of the explanatory letter:

Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”. [30]While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

Comment Number Six:

Well, there you have it: Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants but one rite in his false religious sect, and in this regard. he is demanding only that which “unity” dictates. Unfortunately for the cause of the honor and glory of the God and for the good of souls, the “unity” that “Pope Francis” desires is a unity in heresy, error, sacrilege, apostasy, blasphemy, and pastoral “accompaniments” that leave hardened sinners to die in abject, reprobrated states of final impenitence. There is to be admixture between the so-called Catholicism of the “past” and that of “present” as Bergoglio and his false “bishops” continue to permit themselves to be guided by unholy, perverse spirits that deceive souls and will the Argentine Apostate and his band of fiends into hell for all eternity if they do not repent and abjure their errors before they die. There must be “new liturgy” for a “new religion.” Period.

V. Concluding Remarks

Obviously, most of the readers of this inconsequential website (just stating facts, not crying in the milk, so to speak) understand that the entire matter of Traditionis Custodes is entirely irrelevant to their own lives. While we hope and pray that this will help a few Catholics to leave the conciliar structures and to reject the Gallican heresies of the Society of Saint Pius X as antithetical to authentic Catholic ecclesiology to embrace the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, we must pray to Our Lady to persevere in the true Catholic Faith to the point of our dying breaths. It matters not that we see the truth if we do not save our souls and if we do not bear ourselves charitably and patiently with our fellow Catholics who may be having as hard a time now to embrace the truth as some of us did for much longer than should have been the case.

Although I well recognize that I took far, far too long to recognize the truth of state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, anyone who does not recognize that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only bringing the false principles of conciliarism to their logical conclusion and who believe that they can “fight” the man who they think is a true, if heretical, “pope” when they judge him to be wrong has be willfully blind of the facts recited herein. The defense of the Holy Faith involves more than being “pro-life” as Catholics would not be arguing about the application of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment in public life if the conciliar revolutionaries had not overturned the essential ecclesiology of Holy Mother Church by embracing dogmatic evolutionism and the implantation of a new religion that stresses social work rather than the salvation of souls while venerating itself, not God, in its abominable liturgical rites.

Gone are the days when any responsible Catholic can say, “Well, at least our bishop is pro-life.”

Saint Robert Bellarmine, S.J., a true Jesuit because he was a true Catholic, put it this way:

There are some person, dear listeners, who hold almost everything with a firm faith that Catholics hold: but there is one thing or another, which they have not yet been able to accept completely, such as that purgatory exists, that sacred images are to be venerated, that the sovereign Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church. And since there are many things that they believe, and only one or two things that they do not believe and consider it is not important if taken together with the other articles, they think they are situated very well on the foundation of Christ. What is the difference, they say, even if I err in that one thing, which I still cannot believe, and at the judgment will the Lord be concerned about that? And will he not be mindful of the many difficult things I believe? Indeed, this is the way in which they flatter themselves; I serious rebuke them and say that they have fallen from grace and have laid their foundation on sand, and will have no part with Christ. Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. I ask you (to clarify the matter with a crass example), when you order a pair of shoes from a shoemaker, if when they are finally made you find they are an inch shorter than your feet, do you not put them on and wear them? Your will say “I cannot wear them” But they are only an inch too short, so why can't you wear them, since they are just a little bit short of the right measurement? As, therefore, your shoes are either the right size for your feet or they have no value at all, so also the faith is either integral, or it is not the faith. Therefore no one should deceive himself. If we want to build a house which cannot be moved by wind or rain, we must lay the foundation of both rocks, that is, on Christ and Peter. (Sermons of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Part II: Sermons 30-55, Including the Four Last Things and the Annunciation., translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in 2017 by Keep the Faith, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, pp. 152-154.)

Saint Robert Bellarmine combined Scholasticism with his own brilliant and very practical explanations of theological points that made it possible for those listening to him to comprehend and to remember his teaching. How much more simple can it get than “Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all” can it get?

As should go without saying, the entirety of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is premised upon a rejection and/or distortion of everything contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith as it is an instrument of Modernist perdition. Its “popes” and “bishops” have merely recycled the same Modernist propositions condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, when condemning the New Theology’s dressing up of Modernism in a different guise.

There is not one wretched thing about conciliarism that has the approval of the Mother of God.

No, not the "new ecclesiology."

No, not false ecumenism.

No, not "inter-religious prayer services."

No, not "inter-religious dialogue."

No, not "religious liberty."

No, not "separation of Church and State."

No, not "the hermeneutic of continuity" or its cousin, "living tradition."

No, not "episcopal collegiality."

No, not the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and all its Jansenist "reforms" (the liturgy as a "meal" and not the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, the obliteration of the distinction between the presider and the laity, the proliferation of laity in the sanctuary, endless expressions of lay "participation" in the service, plenty of room for improvisation). The lords of conciliarism, including the so-called “conservatives” who stage the abominable Novus Ordo travesty and who endorse “natural family planning” and “religious liberty” as well their false opposites within the ranks of the Jacobin/Bolshevik “progressivists,” are blasphemers against God the Holy Ghost and the very inerrant nature of the true Church He guides infallibly.

Dom Prosper Gueranger explained the work of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in his reflection for this day, Ember Wednesday within the Octave of Pentecost, contained in The Liturgical Year, wherein he stressed the fact that the Holy Ghost has promulgated “a precise Symbol of Faith which each of its Members is bound to accept—producing by its decisions the strictest unity of religious belief throughout the countless individuals who compose the society,” that is the Church:

We have seen with what fidelity the Holy Ghost has fulfilled, during all these past ages, the Mission he received from our Emmanuel, of forming, protecting and maintaining his Spouse the Church. This trust given by a God has been executed with all the power of a God, and it is the sublimest and most wonderful spectacle the world has witnessed during the eighteen hundred years of the new Covenant. This continuance of a social body—the same in all times and places—promulgating a precise Symbol of Faith which each of its Members is bound to accept—producing by its decisions the strictest unity of religious belief throughout the countless individuals who compose the society—this, together with the wonderful propagation of Christianity, is the master-fact of History. These two facts are not, as certain modern writers would have it, results of the ordinary laws of Providence; but Miracles of the highest order, worked directly by the Holy Ghost, and intended to serve as the basis of our faith in the truth of the Christian Religion. The Holy Ghost was not, in the exercise of his Mission, to assume a visible form; but he has made his Presence visible to the understanding of man, and thereby he has sufficiently proved his own personal action in the work of man’s salvation.

Let us now follow this divine action,—not in its carrying out the merciful designs of the Son of God, who deigned to take to himself a Spouse here below,—but in the relations of this Spouse with mankind. Our Emmanuel willed that she should be the Mother of men; and that all whom he calls to the honor of becoming his own Members should acknowledge that it is she who gives them this glorious birth. The Holy Ghost, therefore, was to secure to this Spouse of Jesus what would make her evident and known to the world, leaving it, however, in the power of each individual to disown and reject her.

It was necessary that this Church should last for all ages, and that she should traverse the earth in such wise that her name and mission might be known to all nations; in a word, she was to be Catholic, that is, Universal, taking in all times and all places. Accordingly, the Holy Ghost made her Catholic. He began by showing her, on the Day of Pentecost, to the Jews who had flocked to Jerusalem from the various nations; and when these returned to their respective countries, they took the good tidings with them. He then sent the Apostles and Disciples into the whole world, and we learn from the writers of those early times that a century had scarcely elapsed before there were Christians in every portion of the known earth. Since then, the Visibility of this holy Church has gone on increasing gradually more and more. If the Divine Spirit, in the designs of his justice, has permitted her to lose her influence in a nation that had made itself unworthy of the grace, he transferred her to another where she would be obeyed. If, at time, there have been whole countries where she had no footing, it was either because she had previously offered herself to them and they had rejected her, or because the time marked by Providence for her reigning there had not yet come. The history of the Church’s propagation is one long proof of her ever living and of her frequent migrating. Times and places, all are hers; if there be one when or where she is not acknowledged as supreme, she is at least represented by her Members; and this prerogative, which has given her the name of Catholic, is one of the grandest of the workings of the Holy Ghost.

But his action does not stop here; the Mission given him by the Emmanuel in reference to his Spouse obliges him to something beyond this; and here we enter into the whole mystery of the Holy Ghost in the Church. We have seen his outward influence, whereby he gives her perpetuity and increase; now we must attentively consider the inward direction she receives from him, which gives her Unity, Infallibility, and Holines,—prerogatives which, together with Catholicity, designate the true Spouse of Christ.

The union of the Holy Ghost with the Humanity of Jesus is one of the fundamental truths of the mystery of the Incarnation. Our divine Mediator is called “Christ” because of the anointing which he received; and his anointing is the result of his Humanity’s being united with the Holy Ghost. This union is indissoluble: eternally will the Word be united to his Humanity; eternally also will the Holy Spirit give to this Humanity the anointing which makes “Christ.” Hence it follows that the Church, being the body of Christ, shares in the union existing between its Divine Head and the Holy Ghost. The Christian, too, receives, in Baptism, an anointing by the Holy Ghost, who from that time forward, dwells in him as the pledge of his eternal inheritance; but while the Christian may, by sin, forfeit this union which is the principle of his supernatural life, the Church herself never can lose it. The Holy Ghost is united to the Church forever; it is by him that she exists, acts, and triumphs over all those difficulties to which, by the divine permission, she is exposed while Militant on earth.

St. Augustine thus admirably expresses this doctrine in one of his Sermons for the Feast of Pentecost: “The spirit, by which every man lives, is called the Soul. Now, observe what it is that our Soul does in the body. It is the Soul that gives life to all the members; it sees by the eye, it hears by the ear, it smells by the nose, it speaks by the tongue, it works by the hands, it walks by the feet. It is present to each member, giving life to them all, and to each one its office. It is not the eye that hears, nor the ear and tongue that see, nor the ear and eye that speak; and yet they all live; their functions are varied, their life is one and the same. So is it in the Church of God. In some Saints, she works miracles; in other Saints, she teaches the truth; in others, she practices virginity; in others, she maintains conjugal chastity; she does one thing in one class, and another in another; each individual has his distinct work to do, but there is one and the same life in them all. Now, what the Soul is to the body of man, that the Holy Ghost is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church: the Holy Ghost does in the whole Church, what the soul does in all the members of one body.”

Here we have given to us a clear exposition, by means of which we can fully understand the life and workings of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Holy Ghost is the principle which gives her life. He is her Soul—not only in that limited sense in which we have already spoken of the Soul of her Church, that is, of her inward existence, and which, after all, is the result of the Holy Spirit’s action within her,—but he is also her Soul, in that her whole interior and exterior life, and all her workings, proceed from Him. The Church is undying, because the love, which has led the Holy Ghost to dwell within her, will last forever: and here we have the reason of that Perpetuity of the Church which is the most wonderful spectacle witnessed by the world.

Let us now pass on, and consider that other marvel, which consists in the preservation of Unity in the Church. It is said of her in the Canticle: One is my dove; my perfect one is One. Jesus would have but One, and not many to be his Church, his Spouse: the Holy Ghost will therefore see to the accomplishment of his wish. Let us respectfully follow him in his workings here also. And firstly; is it possible, viewing the thing humanly, that a society should exist for eighteen hundred years and never change? nay, could it have continued all that time, even allowing it to have changed as often as you will? And during these long ages, this society has necessarily had to encounter, and from its own members, the tempests of human passions, which are ever showing themselves, and which not unfrequently play havoc with the grandest institutions. It has always been composed of nations, differing from each other in language, character, and customs; either so far apart as not to know each other, or when neighbors, estranged one from the other by national jealousies and antipathies. And yet, notwithstanding all this—notwithstanding, too, the political revolutions which have made up the history of the world—the Catholic Church has maintained her changeless Unity: one Faith—one visible head—one worship (at least in the essentials)—one mode for the deciding every question, namely, by tradition and authority. Sects have risen up in every age, each sect giving itself out as “the true Church:” they lasted for a while, short or long, according to circumstances, and then were forgotten. Where are now the Arians with their strong political party? Where are the Nestorians, and Eutychians, and Monothelites, with their interminable cavillings? Could anything be imagines more powerless and effete than the Greek Schism, slave either to Sultan or Czar? What is there left of Jansenism, that wore itself away in striving to keep in the Church in spite of the Church? As to Protestantism—the produce of the principle of negation—was it not broken up into sections from its very beginning, so as never to be able to form one society? and is it not now reduced to such straits that it can with difficulty retain dogmas which, at first, it looked upon as fundamental—such as the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the Divinity of Christ?

While all else is change and ruin, our mother the holy Catholic Church, the One Spouse of the Emmanuel, stands forth grand and beautiful in her Unity. But how are we to account for it? Is it that Catholics are of one nature, and Sectarians of another? Orthodox or heterodox, are we not all members of the same human race, subject to the same passions and errors? Whence do the children of the Catholic Church derive that stability which is not affected by time, nor influenced by the variety of national character, nor shaken by those revolutions that have changed dynasties and countries? Only one reasonable explanation can be given—there is a divine element in all this. The Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Church, acts upon all the members; and as he himself is One, he produces Unity in the Body he animates. He cannot contradict himself: nothing, therefore, subsists by him which is not in union with him.

Tomorrow, we will speak of what the Holy Ghost does for the maintaining Faith, one and unvarying, in the whole body of the Church; let us today limit our considerations to this single point, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the source of external union by voluntary submission to one center of unity. Jesus had said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: now, Peter was to die; the promise, therefore, could not refer to his person only, but to the whole line of his successors, even to the end of the world. How stupendous is not the action of the Holy Ghost, who thus produces a dynasty of spiritual Princes, which has reached its two hundred and fiftieth Pontiff, and is to continue to the last day! No violence is offered to man’s free will; the Holy Spirit permits him to attempt what opposition he lists; but the work of God must go forward. A Decius may succeed in causing a four years’ vacancy in the See of Rome; anti-popes may arise, supported by popular favor, or upheld by the policy of Emperors; a long schism may render it difficult to know the real Pontiff amidst the several who claim it: the Holy Spirit will allow the trial to have its course and, while it lasts, will keep up the faith of his Children; the day will come when he will declare the lawful Pastor of the Flock, and the whole Church will enthusiastically acknowledge him as such.

In order to understand the whole marvel of this supernatural influence, it is not enough to know the extrinsic results as told us by history; we must study it in its own divine reality. The Unity of the Church is not like that which a conqueror forces upon a people that has become tributary to him. The Members of the Church are united in oneness of faith and submission, because they love the yoke she imposes on their freedom and their reason. But who is it that thus brings human pride to obey? Who is it that makes joy and contentment be felt in a life-long practice of subordination? Who is it that brings man to put his security and happiness in the having no individual views of his own, and in the conforming his judgment to one supreme teaching—and this too in matters where the world chafes at control? It is the Holy Ghost, who works this manifold and permanent miracle, for he it is who gives soul and harmony to the vast aggregate of the Church, and sweetly infuses into all these millions a union of heart and mind which forms for our Lord Jesus Christ his “One” dearest Spouse.

During the days of his mortal life, Jesus prayed his Eternal Father to bless us with Unity: May they be one, as we also are. He prepares us for it, when he calls us to become his Members; but for the achieving this union, he sends his Spirit into the world—that Spirit who is the eternal link between the Father and the Son, and who deigns to accept a temporal Mission among men, in order to create on the earth a Union formed after the type of the Union which is in God himself.

We give thee thanks, O Blessed Spirit! who, by thy dwelling thus within the Church of Christ, inspirest us to love and practice Unity, and suffer every evil rather than break it. Strengthen it within us, and never permit us to deviate from it by even the slightest want of submission. Thou art the soul of the Church; oh! give us to be Members ever docile to thy inspirations, for we could not belong to Jesus who sent thee, unless we belong to the Church, his Spouse and our Mother, whom he redeemed with his Blood, and gave to thee to form and guide. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Reflection on Wednesday in Whitsun Week.)

It is worth reflecting on two passages quoted just above as they provide us with a marvelous and simple defense of the fact that, quite to the contrary of what has been one of the chief contentions of the conciliar “popes,” it is impossible for God the Holy Ghost to contradict Himself or to be an instrument of “making a mess of things” as His grace produces stability in the true Church, not disunity and conflict. No one can be a Catholic and declare himself at “war” with the true Church or, worse yet, to say that “no church” can tell him what to believe or how to behave:

While all else is change and ruin, our mother the holy Catholic Church, the One Spouse of the Emmanuel, stands forth grand and beautiful in her Unity. But how are we to account for it? Is it that Catholics are of one nature, and Sectarians of another? Orthodox or heterodox, are we not all members of the same human race, subject to the same passions and errors? Whence do the children of the Catholic Church derive that stability which is not affected by time, nor influenced by the variety of national character, nor shaken by those revolutions that have changed dynasties and countries? Only one reasonable explanation can be given—there is a divine element in all this. The Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Church, acts upon all the members; and as he himself is One, he produces Unity in the Body he animates. He cannot contradict himself: nothing, therefore, subsists by him which is not in union with him. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Reflection on Wednesday in Whitsun Week.)

We need to continue to pray to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to live as befits her Divine Son’s redeemed creatures by bearing witness to the truth no matter what it might cost us personally and without for one moment considering ourselves one bit better than those who do not see the situation as it is with clarity and who refuse to act with alacrity to escape falsehood and sacrilege.

Even Saint Vincent de Paul, the Apostle of Charity whose feast we celebrate today, July 19, 2021, hated heresy and fought against it without compromise. Saint Vincent de Paul, the founder of the Congregation of the Mission and an apostle of charity for the poor and forgotten, inveighed against Jansenism and urged one and all to obey Pope Innocent’s papal bull condemning it without making any reservation or qualification as befits the docile obedience must render and the docile submission that a Catholic must demonstrate at all times to a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

At issue were five points that Bishop Jacques-Benigne Lignel Bossuet had summarized from Cornelius Jansen’s Augustinus that were deemed to be heretical. Saint Vincent himself worked to gather signatures to have the five propositions be condemned by Pope Innocent X:

Denounced to the Sorbonne in July 1649, these five propositions were referred to Rome in a letter signed by nearly eighty-five bishops. Our saint worked hard to obtain these signatures. He wrote on all sides, and even got Anne of Austria to apply to the Pope to hasten the definition of faith on the point. “I have made my prayers,” he said, “for three months on the doctrine of grace, and God, by new lights every day, has confirmed me in the belief that our Lord died for all, and that He wished to save every one.” And so, too, as regards the question of grace being given to all and sufficient for all “Truly I cannot understand how a God, so infinitely good, who every day stretches forth His hands to embrace sinners, expandi manus meas quotidie, could have the heart to refuse grace to all those who ask it, and allow Himself to be excelled in goodness by David, who sought among his enemies some one to who he might be merciful.”

It is thus Saint Vincent discovers in his own heart, in the intuitions of his spiritual life, the true answer to the cruel sophisms of this heresy.

While Saint Vincent was collecting the signatures for the letter to be forwarded to the Pope denouncing the five propositions, he was uniting with M. Olier and M. Bretonvilliers, to send theologians to Rome to show the danger to which these propositions  were exposing the Church of France. The Jansenists had already sent others, especially Pere des Mares, the celebrated Oratorian. It is not our business to recount the endless discussions which then took place; the meetings of the special congregations appointed by the Pope, and at ten or twelve of which, each lasting for three or four hours, Innocent X, thought it his duty to be present; or the last and solemn sitting, at which Pere des Mares spoke for four hours before the Pope; and the innumerable other conferences of a similar kind, until at last, on June 9, 1653, Innocent X., having recommended himself to God in prayer, summoned one of his secretaries and dictated the Bull Cum occasione. The same evening it was promulgated in Rome, and immediately forwarded to France.

Here are the five points contained in Pope Innocent X’s Cum Occisione, May 31, 1653:

1092. 1. Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting.

 Declared and condemned as rash, impious, blasphemous, condemned by anathema and heretical.

1093. 2. In the state of fallen nature one never resists interior grace.

Declared and condemned as heretical.

1094. 3. In order to merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, from freedom from external compulsion in sufficient.

Declared and condemned as heretical.

1095. 4. The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of a prevenient interior grace for each act, even for the beginning of faith; and in this they were heretics, because they wished this grace to be such that the human will could either resist or obey.

Declared and condemned as false and heretical.

1096. 5. It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.

Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in this sense, Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and heretical. (Pope Innocent X, Cum Occisione, “The Errors of Cornelius Jansen,” May 31, 1658. As found in Denziger, Nos. 1092-1096, p. 316.) [The date listed in Denziger is erroneous. May 31, 1653, was the actual date of the bull’s issuance, noting that Bishop listed it as June 9, 1653.]

Bishop Emile Bougaud then explained the joy of Saint Vincent de Paul upon receiving the text of Cum Occisione and the necessity of everyone submitting to it:

The joy of Saint Vincent when the Bull arrived was profound. He immediately wrote to Mgr. Alain de Solminihac, Bishop of Cahors: “My lord, I am sending you most agreeable news – the condemnation of the Jansenists, their five propositions having been declared heretical on June 9. The Bull was published the same day in Rome, and reached Paris on the feast of Saint Peter. Their Majesties received it very warmly, and his Eminence is about to put it in force. All Paris is rejoicing, at least those better disposed, and the others declare their willingness to submit. M. Singlin, who, with M. Arnault, is one of the leaders, has acknowledged that the Holy See must be obeyed, and M. Hamel, cure of Saint-Merri, one of the foremost, is in like dispositions and ready to publish the Bull in his church. Many of the others, as M. and Zmmme. De Liancourt, declare they are no longer what they were. In a word, it is expected that all will acquiesce. Not, indeed, that some did not find it difficult to submit, saying that although the opinions of Jansenius are condemned, there are not. I only heard this from one person. So great a blessing, my lord, is this decision, that everybody here rejoices, and those who saw the evil that the strife was causing cannot feel sufficiently grateful.” (Letters, vol. I. p. 554.)

At the same time he went to Port-Royal, having been told that the recluses, the disciples of Saint-Cyran, had resolved to fully submit to the Bull. He spent several hours with them, tenderly congratulated them on their obedience to the Holy See, and showed them every mark of esteem, affection and confidence. Alas! That absolute submission to the Pope was destined to last but a day.

We may well conclude that a man so zealous to shield from error both the sheep and their shepherds was ever watchful over his own Congregation and each of its members. “O Jesus,” he would say, “it is not expedient for us to maintain different opinions in the little Company; we must always be of one mind, otherwise we shall be torn asunder among ourselves! And the remedy is to submit to the Superior's opinion. I say it is not to the superior that we submit, but to God, to the Popes, the councils, the saints; and should any one be unwilling to do so, it will be best for him to leave, and that is what the Company wishes. Many orders in the Church afford us this example. The Discalced Carmelites, in their chapter last year, ordained that their professors of theology should teach the long-established opinions of the Church and oppose novelties. Every one knows that the Jesuits act likewise, while the Congregation of Saint Genevieve follows the opinions of Saint Augustine, which we do too, explaining, however, Saint Augustine by the Council of Trent, and not the Council of Trent by Saint Augustine, for the first is infallible, the second is not.” One day he was asked what should be done to moderate the harshness towards the Port-Royal party. “Why drive them to extremities? Would it not be better to come to an agreement? They are disposed for it if treated with more moderation, and there is no one better suited than you to soften the irritation on both sides, and to effect a complete reconciliation.”

--Sir,” Saint Vincent merely replied, “when a decision is given, there is nothing to be done but submit to it. What union can we make with them if they have not an honest and sincere intention of submitting? How can we modify what the Church has decided? It is a matter of faith, which cannot be altered or tampered with, and consequently we cannot accommodate it to suit their sentiments. It is for them to submit their private judgment, and confidently unite with us by a true and sincere submission to the head of the Church. Without that, sir, the only thing we can do is to pray for their conversion.”

It was by such vigour of thought, such force of expression, such ardour and firmness of doctrine, that Saint Vincent preserved his Congregation from all taint of Jansenism. How admirable! Of the three Congregations seemingly raised up by God for the education of the French clergy, the first was unwillingly and in a mysterious manner led away from this employment, and alone was affected by Jansenism. The other two, that of Saint Vincent de Paul and that of M. Olier, remained absolutely exempt. Free from all error, as deeply conscious as the Abbe Saint-Cyran of the divinity of our Lord, of the grace of His priesthood, of the holiness necessary for priests, but without his exaggerations or excesses, they began to form that great clergy of France which was the wonder of the second half of the seventeenth century, which traversed the wretched and impure eighteenth with little loss, and was still fresh and vigorous enough in 1793 to yield confessors and martyrs, and after exile and persecution, to win the reputation of being the holiest, the purest and the grandest of any clergy.  (Bishop Emile Bougaud, History of St. Vincent de Paul, Founder of the Congregation of the Mission and of the Sisters of Charity, Longmans, Green and Co., 19 Paternoster Row, London, 1899, pp. 204-208.)

It is important for present purposes to highlight one passage from Bishop Bougaud’s biography on Saint Vincent de Paul that is worth repeating and highlighting in order to demonstrate the absolute incompatibility between the “resist while recognize” position, which is, after all, a recrudescence of Gallicanism, itself condemned as a heresy, and the true Catholic teaching concerning the unyielding submission that Catholics must render to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth:

--Sir,” Saint Vincent merely replied, “when a decision is given, there is nothing to be done but submit to it. What union can we make with them if they have not an honest and sincere intention of submitting? How can we modify what the Church has decided? It is a matter of faith, which cannot be altered or tampered with, and consequently we cannot accommodate it to suit their sentiments. It is for them to submit their private judgment, and confidently unite with us by a true and sincere submission to the head of the Church. Without that, sir, the only thing we can do is to pray for their conversion.”

There must never be any compromise on matters of truth. None. There is nothing to "discuss" or, to use a term that has been popularized by the conciliar revolutionaries, "dialogue" about as truth is irreformable. Truth exists. Truth does not depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity. Truth is. Period. No compromises.

Anyone who can still claim after reading these quotes that he is not certain about the papal vacancy that has existed since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, has fallen prey to the Kantianism’s supposition of the impossibility of knowing anything for certain, a supposition that had been advanced by Michel de Montaigne during the Renaissance.

The fact that the conciliar “popes” have been imposters and that the conciliar church is a false religious sect might have been difficult to accept for a long time—and I certainly took a long time to see it!, but Bergoglio has made it easy. Real easy. All one has to do is to embrace the truth and thus to endure the slings and arrows of other Catholics and to suffer loss of human respect and massive humiliation. Isn’t truth worth such wonderful offerings to make to the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

May each Rosary we pray every day help to plant a few seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and thus of the right ordering of the Church Militant here on earth as the precondition to the establishment of right order in a world gone mad because of the errors of Modernity and Modernism, which has robbed Catholics of Sanctifying Grace and have robbed the world of a superabundance of the Actual Graces people need to live as befits redeemed creatures in perfect submission to Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.

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.

Appendix

On the Feast of Saint Vincent de Paul  (as excerpted from an earlier article on this site)

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., contrasted Saint Vincent de Paul’s true charity with the false, narcissistic philanthropy of his own day one hundred sixty years ago:

But from the bagnio of Tunis, where he was a slave, to the ruined provinces for which he found millions of money, all the labours he underwent for the relief of every physical suffering were inspired by his zeal for the apostolate: by caring for the body, he strove to reach and succor the soul. At a time when men rejected the Gospel while striving to retain its benefits, certain wise men attribute Vincent’s charity to philosophy. Nowadays they go further still, and in order to logically deny the author of the works they deny the works themselves. But if any there be who still hold the former opinion, let them listen in his own words: What is done for charity’s sake is done for God. It is not enough for us to love God ourselves; our neighbor must also love him also must love him; neither can we love our neighbour as ourselves unless we procure for him the good we are bound to desire for ourselves – viz., divine love, which unties us to our Sovereign Good. We must love our neighbour as the image of God and the object of His love, and must try to make men love their Creator in return, and love one another also with mutual charity for the love of God, who so loved them as to deliver His own Son to death for them. But let us, I beg of you, look upon this Divine Saviour as a perfect pattern of the charity we must bear to our neighbour.'

The theophilanthropy of a century ago had no more right than had an atheist or a deist philosophy to rank Vincent, as it did among the great men of its Calendar. Not nature, nor the pretended divinities of false science, but the God of Christians, the God who became Man to save us by taking our miseries upon Himself, was the sole inspirer of the greatest modern benefactor of the human race, whose favourite saying was: 'Nothing pleases me except in Jesus Christ.' He observed the right order of charity, striving for the reign of his Divine Master, first in his own soul, then in others; and, far from acting of his own accord by the dictates of reason alone, he would rather have remained hidden for ever in the face of the Lord, and have left but an unknown name behind him.

'Let us honour,' he wrote, 'the hidden state of the Son of God. There is our centre; there is what He requires of us for the present, for the future, for ever; unless His Divine Majesty makes known in His own unmistakable way that He demands something else of us. Let us especially honour this divine Master's moderation in action. He would not always do all that He could do, in order to teach us to be satisfied when it is not expedient to do all that we are able, but only as much as is seasonable to charity and conformable to the Will of God. How royally do those honour our Lord who follow His holy Providence, and do not try to be beforehand with it ! Do not, and rightly wish your servant to do nothing without your orders? And if this is reasonable between man and man, how much more so between the Creator and the creature ! ' Vincent, then was anxious according to his own expression, to 'keep alongside of Providence,' and not to outstep it Thus he waited seven years before accepting the offers of the General de Gondi's wife, and founding his establishment of the Missions. Thus, too, when his faithful coadjutrix, Mademoiselle Le Gras, felt called to devote herself to the spiritual service of the Daughters of Charity, then living without any bond or common life, as simple assistants to the ladies of quality who the man of God assembled in his Confraternities, he first tried her for a very long time. 'As to this occupation,' he wrote, in answer to her repeated petitions. 'I beg of you, once for all, not to think of it until the Lord makes known His will. You wish to become the servant of these poor girls, and God wants you to he His servant. For God's sake, Mademoiselle, let your heart imitate the tranquility of our Lord's heart, and then it will be fit to serve Him. The Kingdom of God is peace in the Holy Ghost; He will reign in you if you are in peace. Be so then, if you please, and do honour to the God of peace and love.'

What a lesson given to the feverish zeal of an age like ours by a man whose life was so full ! How often, in what we can call good works, do human pretensions sterilize grace by contradicting the Holy Ghost ! Whereas Vincent de Paul, who considered himself 'a poor worm creeping on the earth, not knowing where he goes, but only seeking to be hidden in Thee, my God, who art all his desire,' – the humble Vincent saw his work prosper far more than a thousand others, and almost without his being aware of it. Towards the end of his long life he said to his daughters; 'It is Divine Providence that set your congregation on its present footing. Who else was it, I ask you? I can find no other. We never had such an intention. I was thinking of it only yesterday, and I said to myself Is it you who had the thought of founding a Congregation of Daughters of Charity? Oh ! Certainly not. Is it Mademoiselle Le Gras? Not at all. O my daughters, I never thought of it, your “saeur servant” never thought of it, neither did M. Portail (Vincent's first and most faithful companion in the Mission. Then it is God who thought of it for you' Him, therefore, we must call the Founder of your Congregation, for truly we cannot recognize any other.'

Although with delicate docility, Vincent could no more forestall the actions of God than an instrument the hand that uses it, nevertheless, once the divine impulse was given, he could not endure the least delay in following it, nor suffer any other sentiment  in his soul but the most absolute confidence. He wrote again with his charming simplicity, to the helpmate given him by God; 'You are always giving way a little to human feelings, thinking that everything is going to ruin as soon as you see me ill. O woman of little faith, why have you not more confidence and more submission to the guidance and example of Jesus Christ? This Saviour of the world entrusted the well-being of the whole Church to God His Father; and you, for a handful of young women, evidently raised up and gathered together by His providence, you fear the He will fail you! Come, come, Mademoiselle, you must humble yourself before God.'

No wonder that faith, the only possible guide of such a life, the imperishable foundation of all that he was for his neighbour and in himself, was, in the eyes of Vincent de Paul, the greatest of treasures. He who had pity for every suffering, even though well deserved; who, by an heroic fraud, took the place of a galley-slave in chains, was a pitiless foe to heresy, and could not rest till he had obtained either the banishment or the chastisement of its votaries. Clement XII, in the Bull of canonization, bears witness to this, in speaking of the pernicious error of Jansenism, which our saint was one of the first to denounce and prosecute. Never, perhaps, were these words of Holy Writ better verified: The simplicity of the just shall guide them: and the deceitfulness of the wicked shall destroy them. (Prov. Xi, 3.) Though this sect expressed, later on, a supreme disdain for Monsieur Vincent, it had not always been of that mind. 'I am,' he said to a friend, 'most particularly obliged to bless and thank God, for not having suffered the first and principal professors of that doctrine, men of my acquaintance and friendship, to be able to draw me to their opinions. I cannot tell you what pains they took, and what reasons they propounded to me; I objected to them, amongst other things, the authority of the Council of Trent, which is clearly opposed to them; and seeing that they still continued, I instead of answering them, quietly recited my Credo; and that is how I have remained firm in the Catholic faith.'

But it is time to give the full account which Holy Church reads today in her liturgy. We will only remind our readers that in the year 1883, the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the St. Vincent de Paul Conferences at Paris, the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII proclaimed our saint the patron of the societies of charity in France. 

Vincent de Paul was a Frenchman by nation, and was born at (Ranquines, in the parish of) Pouy, not far from Dax in Gascony, (upon the 24th day of April, in the year of salvation 1576.) From a little child he showed remarkable charity towards the poor. His father removed him from keeping his cattle, in order to give him a school education, and he learnt earthly things at Dax, and theology both at Toulouse and at Saragossa. He took Priest's orders, and a degree in Divinity. In 1605, he was taken prisoner by Mahommedan pirates, who carried him off, and sold him for a slave in Africa. In his slavery he converted his owner, who was an apostate, back to Christ. Under the protection of the Mother of God, Vincent escaped from Barbary. He first visited the thresholds of the Apostles, and afterwards returned to France. He was the saintly Rector first of the Parish of Clichi, and afterwards of that of Chatillon. He was appointed by the King, Chaplain General for the galleys of France, and worked with extraordinary zeal for the health of the souls both of those who commanded and of the convicts who rowed. He was made Superior of the Nuns of the Visitation by St Francis de Sales, and discharged this duty for about forty years, with a wisdom which so approved itself to the judgment of their holy Founder, that he was used to say he knew no worthier Priest than Vincent.

The preaching of the Gospel to the poor, especially peasants, was the work at which he toiled unweariedly, till he was disabled by age. To this special work he bound himself and the members of the Congregation which he founded under the missionary Congregation of Secular Priests, by a perpetual vow approved by the Holy See. How great were his labours for bettering the discipline of the clergy, is attested by the building of Seminaries for the final education of young clerks, the number of meetings of Priests to discuss holy things, and the religious exercises preparatory to Ordination, for which, as well as for godly retreats by laymen, he wished that the houses belonging to his Institute should be always freely open. To spread wider the growth of faith and godliness, he sent his Gospel labourers not only into the several provinces of France, but also into Italy, Poland, Scotland, and Ireland, and also to Barbary and India. He assisted Lewis XIII. on his death-bed, and the Queen Anne of Austria, mother of Lewis XIV., put him upon the young King's Council of Conscience during the Regency, in which position it was his unceasing effort that none but the most worthy should be named to churches and monasteries, that civil contests, duels, and creeping false doctrines, from which himself shrank as soon as he met them, should be put down, and that all men should yield the obedience which was due to the decisions of the Apostolic See.

There was no kind of misery which he did not strive with fatherly tenderness to relieve. Christians groaning in Mahommedan slavery, foundlings, deformed children, young maidens exposed to danger, houseless nuns, fallen women, convicts sent to the galleys, sick foreigners, disabled workmen, lunatics, and beggars without number, all these he relieved, and devoutly housed in divers charitable institutions which remain to this day. When Lorraine, Champagne, Picardy, and other districts were desolated by plague, famine, and war, he made immense efforts for their relief. He founded many charitable societies, to find out and succour the unfortunate. Among these are remarkable that of Matrons, and that of Sisters of Charity which hath been so widely spread. By those of the Cross, of Providence, and of St. Guinevere he aimed at bringing up young girls as school - mistresses. Amid all these and other most anxious business-matters, he remained always looking simply to God, kind to all, true to himself, plain, upright, and lowly. From all honours, riches, and pleasures, he ever shrank, and was heard to say, that nothing gave him any pleasure, except in Christ Jesus, Whom it was his wish in all things to follow. With a body worn out with hardships, work, and old age, he gently fell asleep in the house of St. Lazarus at Paris, the chief house of the Congregation of the Missions, upon the 27th day of September, in the year of salvation 1660, and of his own age the 85th. He was famous on account of his life, his works, and his miracles, and Clement XII. inscribed his name among those of the saints, appointing for his Feastday the 19th day of the month of July. Finally, at the earnest prayer of many prelates, Leo XIII. proclaimed and established this hero of charity, illustrious for his services to all classes of men, as the patron before God in heaven of all charitable societies throughout the whole Catholic world which derive their origin in any way from his institution. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Vincent de Paul.)

How full a sheaf dost thou bear, O Vincent, as thou ascendest laden with blessing from earth to thy true country ! O thou, the most simple of men, though living in an age of spendours, thy renown far surpasses the brilliant reputation which fascinated thy contemporaries. The true glory of that century, and the only one that will remain to it when time shall be no more, is to have seen, in its earlier part, saints powerful alike in faith and love, stemming the tide of Satan's conquests, and restoring to the soil of France, made barren by heresy, the fruitlessness of its brightest days. And now,  two centuries and more after thy labours, the work of the harvest is still being carried on by thy sons and daughters, aided by new assistants who also acknowledge thee for their inspirer and father. Thou art now in the kingdom of heaven where grief and tears are no more yet day by day  thou still receivest the grateful thanks of the suffering and the sorrowful.

Reward our confidence in thee by fresh benefits. No name so much as thine inspires respect for the Church in our days of blasphemy. And yet those who deny Christ now go so far as to endeavor to stifle the testimony which the poor have always rendered to Him on thy account. Wield, against these ministers of hell the two-edged sword, wherewith it is given to the saints to avenge God in the midst of the nations: treat them as thou didst the heretics of thy day; make them either deserve pardon or suffer punishment, be converted or be reduced by heaven to the impossibility of doing harm. Above all, take care of the unhappy beings whom these satanic men deprive of spiritual help in their last moments. Elevate thy daughters to the high level required by the present sad circumstances, when men would have their devotedness to deny its divine origin and cast of the guise of religion. If the enemies of the poor man can snatch from his death-bed the sacred sign of salvation, no rule, no law, no power of this world or the next, can cast out Jesus from the soul of the Sister of Charity, or prevent his name from passing from her heart to her lips: neither death nor hell neither fire no flood can stay him, says the Canticle of Canticles.

 

Thy sons, too, are carrying on thy work of evangelization; and even in our days their apostolate is crowned with their zeal; develop in them thy own spirit of unchanging devotedness to the Church and submission to the supreme Pastor, Forward all the new works of charity springing out of thy own, and placed by Rome to thy credit under thy patronage. May they gather their heat from the divine fire which thou didst kindle on the earth; may they ever s4ek first the kingdom of God and His justice, never deviating, in the choice of means, from the principle thou didst lay down for the, of 'judging, speaking, and acting, exactly as the Eternal Wisdom of God, clothed in our weak flesh, judged, spoke, and acted.' (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume 13, Time After Pentecost, Book IV, pp. 138-146.)

As we know, of course, the Vincent Fathers and the Daughters of Charity have succumbed to the conciliar revolution. I saw this first-hand in the immediate aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council while an undergraduate at St. John’s University, Jamaica, Borough of Queens, City of New York, New York, from February of 1970 to January of 1973 (summer sessions were just beginning back in those days, and I availed myself of them to graduate in three years). Although I had much to learn about that insidious council, to which I paid no attention during my high school years (1965-1969) at Oyster Bay High School, Oyster Bay, New York, I knew that what was being taught by some of the theology and philosophy professors had nothing to do with the solidity of the Faith as I had learned it at St. Aloysius School, Great Neck, New York (1956-1962). Bizarre is the only word to describe some of those course, including one taught by a Passionist who believed that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was but a mere allegorical figure (he required us to read the indecipherable works of Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, and Edward Schillebeeckx). The situation got worse over time (see the anecdote in the appendix below), and I can’t even imagine what it has become like at my undergraduate alma mater since the ascendancy of the Argentine Apostate. Sadly, DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois, is one of the major hotbeds of conciliar revolutionary activity, including active support of the homosexualist agenda (see, for example, "Diversity Partners"), and there is also a like association at the St. John's University School of Law that is listed on the university's official website (Celebrating Pervesity at the Law School Alma Mater of Mario Cuomo, Hugh Leo Carey, Ronald Brown, and Charles Rangel).

More to the point of this particular commentary—but not entirely unrelated—is the fact that the hospitals run by the Daughters of Charity Health System in California were sold to Verity healthcare systems in 2016, a sign of the sterility of the conciliar religious sect. However, as one could expect, those healthcare systems still administered by the Daughters of Charity provide “palliative care.”