Above, Father Davide Pagliarini, 50, since July 11, 2018 is (so, from three years ago) — the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (the SSPX for short, founded in 1970 by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1906-1991). This makes Fr. Davide arguably the highest-ranking “leader” of the “Traditionalist” group in the Roman Catholic Church. (Of course, writing that the members of the SSPX are “in” the Church may prompt objections, but — as I understand it — the members of the SSPX may receive communion at a Catholic Mass, and Catholics may receive communion at an SSPX Mass (see, for example, the argument of Kennedy Hall here), so there is de facto a certain, if imperfect, “communion” between the SSPX and the Roman Catholic Church. I am happy to receive mail of advice and correction on this point, and also happy to publish such mail in a future letter, with the letter writer’s approval.) The SSPX General Chapter meets once every six years, and the Superior General is elected every 12 years. The former Superiors are: Bp. Bernard Fellay (1994-2018), Fr. Franz Schmidberger (1982-1994), and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre (1970-82). ======================     “The Society has above all a love for the Church and souls… We are not driven by pride, but by charity to ‘transmit what we have received’ (1 Cor. 15:3).” —Fr. Davide Pagliarini, in a September 16, 2019 interview (link)    ”Here is a Church that no longer has anything to teach the world because it listens to the powers of the world…     This humanist mission that the men of the Church have given themselves must necessarily be matched by a liturgy that is equally humanist and emptied of any notion of sacredness.” —Fr. Pagliarini, in his letter yesterday on the Pope’s decree on the liturgy (full text of Pagliarini’s letter below)    ==================    Letter #64, 2021, Friday, July 23: SSPX    I had the opportunity to meet personally with Fr. Davide Pagliarini, 50, about one month ago as he was visiting Front Royal, Virginia, USA.    He willingly spoke about his understanding of the Catholic faith, and his desire to be of service to souls in this time. We spoke privately for about half an hour.    Fr. Davide, a thoughtful, soft-spoken man who grew up in Rimini in Italy, on the Adriatic coast not far to the south of Venice, reiterated, essentially, a theological-ecclesial position that he expressed in an interview two years ago, a few months after he became head of the SSPX, as follows:     “The Society has above all a love for the Church and souls.    ”The present crisis is not only doctrinal: seminaries are closing, churches are emptying, frequentation of the sacraments is falling dramatically.    ”We cannot remain spectators, arms folded, and say to ourselves: ‘All this proves that Tradition is right.’    ”Tradition has the duty of coming to the aid of souls with the means given to it by Divine Providence.    ”We are not driven by pride, but by charity to ‘transmit what we have received’ (1 Cor. 15:3).” (Fr. Davide Pagliarini, in a September 16, 2019 interview, link)    And here is a link link to an interview Fr. Pagliarini gave in 2011, 10 years ago, when he said:    ”The Society simply intends to cooperate [with the Holy See, the Vatican] so that the Church can reclaim her Tradition in its entirety, and it will be able to keep working slowly for the good of the Church only if it continues to be, like any work of the Church, a stumbling block and a sign of contradiction: with or without a canonical regularization, which will come about only when Providence judges that the time is ripe.    ”Besides, I do not think that a hypothetical regularization—at the present moment—would abolish the state of necessity which continues to exist in the Church and which until now has justified the action of the Society itself.”    Yesterday, Fr. Pagliarini published his own comment, from the point of view of the Catholic Traditionalists, on the July 16 motu proprio on the liturgy by Pope Francis, Traditionis custodes (“Of tradition the guardians”).     Because Pagliarini thinks of himself as a profoundly committed “guardian of tradition,” his thoughts take on a certain interest. —RM    ============    Letter from the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, in light of the publication of the motu proprio “Traditionis custodes” (link)    July 23, 2021    By Father Davide Pagliarini    ”THIS MASS, OUR MASS, MUST REALLY BE FOR US LIKE THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE IN THE GOSPEL, FOR WHICH WE ARE READY TO RENOUNCE EVERYTHING, FOR WHICH WE ARE READY TO SELL EVERYTHING.”    Dear members and friends of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,    The motu proprio Traditionis custodes and the letter that accompanied it have caused a profound upheaval in the so-called traditionalist movement.     We can point out, quite logically, that the era of the hermeneutics of continuity, with its equivocations, illusions and impossible efforts, is radically over – swept aside with a wave of a sleeve.     ***    [Note: Pagliarini is referring to the thesis of Pope Benedict XVI that the new rite of the Mass, and the Church’s teaching in general since Vatican II, can be seen as “in continuity” with prior Catholic liturgy and doctrine; this “hermeneutic of continuity,” Pagliarini is saying, is now “radically over”; in other words, Pope Francis has in this new decree (Pagliarini is arguing) recognized what Pope Benedict either did not recognize, or denied was true: that there is discontinuity, that is, rupture, between the old and new liturgy, and between the old and new doctrine; this is Pagliarini’s position. Of course, whether Paglairini is right or not is precisely the open question; but Pagliarini is claiming that Pope Francis in this document is recognizing that there, indeed, has been a rupture. And this would be theologically problematic, for the unity of the Church, since it is a fundamental, fundamental doctrine, that the teaching of the Church can develop, yes, but never “rupture,” never “break” with the previous teaching, because it is one Church over time, the same Church from the first years until today. And this is why the interpretation of the liturgical question in this document of Francis is only the first question; the deeper question is this question about whether Francis is saying there has been rupture (which would seem to be impossible, as I just said) or continuity and development (which Pagliarini says is excluded after reading this document). That is why this decree of Francis has opened up a new phase in the inner Church debate. Benedict tried to “paper over” the idea of a “rupture,” and developed the idea of the two rites, the “ordinary” (new) one and the “extraordinary” (old) one. By setting aside this solution of Benedict, Francis has seemingly embraced the idea of “rupture.” But for traditional Catholic theology, that is impossible, as it means that the “new Church” (post-July 16, 2021) is “rupturing” with the “old Church” (from the beginning up until July 16, 2021. Of course, my own note here may be in some way in error or inadequate to express the truth of the situation, but even if it is, it only would mean that there is a real need now for somebody in authority to say whether Pagliarini is right (and he continues his argument, with some passion, below), that this marks a rupture, or wrong… —RM]    ***    These clear-cut measures do not directly affect the Society of Saint Pius X.     However, they must be an occasion for us to reflect deeply on the situation.     To do so, it is necessary to step back and ask ourselves a question that is both old and new: Why is the Tridentine Mass still the apple of discord after fifty years?    ***    First of all, we must remember that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the continuation in time of the most bitter struggle that has ever existed: the battle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.     This combat culminated at Calvary in the triumph of Our Blessed Lord.     It was for this struggle and it was for this victory that he became incarnate. Since Our Lord’s victory was through the Cross and through His Precious Blood, it is understandable that its perpetuation will also be marked by conflicts and contradictions.     Every Catholic is called to this combat.     Our Lord reminded us of this when He said that He came “to bring the sword upon the earth” (Matt. 10:34).     It is not surprising that the Mass, which perfectly expresses Our Lord’s definitive victory over sin through His atoning Sacrifice, is itself a sign of contradiction.    ***    But why has the Mass become a sign of contradiction within the Church itself?     The answer is simple and increasingly clear.     After fifty years, the various elements that confirm the answer have become obvious to all well informed Catholics: the Tridentine Mass expresses and conveys a conception of Christian life – and consequently, a conception of the Catholic Church – that is absolutely incompatible with the ecclesiology that emerged from the Second Vatican Council.     The problem is not simply liturgical, aesthetic or purely technical.     The problem is simultaneously doctrinal, moral, spiritual, ecclesiological and liturgical.     In a nutshell, it is a problem that affects all aspects of the Church’s life, without exception.     It is a question of faith.    ***    On one side is the Mass of All Times.     It is the standard of a Church that defies the world and is certain of victory, for its battle is nothing less that the continuation of the battle that Our Blessed Lord waged to destroy sin and to destroy the kingdom of Satan.     It is by the Mass and through the Mass that Our Lord enlists Catholic souls into His ranks, by sharing with them both His Cross and His victory.     From all this follows a fundamentally militant conception of Christian life that is characterized by two elements: a spirit of sacrifice and an unwavering supernatural hope.    On the other side stands the Mass of Paul VI.     It is an authentic expression of a Church that wants to live in harmony with the world and that lends an ear to the world’s demands.     It represents a Church that, in the final analysis, no longer needs to fight against the world because it no longer has anything to reproach the world.     Here is a Church that no longer has anything to teach the world because it listens to the powers of the world.     It is a Church that no longer needs the Sacrifice of Our Blessed Lord because, having lost the notion of sin, it no longer has anything for which to atone.     Here is a Church that no longer has the mission of restoring the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because it wants to make its contribution to the creation on this earth of a better world that is freer, more egalitarian and more eco-responsible – and all this with purely human means.     This humanist mission that the men of the Church have given themselves must necessarily be matched by a liturgy that is equally humanist and emptied of any notion of sacredness.    ***    This battle that has been waged for the past fifty years, which has just seen a highly significant event on July 16th, is not a simple war between two rites: it is indeed a war between two different and opposing conceptions of the Catholic Church and of Christian life – conceptions that are absolutely irreducible and incompatible with each other.     In paraphrasing Saint Augustine, one could say that the two Masses have built two cities: the Mass of All Times has built a Christian city; the New Mass seeks to build a humanist and secular city.    Since Almighty God has allowed all this, it is certainly for a greater good.     Firstly for ourselves, who have the undeserved good fortune of knowing the Tridentine Mass and who can benefit from it!     We possess a treasure with a value we do not always appreciate, and which we perhaps preserve too much out of simple habit.     When something precious is attacked or scorned, we begin to appreciate better its true value.     May this “shock”, provoked by the harshness of the official texts of July 16th, serve to renew, deepen and rediscover our attachment to the Tridentine Mass!     This Mass – our Mass – must really be for us like the pearl of great price in the Gospel, for which we are ready to renounce everything, for which we are ready to sell everything.     He who is not prepared to shed his blood for this Mass is not worthy to celebrate it!     He who is not prepared to give up everything to protect it is not worthy to attend it!    This should be our first reaction to these events that have just shaken the Catholic Church.     Our reaction, as Catholic priests and as Catholic laity, must be profound and more far-reaching than all those feeble and sometimes hopeless commentaries.    ***    Our Blessed Lord certainly has another objective in mind in allowing this new attack on the Tridentine Mass.     No one can doubt that in recent years many priests and faithful have discovered this Mass, and that through it they have encountered a new spiritual and moral horizon, which has opened the door to the sanctification of their souls.     The latest measures taken against the Mass will force these souls to draw all the consequences of what they have discovered: they must now choose – with all the elements of discernment that are at their disposal – what is necessary for every well-informed Catholic conscience.     Many souls will find themselves faced with an important choice that will affect their faith, because – and let us say it once more – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the supreme expression of a doctrinal and moral universe.     It is therefore a question of choosing the Catholic faith in its entirety and through it, choosing Our Lord Jesus Christ, with His Cross, His Sacrifice and His universal kingship. It is a matter of choosing His Precious Blood, of imitating the Crucified One and of following Him to the end, by a complete, rigorous and coherent fidelity.    ***    The Society of Saint Pius X has the duty to assist all those souls who are currently in dismay and are confused.     Firstly, we have the duty to offer them the certitude that the Tridentine Mass can never disappear from the face of the earth.     This is an absolutely necessary sign of hope.     Moreover, each of us, whether priest or faithful, must extend a warm helping hand to them, for he who has no desire to share the riches he enjoys is, in all truth, unworthy of possessing them.     Only in this way will we truly love souls and show our love for the Church.     For every soul that we win to Our Blessed Lord’s Cross, and to the immense love that He manifested through His Sacrifice, will be a soul truly won to His Church and to the charity that animates His Church, which must be ours, especially at this present time.    ***    It is to Our Lady of Sorrows that we entrust these intentions.     It is to her that we address our prayers, since no one has penetrated deeper than Our Blessed Lady, the mystery of the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His victory on the Cross.     There is no one greater than Mary who has been so intimately associated with His sufferings and His triumph.     It is in her hands that Our Blessed Lord has placed the whole Catholic Church.     It is therefore to her that the most precious thing in the Catholic Church has been entrusted: the Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.    Menzingen, July 22nd, 2021.    Feast of Saint Mary Magdalen.    Don Davide Pagliarani, Superior Generalletter_from_the_superior_general_en.pdf

New post on Whispers of Restoration BlogCardinal Burke: No, Popes Can’t Do Thatby WhispersofRestorationWas there ever a better time to revisit the ancient blessings for weapons?Signol’s Taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, 1847Some cherries from Cardinal Burke, for one’s Catholic pie:Can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church.It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.Here, it is necessary to observe that the reform of the Sacred Liturgy carried out by Pope Saint Pius V, in accord with the indications of the Council of Trent, was quite different from what happened after the Second Vatican Council. … What happened after the Second Vatican Council constituted a radical change in the form of the Roman Rite, with the elimination of many of the prayers, significant ritual gestures, for example, the many genuflections, and the frequent kissing of the altar, and other elements which are rich in the expression of the transcendent reality – the union of heaven with earth – which is the Sacred Liturgy. May [all the faithful] continue to safeguard and cultivate the ancient and ever new More Ancient Usage or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.One could certainly wish for a little more juridical action from the good Cardinal, but at least we find a few sound principles in his treatment. Read whole thing here.If one sought something a bit more to the point, try Fr. Pagliarani here–it would be difficult to find language that is more Catholic, with regard to the Mass of our forebears:Why has the Mass become a sign of contradiction within the Church itself? The answer is simple and increasingly clear. … The problem is not simply liturgical, aesthetic or purely technical. The problem is simultaneously doctrinal, moral, spiritual, ecclesiological and liturgical. In a nutshell, it is a problem that affects all aspects of the Church’s life, without exception. It is a question of faith.This battle that has been waged for the past fifty years, which has just seen a highly significant event on July 16th… is indeed a war between two different and opposing conceptions of the Catholic Church and of Christian life – conceptions that are absolutely irreducible and incompatible with each other. In paraphrasing Saint Augustin, one could say that the two Masses have built two cities: the Mass of All Times has built a Christian city; the New Mass seeks to build a humanist and secular city.Many souls will find themselves faced with an important choice that will affect their faith, because – and let us say it once more – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the supreme expression of a doctrinal and moral universe. It is therefore a question of choosing the Catholic faith in its entirety and through it, choosing Our Lord Jesus Christ, with His Cross, His Sacrifice and His universal kingship. It is a matter of choosing His Precious Blood, of imitating the Crucified One and of following Him to the end, by a complete, rigorous and coherent fidelity.We agree with Cardinal Koch’s assessment that “the two forms cannot coexist,” and have raised the question before: Does right worship exist? If it does, as we’ve maintained elsewhere, the Novus Ordo simply cannot be that worship.Bravo the Restoration!WhispersofRestoration | July 23, 2021 at 3:12 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p8Ne6x-4oQ

    American Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, 73 (link). Burke, a canon lawyer by training, has just released his own reflection on Pope Francis‘s July 16 decree on the liturgy, on his own website. (link)    =================    ”A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA [the old Latin rite of the Mass] which fosters schism.” —Cardinal Raymond Burke, in the text below, released today, July 22, in Rome    ”For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like myself, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty.” —Cardinal Burke, in the same text     “I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it. Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation.” —Cardinal Burke, in the same text    ==========    Letter #62, 2021, Thursday, July 22: Cardinal Burke        Cardinal Raymond Burke, 73, has issued his own reflection on the motu proprio issued by Pope Francis on July 16.    The full text is below.    ***    One of the points that Cardinal Burke makes in the text (link) is that the official Latin text of the decree is not yet published.    This seems relatively unimportant, since Latin is increasingly marginalized in the Church, though it remains the official language of texts, yet it becomes a concern because several of the translations from the Italian (which seems to be the “base text” of the document right now) to the English version seem to be poor or even incorrect. (Burke gives two examples in the very first paragraph of his reflection.)    This too may seem like a minor point, but it is not… because it is part of a larger reality: that this text seems in various ways to have been “rushed” into publication… for some reason which is not clear.    For example, Burke writes: “It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church.”     Then he continues: “Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action [underlining mine], not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis[underlining mine], a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force. The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation…”    ***    So, we have:    (1) the poor or incorrect translations of words from Italian into English, and…    (2) no official Latin text, and…    (3) such haste in publishing the decree that no bishops were informed in advance (something often done in matters of such importance), and…    (4) no postponement of the law’s effect whatsoever (Francis might have said “I decree this to be the law today, July 16, but the law will not take effect until (for example) November 1, 2021, so that everyone around the world will have sufficient time to organize new chapels for celebrating Mass” (etc., etc., etc.).    Then, in Paragraph 7, Burke notes two other odd things about this text:    (5) The text is motivated by the results of a survey concerning the celebration of the old Mass worldwide; the survey results showed such serious problems that it prompted Francis to act swiftly and severely to bring an end to a source of grave “division” in the Church, but… no results of the survey have been made public! And…     (6) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would ordinarily have prepared some sort of document to accompany such a dramatic motu proprio, Burke suggests, but there is no such document.     One more piece of evidence — perhaps — that this decree suppressing the old Mass was prepared quickly and issued in haste, not according to ordinary procedures.    Then, in Paragraph 10, Burke notes another unusual thing: that Pope Francis asserts in the explanatory letter accompanying the motu propriosomething that has been directly contradicted in writing by Pope Benedict XVI. (Normally, one would expect such a direct contradiction to have been edited out of the text by an editor.) The contradiction is as follows:    (7) Burke writes: “The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA [the old rite] was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre” [the French bishop who founded the Society of St. Pius X; Lefebvre died in 1991, but the Society is still very much alive today].    And then Burke adds: “In the book, Last Testament in his own words[published in English November 17, 2017], Pope Benedict XVIresponded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202).    ***    So there you have it.     There seems to be evidence that the July 16, 2021 decree of Pope Francis, tending toward the complete suppression the old Latin Mass, is a decree that was prepared and issued in haste.    Was this actually the case?     If so, why?        Statement on the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes (“Guardians of the tradition”)     By Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke    July 22, 2021    Many faithful – laity, ordained and consecrated – have expressed to me the profound distress which the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes has brought them. Those who are attached to the Usus Antiquior (“More Ancient Usage”) [UA], what Pope Benedict XVI called the Extraordinary Form, of the Roman Rite are deeply disheartened by the severity of the discipline which the Motu Proprio imposes and offended by the language it employs to describe them, their attitudes and their conduct.     As a member of the faithful, who also has an intense bond with the UA [“Usus Antiquior,” that is, “more ancient usage” or “more ancient rite,” that is, the old Latin Mass], I fully share in their sentiments of profound sorrow.    As a Bishop of the Church and as a Cardinal, in communion with the Roman Pontiff and with a particular responsibility to assist him in his pastoral care and governance of the universal Church, I offer the following observations:    1.  In a preliminary way, it must be asked why the Latin or official text of the Motu Proprio has not yet been published.     As far as I know, the Holy See promulgated the text in Italian and English versions, and, afterwards, in German and Spanish translations.     Since the English version is called a translation, it must be assumed that the original text is in Italian. If such be the case, there are translations of significant texts in the English version which are not coherent with the Italian version. In Article 1, the important Italian adjective, “unica,” is translated into English as “unique,” instead of “only.” In Article 4, the important Italian verb, “devono,” is translated into English as “should,” instead of “must.”    2.  First of all, it is important to establish, in this and the following two observations (nos. 3 and 4), the essence of what the Motu Propriocontains. It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church, namely the UA. According to the Holy Father, those who worship according to this usage make a choice which rejects “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’,” a choice which “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”    3.  Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action, not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis, a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force.     The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation regarding the worship of God, the most important aspect of their life in the Church, with a view to its implementation. The legislation, in fact, contains many elements that require study regarding its application.    4.  What is more, the legislation places restrictions on the UA, which signal its ultimate elimination, for example, the prohibition of the use of a parish church for worship according to the UA and the establishment of certain days for such worship.     In his letter to the Bishops of the world, Pope Francis indicates two principles which are to guide the Bishops in the implementation of the Motu Proprio. The first principle is “to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.”     The second principle is “to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God’.”    5.  Seemingly, the legislation is directed to the correction of an aberration principally attributable to the “the desire and wishes” of certain priests.     In that regard, I must observe, especially in the light of my service as a Diocesan Bishop, it was not the priests who, because of their desires, urged the faithful to request the Extraordinary Form.     In fact, I shall always be deeply grateful to the many priests who, notwithstanding their already heavy commitments, generously served the faithful who legitimately requested the UA.     The two principles cannot help but communicate to devout faithful who have a deep appreciation and attachment to the encounter with Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite that they suffer from an aberration which can be tolerated for a time but must ultimately be eradicated.    6.  From whence comes the severe and revolutionary action of the Holy Father?     The Motu Proprio and the Letter indicate two sources: first, “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” through “a detailed consultation of the bishops” conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, and, second, “the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”     Regarding the responses to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire” sent to the Bishops, Pope Francis writes to the Bishops: “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”    7.  Regarding the sources, is it to be supposed that the situation which preoccupies and saddens the Roman Pontiff exists generally in the Church or only in certain places?     Given the importance attributed to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire,” and the gravity of the matter it was treating, it would seem essential that the results of the consultation be made public, along with the indication of its scientific character.     In the same way, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was of the opinion that such a revolutionary measure must be taken, it would seemingly have prepared an Instruction or similar document to address it.    8.  The Congregation enjoys the expertise and long experience of certain officials – first, serving in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and then in the Fourth Section of the Congregation – who have been charged to treat questions regarding the UA.     One must ask whether the “opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” reflected the consultation of those with the greatest knowledge of the faithful devoted to the UA?    9.  Regarding the perceived grave evil constituted by the UA, I have a wide experience over many years and in many different places with the faithful who regularly worship God according to the UA.     In all honesty, I must say that these faithful, in no way, reject “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’.”     Neither have I found them out of communion with the Church or divisive within the Church.     On the contrary, they love the Roman Pontiff, their Bishops and priests, and, when others have made the choice of schism, they have wanted always to remain in full communion with the Church, faithful to the Roman Pontiff, often at the cost of great suffering.     They, in no way, ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology.    10.  The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.”     The movement in question is the Society of Saint Pius X.     While both Roman Pontiffs desired the healing of the schism in question, as should all good Catholics, they also desired to maintain in continuance the UA for those who remained in the full communion of the Church and did not become schismatic.     Pope Saint John Paul II showed pastoral charity, in various important ways, to faithful Catholics attached to the UA, for example, granting the indult for the UA but also establishing the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a society of apostolic life for priests attached to the UA.     In the book, Last Testament in his own words, Pope Benedict XVIresponded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202).     In fact, many who presently desire to worship according to the UA have no experience and perhaps no knowledge of the history and present situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. They are simply attracted to the holiness of the UA.    11.  Yes, there are individuals and even certain groups which espouse radical positions, even as is the case in other sectors of Church life, but they are, in no way, characteristic of the greater and ever increasing number of faithful who desire to worship God according to the UA.     The Sacred Liturgy is not a matter of so-called “Church politics” but the fullest and most perfect encounter with Christ for us in this world.     The faithful, in question, among whom are numerous young adults and young married couples with children, encounter Christ, through the UA, Who draws them ever closer to Himself through the reform of their lives and cooperation with the divine grace which flows from His glorious pierced Heart into their hearts.     They have no need to make a judgment regarding those who worship God according to the Usus Recentior (the More Recent Usage, what Pope Benedict XVI called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) [UR], first promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI. As one priest, member of an institute of the consecrated life, which serves these faithful, remarked to me: I regularly confess to a priest, according to the UR, and participate, on special occasions, in the Holy Mass according to the UR. He concluded: Why would anyone accuse me of not accepting its validity?    12.  If there are situations of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and discipline of the Church, justice demands that they be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. Justice is the minimum and irreplaceable condition of charity. Pastoral charity cannot be served, if the requirements of justice are not observed.    13.  A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA which fosters schism.     For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like myself, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty.     I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it.     Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation.     For those who have come to the UA for the first time, its rich beauty, especially as it manifests the action of Christ renewing sacramentally His Sacrifice on Calvary through the priest who acts in His person, has drawn them closer to Christ.     I know many faithful for whom the experience of Divine Worship according to the UA has strongly inspired their conversion to the Faith or their seeking Full Communion with the Catholic Church.     Also, numerous priests who have returned to the celebration of the UA or who have learned it for the first time have told me how deeply it has enriched their priestly spirituality.     This is not to mention the saints all along the Christian centuries for whom the UA nourished an heroic practice of the virtues. Some have given their lives to defend the offering of this very form of divine worship.    14.  For myself and for others who have received so many powerful graces through participation in the Sacred Liturgy, according to the UA, it is inconceivable that it could now be characterized as something detrimental to the unity of the Church and to its very life.     In this regard, it is difficult to understand the meaning of Article 1 of the Motu Proprio: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VIand Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the only (unica, in the Italian version which seemingly is the original text) expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     The UA is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so.     From the very time of the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, in recognition of the great difference between the UR and the UA, the continued celebration of the Sacraments, according to the UA, was permitted for certain convents and monasteries and also for certain individuals and groups. P    ope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to the Bishops of the World, accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, made clear that the Roman Missal in use before the Missal of Pope Paul VI, “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”    15.  But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church.     It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier.     The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church.    16.  It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith.     In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church.     It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.    17.  Pope Francis states in his letter to the Bishops: “Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique [only] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     The total abrogation in question, in justice, requires that each individual norm, instruction, permission and custom be studied, to verify that it “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”    18.  Here, it is necessary to observe that the reform of the Sacred Liturgy carried out by Pope Saint Pius V, in accord with the indications of the Council of Trent, was quite different from what happened after the Second Vatican Council.     Pope Saint Pius V essentially put in order the form of the Roman Rite as it had existed already for centuries.     Likewise, some ordering of the Roman Rite has been done in the centuries since that time by the Roman Pontiff, but the form of the Rite remained the same.     What happened after the Second Vatican Council constituted a radical change in the form of the Roman Rite, with the elimination of many of the prayers, significant ritual gestures, for example, the many genuflections, and the frequent kissing of the altar, and other elements which are rich in the expression of the transcendent reality – the union of heaven with earth – which is the Sacred Liturgy.     Pope Paul VI already lamented the situation in a particularly dramatic way by the homily he delivered on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1972.     Pope Saint John Paul II labored throughout his pontificate, and, in particular, during its last years, to address serious liturgical abuses.     Both Roman Pontiffs, and Pope Benedict XVI, as well, strove to conform the liturgical reform to the actual teaching of the Second Vatican Council, since the proponents and agents of the abuse invoked the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council” to justify themselves.    19.  Article 6 of the Motu Proprio transfers the competence of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life devoted to the UA to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.     The observance of the UA belongs to the very heart of the charism of these institutes and societies.     While the Congregation is competent to respond to questions regarding the canon law for such institutes and societies, it is not competent to alter their charism and constitutions, in order to hasten the seemingly desired elimination of the UA in the Church.    There are many other observations to be made, but these seem to be the most important.     I hope that they may be helpful to all the faithful and, in particular, to the faithful who worship according to the UA, in responding to the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying Letter to the Bishops.     The severity of these documents naturally generates a profound distress and even sense of confusion and abandonment.     I pray that the faithful will not give way to discouragement but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors, and in their love of the Sacred Liturgy.    In that regard, I urge the faithful, to pray fervently for Pope Francis, the Bishops and priests. At the same time, in accord with can. 212, §3, “[a]ccording to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”     Finally, in gratitude to Our Lord for the Sacred Liturgy, the greatest gift of Himself to us in the Church, may they continue to safeguard and cultivate the ancient and ever new More Ancient Usage or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.    + Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke    Rome, 22 July 2021    Feast of Saint Mary Magdalene, Penitent

    American Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, 73 (link). Burke, a canon lawyer by training, has just released his own reflection on Pope Francis‘s July 16 decree on the liturgy, on his own website. (link)    =================    ”A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA [the old Latin rite of the Mass] which fosters schism.” —Cardinal Raymond Burke, in the text below, released today, July 22, in Rome    ”For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like myself, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty.” —Cardinal Burke, in the same text     “I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it. Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation.” —Cardinal Burke, in the same text    ==========    Letter #62, 2021, Thursday, July 22: Cardinal Burke        Cardinal Raymond Burke, 73, has issued his own reflection on the motu proprio issued by Pope Francis on July 16.    The full text is below.    ***    One of the points that Cardinal Burke makes in the text (link) is that the official Latin text of the decree is not yet published.    This seems relatively unimportant, since Latin is increasingly marginalized in the Church, though it remains the official language of texts, yet it becomes a concern because several of the translations from the Italian (which seems to be the “base text” of the document right now) to the English version seem to be poor or even incorrect. (Burke gives two examples in the very first paragraph of his reflection.)    This too may seem like a minor point, but it is not… because it is part of a larger reality: that this text seems in various ways to have been “rushed” into publication… for some reason which is not clear.    For example, Burke writes: “It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church.”     Then he continues: “Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action [underlining mine], not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis[underlining mine], a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force. The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation…”    ***    So, we have:    (1) the poor or incorrect translations of words from Italian into English, and…    (2) no official Latin text, and…    (3) such haste in publishing the decree that no bishops were informed in advance (something often done in matters of such importance), and…    (4) no postponement of the law’s effect whatsoever (Francis might have said “I decree this to be the law today, July 16, but the law will not take effect until (for example) November 1, 2021, so that everyone around the world will have sufficient time to organize new chapels for celebrating Mass” (etc., etc., etc.).    Then, in Paragraph 7, Burke notes two other odd things about this text:    (5) The text is motivated by the results of a survey concerning the celebration of the old Mass worldwide; the survey results showed such serious problems that it prompted Francis to act swiftly and severely to bring an end to a source of grave “division” in the Church, but… no results of the survey have been made public! And…     (6) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would ordinarily have prepared some sort of document to accompany such a dramatic motu proprio, Burke suggests, but there is no such document.     One more piece of evidence — perhaps — that this decree suppressing the old Mass was prepared quickly and issued in haste, not according to ordinary procedures.    Then, in Paragraph 10, Burke notes another unusual thing: that Pope Francis asserts in the explanatory letter accompanying the motu propriosomething that has been directly contradicted in writing by Pope Benedict XVI. (Normally, one would expect such a direct contradiction to have been edited out of the text by an editor.) The contradiction is as follows:    (7) Burke writes: “The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA [the old rite] was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre” [the French bishop who founded the Society of St. Pius X; Lefebvre died in 1991, but the Society is still very much alive today].    And then Burke adds: “In the book, Last Testament in his own words[published in English November 17, 2017], Pope Benedict XVIresponded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202).    ***    So there you have it.     There seems to be evidence that the July 16, 2021 decree of Pope Francis, tending toward the complete suppression the old Latin Mass, is a decree that was prepared and issued in haste.    Was this actually the case?     If so, why?        Statement on the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes (“Guardians of the tradition”)     By Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke    July 22, 2021    Many faithful – laity, ordained and consecrated – have expressed to me the profound distress which the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes has brought them. Those who are attached to the Usus Antiquior (“More Ancient Usage”) [UA], what Pope Benedict XVI called the Extraordinary Form, of the Roman Rite are deeply disheartened by the severity of the discipline which the Motu Proprio imposes and offended by the language it employs to describe them, their attitudes and their conduct.     As a member of the faithful, who also has an intense bond with the UA [“Usus Antiquior,” that is, “more ancient usage” or “more ancient rite,” that is, the old Latin Mass], I fully share in their sentiments of profound sorrow.    As a Bishop of the Church and as a Cardinal, in communion with the Roman Pontiff and with a particular responsibility to assist him in his pastoral care and governance of the universal Church, I offer the following observations:    1.  In a preliminary way, it must be asked why the Latin or official text of the Motu Proprio has not yet been published.     As far as I know, the Holy See promulgated the text in Italian and English versions, and, afterwards, in German and Spanish translations.     Since the English version is called a translation, it must be assumed that the original text is in Italian. If such be the case, there are translations of significant texts in the English version which are not coherent with the Italian version. In Article 1, the important Italian adjective, “unica,” is translated into English as “unique,” instead of “only.” In Article 4, the important Italian verb, “devono,” is translated into English as “should,” instead of “must.”    2.  First of all, it is important to establish, in this and the following two observations (nos. 3 and 4), the essence of what the Motu Propriocontains. It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church, namely the UA. According to the Holy Father, those who worship according to this usage make a choice which rejects “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’,” a choice which “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”    3.  Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action, not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis, a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force.     The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation regarding the worship of God, the most important aspect of their life in the Church, with a view to its implementation. The legislation, in fact, contains many elements that require study regarding its application.    4.  What is more, the legislation places restrictions on the UA, which signal its ultimate elimination, for example, the prohibition of the use of a parish church for worship according to the UA and the establishment of certain days for such worship.     In his letter to the Bishops of the world, Pope Francis indicates two principles which are to guide the Bishops in the implementation of the Motu Proprio. The first principle is “to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.”     The second principle is “to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God’.”    5.  Seemingly, the legislation is directed to the correction of an aberration principally attributable to the “the desire and wishes” of certain priests.     In that regard, I must observe, especially in the light of my service as a Diocesan Bishop, it was not the priests who, because of their desires, urged the faithful to request the Extraordinary Form.     In fact, I shall always be deeply grateful to the many priests who, notwithstanding their already heavy commitments, generously served the faithful who legitimately requested the UA.     The two principles cannot help but communicate to devout faithful who have a deep appreciation and attachment to the encounter with Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite that they suffer from an aberration which can be tolerated for a time but must ultimately be eradicated.    6.  From whence comes the severe and revolutionary action of the Holy Father?     The Motu Proprio and the Letter indicate two sources: first, “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” through “a detailed consultation of the bishops” conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, and, second, “the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”     Regarding the responses to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire” sent to the Bishops, Pope Francis writes to the Bishops: “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”    7.  Regarding the sources, is it to be supposed that the situation which preoccupies and saddens the Roman Pontiff exists generally in the Church or only in certain places?     Given the importance attributed to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire,” and the gravity of the matter it was treating, it would seem essential that the results of the consultation be made public, along with the indication of its scientific character.     In the same way, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was of the opinion that such a revolutionary measure must be taken, it would seemingly have prepared an Instruction or similar document to address it.    8.  The Congregation enjoys the expertise and long experience of certain officials – first, serving in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and then in the Fourth Section of the Congregation – who have been charged to treat questions regarding the UA.     One must ask whether the “opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” reflected the consultation of those with the greatest knowledge of the faithful devoted to the UA?    9.  Regarding the perceived grave evil constituted by the UA, I have a wide experience over many years and in many different places with the faithful who regularly worship God according to the UA.     In all honesty, I must say that these faithful, in no way, reject “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’.”     Neither have I found them out of communion with the Church or divisive within the Church.     On the contrary, they love the Roman Pontiff, their Bishops and priests, and, when others have made the choice of schism, they have wanted always to remain in full communion with the Church, faithful to the Roman Pontiff, often at the cost of great suffering.     They, in no way, ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology.    10.  The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.”     The movement in question is the Society of Saint Pius X.     While both Roman Pontiffs desired the healing of the schism in question, as should all good Catholics, they also desired to maintain in continuance the UA for those who remained in the full communion of the Church and did not become schismatic.     Pope Saint John Paul II showed pastoral charity, in various important ways, to faithful Catholics attached to the UA, for example, granting the indult for the UA but also establishing the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a society of apostolic life for priests attached to the UA.     In the book, Last Testament in his own words, Pope Benedict XVIresponded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202).     In fact, many who presently desire to worship according to the UA have no experience and perhaps no knowledge of the history and present situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. They are simply attracted to the holiness of the UA.    11.  Yes, there are individuals and even certain groups which espouse radical positions, even as is the case in other sectors of Church life, but they are, in no way, characteristic of the greater and ever increasing number of faithful who desire to worship God according to the UA.     The Sacred Liturgy is not a matter of so-called “Church politics” but the fullest and most perfect encounter with Christ for us in this world.     The faithful, in question, among whom are numerous young adults and young married couples with children, encounter Christ, through the UA, Who draws them ever closer to Himself through the reform of their lives and cooperation with the divine grace which flows from His glorious pierced Heart into their hearts.     They have no need to make a judgment regarding those who worship God according to the Usus Recentior (the More Recent Usage, what Pope Benedict XVI called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) [UR], first promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI. As one priest, member of an institute of the consecrated life, which serves these faithful, remarked to me: I regularly confess to a priest, according to the UR, and participate, on special occasions, in the Holy Mass according to the UR. He concluded: Why would anyone accuse me of not accepting its validity?    12.  If there are situations of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and discipline of the Church, justice demands that they be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. Justice is the minimum and irreplaceable condition of charity. Pastoral charity cannot be served, if the requirements of justice are not observed.    13.  A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA which fosters schism.     For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like myself, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty.     I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it.     Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation.     For those who have come to the UA for the first time, its rich beauty, especially as it manifests the action of Christ renewing sacramentally His Sacrifice on Calvary through the priest who acts in His person, has drawn them closer to Christ.     I know many faithful for whom the experience of Divine Worship according to the UA has strongly inspired their conversion to the Faith or their seeking Full Communion with the Catholic Church.     Also, numerous priests who have returned to the celebration of the UA or who have learned it for the first time have told me how deeply it has enriched their priestly spirituality.     This is not to mention the saints all along the Christian centuries for whom the UA nourished an heroic practice of the virtues. Some have given their lives to defend the offering of this very form of divine worship.    14.  For myself and for others who have received so many powerful graces through participation in the Sacred Liturgy, according to the UA, it is inconceivable that it could now be characterized as something detrimental to the unity of the Church and to its very life.     In this regard, it is difficult to understand the meaning of Article 1 of the Motu Proprio: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VIand Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the only (unica, in the Italian version which seemingly is the original text) expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     The UA is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so.     From the very time of the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, in recognition of the great difference between the UR and the UA, the continued celebration of the Sacraments, according to the UA, was permitted for certain convents and monasteries and also for certain individuals and groups. P    ope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to the Bishops of the World, accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, made clear that the Roman Missal in use before the Missal of Pope Paul VI, “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”    15.  But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church.     It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier.     The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church.    16.  It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith.     In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church.     It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.    17.  Pope Francis states in his letter to the Bishops: “Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique [only] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     The total abrogation in question, in justice, requires that each individual norm, instruction, permission and custom be studied, to verify that it “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”    18.  Here, it is necessary to observe that the reform of the Sacred Liturgy carried out by Pope Saint Pius V, in accord with the indications of the Council of Trent, was quite different from what happened after the Second Vatican Council.     Pope Saint Pius V essentially put in order the form of the Roman Rite as it had existed already for centuries.     Likewise, some ordering of the Roman Rite has been done in the centuries since that time by the Roman Pontiff, but the form of the Rite remained the same.     What happened after the Second Vatican Council constituted a radical change in the form of the Roman Rite, with the elimination of many of the prayers, significant ritual gestures, for example, the many genuflections, and the frequent kissing of the altar, and other elements which are rich in the expression of the transcendent reality – the union of heaven with earth – which is the Sacred Liturgy.     Pope Paul VI already lamented the situation in a particularly dramatic way by the homily he delivered on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1972.     Pope Saint John Paul II labored throughout his pontificate, and, in particular, during its last years, to address serious liturgical abuses.     Both Roman Pontiffs, and Pope Benedict XVI, as well, strove to conform the liturgical reform to the actual teaching of the Second Vatican Council, since the proponents and agents of the abuse invoked the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council” to justify themselves.    19.  Article 6 of the Motu Proprio transfers the competence of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life devoted to the UA to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.     The observance of the UA belongs to the very heart of the charism of these institutes and societies.     While the Congregation is competent to respond to questions regarding the canon law for such institutes and societies, it is not competent to alter their charism and constitutions, in order to hasten the seemingly desired elimination of the UA in the Church.    There are many other observations to be made, but these seem to be the most important.     I hope that they may be helpful to all the faithful and, in particular, to the faithful who worship according to the UA, in responding to the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying Letter to the Bishops.     The severity of these documents naturally generates a profound distress and even sense of confusion and abandonment.     I pray that the faithful will not give way to discouragement but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors, and in their love of the Sacred Liturgy.    In that regard, I urge the faithful, to pray fervently for Pope Francis, the Bishops and priests. At the same time, in accord with can. 212, §3, “[a]ccording to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”     Finally, in gratitude to Our Lord for the Sacred Liturgy, the greatest gift of Himself to us in the Church, may they continue to safeguard and cultivate the ancient and ever new More Ancient Usage or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.    + Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke    Rome, 22 July 2021    Feast of Saint Mary Magdalene, Penitent

    American Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, 73 (link). Burke, a canon lawyer by training, has just released his own reflection on Pope Francis‘s July 16 decree on the liturgy, on his own website. (link)    =================    ”A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA [the old Latin rite of the Mass] which fosters schism.” —Cardinal Raymond Burke, in the text below, released today, July 22, in Rome    ”For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like myself, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty.” —Cardinal Burke, in the same text     “I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it. Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation.” —Cardinal Burke, in the same text    ==========    Letter #62, 2021, Thursday, July 22: Cardinal Burke        Cardinal Raymond Burke, 73, has issued his own reflection on the motu proprio issued by Pope Francis on July 16.    The full text is below.    ***    One of the points that Cardinal Burke makes in the text (link) is that the official Latin text of the decree is not yet published.    This seems relatively unimportant, since Latin is increasingly marginalized in the Church, though it remains the official language of texts, yet it becomes a concern because several of the translations from the Italian (which seems to be the “base text” of the document right now) to the English version seem to be poor or even incorrect. (Burke gives two examples in the very first paragraph of his reflection.)    This too may seem like a minor point, but it is not… because it is part of a larger reality: that this text seems in various ways to have been “rushed” into publication… for some reason which is not clear.    For example, Burke writes: “It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church.”     Then he continues: “Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action [underlining mine], not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis[underlining mine], a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force. The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation…”    ***    So, we have:    (1) the poor or incorrect translations of words from Italian into English, and…    (2) no official Latin text, and…    (3) such haste in publishing the decree that no bishops were informed in advance (something often done in matters of such importance), and…    (4) no postponement of the law’s effect whatsoever (Francis might have said “I decree this to be the law today, July 16, but the law will not take effect until (for example) November 1, 2021, so that everyone around the world will have sufficient time to organize new chapels for celebrating Mass” (etc., etc., etc.).    Then, in Paragraph 7, Burke notes two other odd things about this text:    (5) The text is motivated by the results of a survey concerning the celebration of the old Mass worldwide; the survey results showed such serious problems that it prompted Francis to act swiftly and severely to bring an end to a source of grave “division” in the Church, but… no results of the survey have been made public! And…     (6) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would ordinarily have prepared some sort of document to accompany such a dramatic motu proprio, Burke suggests, but there is no such document.     One more piece of evidence — perhaps — that this decree suppressing the old Mass was prepared quickly and issued in haste, not according to ordinary procedures.    Then, in Paragraph 10, Burke notes another unusual thing: that Pope Francis asserts in the explanatory letter accompanying the motu propriosomething that has been directly contradicted in writing by Pope Benedict XVI. (Normally, one would expect such a direct contradiction to have been edited out of the text by an editor.) The contradiction is as follows:    (7) Burke writes: “The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA [the old rite] was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre” [the French bishop who founded the Society of St. Pius X; Lefebvre died in 1991, but the Society is still very much alive today].    And then Burke adds: “In the book, Last Testament in his own words[published in English November 17, 2017], Pope Benedict XVIresponded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202).    ***    So there you have it.     There seems to be evidence that the July 16, 2021 decree of Pope Francis, tending toward the complete suppression the old Latin Mass, is a decree that was prepared and issued in haste.    Was this actually the case?     If so, why?        Statement on the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes (“Guardians of the tradition”)     By Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke    July 22, 2021    Many faithful – laity, ordained and consecrated – have expressed to me the profound distress which the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes has brought them. Those who are attached to the Usus Antiquior (“More Ancient Usage”) [UA], what Pope Benedict XVI called the Extraordinary Form, of the Roman Rite are deeply disheartened by the severity of the discipline which the Motu Proprio imposes and offended by the language it employs to describe them, their attitudes and their conduct.     As a member of the faithful, who also has an intense bond with the UA [“Usus Antiquior,” that is, “more ancient usage” or “more ancient rite,” that is, the old Latin Mass], I fully share in their sentiments of profound sorrow.    As a Bishop of the Church and as a Cardinal, in communion with the Roman Pontiff and with a particular responsibility to assist him in his pastoral care and governance of the universal Church, I offer the following observations:    1.  In a preliminary way, it must be asked why the Latin or official text of the Motu Proprio has not yet been published.     As far as I know, the Holy See promulgated the text in Italian and English versions, and, afterwards, in German and Spanish translations.     Since the English version is called a translation, it must be assumed that the original text is in Italian. If such be the case, there are translations of significant texts in the English version which are not coherent with the Italian version. In Article 1, the important Italian adjective, “unica,” is translated into English as “unique,” instead of “only.” In Article 4, the important Italian verb, “devono,” is translated into English as “should,” instead of “must.”    2.  First of all, it is important to establish, in this and the following two observations (nos. 3 and 4), the essence of what the Motu Propriocontains. It is apparent from the severity of the document that Pope Francis issued the Motu Proprio to address what he perceives to be a grave evil threatening the unity of the Church, namely the UA. According to the Holy Father, those who worship according to this usage make a choice which rejects “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’,” a choice which “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”    3.  Clearly, Pope Francis considers the evil so great that he took immediate action, not informing Bishops in advance and not even providing for the usual vacatio legis, a period of time between the promulgation of a law and its taking force.     The vacatio legis provides the faithful and especially the Bishops time to study the new legislation regarding the worship of God, the most important aspect of their life in the Church, with a view to its implementation. The legislation, in fact, contains many elements that require study regarding its application.    4.  What is more, the legislation places restrictions on the UA, which signal its ultimate elimination, for example, the prohibition of the use of a parish church for worship according to the UA and the establishment of certain days for such worship.     In his letter to the Bishops of the world, Pope Francis indicates two principles which are to guide the Bishops in the implementation of the Motu Proprio. The first principle is “to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.”     The second principle is “to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the ‘holy People of God’.”    5.  Seemingly, the legislation is directed to the correction of an aberration principally attributable to the “the desire and wishes” of certain priests.     In that regard, I must observe, especially in the light of my service as a Diocesan Bishop, it was not the priests who, because of their desires, urged the faithful to request the Extraordinary Form.     In fact, I shall always be deeply grateful to the many priests who, notwithstanding their already heavy commitments, generously served the faithful who legitimately requested the UA.     The two principles cannot help but communicate to devout faithful who have a deep appreciation and attachment to the encounter with Christ through the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite that they suffer from an aberration which can be tolerated for a time but must ultimately be eradicated.    6.  From whence comes the severe and revolutionary action of the Holy Father?     The Motu Proprio and the Letter indicate two sources: first, “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” through “a detailed consultation of the bishops” conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, and, second, “the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”     Regarding the responses to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire” sent to the Bishops, Pope Francis writes to the Bishops: “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.”    7.  Regarding the sources, is it to be supposed that the situation which preoccupies and saddens the Roman Pontiff exists generally in the Church or only in certain places?     Given the importance attributed to the “detailed consultation” or “questionnaire,” and the gravity of the matter it was treating, it would seem essential that the results of the consultation be made public, along with the indication of its scientific character.     In the same way, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was of the opinion that such a revolutionary measure must be taken, it would seemingly have prepared an Instruction or similar document to address it.    8.  The Congregation enjoys the expertise and long experience of certain officials – first, serving in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and then in the Fourth Section of the Congregation – who have been charged to treat questions regarding the UA.     One must ask whether the “opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” reflected the consultation of those with the greatest knowledge of the faithful devoted to the UA?    9.  Regarding the perceived grave evil constituted by the UA, I have a wide experience over many years and in many different places with the faithful who regularly worship God according to the UA.     In all honesty, I must say that these faithful, in no way, reject “the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church’.”     Neither have I found them out of communion with the Church or divisive within the Church.     On the contrary, they love the Roman Pontiff, their Bishops and priests, and, when others have made the choice of schism, they have wanted always to remain in full communion with the Church, faithful to the Roman Pontiff, often at the cost of great suffering.     They, in no way, ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology.    10.  The Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio states that the UA was permitted by Pope Saint John Paul II and later regulated by Pope Benedict XVI with “the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.”     The movement in question is the Society of Saint Pius X.     While both Roman Pontiffs desired the healing of the schism in question, as should all good Catholics, they also desired to maintain in continuance the UA for those who remained in the full communion of the Church and did not become schismatic.     Pope Saint John Paul II showed pastoral charity, in various important ways, to faithful Catholics attached to the UA, for example, granting the indult for the UA but also establishing the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a society of apostolic life for priests attached to the UA.     In the book, Last Testament in his own words, Pope Benedict XVIresponded to the affirmation, “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X,” with these clear and strong words: “This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (pp. 201-202).     In fact, many who presently desire to worship according to the UA have no experience and perhaps no knowledge of the history and present situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. They are simply attracted to the holiness of the UA.    11.  Yes, there are individuals and even certain groups which espouse radical positions, even as is the case in other sectors of Church life, but they are, in no way, characteristic of the greater and ever increasing number of faithful who desire to worship God according to the UA.     The Sacred Liturgy is not a matter of so-called “Church politics” but the fullest and most perfect encounter with Christ for us in this world.     The faithful, in question, among whom are numerous young adults and young married couples with children, encounter Christ, through the UA, Who draws them ever closer to Himself through the reform of their lives and cooperation with the divine grace which flows from His glorious pierced Heart into their hearts.     They have no need to make a judgment regarding those who worship God according to the Usus Recentior (the More Recent Usage, what Pope Benedict XVI called the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) [UR], first promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI. As one priest, member of an institute of the consecrated life, which serves these faithful, remarked to me: I regularly confess to a priest, according to the UR, and participate, on special occasions, in the Holy Mass according to the UR. He concluded: Why would anyone accuse me of not accepting its validity?    12.  If there are situations of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and discipline of the Church, justice demands that they be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. Justice is the minimum and irreplaceable condition of charity. Pastoral charity cannot be served, if the requirements of justice are not observed.    13.  A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA which fosters schism.     For those of us who knew the UA in the past, like myself, it is a question of an act of worship marked by a centuries-old goodness, truth and beauty.     I knew its attraction from my childhood and indeed became very attached to it.     Having been privileged to assist the priest as a Mass Server from the time when I was ten years old, I can testify that the UA was a major inspiration of my priestly vocation.     For those who have come to the UA for the first time, its rich beauty, especially as it manifests the action of Christ renewing sacramentally His Sacrifice on Calvary through the priest who acts in His person, has drawn them closer to Christ.     I know many faithful for whom the experience of Divine Worship according to the UA has strongly inspired their conversion to the Faith or their seeking Full Communion with the Catholic Church.     Also, numerous priests who have returned to the celebration of the UA or who have learned it for the first time have told me how deeply it has enriched their priestly spirituality.     This is not to mention the saints all along the Christian centuries for whom the UA nourished an heroic practice of the virtues. Some have given their lives to defend the offering of this very form of divine worship.    14.  For myself and for others who have received so many powerful graces through participation in the Sacred Liturgy, according to the UA, it is inconceivable that it could now be characterized as something detrimental to the unity of the Church and to its very life.     In this regard, it is difficult to understand the meaning of Article 1 of the Motu Proprio: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VIand Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the only (unica, in the Italian version which seemingly is the original text) expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     The UA is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so.     From the very time of the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, in recognition of the great difference between the UR and the UA, the continued celebration of the Sacraments, according to the UA, was permitted for certain convents and monasteries and also for certain individuals and groups. P    ope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to the Bishops of the World, accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, made clear that the Roman Missal in use before the Missal of Pope Paul VI, “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”    15.  But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church.     It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier.     The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church.    16.  It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith.     In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church.     It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.    17.  Pope Francis states in his letter to the Bishops: “Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique [only] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”     The total abrogation in question, in justice, requires that each individual norm, instruction, permission and custom be studied, to verify that it “contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency … against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.”    18.  Here, it is necessary to observe that the reform of the Sacred Liturgy carried out by Pope Saint Pius V, in accord with the indications of the Council of Trent, was quite different from what happened after the Second Vatican Council.     Pope Saint Pius V essentially put in order the form of the Roman Rite as it had existed already for centuries.     Likewise, some ordering of the Roman Rite has been done in the centuries since that time by the Roman Pontiff, but the form of the Rite remained the same.     What happened after the Second Vatican Council constituted a radical change in the form of the Roman Rite, with the elimination of many of the prayers, significant ritual gestures, for example, the many genuflections, and the frequent kissing of the altar, and other elements which are rich in the expression of the transcendent reality – the union of heaven with earth – which is the Sacred Liturgy.     Pope Paul VI already lamented the situation in a particularly dramatic way by the homily he delivered on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in 1972.     Pope Saint John Paul II labored throughout his pontificate, and, in particular, during its last years, to address serious liturgical abuses.     Both Roman Pontiffs, and Pope Benedict XVI, as well, strove to conform the liturgical reform to the actual teaching of the Second Vatican Council, since the proponents and agents of the abuse invoked the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council” to justify themselves.    19.  Article 6 of the Motu Proprio transfers the competence of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life devoted to the UA to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.     The observance of the UA belongs to the very heart of the charism of these institutes and societies.     While the Congregation is competent to respond to questions regarding the canon law for such institutes and societies, it is not competent to alter their charism and constitutions, in order to hasten the seemingly desired elimination of the UA in the Church.    There are many other observations to be made, but these seem to be the most important.     I hope that they may be helpful to all the faithful and, in particular, to the faithful who worship according to the UA, in responding to the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying Letter to the Bishops.     The severity of these documents naturally generates a profound distress and even sense of confusion and abandonment.     I pray that the faithful will not give way to discouragement but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors, and in their love of the Sacred Liturgy.    In that regard, I urge the faithful, to pray fervently for Pope Francis, the Bishops and priests. At the same time, in accord with can. 212, §3, “[a]ccording to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”     Finally, in gratitude to Our Lord for the Sacred Liturgy, the greatest gift of Himself to us in the Church, may they continue to safeguard and cultivate the ancient and ever new More Ancient Usage or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.    + Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke    Rome, 22 July 2021    Feast of Saint Mary Magdalene, Penitent

    ”It would be most inconvenient for the articles of our Constitution to be rejected by the Central Commission or by the Council itself. That is why we must tread carefully and discreetly. Carefully, so that proposals be made in an acceptable manner (modo acceptabile), or, in my opinion, formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything: let many things be said in embryo (in nuce) and in this way let the door remain open to legitimate and possible postconciliar deductions and applications; let nothing be said that suggests excessive novelty and might invalidate all the rest,…” —Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, the head of the Commission which prepared the new Mass, explaining his method of proceeding. The words are cited in a fairly recent biography of Bugnini by French Catholic scholar Yves Chiron; the book’s cover is shown above, with a photo of Bugnini (link). The book was published on November 26, 2018, almost 3 years ago    ”A two thirds majority [of bishops in 1967, viewing a trial celebration of the new Mass] was needed to approve the new rite and only a third voted against it, a fact already known; what was largely unknown is that another third of bishops, uncomfortable with the new Mass and equally uncomfortable opposing the Pope, voted ‘present.'” —from the same biography    ”One last insight provided by the author is a debasement of the long held rumor that Archbishop Bugnini was a subversive Mason, a member of the Lodge bent on destroying the Church from within. When Paul VIdecided to abolish both the Consilium and Congregation for Sacred Rites, he elected to create a new commission to handle the regulation of his new liturgy. Bugnini was the obvious choice, but was, inevitably, not the choice. Why? The author sides with those who think Pope Paul was simply tired of Bugnini, his methods, and his antics.” —from the same biography    Letter #61, 2021, Wednesday, July 21: Review of a recent biography of Monsignor Bugnini    It seemed useful to fill in a bit more background information before studying Monsignor Annibale Bugnini‘s classic, lengthy work, The Reform of the Liturgy (link to purchase the book; note that the price of the book at this link is $902, not a price most readers could afford).    Here is a review. It serves to give an overview of the life of the man and his work. (Thanks to the author.)    ====================    (1) Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy (book review)    By “The Rad Trad,” an American who lives in New Hampshire (link)    February 6, 2019    The world knows Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. Does it know Tim Berners-Lee? The world knows “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Does it know Ion Mihai Pacepa? Jobs gave us the iPhone and Zuckerberg some blue website, but Berners-Lee gave us the internet. Stalin took over Eastern Europe and committed genocide, but Pacepa inculcated materialism and jealously into the hearts of academics and undergraduates throughout the West. The real work of changing the world is so often obscured by those who later reap its laudatory recognition.    Similarly, Paul VI is given the credit for the final form of the Roman liturgy which emerged in the late 1960s. Responsibility for the Liturgia Horarum and Novus Ordo Missae do inevitably fall upon Giovanni Bautista Montini, who signed his regnal name under the decrees promulgating their uses, but the creation of these rites belongs to the less known and more obscure Annibale Bugnini.    We know the name Bugnini and we know the product of his work. What we do not know is the man and his life. We do not know how the man who changed how we pray actually prayed himself. We do not know how the man who influenced how we related to God himself related to God. We do now know how the man who wrote the liturgy himself understood the liturgy. Yves Chiron‘s Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy does not answer all of these questions, but it does open a substantial aperture into the life and decisions of a man whose traces remain in the trace of every western Christian.    The Author    Yves Chiron is a French essayist and historian who has written extensively on the history of the modern papacy, the saints, and the contemporary state of the Church. A traditionalist, but a staid one, a Francophonic correspondent likened him to a “more intellectual version of Michael Davies.” Not many of Chiron’s works have made it into English, but Annibale does reflect an objective approach to the sensitive subject matter, an interest in connecting the facts, and a respectable refrain from voicing an opinion until the end of the work.    The Book    Annibale Bugnini was born near Orvieto to a sharecropper and his wife. The fifth of seven children, Annibale came from a pious family that attended the great feasts of the Church and made an annual pilgrimage to Santa Maria de Scopulis during the Paschal octave. Half the children went into the religious life, Annibale himself into the Vincentians.     Chiron follows his subject through his religious studies in Siena and his initial interest in liturgy. He loved the major feasts with tremendous enthusiasm and would readily put on a cassock in the sacristy of any church if given the chance to introire ad altare Dei. Liturgy, Chiron suggests, was an enthusiasm for Bugnini. His real interest was in managing people, a skill which would inform his life’s work much more than his expertise. A student in Siena, he wrote his dissertation on the role of committees during the Council of Trent.     After ordination to the priesthood, Bugnini made two pivotal moves which would determine the direction of his ecclesiastical career. First, he accepted the directorship of a failing liturgical journal called Ephemerides Liturgicae, which had fallen to 96 subscribers.     Under Bugnini’s niche interest in “pastoral liturgy,” readership increased into the thousands.     The other major step was Bugnini’s first and only pastoral experience as a weekend chaplain in a poor Roman suburb [presumably] celebrating low Mass for the locals. Here, he nursed his “pastoral” angle on the liturgy by having a “reader” hold up large cardboard signs which commented on the Mass or translated the priest’s words into Italian and which prompted the congregation to reply in Italian. Something new was in the mix.    We then follow the aspiring liturgist to the Le Thieulin conference in 1946, a gathering of like minded promoters of the Liturgical Movement and all its aspirations. Here Bugnini met Dom Beauduin, Yves CongarOP, and the progressive Georges Chevrot. The mutual meeting effected the formation of the Centro di Azione Liturgica, which gave this particular brand of the Liturgical Movement its form and Carlo Bragahis first job.     Bugnini played his modest part in the Pian reforms to Holy Week, in which he was a passive secretary more than an active participant. After the election of John XXIII [1958] and the calling for an ecumenical council, Bugnini was appointed secretary for the new commission charged with drafting the Conciliar agenda and documents regarding the liturgy. Here emerged what the author astutely denominates the “Bugnini method.”     Normally, a secretary functions as a minute-taker, an envoy for someone in greater authority, and a delegated staffer. Bugnini employed his talents for bureaucracy and used his unique position to create various factions within the preparatory commission, isolate them, and then dictate their agenda to them. He created thirteen subcommissions, each dedicated to a particular function such as vernacular, sacred music, concelebration, the Office, and more. No one subcommission could influence the work of another subcommission nor consult them. Everything had to be done through Father Bugnini.     In the preparatory commission, Bugnini set the agenda for each commission and by putting hitherto unconsidered matters on the table, he moved what political scientists call the “Overton window” such that some movement on these issues was inevitable. Wary of backlash, Bugnini instructed members of the subcommissions drafting sections of what would be called Sacrosanctum Concilium not to be too forward in their views on the vernacular, concelebration, or the extent to which they desired to reform the entire liturgy:    ”It would be most inconvenient for the articles of our Constitution to be rejected by the Central Commission or by the Council itself. That is why we must tread carefully and discreetly. Carefully, so that proposals be made in an acceptable manner (modo acceptabile), or, in my opinion, formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything: let many things be said in embryo (in nuce) and in this way let the door remain open to legitimate and possible postconciliar deductions and applications; let nothing be said that suggests excessive novelty and might invalidate all the rest, even what is straightforward and harmless (ingenua et innocentia). We must proceed discreetly. Not everything is to be asked or demanded from the Council—but the essentials, the fundamental principles [are].”     In 1962, Bugnini was informed that Ferdinando Antonelli OFM would be named head of the Conciliar commission on the liturgy. Bugnini, in a risible fit of extraordinary self-entitlement one usually only sees in college sororities, wrote everyone he knew asking for the job, citing his “bitterness” and the harm done to his reputation. At the same time he was fired from his job teaching at the Lateran University. He appealed to Pope John, who either willed his dismissal or consented to it.    Bugnini’s double edged sword, Sacrosanctum Concilium, passed muster in Saint Peter’s Basilica during Vatican II; even Archbishop Lefebvre voted for it (although bishops were hardly given the time to read the documents). Now Giovanni Battista Montini was Pope Paul VI and he restored Bugnini to his secretariat on the Conciliar commission.     What is most impressive, and new, in Chiron’s research is that he has uncovered Bugnini’s takeback of control of the reform project. The Consilium, under the nominal leadership of Cardinal Lercaro, was to be dissolved and the reforms to the Mass and Office would descend upon Cardinal Larraona and his Congregation for Sacred Rites. The Consilium managed to appoint itself reformer of the liturgy.    From here, we are familiar with the history. Our author does, however, supply us with new and useful tidbits, including the startling reaction of the 1967 Synod of Archbishops who viewed three experimental Novus Ordo Masses in the Sistine chapel. A two thirds majority was needed to approve the new rite and only a third voted against it, a fact already known; what was largely unknown is that another third of bishops, uncomfortable with the new Mass and equally uncomfortable opposing the Pope, voted “present.”     Pope Paul eventually saw a spoken rendition of the Novus Ordo himself and suggested numerous changes (returning the Kyrie, keeping the triple Agnus Dei, and retaining the Last Gospel). Apparently the new Mass was to have even less of the old Mass than it does now.    One last insight provided by the author is a debasement of the long held rumor that Archbishop Bugnini was a subversive Mason, a member of the Lodge bent on destroying the Church from within. When Paul VIdecided to abolish both the Consilium and Congregation for Sacred Rites, he elected to create a new commission to handle the regulation of his new liturgy. Bugnini was the obvious choice, but was, inevitably, not the choice. Why? The author sides with those who think Pope Paul was simply tired of Bugnini, his methods, and his antics.    Montini intended to sent Bugnini on a Papal Embassy to Latin America, but Bugnini objected on the grounds of his ignorance of Spanish. Instead he was sent to Tehran. Those who believe him to be a Freemason have their roots in Cardinal (Silvio) Oddi, who stated to Tito Casini that he had seen evidence that Bugnini was an affirmed member of the Lodge.     Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre repeated this rumor in 1975 and began an accusation that lingers until our own day. Ironically, while in his second exile, Bugnini wrote to Paul VI suggesting that Lefebvre and the Seminary of Saint Pius X be given permission to use the old Mass under similar conditions to the “Agatha Christie Indult” in England; he was ignored and Rome’s relations with the French missionary deteriorated.    Conclusions    There is much more in Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy that cannot be covered in a simple review: his influence on papal ceremonies, his war against the collegiate churches of Rome in their effort to preserve Gregorian chant, and his very human reactions to the political situation in Iran.     Chiron has given his reader much food for thought without explicitly telling them what to think. The cover of this book is, fitting, a picture of Msgr. Bugnini against a page for the introductory rites of the Novus Ordo Missal. We can see any number of option greetings, aspersions with lustral water, or a penitential rite. The choice is left with the reader of the Missal.     Similarly, conclusions about Bugnini are left with the reader.     To the progressive, he will be a noble warrior who patiently dealt with the Baroque liturgical establishment in Rome until he found the moment to spring forward and initiate renewal.     To the traditionalist, Bugnini comes across as a double dealing, mealy mouthed ignoramus who spent decades destroying sacred things and replacing them with his own machinations.     The moderate and the conservative, however, are so confronted with facts that they have no where to hide, no where to talk about the misinterpretation of Vatican II or the silvering linings of the reform; either Bugnini was a scoundrel or the agent of reform.    Chiron only departs from his dispassionate facts and gives an opinion on the last page. The opinion is his own, but Joseph Ratzinger supplies the words:    ”On the other hand, the liturgical reform enacted after Vatican II made ‘the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm.'”    ***    Two comments from readers are posted at the bottom of this review.    The first asks: “What did the vote ‘present’ mean? A form of abstention?”    The review author answers: “Yes, it means they were just as uncomfortable with the new Mass as they were with the idea of opposing the Pope directly.”    The second refers to the sentence in the book review: “One last insight provided by the author is a debasement of the long held rumor that Archbishop Bugnini was a subversive Mason.”    The review author answers: “My impression is not that Chiron debases it, but that he is unable to find sufficient information to either deny or confirm it: it [the judgment on this question] is ‘inconclusive.’ He seems more firm that it seems not to have been decisive in Paul VI’s decision to remove him. That said, it is interesting to read in the Foreword by Alcuin Reid in which he mentions a 1996 interview with (Austrian) Cardinal Alfons Stickler (1910-2007) in which he [Stickler] is asked if he believed that Bugnini was a Freemason and if this was the reason Paul VI dismissed him. “No,” the cardinal replied, “it was something far worse.”    [End, book review and reader’s comments]

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Fred Martinez

Did Pope John Paul II Teach that Francis is an “Explicit Atheist”? 

July 21, 2021

“When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence”  – Malcolm Muggeridge

Certain teachings in Amoris Laetitia are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio as well as apparently “explicitly atheist” and deny the existence of objective truth according to Veritatis Splendor.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said:

“Veritatis Splendor, entitled ‘Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,’ warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor.“
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]

Francis’s semi-official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano wrote:
“There are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329).”[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:
“Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute… This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The  individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil… But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.“[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:

“This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
 Francis and the papal inner circle appear to have redefined mortal sin and adultery in a way that is contrary to the 2,000 year infallibly doctrine of the Catholic Church.

They redefine adultery as a “irregular relationship” and say mortal sin is not mortal sin because of the ultimacy of conscience.

This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the murderer, rapist, sex abuser, the person in adultery or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at “peace” with it, if the sinful behavior is “humanly impossible” to change, “if they can’t change their sinful behavior” or don’t know it is wrong. 

Under these conditions, they say those in objective mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.

Their redefinition of conscience is wrong. As St. Thomas said “An erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse” as the great moral philosopher Ralph McInerny wrote:

“I think murder is wrong, but make up your own mind…It is pretty clear that we do not really accept the ultimacy of conscience in this way. That the rapist and the one raped have different views on the morality of rape does not much interest us when we consider the kind of deed it is.”

“Each agent is obligated to follow his conscience, but this is not tantamount to saying that every agent has a well formed conscience. It is erroneous to believe that theft is permitted. It is wrong to hold that adultery is all right…If it is erroneous, we will be interested in his changing it. Indeed, we often prevent people from acting on their real or alleged views when those views are erroneous. Professional thieves are not considered to have an interesting and defensible concept of private property. As Thomas put it, an erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse.” (Ralph McInerny, “Ethica Thomistica,” 1982, 1997, page 110-111)

Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroneous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a “supreme tribunal of moral judgement… in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear”:

“Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8… As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: ‘In this passage, the German bishops get all they want’:”

“But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are ‘in God’s grace’, and that their pastor can know it too… The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes ‘the help of the sacraments… ‘”

“Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is ‘objectively’ sinful, so they can return to the sacraments.”
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Every Pope and saint in the history of the Catholic Church would have rejected the above passage of Amoris Laetitia.

Every Pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion. 

The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior. 

These Catholic Church doctrines can’t be redefined, even by the Pope, because they are part of Revelation.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of “mercy” to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.

Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called “Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power.”

The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn’t have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

Francis and the papal inner circle ostracized the Dubia Cardinals for questioning the parts of Amoris Laetitia that reject Veritatis Splendor and are apparently rejecting the cross of Christ as well as saying it has lost its power.

They talk a lot about atheistic secular issues and social work, but rarely or never about life after the death of the body, salvation and damnation.

Francis and his inner circle say Jesus had authority because he was (past tense) a servant, but rarely or never that Jesus had authority because he is (eternal now) God.

One reason that they rarely or never talk about the four last things is that apparently in making individual conscience supreme, they deny truth, the authority of God and implicitly the existence of God.

Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor:

“Certain currents of modern thought… are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment… about good and evil… in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.”

This may be a valid question to ask Francis and the papal inner circle who promote these redefinition:

Do you even believe in the Incarnation and salvation, as every Pope and saint in history has believed, since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins?

John Paul II taught that anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal is a “explicit atheist.”

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. 

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Fred Martinez

Anti-Fr. Altmann Bp. Callahan’s “Saddened” Loving Statement to Disgraced Msgr. Burrill: “Please Remember Msgr. Burrill… in God’s Unfailing Love”

July 22, 2021The Winnoa Daily News reported that Bishop William Callahan of La Crosse who has launched an unmerciful attack on Catholic pro-life Fr. James Altmann and removed him from his ministry apparently through his diocese’s statement showed “saddened” love to disgraced Msgr. Jeffrey BurrilL:

Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill, a priest of the Diocese of La Crosse, has announced his resignation as General Secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The resignation came after the USCCB “became aware of impending media reports alleging possible improper behavior by Msgr. Burrill,” said Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles…

… The Diocese of La Crosse issued this statement today:

“Msgr. Burrill was ordained a priest for the Diocese of La Crosse in 1998 and in conjunction with the Diocese’s Protect and Heal initiatives has consistently completed safe environment training and background checks. His most recent background check was completed in 2020.

“Bishop William Patrick Callahan and representatives of the Diocese of La Crosse are saddened to hear the media reports related to Msgr. Burrill. The Diocese of La Crosse pledges its full cooperation with the Conference of Catholic Bishops to pursue all appropriate steps in investigating and addressing the situation.

“Please remember Msgr. Burrill and all affected in your prayers so they may find refuge and strength in God’s unfailing love.“ [https://www.winonadailynews.com/news/la-crosse-priest-resigns-post-in-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-amid-allegations/article_439b5193-46e8-5e0c-8340-024841da4426.html]

Crisis Magazine reported:

Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill resigned from his position at the USCCB as a general secretary with responsibility for overseeing sex abuse cases. What caused the resignation of the highest-ranking non-bishop Church official in the country? He was caught regularly using apps that connect men who want to have sex with other men.

Burrill shouldn’t be surprised that such data can be collected, since those who use these apps must consent to having their movements traced. Such apps store information about the users—information that can be purchased, often to target people for marketing purposes.

Some are suggesting the data used by The Pillar was gained immorally. They argue that to do so is to violate some putative “right to privacy.” They seem to see use of such data as a form of detraction insofar as it is making “public” information, even when true, that should remain private. Yet I see no reason to speculate that such was the case.

It is not detraction, of course, to disclose true and damaging information about someone to someone else who has legitimate reasons to know that information; for example, an employee embezzling funds, or a wife or husband committing adultery or using drugs or squandering the family finances. Certainly a Bishop has a legitimate reason to know the information about his priests and so, too, in my mind, does anyone who is entrusting their immortal soul to guidance by a priest. [https://www.complicitclergy.com/2021/07/21/the-limits-of-a-priests-right-to-privacy/] 

Getting back to Anti-Fr. Altmann Bishop Callahan, shockingly in 2009, Callahan said of his apparent friend disgraced gay Archbishop Rembert Weakland that he made “his mistakes but also [did] some of the good” according to WISN 12 News:

Callahan said he talked to Former Archbishop Weakland last week, but despite his knowledge of the book, it was not discussed.

Callahan, who’s known Weakland for years, said he’s surprised by Weakland’s admission that he is gay…

… Weakland is no stranger to controversy. He retired in 2002 after it came out he had an affair decades earlier with a male college student. He has also came under fire for hiding the actions of pedophile priests.

WISN 12 News asked Callahan if he thinks the Archdiocese can move on beyond the things Weakland left behind.

“Certainly, without a doubt, certainly. The church has moved on for centuries with saints and sinners, and that’s Jesus’ intention,” Callahan said.

Callahan said Weakland’s legacy in the church is not just his mistakes but also some of the good he did, including shaping the modern mass. He does not expect the Vatican to weight in on the book. [https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2009/05_06/2009_05_13_Wisn_AuxillaryBishop.htm]

Patrick J. Buchanan reported the following of Callahan’s apparent friend Weakland:

For Weakland was a homosexual who confessed in a 1980 letter he was in “deep love” with a male paramour who shook down the archbishop for $450,000 in church funds as hush money to keep his lover’s mouth shut about their squalid affair.

According to Rod Dreher, Weakland moved Father William Effinger, who would die in prison, from parish to parish, knowing Effinger was a serial pederast.

When one of Effinger’s victims sued the archdiocese but lost because of a statute of limitations, Weakland counter-sued and extracted $4,000 from the victim of his predator priest.

Dreher describes Weakland’s tenure thus:

“He directed Catholic schools … to teach kids how to use condoms as part of AIDS education and approved a graphic sex-education program for parochial-school kids that taught ‘there is no right and wrong’ on the issues of abortion, contraception and premarital sex. He has advocated for gay rights and women’s ordination, bitterly attacked Pope John Paul II, denounced pro-lifers as ‘fundamentalist’ and declared that one could be both pro-choice and a Catholic in good standing.”

Speaking of sex-abuse victims in 1988, Weakland was quoted: “Not all adolescent victims are so innocent. Some can be sexually very active and aggressive and often streetwise.” [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36362Anti-Catholicism and the Times 
by Patrick J. Buchanan , 04/06/2010]

Last year, Bishop Callahan launched an attacked on Catholic pro-life Fr. Altmann saying “he will attempt fraternal correction before imposing canonical penalties or taking other formal steps in the matter, and acknowledged that the priest had inflicted a ‘wound’ upon the Church.” [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/09/09/la-crosse-bishop-to-correct-catholics-cant-be-democrats-priest/]

Fr. Altmann in his YouTube viral video correctly said: “You can not be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period” because the Democrat party is for the “intrinsically evil” of killing unborn babies.

It appears that Bishop Callahan may, also, disagrees with the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Our Lady of Fatima on telling people in “intrinsically evil” about the possibility of the infallible Catholic teaching on Hell.

The La Crosse Tribune quotes Callahan apparently possibly saying that he “hope[s]… no one” speaks of “hell” to those in “intrinsically evil”:

 “I said, ‘Hopefully, no one has ever told him that he’s going to hell. That’s not what we teach. We teach certainly that there are areas of action that we consider intrinsically evil, and that there are actions that we would say these will set you outside of the law, but God is the one who judges.”, and that there are actions that we would say these will set you outside of the law, but God is the one who judges.” [https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/money-politics-and-religion-a-conversation-with-bishop-william-callahan/article_16a248da-3c36-11e2-9fd3-0019bb2963f4.html]

Does Callahan  “hope… no one” speaks of “hell” to those in “intrinsically evil”?

If this is what Bishop Callahan is saying then it appears that the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Our Lady of Fatima disagree with him.

I hope that Callahan isn’t disagreeing with Our Lord and Lady.  

Hopefully, he teaches about making first Fridays and first Saturdays to make reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as well as the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the conversion of sinners as Our Lady of Fatima asked for so they don’t go to Hell. 

Tradition in Action explains that Jesus is merciful, but also because of original sin and when after baptism we sin which is an infinite crime He had to redeemed us by his infinite sacrifice on Good Friday. However, He requires that we in grace unite to His Redemption by doing penance and reparation for forgiveness of our sins and implicitly for others:   

“In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.”  

“… the error of the [extreme Francis] Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.” 

“Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.”
[https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm]  

Also, Fatima’s Sister Lucia said that Our Lady asked for sacrifices and rosaries to obtain the graces so sinners will not go to Hell, but, also, for reparation because of sins against God and the Mother of God:  

“Sacrifice yourself for sinners and say many times especially whenever you make such a sacrifice: ‘O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversions of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” 

Sister Lucia told Father Lombardi, according to the Vatican’s Osservatore della Domenica on February 7, 1954, the following about why there is a need for sacrifices and prayers for sinners so they can be saved from Hell.

Fr. Lombardi: “Tell me is the Better World Movement a response of the Church to the words spoken to Our Lady?”

Lucia: “Father there is certainly a great need for this renewal. If it is not done, and taking into account the present development of humanity, only a limited number of the human race will be saved.”

Fr. Lombardi: “Do you really believe that many will go to Hell? I hope that God will save the greater part of humanity.” [He had just written a book entitled: Salvation for those without faith.]

Lucia: “Father, many will be lost.”

Fr. Lombardi: “It is true that the world is full of evil, but there is always a hope of salvation.”

Lucia: “No Father, many will be lost.”
(Fatima, The Great Sign by Francis Johnston, Tan Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Illinois, Page 36) 

The devotions of Our Lady of Fatima and the Sacred Heart of Jesus are both about reparation because each person has free will that by grace can cooperate with God for his redemption or reject God’s grace and sin by committing “intrinsically evil” actions whereby he may and can reject God’s mercy and freely choose to go to Hell.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. 

Victory For Priests’ Rights  July 22, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a victory for the rights of priests: The rights of priests took a big step forward on July 21 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that sided with an alleged victim of clergy sexual abuse. The Pittsburgh law firm of Jones Day ably represented the Catholic League in an amicus brief that was filed in support of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. The alleged victim, Renee Rice, argued that she had been molested in the 1970s by Fr. Charles Bodziak at St. Leo’s Church in Altoona, a town about 80 miles from Pittsburgh. The priest denied the accusation. Rice’s lawsuit claimed that two bishops tried to cover up his behavior, even though the diocese sent her a letter 10 years before her lawsuit encouraging her to come forward about her alleged abuse. Even more bizarre, she never did anything to pursue her claim until 2016. That was when a grand jury report on sexual abuse in the diocese was released. She said the report awakened her to what supposedly happened. To top things off, Rice’s lawyers maintained that the timeline of the statute of limitations for a civil claim seeking damages for an offense should not start when the alleged injury took place. In her case that meant at the time the grand jury report was made public. Had Rice won, it would have meant that the established law regarding the statute of limitations would have been thrown out, thus crushing the rights of the accused. When the Catholic League filed an amicus curiae brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2019, I commented on the Superior Court ruling that sided with Rice. “We have reached a new level of creative jurisprudence when a court can invoke a jury decision as the new clock determining when the limitations period starts to run.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the Superior Court’s reasoning. We won 5-2. Justice Christine Donohue (no relation to me) wrote for the majority, saying, “the statute of limitations expired decades ago.” In short, Rice had an obligation to pursue her case within the limitation period and elected not to do so. The Catholic League’s lawyers were happy to note that Pennsylvania’s high court prominently cited a case that their brief highlighted, Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishops of Salt Lake City. It held that the lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff (in this case Rice) was fatal. This victory means that the slew of “copycat” lawsuits filed after the lower court win will die on the vine. Thanks to our Pittsburgh friends at Jones Day, the rights of priests are in much better shape.

Traditionis Custodes: Guardians of tradition or betrayers of tradition?

Is the liturgy the Pope’s personal possession that he can so blithely discard? Or is this possibly a monumental abuse of the power of the papacy?Tue Jul 20, 2021 – 8:16 pm ES

By Karen Darantière

---

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

July 20, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Traditionis Custodes, issued by Pope Francis on the Feast of Our Lady of Carmel, is an exercise in diabolically contemptuous sarcasm. But before discussing why, let’s begin by recognizing some laudable qualities that this motu proprio possesses. Indeed, Traditionis Custodes and its accompanying letter display qualities that are as rare nowadays as they are precious: clarity and brevity.  

Laudable clarity and brevity  

https://cdn.vmrcommunications.com/stencil-files/2377ed9c-352e-4593-83f4-67e8b265a0df/index.html

The intention is crystal clear: Pope Francis explicitly states his aim to abolish the Mass of the Ages, before laying down a number of norms for the implementation of this clearly stated goal. To anyone who has long been spiritually nourished by the Mass of the Ages, in communion with all the saints over the centuries, this can only appear absolutely apocalyptic.     

Here is how Pope Francis unambiguously states, in the letter accompanying his new motu proprio, this intention to thoroughly obliterate the Mass of the Ages: “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.” This means that the venerable Traditional Latin Mass, with more than a millennium of existence, is no longer part of the Roman Rite. With one simple stroke of the pen, it has quite simply been written out of the Roman Rite. If this is not clear enough, Pope Francis also dictates two principles that all bishops must follow: even if those who are attached to the Traditional Latin Mass are temporarily permitted to continue attending it, they “need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II,” and bishops must “discontinue the erection of new personal parishes.” So, there is to be, on the one hand, temporary tolerance for already existing Traditional Mass celebrations, and on the other hand, a strict interdiction to allow any new Traditional Mass parishes. This is a clear death sentence. 

One immediately wonders: Is the liturgy the Pope’s personal possession that he can so blithely discard? Or is this possibly a monumental abuse of the power of the papacy? Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI wrote, when promulgating Summorum Pontificum: “What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” Not so, apparently, according to Pope Francis. In fact, his new motu proprio expresses the exact opposite: “What earlier generations held as sacred must be considered by us as harmful and therefore must ultimately be forbidden.”   SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic

A model of Orwellian rhetoric 

— Article continues below Petition —SIGN: Show Pope Francis the Latin Mass will survive any suppression 

20,145 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 22,500!Add your signature:  Show Petition Text  Country…USACanadaAaland IslandsAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuracaoCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic Republic of the CongoDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and McDonald IslandsHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestinePanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRepublic of KosovoReunionRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint BarthelemySaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint MartinSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican CityVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands (British)Virgin Islands (U.S.)Wallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe  State…AlabamaAlaskaAmerican SamoaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFederated States Of MicronesiaFloridaGeorgiaGuamHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarshall IslandsMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNorthern Mariana IslandsOhioOklahomaOregonPalauPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirgin IslandsVirginiaWashingtonWashington D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces Pacific Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.  Sign this Petition

Taking into account this clearly expressed aim to obliterate the Traditional Roman Rite, let’s ponder a moment over the title given to the motu proprio, which is an example of what one might call Orwellian antiphrasis. Antiphrasis is the rhetorical device that consists in sarcastically saying the opposite of what is actually meant in such a way that one’s true intention is made manifest and obvious. Pope Francis clearly announces his determined will to eliminate the Traditional Mass of the Ages, and yet the decree is sarcastically entitled: ‘Traditionis Custodes,” meaning “Guardians of Tradition.” No theological studies are required to see the obvious: this is sheer sneering sarcasm that, presupposing the best intentions on the part of the Holy Father, is a trickery of the devil, who has so cleverly managed to disorient his mind and his heart.

The discord and dissonance between this clearly stated aim and this title reminds one of the names given to the totalitarian government headquarters depicted by George Orwell in his novel 1984: the Ministry of Truth, which spreads propaganda and lies, the Ministry of Peace, which prepares for war, the Ministry of Abundance, which propagates famine, or the Ministry of Love, where innocent men are tortured. In like manner, “Guardians of Tradition” instructs the shepherds to ultimately obliterate the Traditional Roman Rite. “Betrayers of Tradition” would be a much more apt title.    

Such Orwellian rhetoric could also make one think of another commonplace antiphrastic expression: “sexual and reproductive rights,” which designates in reality not the right to reproduce, to have children, but the exact contrary: the right to murder one’s own child in the womb through abortion. Likewise, these so-called “Guardians of Tradition,” rather than protecting, nurturing, and caring for it as a loving mother would do for her child, would murder it and throw its remains onto the garbage heap of history.   Diabolical deception However, that is not all. Pope Francis continues: “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.” This claim of continuity with the sainted Pope Pius V is blatantly deceptive.   There is a superficial similitude in that both popes establish unity through a single Roman Rite, but there is an essential difference that is obfuscated: Pope St. Pius V abrogated precisely the novel rites that were less than 200 years of age, thereby upholding and guarding Tradition, whereas Pope Francis does the exact contrary: it is the novel 60-year-old novus ordo mass that is made the universal norm of the Church while the ancient, venerable rite, which alone has any claim to antiquity, is abolished. Thus, Pope Francis diametrically opposes the sainted pope’s clear intentions by abolishing the Traditional Rite his predecessor so faithfully guarded.   Moreover, Saint Pius V, in Quo Primum, in which he promulgated the Tridentine Mass, stated, “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” Did Pope Francis truly take this dire warning into grave consideration before issuing his motu proprio, or is he perhaps the victim of some diabolical disorientation? For, when Francis claims to be following the example of Pope St. Pius V, while in essence doing precisely the contrary, there is unquestionably some sort of diabolical deception at work.   A protest filled with filial piety All of the above remarks, some Catholics might say, are disrespectful and demonstrate a lack of filial piety toward the Holy Father. We Catholics do have to be very careful to always venerate the See of Peter, especially when we feel the need to cry out in dismay at a diabolical deception aimed at attacking the heart of the Church: the Holy Mass of the Ages. Here is a very sincere question: By crying out against such ungodly trickery, is a faithful Catholic not, in fact, showing more reverential respect toward the Holy Father, than by remaining silent? We all desire to express filial piety toward our shepherds, and above all the supreme shepherd of the entire flock, the Vicar of Christ. This is done firstly by praying for the Church and for the Holy Father, but also by warning fellow Catholics who otherwise might fall prey to this deception. Were this deceit without grave consequences, perhaps silent prayer alone would be best, but this trickery aims very explicitly at the very gravest of consequences: the Abolition of Tradition. And so, with true filial piety, we might all cry out: Please, Holy Father, wake up! Open your eyes and see that Satan, sarcastically sneering, is making a cruel mockery of you and of your children! For the sake of the salvation of our souls and of your own, be a true Guardian, not a Betrayer, of the Sacred Tradition! RELATED: 

Given its foundational falsehoods, does Traditionis Custodes lack juridical standing? 
LifeSite launches petition imploring Pope Francis to withdraw decree restricting Traditional Latin Mass 
LifeSite journalists react to ‘cruel,’ ‘hateful’ new motu proprio restricting Latin Mass 
Reflections on the Traditional Latin Mass and the new motu proprio Traditionis Custodes 
Liturgy expert: Pope’s new restriction of Old Rite Mass ‘kind of like telling millions of Catholics just to jump off a bridge or hang themselves’ 
ANALYSIS: Pope restricts ‘divisive’ Traditional Latin Mass, says 52-yr-old Novus Ordo is ‘unique expression’ of Church’s liturgy 
BREAKING: Pope Francis abrogates Pope Benedict’s universal permission for Old Mass 
‘Scandal,’ ‘bomb,’ ‘cruelty’: Tradition-loving Catholics react to Pope’s Latin Mass restrictionsblob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/f795b2ba-d5ee-4a2c-a3b9-c3d364dd6187

---

  Benedict Xvi, Catholic, John Paul Ii, Motu Proprio, Novus Ordo, Paul Vi, Pope Francis, Traditional Latin Mass, Traditionis Custodes