NEW RTV: Francis the Unmerciful EXPOSED

Inbox

Michael Matt | The Remnant Newspaper <newsletter@remnantnewspaper.com>4:57 PM (1 hour ago)
to me

This email contains graphics, so if you don’t see them, view it in your browser

 - - -
Why is Francis Requiring Vaccination Passports at Papal Masses? 
Hello RENE HENRY GRACIDA,Dear Friends: So, here we go again. Mask up and calm down.

Taking his marching orders from Davos, Joe Biden has already announced his intention to form a national health agency that would partner with the National Security Agency to use technology to prevent crime and future pandemics before they happen.

Follow the Science Fiction!

IN MY NEW VIDEO, we’ve got some new footage of the January 6 “insurrection” that you won’t believe!

Also, the cancellation of Christianity and Patriotism is in full swing. Look no further than the Olympics, where disrespecting the flag is hailed as “courageous”, and all the children of the world were forced to sing John Lennon’s “Imagine”.

No religion, no countries, no heaven, no God.  Imagine the New World Order! No countries at the Olympics? The irony is wasted on these clowns.

Check out my new video, Unmerciful Globalist. (The Olympics “Imagine” footage is beyond disturbing.)

No countries? That’s working out great so far, especially down at the US Southern Border.

No religion? The streets of America are killing fields ever since the Left cancelled God. Most people don’t even go to Minneapolis anymore, not since they started imagining “no hell below us” and brought it right up into the streets of downtown.

And the most distressing part of what’s happening to our world right now is the lack of any serious moral guidance. People are confused, angry, frightened. But in the middle of it all, along comes Pope Francis with just one message for the world: Do whatever the globalists tell you!

If you want to attend the Pope’s Mass in Slovakia next month, for example, you’ll need the Green Pass to get in. Francis couldn’t possibly be more in the bag with the Great Rest.

So, in this new video I do two things:

1) Take the gloves off, once and for all, where this globalist pope is concerned. He’s become a threat even to the physical wellbeing of our children, so say nothing of their souls.
2) Reach out to non-Catholic patriots, bishops, and non-traditional Catholics. The enemies of God and Country are declaring war on all of us, and we need to get smart.

We won’t be on YouTube for much longer, so please ask your friends and family to sign up for this eblast so I can let them know when we post on Remnant-TV.com, Rumble, Spotify, or wherever.

Please like and share this video.

In Christo Rege,
Michael J. Matt UNMERCIFUL GLOBALIST: Francis Declares War On His Own ChurchRead Full Article on the Remnant Website…


 

The Remnant Newspaper | P.O. Box 1117 | Forest Lake, MN 55025
 
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ARCHBISHOP CARLO MARIA VIGANOCFN BLOG

Archbishop Viganò Responds to the Theft of the Mass of All Ages by Pope Francis

 Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganoJuly 31, 202130 min read

Editors note: Archbishop Viganò has sent us for publication an extensive analysis of the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes in which Francis attempts to suppress the Mass of all Ages. After the Archbishop keenly analyzes this tyrannical act, he concludes by affirming “the necessity of giving visibility to our composed protest and ensuring a form of coordination for public action.” He encourages us not to be isolated nor to give into despair. He looks forward to a complete restoration of what has been stolen but reminds us for that to happen we must be worthy of that restoration. The Archbishop’s text can be read or he can be seen delivering it in the following video. Brian McCallhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/etDH1wLEgYQ?feature=oembed

LAPIDES  CLAMABUNT

Dico vobis quia si hii tacuerint, lapides clamabunt.

I say to you that if these are silent, the stones will cry out.

Lk 19:40


Traditionis custodes: this is the incipit [“beginning” or “first words”] of the document with which Francis imperiously cancels the previous Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI. The almost mocking tone of the bombastic quotation from Lumen Gentiumwill not have escaped notice: just when Bergoglio recognizes the Bishops as guardians of the Tradition, he asks them to obstruct its highest and most sacred expression of prayer. Anyone who tries to find within the folds of the text some escamotage [“sleight of hand” or “trickery”] to circumvent the text should know that the draft sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for revision was extremely more drastic than the final text: a confirmation, if ever it were needed, that no particular pressure was needed from of the historical enemies of the Tridentine Liturgy – beginning with the scholars of Sant’Anselmo – to convince His Holiness to try his hand at what he does best: demolishing. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. [They make a wasteland and call it peace. – Tacitus, Agricola]

The Modus Operandi of Francis

Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches. On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church. And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II. Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism. His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one. It matters little if the ways in which he acts against God, against the Church and against the Lord’s flock are in stark conflict with his appeals to parrhesia, to dialogue, to building bridges and not erecting walls: the church of mercy and the field hospital turn out to be empty rhetorical devices, since it ought to be Catholics who benefit from them and not heretics or fornicators. In reality, each of us is well aware that Amoris Laetitia’s indulgence towards public concubinage and adulterers would hardly be imaginable towards those “rigid” ones against whom Bergoglio hurls his darts as soon as he has the opportunity.

After years of this pontificate, we have all understood that the reasons given by Bergoglio for declining a meeting with a Prelate, a politician or a conservative intellectual do not apply to the molester Cardinal, the heretic Bishop, the abortionist politician, or the globalist intellectual. In short, there is a blatant difference in behavior, from which one can grasp the partiality and partisanship of Francis in favor of any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic. Anything that even only vaguely evokes anything Catholic seems to arouse in the tenant of Santa Marta an aversion that is disconcerting to say the least, if only in virtue of the Throne on which he is seated. Many have noted this dissociation, this sort of bipolarity of a pope who does not behave like a Pope and does not speak like a Pope. The problem is that we are not faced with a sort of inaction from the Papacy, as could happen with a sick or very old Pontiff; but rather with a constant action that is organized and planned in a sense diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Papacy. Not only does Bergoglio not condemn the errors of the present time by strongly reaffirming the Truth of the Catholic Faith – he has never done this! – but he actively seeks to disseminate these errors, to promote them, to encourage their supporters, to spread them to the greatest possible extent and to host events promoting them in the Vatican, simultaneously silencing those who denounce these same errors. Not only does he not punish fornicating Prelates, but he even promotes and defends them by lying, while he removes conservative Bishops and does not hide his annoyance with the heartfelt appeals of Cardinals not aligned with the new course. Not only does he not condemn abortionist politicians who proclaim themselves Catholics, but he intervenes to prevent the Episcopal Conference from pronouncing on this matter, contradicting that synodal path which conversely allows him to use a minority of ultra-progressives to impose his will on the majority of the Synod Fathers.

The one constant of this attitude, noted in its most brazen and arrogant form in Traditionis Custodes, is duplicity and lies. A duplicity that is a facade, of course, daily disavowed by positions that are anything but prudent in favor of a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key. We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term. This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.

Ideological Extremism 

Another significant element of this pontificate, taken to its extreme consequences with Traditionis Custodes, is Bergoglio’s ideological extremism: an extremism that is deplored in words when it concerns others, but which shows itself in its most violent and ruthless expression when it is he himself who puts it into practice against clergy and laity connected to the ancient rite and faithful to Sacred Tradition. Towards the Society of Saint Pius X he shows himself willing to make concessions and to establish a relationship as “good neighbors,” but towards the poor priests and faithful who have to endure a thousand humiliations and blackmail in order to beg for a Mass in Latin, he shows no understanding, no humanity. This behavior is not accidental: Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement enjoys its own autonomy and economic independence, and for this reason it has no reason to fear retaliation or commissioners from the Holy See. But the Bishops, priests and clerics incardinated in dioceses or religious Orders know that hanging over them is the sword of Damocles of removal from office, dismissal from the ecclesiastical state, and the deprivation of their very means of subsistence.

The Experience of the Tridentine Mass in Priestly Life

Those who have had the opportunity to follow my speeches and declarations know well what my position is on the Council and on the Novus Ordo; but they also know what my background is, my curriculum in the service of the Holy See and my relatively recent awareness of the apostasy and the crisis in which we find ourselves. For this reason, I would like to reiterate my understanding for the spiritual path of those who, precisely because of this situation, cannot or are not yet able to make a radical choice, such as celebrating or attending exclusively the Mass of St. Pius V.  Many priests discover the treasures of the venerable Tridentine Liturgy only when they celebrate it and allow themselves to be permeated by it, and it is not uncommon for an initial curiosity towards the “extraordinary form” – certainly fascinating due to the solemnity of the rite – to change quickly into the awareness of the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls.  There is a perfect harmony that words cannot express, and that the faithful can understand only in part, but which touches the heart of the Priesthood as only God can. This can be confirmed by my confreres who have approached the usus antiquior after decades of obedient celebration of the Novus Ordo: a world opens up, a cosmos that includes the prayer of the Breviary with the lessons of Matins and the commentaries of the Fathers, the cross-references to the texts of the Mass, the Martyrology in the Hour of Prime… They are sacred words – not because they are expressed in Latin – but rather they are expressed in Latin because the vulgate language would demean them, would profane them, as Dom Guéranger wisely observed. These are the words of the Bride to the divine Bridegroom, words of the soul that lives in intimate union with God, of the soul that lets itself be inhabited by the Most Holy Trinity. Essentially priestly words, in the deepest sense of the term, which implies in the Priesthood not only the power to offer sacrifice, but to unite in self-offering to the pure, holy and immaculate Victim. It has nothing to do with the ramblings of the reformed rite, which is too intent on pleasing the secularized mentality to turn to the Majesty of God and the Heavenly Court; so preoccupied with making itself understandable that one has to give up on communicating anything but trivial obviousness; so careful not to hurt the feelings of heretics as to allow itself to keep silent about the Truth just at the moment in which the Lord God makes himself present on the altar; so fearful of asking the faithful for the slightest commitment as to trivialize the sacred song and any artistic expression linked to worship. The simple fact that Lutheran pastors, modernists and well-known Freemasons collaborated in the drafting of that rite should make us understand, if not the bad faith and willful misconduct, at least the horizontal mentality, devoid of any supernatural impetus, which motivated the authors of the so-called “liturgical reform” – who, as far as we know, certainly did not shine with the sanctity with which the sacred authors of the texts of the ancient Missale Romanum and of the entire liturgical corpus shine.

How many of you priests – and certainly also many lay people – in reciting the wonderful verses of the Pentecost sequence were moved to tears, understanding that your initial predilection for the traditional liturgy had nothing to do with a sterile aesthetic satisfaction, but had evolved into a real spiritual necessity, as indispensable as breathing? How can you and how can we explain to those who today would like to deprive you of this priceless good, that that blessed rite has made you discover the true nature of your Priesthood, and that from it and only from it are you able to draw strength and nourishment to face the commitments of your ministry? How can you make it clear that the obligatory return to the Montinian rite represents an impossible sacrifice for you, because in the daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil it leaves you disarmed, prostrate and without strength?

It is evident that only those who have not celebrated the Mass of St. Pius V can consider it as an annoying tinsel of the past, which can be done without. Even many young priests, accustomed to the Novus Ordo since their adolescence, have understood that the two forms of the rite have nothing in common, and that one is so superior to the other as to reveal all its limits and criticisms, to the point of making it almost painful to celebrate. It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past: here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism. Concepts that those who see their priesthood as a profession cannot even understand, just as they cannot understand the agony that a priestly soul feels in seeing the Eucharistic Species desecrated during the grotesque rites of Communion in the era of the pandemic farce.

The reductive vision of the liberalization of the mass

This is why I find it extremely unpleasant to have to read in Traditionis Custodes that the reason why Francis believes that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated fourteen years ago lay only in the desire to heal the so-called schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. Of course, the “political” calculation may have had its weight, especially at the time of John Paul II, even if at that time the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X were few in number. But the request to be able to restore citizenship to the Mass which for two millennia nourished the holiness of the faithful and gave the sap of life to Christian civilization cannot be reduced to a contingent fact.

With his Motu Proprio, Benedict XVI restored the Roman Apostolic Mass to the Church, declaring that it had never been abolished. Indirectly, he admitted that there was an abuse by Paul VI, when in order to give authority to his rite he ruthlessly forbade the celebration of the traditional Liturgy. And even if in that document there may be some incongruent elements, such as the coexistence of the two forms of the same rite, we can believe that these have served to allow for the diffusion of the extraordinary form, without affecting the ordinary one. In other times, it would have seemed incomprehensible to let a Mass steeped in misunderstandings and omissions to be celebrated, when the authority of the Pontiff could have simply restored the ancient rite. But today, with the heavy burden of Vatican II and with the now widespread secularized mentality, even the mere liceity of celebrating the Tridentine Mass without permission can be considered an undeniable good – a good that is visible to all due to the abundant fruits it brings to the communities where it is celebrated. And we can also believe that it would have brought even more fruits if only Summorum Pontificum had been applied in all its points and with a spirit of true ecclesial communion.

The alleged “instrumental use” of the roman missal

Francis knows well that the survey taken among Bishops all over the world did not yield negative results, although the formulation of the questions made clear what answers he wanted to receive. That consultation was a pretext, in order to make people believe that the decision he made was inevitable and the fruit of a choral request from the Episcopate. We all know that if Beroglio wants to obtain a result, he does not hesitate to resort to force, lies, and sleight of hand: the events of the last Synods have demonstrated this beyond all reasonable doubt, with the Post-Synodal Exhortation drafted even before the vote on the Instrumentum Laboris. Also in this case, therefore, the pre-established purpose was the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and the prophasis, that is, the apparent excuse, had to be the supposed “instrumental use of the Roman Missal of 1962, often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of Vatican Council II itself” (here). In all honesty, one can perchance accuse the Society of Saint Pius X of this instrumental use, which has every right to affirm what each of us knows well, that the Mass of Saint Pius V is incompatible with post-conciliar ecclesiology and doctrine. But the Society is not affected by the Motu Proprio, and has always celebrated using the 1962 Missal precisely by virtue of that inalienable right which Benedict XVI recognized, which was not created ex nihilo in 2007.

The diocesan priest who celebrates Mass in the church assigned to him by the Bishop, and who every week must undergo the third degree through the accusations of zealous progressive Catholics only because he has dared to recite the Confiteor prior to administering Communion to the faithful, knows very well that he cannot speak ill of the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, because at the first syllable he would already be summoned to the Curia and sent to a parish church lost in the mountains. That silence, always painful and almost always perceived by everyone as more eloquent than many words, is the price he has to pay in order to have the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass of all time, in order not to deprive the faithful of the Graces that it pours down upon the Church and the world. And what is even more absurd is that while we hear it said with impunity that the Tridentine Mass ought to be abolished because it is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, as soon as we say the same thing – that is, that the Montinian Mass is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology – we are immediately made the object of condemnation, and our affirmation is used as evidence against us before the revolutionary tribunal of Santa Marta. 

I wonder what sort of spiritual disease could have struck the Shepherds in the last few decades, in order to lead them to become, not loving fathers but ruthless censors of their priests, officials constantly watching and ready to revoke all rights in virtue of a blackmail that they do not even try to conceal. This climate of suspicion does not in the least contribute to the serenity of many good priests, when the good they do is always placed under the lens of functionaries who consider the faithful linked to the Tradition as a danger, as an annoying presence to be tolerated so long as it does stand out too much. But how can we even conceive of a Church in which the good is systematically hindered and whoever does it is viewed with suspicion and kept under control? I therefore understand the scandal of many Catholics, faithful, and not a few priests in the face of this “shepherd who instead of smelling his sheep, angrily beats them with a stick”(here). 

The misunderstanding of being able to enjoy a right as if it were a gracious concession may also be found in public affairs, where the State permits itself to authorize travel, school lessons, the opening of activities and the performance of work, as long as one undegoes inoculation with the experimental genetic serum. Thus, just as the “extraordinary form” is granted on the condition of accepting the Council and the reformed Mass, so also in the civil sphere the rights of citizens are granted on the condition of accepting the pandemic narrative, the vaccination, and tracking systems. It is not surprising that in many cases it is precisely priests and Bishops – and Bergoglio himself – who ask that people be vaccinated in order to access the Sacraments – the perfect synchrony of action on both sides is disturbing to say the least. 

But where then is this instrumental use of the Missale Romanum? Should we not rather speak of the instrumental use of the Missal of Paul VI, which – to paraphrase Bergoglio’s words – is ever more characterized by a growing rejection not only of the pre-conciliar liturgical tradition but of all the Ecumenical Councils prior to Vatican II? On the other hand, is it not precisely Francis who considers as a threat to the Council the simple fact that a Mass may be celebrated which repudiates and condemns all the doctrinal deviations of Vatican II?

Other incongruences

Never in the history of the Church did a Council or a liturgical reform constitute a point of rupture between what came before and what came after! Never in the course of these two millennia have the Roman Pontiffs deliberately drawn an idelogical border between the Church that preceded them and the one they had to govern, cancelling and contradicting the Magisterium of their Predecessors! The before and after, instead, became an obsession, both of those who prudently insinuated doctrinal errors behind equivocal expressions, as well as of those who – with the boldness of those who believe that they have won, propagated Vatican II as “the 1789 of the Church,” as a “prophetic” and “revolutionary” event. Before 7 July 2007, in response to the spread of the traditional rite, a well-known pontifical master of ceremonies replied piquedly: “There is no going back!” And yet apparently with Francis one can go back on the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum – and how! – if it serves to preserve power and to prevent the Good from spreading. It is a slogan which sinisterly echoes the cry of “Nothing will be as it was before” of the pandemic farce.

Francis’ admission of an alleged division between the faithful linked to the Tridentine liturgy and those who largely out of habit or resignation have adapted to the reformed liturgy is revealing: he does not seek to heal this division by recognizing full rights to a rite that is objectively better with respect to the Montinian rite, but precisely in order to prevent the ontological superiority of the Mass of Saint Pius V from becoming evident, and to prevent the criticisms of the reformed rite and the doctrine it expresses from emerging, he prohibits it, he labels it as divisive, he confines it to Indian reservations, trying to limit its diffusion as much as possible, so that it will disappear completely in the name of the cancel culture of which the conciliar revolution was the unfortunate forerunner. Not being able to tolerate that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II emerge inexorably defeated by their confrontation with the Vetus Ordo and the perennial Catholic Magisterium, the only solution that can be adopted is to cancel every trace of Tradition, relegating it to the nostalgic refuge of some irreducible octogenarian or a clique of eccentrics, or presenting it – as a pretext – as the ideological manifesto of a minority of fundamentalists. On the other hand, constructing a media version consistent with the system, to be repeated ad nauseam in order to indoctrinate the masses, is the recurring element not only in the ecclesiastical sphere but also in the political and civil sphere, so that it appears with disconcerting evidence that the deep church and deep state are nothing other than two parallel tracks which run in the same direction and have as their final destination the New World Order, with its religion and its prophet. 

The division is there, obviously, but it does not come from good Catholics and clergy who remain faithful to the doctrine of all time, but rather from those who have replaced orthodoxy with heresy and the Holy Sacrifice with a fraternal agape. That division is not new today, but dates back to the Sixties, when the “spirit of the Council,” openness to the world and inter-religious dialogue turned two thousand years of Catholicity into straw and revolutionized the entire ecclesial body, persecuting and ostracizing the refractory. Yet that division, accomplished by bringing doctrinal and liturgical confusion into the heart of the Church, did not seem so deplorable then; while today, in full apostasy, they are paradoxically considered divisive who ask, not for the explicit condemnation of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, but simply the tolerance of the Mass “in the extraordinary form” in the name of the much-vaunted multifaceted pluralism.

Significantly, even in the civilized world the protection of minorities is valid only when they serve to demolish traditional society, while such protection is ignored when it would guarantee the legitimate rights of honest citizens. And it has become clear that under the pretext of the protection of minorities the only intention was to weaken the majority of the good, while now that the majority is made up of those who are corrupt, the minority of the good can be crushed without mercy: recent history does not lack illuminating precdents in this regard. 

The tyrannical nature of Traditionis custodes

In my opinion, it is not so much this or that point of the Motu Proprio that is disconcerting, but rather its overall tyrannical nature accompanied by a substantial falsity of the arguments put forward to justify the decisions imposed. Scandal is also given by the abuse of power by an authority that has its own raison d’etre not in impeding or limiting the Graces that are bestowed on its adherents through the Church but rather in promoting those Graces; not in taking away Glory from the Divine Majesty with a rite that winks at the Protestants but rather in rendering that Glory perfectly; not in sowing doctrinal and moral errors but rather in condemning and eradicating them. Here too, the parallel with what takes place in the civil world is all too evident: our rulers abuse their power just as our Prelates do, imposing norms and limitations in violation of the most basic principles of law. Furthermore, it is precisely those who are constituted in authority, on both fronts, who often avail themselves of a mere de facto recognition by the rank and file – citizens and faithful – even when the methods by which they have taken power violate, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of the law. The case of Italy – in which a non-elected Government legislates on the obligation to be vaccinated and on the green pass, violating the Italian Constitution and the natural rights of the Italian people – does not seem very dissimilar to the situation in which the Church finds herself, with a resigned Pontiff replaced by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, chosen – or at least appreciated and supported – by the Saint Gallen Mafia and the ultra-progressive Episcopate. It remains obvious that there is a profound crisis of authority, both civil and religious, in which those who exercise power do so contrary to those whom they are supposed to protect, and above all contrary to the purpose for which that authority has been established. 

Analogies between the deep church and the deep state

I think that it has been understood that both civil society and the Church suffer from the same cancer that struck the former with the French Revolution and the latter with the Second Vatican Council: in both cases, Masonic thought is at the foundation of the systematic demolition of the institution and its replacement with a simulacrum that maintains its external appearances, hierarchical structure, and coercive force, but with purposes diametrically opposed to those it ought to have. 

At this point, citizens on the one hand and the faithful on the other find themselves in the condition of having to disobey earthly authority in order obey divine authority, which governs Nations and the Church. Obviously the “reactionaries” – that is, those who do not accept the perversion of authority and want to remain faithful to the Church of Christ and to their Homeland – constitute an element of dissent that cannot be tolerated in any way, and therefore they must be discredited, delegitimized, threatened and deprived of their rights in the name of a “public good” that is no longer the bonum commune but its contrary. Whether accused of conspiracy theories, traditionalism, or fundamentalism, these few survivors of a world that they want to make disappear constitutes a threat to the accomplishment of the global plan, just at the most crucial moment of its realization. This is why power is reacting in such an open, brazen, and violent way: the evidence of the fraud risks being understood by a greater number of people, of bringing them together in an organized resistance, of breaking down the wall of silence and ferocious censorship imposed by the mainstream media. 

We can therefore understand the violence of the reactions of authority and prepare ourselves for a strong and determined opposition, continuing to avail ourselves of those rights that have been abusively and illicitly denied us. Of course, we may find ourselves having to exercise those rights in an incomplete way when we are denied the opportunity to  travel if we do not have our green pass or if the Bishop prohibits us from celebrating the Mass of all time in a church in his Diocese, but our resistance to abuses of authority will still be able to count on the Graces that the Lord will not cease to grant us – in particular the virtue of Fortitude that is so indispensable in times of tyranny.

The normality that frightens

If on the one had we can see how the persecution of dissenters is well-organized and planned, on the other hand we cannot fail to recognize the fragmentation of the opposition. Bergoglio knows well that every movement of dissent must be silenced, above all by creating internal division and isolating priests and the faithful. A fruitful and fraternal collaboration between diocesan clergy, religious, and the Ecclesia Dei institutes is something he must avert, because it would permit the diffusion of a knowledge of the ancient rite, as well as a precious help in the ministry. But this would mean making the Tridentine Mass a “normality” in the daily life of the faithful, something that is not tolerable for Francis. For this reason, diocesan clergy are left at the mercy of their Ordinaries, while the Ecclesia Dei Institutes are placed under the authority of the Congregation of Religious, as a sad prelude to a destiny that has already been sealed. Let us not forget the fate that befell the flourishing religious Orders, guilty of being blessed with numerous vocations born and nurtured precisely thanks to the hated traditional Liturgy and the faithful observance of the Rule. This is why certain forms of insistence on the ceremonial aspect of the celebrations risk legitimizing the provisions of the commissar and play Bergoglio’s game. 

Even in the civil world, it is precisely by encouraging certain excesses by the dissenters that those in power marginalize them and legitimize repressive measures towards them: just think of the case of the no-vax movements and how easy it is to discredit the legitimate protests of citizens by emphasizing the eccentricities and inconsistencies of a few. And it is all too easy to condemn a few agitated people who out of exasperation set fire to a vaccine center, overshadowing millions of honest persons who take to the streets in order not to be branded with the health passport or fired if they do not allow themselves to be vaccinated.

Do not stay isolated and disorganized

Another important element for all of us is the necessity of giving visibility to our composed protest and ensuring a form of coordination for public action. With the abolition of Summorum Pontificum we find ourselves taken back twenty years. This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure, because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest. And it is not a given that the entire Episcopate – as we are seeing in the last few days with relief – will be willing to passively submit to forms of authoritarianism that certainly do not contribute to bringing peace to souls. The Code of Canon Law guarantees the Bishops the possibility of dispensing their faithful from particular or universal laws, under certain conditions. Secondly, the people of God have well understood the subversive nature of Traditionis Custodes and are instinctively led to want to get to know something that arouses such disapproval among progressives. Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated. It will be our duty, whether as Ministers of God or as simple faithful, to show firmness and serene resistance to such abuse, walking along the way of our own little Calvary with a supernatural spirit, while the new high priests and scribes of the people mock us and label us as fanatics. It will be our humility, the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls. And let us remember that, since we have received much, much will be demanded of us.

Restitutio in integrum

What father among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent instead? (Lk 11:11-12). Now we can understand the meaning of these words, considering with pain and torment of heart the cynicism of a father who gives us the stones of a soulless liturgy, the serpents of a corrupted doctrine, and the scorpions of an adulterated morality. And who reaches the point of dividing the flock of the Lord between those who accept the Novus Ordo and those who want to remain faithful to the Mass of our fathers, exactly as civil rulers are pitting the vaccinated and unvaccinated against one another.

When Our Lord entered Jerusalem seated on a donkey’s colt, while the crowd was spreading cloaks as He passed, the Pharisees asked Him: “Master, rebuke your disciples.” The Lord answered them: “I say to you that if these are silent, the stones will cry out” (Lk 19:28-40). For sixty years the stones of our churches have been crying out, from which the Holy Sacrifice has been twice proscribed. The marble of the altars, the columns of the basilicas, and the soaring vaults of the cathedrals cry out as well, because those stones, consecrated to the worship of the true God, today are abandoned and deserted, or profaned by abhorrent rites, or transformed into parking lots and supermarkets, precisely as a result of that Council that we insist on defending. Let us also cry out: we who are living stones of the temple of God. Let us cry with faith to the Lord, so that he may give a voice to His disciples who today are mute, and so that the intolerable theft for which the administrators of the Lord’s Vineyard are responsible may be repaired. 

But in order for that theft to be repaired, it is necessary that we show ourselves to be worthy of the treasures that have been stolen from us. Let us try to do this by our holiness of life, by giving example of the virtues, by prayer and the frequent reception of the Sacraments.  And let us not forget that there are hundreds of good priests who still know the meaning of the Sacred Unction by which they have been ordained Ministers of Christ and dispensers of the Mystery of God. The Lord deigns to descend on our altars even when they are erected in cellars or attics. Contrariisquibuslibet minime obstantibus [Anything to the contrary notwithstanding]

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

28 July 2021

Ss. Nazarii et Celsi Martyrum, 

Victoris I Papae et Martyris ac 

Innocentii I Papae et Confessoris


[1] They make a wasteland and call it peace. – Tacitus, AgricolaArchbishop ViganoPope FrancisTraditionis Custodes

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano

VIEW ALL POSTS

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MeetNew meetingJoin a meetingHangoutsCollapse

Hangouts

https://hangouts.google.com/webchat/u/0/load?client=sm&prop=gmail&nav=true&fid=gtn-roster-iframe-id&os=MacIntel&stime=1627799670600&xpc=%7B%22cn%22%3A%22a4387c%22%2C%22tp%22%3A1%2C%22ifrid%22%3A%22gtn-roster-iframe-id%22%2C%22pu%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fhangouts.google.com%2Fwebchat%2Fu%2F0%2F%22%7D&ec=%5B%22ci%3Aec%22%2Ctrue%2Ctrue%2Cfalse%5D&pvt=AMP3uWatR3An3s6B0wk2x2tWgFa4vTrbuliqXq-1fGVYNnHmF8r41pXijaVZiW-296eRtJPtFOoeg9Lx9iMDNkYvhw2M-JGjSg%3D%3D&href=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2Fu%2F0%2F%3Frel%3D1%26hl%3Den%26shva%3D1%23inbox&pos=l&uiv=2&hl=en&hpc=true&hsm=true&hrc=true&pal=1&uqp=false&gooa=false&gusm=true&sl=false&hs=%5B%22h_hs%22%2Cnull%2Cnull%2C%5B1%2C2%5D%5D&moleh=380&mmoleh=36&two=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com&host=1&zx=hsnxphxcldjwhttps://hangouts.google.com/webchat/u/0/frame2?v=1627413475&pvt=AMP3uWatR3An3s6B0wk2x2tWgFa4vTrbuliqXq-1fGVYNnHmF8r41pXijaVZiW-296eRtJPtFOoeg9Lx9iMDNkYvhw2M-JGjSg%3D%3D&prop=gmail&hl=en&fid=gtn-roster-iframe-id#e%5B%22wblh0.15894032606349295-0%22,2,1,%5Btrue,%5B%5D%5D%5D   More2 of 8

Print allIn new windowLetter #79, 2021, Sat., July 31: ViganòInboxDr. Robert Moynihan via icontactmail4.com Sat, Jul 31, 7:42 PM (5 hours ago)to me    Letter #79, 2021, Saturday, July 31, Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola: Archbishop Viganò on Traditionis custodes    Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 80, has released a new text, dated July 28, on the recent papal decree Traditionis custodes [“Of tradition the guardians”]. The entire text is below. (Here is a link to the original text in Italian.)    ***    A few preliminary observations.    The archbishop took 12 days to reflect upon the decree and then to compose this text. (The decree of Pope Francis was published on July 16; this essay is dated July 28.)    The archbishop is, no doubt, very critical of the Pope’s text.    However, he begins by revealing that the published text is actually much milder than the original draft of the decree, which, the archbishop says, was sent for comment to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was returned with many suggested changes to make the document milder than it was. (How Viganò knows this is what happened, he does not say; evidently he is in contact with Vatican officials, either directly or through intermediaries, who informed him about this aspect of the text-editing process.)    ***    That said, Viganò still argues that the Pope’s text as published is notable, first of all, for its harshness toward the old liturgy, and toward those who love the old liturgy.    Those who love the old liturgy, he says, are harshly, and wrongly, characterized as “rigid” and “against Vatican II.”    ***    The archbishop says this harshness toward “traditional” Catholics is in marked contrast with the way the Pope embraces many on the “progressive” side in the Church (or even outside of the Church).    Viganò deduces from this perceived differing treatment of these two groups that Pope Francis is partial or favorable toward “any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic.”     Viganò even goes so far as to say that we have “a non-Catholic Pope,” then adds, quite soberly and a bit cryptically: “This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.”    Viganò is saying, then, that he regards it to be a “canonical problem” (somehow something not consistent with Church canon law) for the Catholic Church to have a leader like the present pontiff, repressing “traditionalists” and supporting “progressives.”    Still, he is also saying quite clearly that this “canonical problem” cannot yet be addressed, though it will have to be addressed “sooner or later.”    Readers may interpret this as they wish.    ***    To summarize: Viganò, in very strong terms, starts by setting the Pope’s treatment of Catholics who favor “Tradition” (that is, Catholics who embrace beliefs and customs considered in past ages to be central to the Catholic faith) in contrast to the Pope’s treatment of “a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key.”    For the archbishop, then, the Pope’s document reveals harshness toward Catholic tradition, while his other actions reveal gentleness and generosity toward “the ideological Left.”    ***    Then comes the central part of the text, which is a very strong defense of the Traditional Mass because of “the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls.”    Essentially, Viganò is saying that he believes the old Mass is filled with good things that will be lost to the Church in future generations if this recent decree is not softened or rescinded.    ”It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past,” Viganò writes. “Here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism.”    ***    Toward the end of his text, Viganò argues that the attempt by Pope Francis to suppress the old Mass will fail.    ”This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure,” Viganò writes, “because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest.”    And then he adds: “Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated.”    ***    Viganò ends with words that call for Catholic traditionalists to act, not with anger, but with quiet humility.    ”It will be our humility,” he writes, “the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess, that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls.”    Here is the text.    ***             LAPIDES CLAMABUNT [“The very stones will cry out”]    ”Dico vobis quia si hii tacuerint, lapides clamabunt.”    ”I say to you that if these (people) are silent, the very stones will cry out.”Jesus, speaking in the Gospel of Luke 19:40    By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, July 28, 2021    Traditionis custodes: this is the incipit [“beginning” or “first words”] of the document with which Francis imperiously cancels the previous Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI.     The almost mocking tone of the bombastic quotation from Lumen Gentium will not have escaped notice: just when Bergoglio recognizes the Bishops as guardians of the Tradition, he asks them to obstruct its highest and most sacred expression of prayer.     Anyone who tries to find within the folds of the text some escamotage[“sleight of hand” or “trickery”] to circumvent the text should know that the draft sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for revision was extremely more drastic than the final text: a confirmation, if ever it were needed, that no particular pressure was needed from of the historical enemies of the Tridentine Liturgy – beginning with the scholars of Sant’Anselmo – to convince His Holiness to try his hand at what he does best: demolishing. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.     [Editor’s note: The Latin words mean: “They (the Romans) make a desert (or a wasteland) and call it peace.” The words are from a speech by a certain Calgacus, reported by the Roman historian Tacitus in his work Agricola, Chapter 30.]    The Modus Operandi of Francis    Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches.     On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church.     And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II.     Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism.     His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one.     It matters little if the ways in which he acts against God, against the Church and against the Lord’s flock are in stark conflict with his appeals to parrhesia, to dialogue, to building bridges and not erecting walls: the church of mercy and the field hospital turn out to be empty rhetorical devices, since it ought to be Catholics who benefit from them and not heretics or fornicators.     In reality, each of us is well aware that Amoris Laetitia’s indulgence towards public concubinage and adulterers would hardly be imaginable towards those “rigid” ones against whom Bergoglio hurls his darts as soon as he has the opportunity.    After years of this pontificate, we have all understood that the reasons given by Bergoglio for declining a meeting with a Prelate, a politician or a conservative intellectual do not apply to the molester Cardinal, the heretic Bishop, the abortionist politician, or the globalist intellectual.     In short, there is a blatant difference in behavior, from which one can grasp the partiality and partisanship of Francis in favor of any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic.     Anything that even only vaguely evokes anything Catholic seems to arouse in the tenant of Santa Marta an aversion that is disconcerting to say the least, if only in virtue of the Throne on which he is seated.     Many have noted this dissociation, this sort of bipolarity of a pope who does not behave like a Pope and does not speak like a Pope.     The problem is that we are not faced with a sort of inaction from the Papacy, as could happen with a sick or very old Pontiff; but rather with a constant action that is organized and planned in a sense diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Papacy.     Not only does Bergoglio not condemn the errors of the present time by strongly reaffirming the Truth of the Catholic Faith – he has never done this! – but he actively seeks to disseminate these errors, to promote them, to encourage their supporters, to spread them to the greatest possible extent and to host events promoting them in the Vatican, simultaneously silencing those who denounce these same errors.     Not only does he not punish fornicating Prelates, but he even promotes and defends them by lying, while he removes conservative Bishops and does not hide his annoyance with the heartfelt appeals of Cardinals not aligned with the new course.     Not only does he not condemn abortionist politicians who proclaim themselves Catholics, but he intervenes to prevent the Episcopal Conference from pronouncing on this matter, contradicting that synodal path which conversely allows him to use a minority of ultra-progressives to impose his will on the majority of the Synod Fathers.    The one constant of this attitude, noted in its most brazen and arrogant form in Traditionis Custodes, is duplicity and lies. A duplicity that is a facade, of course, daily disavowed by positions that are anything but prudent in favor of a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key.     We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term.     This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.    Ideological Extremism    Another significant element of this pontificate, taken to its extreme consequences with Traditionis Custodes, is Bergoglio’s ideological extremism: an extremism that is deplored in words when it concerns others, but which shows itself in its most violent and ruthless expression when it is he himself who puts it into practice against clergy and laity connected to the ancient rite and faithful to Sacred Tradition.     Towards the Society of Saint Pius X he shows himself willing to make concessions and to establish a relationship as “good neighbors,” but towards the poor priests and faithful who have to endure a thousand humiliations and blackmail in order to beg for a Mass in Latin, he shows no understanding, no humanity.     This behavior is not accidental: Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement enjoys its own autonomy and economic independence, and for this reason it has no reason to fear retaliation or commissioners from the Holy See. But the Bishops, priests and clerics incardinated in dioceses or religious Orders know that hanging over them is the sword of Damocles of removal from office, dismissal from the ecclesiastical state, and the deprivation of their very means of subsistence.    The experience of the Tridentine Mass in priestly life    Those who have had the opportunity to follow my speeches and declarations know well what my position is on the Council and on theNovus Ordo; but they also know what my background is, my curriculumin the service of the Holy See and my relatively recent awareness of the apostasy and the crisis in which we find ourselves.     For this reason, I would like to reiterate my understanding for the spiritual path of those who, precisely because of this situation, cannot or are not yet able to make a radical choice, such as celebrating or attending exclusively the Mass of St. Pius V.     Many priests discover the treasures of the venerable Tridentine Liturgy only when they celebrate it and allow themselves to be permeated by it, and it is not uncommon for an initial curiosity towards the “extraordinary form” – certainly fascinating due to the solemnity of the rite – to change quickly into the awareness of the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls.     There is a perfect harmony that words cannot express, and that the faithful can understand only in part, but which touches the heart of the Priesthood as only God can.     This can be confirmed by my confreres who have approached the usus antiquior after decades of obedient celebration of the Novus Ordo: a world opens up, a cosmos that includes the prayer of the Breviary with the lessons of Matins and the commentaries of the Fathers, the cross-references to the texts of the Mass, the Martyrology in the Hour of Prime… They are sacred words – not because they are expressed in Latin – but rather they are expressed in Latin because the vulgate language would demean them, would profane them, as Dom Guéranger wisely observed.     These are the words of the Bride to the divine Bridegroom, words of the soul that lives in intimate union with God, of the soul that lets itself be inhabited by the Most Holy Trinity.     Essentially priestly words, in the deepest sense of the term, which implies in the Priesthood not only the power to offer sacrifice, but to unite in self-offering to the pure, holy and immaculate Victim.     It has nothing to do with the ramblings of the reformed rite, which is too intent on pleasing the secularized mentality to turn to the Majesty of God and the Heavenly Court; so preoccupied with making itself understandable that one has to give up on communicating anything but trivial obviousness; so careful not to hurt the feelings of heretics as to allow itself to keep silent about the Truth just at the moment in which the Lord God makes himself present on the altar; so fearful of asking the faithful for the slightest commitment as to trivialize the sacred song and any artistic expression linked to worship.     The simple fact that Lutheran pastors, modernists and well-known Freemasons collaborated in the drafting of that rite should make us understand, if not the bad faith and willful misconduct, at least the horizontal mentality, devoid of any supernatural impetus, which motivated the authors of the so-called “liturgical reform” – who, as far as we know, certainly did not shine with the sanctity with which the sacred authors of the texts of the ancient Missale Romanum and of the entire liturgical corpus shine.    How many of you priests – and certainly also many lay people – in reciting the wonderful verses of the Pentecost sequence were moved to tears, understanding that your initial predilection for the traditional liturgy had nothing to do with a sterile aesthetic satisfaction, but had evolved into a real spiritual necessity, as indispensable as breathing?     How can you and how can we explain to those who today would like to deprive you of this priceless good, that that blessed rite has made you discover the true nature of your Priesthood, and that from it and only from it are you able to draw strength and nourishment to face the commitments of your ministry?     How can you make it clear that the obligatory return to the Montinian rite represents an impossible sacrifice for you, because in the daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil it leaves you disarmed, prostrate and without strength?    It is evident that only those who have not celebrated the Mass of St. Pius V can consider it as an annoying tinsel of the past, which can be done without.     Even many young priests, accustomed to the Novus Ordo since their adolescence, have understood that the two forms of the rite have nothing in common, and that one is so superior to the other as to reveal all its limits and criticisms, to the point of making it almost painful to celebrate.     It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past: here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism.     Concepts that those who see their priesthood as a profession cannot even understand, just as they cannot understand the agony that a priestly soul feels in seeing the Eucharistic Species desecrated during the grotesque rites of Communion in the era of the pandemic farce.     The reductive vision of the liberalization of the Mass    This is why I find it extremely unpleasant to have to read in Traditionis Custodes that the reason why Francis believes that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated 14 years ago lay only in the desire to heal the so-called schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.     Of course, the “political” calculation may have had its weight, especially at the time of John Paul II, even if at that time the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X were few in number.     But the request to be able to restore citizenship to the Mass which for two millennia nourished the holiness of the faithful and gave the sap of life to Christian civilization cannot be reduced to a contingent fact.    With his Motu Proprio, Benedict XVI restored the Roman Apostolic Mass to the Church, declaring that it had never been abolished.     Indirectly, he admitted that there was an abuse by Paul VI, when in order to give authority to his rite he ruthlessly forbade the celebration of the traditional Liturgy.     And even if in that document there may be some incongruent elements, such as the coexistence of the two forms of the same rite, we can believe that these have served to allow for the diffusion of the extraordinary form, without affecting the ordinary one.     In other times, it would have seemed incomprehensible to let a Mass steeped in misunderstandings and omissions to be celebrated, when the authority of the Pontiff could have simply restored the ancient rite.     But today, with the heavy burden of Vatican II and with the now widespread secularized mentality, even the mere liceity of celebrating the Tridentine Mass without permission can be considered an undeniable good – a good that is visible to all due to the abundant fruits it brings to the communities where it is celebrated.     And we can also believe that it would have brought even more fruits if only Summorum Pontificum had been applied in all its points and with a spirit of true ecclesial communion.    The alleged “instrumental use” of the Roman missal    Francis knows well that the survey taken among Bishops all over the world did not yield negative results, although the formulation of the questions made clear what answers he wanted to receive.     That consultation was a pretext, in order to make people believe that the decision he made was inevitable and the fruit of a choral request from the Episcopate.     We all know that if Bergoglio wants to obtain a result, he does not hesitate to resort to force, lies, and sleight of hand: the events of the last Synods have demonstrated this beyond all reasonable doubt, with the Post-Synodal Exhortation drafted even before the vote on theInstrumentum Laboris.     Also in this case, therefore, the pre-established purpose was the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and the prophasis, that is, the apparent excuse, had to be the supposed “instrumental use of the Roman Missal of 1962, often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of Vatican Council II itself” (here).     In all honesty, one can perchance accuse the Society of Saint Pius X of this instrumental use, which has every right to affirm what each of us knows well, that the Mass of Saint Pius V is incompatible with post-conciliar ecclesiology and doctrine.     But the Society is not affected by the Motu Proprio, and has always celebrated using the 1962 Missal precisely by virtue of that inalienable right which Benedict XVI recognized, which was not created ex nihilo in 2007.    The diocesan priest who celebrates Mass in the church assigned to him by the Bishop, and who every week must undergo the third degree through the accusations of zealous progressive Catholics only because he has dared to recite the Confiteor [“I confess”] prior to administering Communion to the faithful, knows very well that he cannot speak ill of the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, because at the first syllable he would already be summoned to the Curia and sent to a parish church lost in the mountains.     That silence, always painful and almost always perceived by everyone as more eloquent than many words, is the price he has to pay in order to have the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass of all time, in order not to deprive the faithful of the Graces that it pours down upon the Church and the world.     And what is even more absurd is that while we hear it said with impunity that the Tridentine Mass ought to be abolished because it is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, as soon as we say the same thing – that is, that the Montinian Mass [Note: Giovanni Montini was the name of Pope Paul VI; Viganò means the Paul VI Mass of 1969] is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology – we are immediately made the object of condemnation, and our affirmation is used as evidence against us before the revolutionary tribunal of Santa Marta.    I wonder what sort of spiritual disease could have struck the Shepherds in the last few decades, in order to lead them to become, not loving fathers but ruthless censors of their priests, officials constantly watching and ready to revoke all rights in virtue of a blackmail that they do not even try to conceal.     This climate of suspicion does not in the least contribute to the serenity of many good priests, when the good they do is always placed under the lens of functionaries who consider the faithful linked to the Tradition as a danger, as an annoying presence to be tolerated so long as it does stand out too much.     But how can we even conceive of a Church in which the good is systematically hindered and whoever does it is viewed with suspicion and kept under control?     I therefore understand the scandal of many Catholics, faithful, and not a few priests in the face of this “shepherd who instead of smelling his sheep, angrily beats them with a stick”(here).    ***    The misunderstanding of being able to enjoy a right as if it were a gracious concession may also be found in public affairs, where the State permits itself to authorize travel, school lessons, the opening of activities and the performance of work, as long as one undergoes inoculation with the experimental genetic serum.     Thus, just as the “extraordinary form” is granted on the condition of accepting the Council and the reformed Mass, so also in the civil sphere the rights of citizens are granted on the condition of accepting the pandemic narrative, the vaccination, and tracking systems. It is not surprising that in many cases it is precisely priests and Bishops – and Bergoglio himself – who ask that people be vaccinated in order to access the Sacraments – the perfect synchrony of action on both sides is disturbing to say the least.    But where then is this instrumental use of the Missale Romanum?     Should we not rather speak of the instrumental use of the Missal of Paul VI, which – to paraphrase Bergoglio’s words – is ever more characterized by a growing rejection not only of the pre-conciliar liturgical tradition but of all the Ecumenical Councils prior to Vatican II?     On the other hand, is it not precisely Francis who considers as a threat to the Council the simple fact that a Mass may be celebrated which repudiates and condemns all the doctrinal deviations of Vatican II?    Other incongruences    Never in the history of the Church did a Council or a liturgical reform constitute a point of rupture between what came before and what came after!     Never in the course of these two millennia have the Roman Pontiffs deliberately drawn an ideological border between the Church that preceded them and the one they had to govern, cancelling and contradicting the Magisterium of their Predecessors!     The before and after, instead, became an obsession, both of those who prudently insinuated doctrinal errors behind equivocal expressions, as well as of those who – with the boldness of those who believe that they have won, propagated Vatican II as “the 1789 of the Church,” as a “prophetic” and “revolutionary” event.     Before 7 July 2007, in response to the spread of the traditional rite,  a well-known pontifical master of ceremonies replied piquedly: “There is no going back!”     And yet apparently with Francis one can go back on the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum – and how! – if it serves to preserve power and to prevent the Good from spreading. It is a slogan which sinisterly echoes the cry of “Nothing will be as it was before” of the pandemic farce.    Francis’ admission of an alleged division between the faithful linked to the Tridentine liturgy and those who largely out of habit or resignation have adapted to the reformed liturgy is revealing: he does not seek to heal this division by recognizing full rights to a rite that is objectively better with respect to the Montinian rite, but precisely in order to prevent the ontological superiority of the Mass of Saint Pius V from becoming evident, and to prevent the criticisms of the reformed rite and the doctrine it expresses from emerging, he prohibits it, he labels it as divisive, he confines it to Indian reservations, trying to limit its diffusion as much as possible, so that it will disappear completely in the name of the cancel culture of which the conciliar revolution was the unfortunate forerunner.     Not being able to tolerate that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II emerge inexorably defeated by their confrontation with the Vetus Ordo and the perennial Catholic Magisterium, the only solution that can be adopted is to cancel every trace of Tradition, relegating it to the nostalgic refuge of some irreducible octogenarian or a clique of eccentrics, or presenting it – as a pretext – as the ideological manifesto of a minority of fundamentalists.     On the other hand, constructing a media version consistent with the system, to be repeated ad nauseam in order to indoctrinate the masses, is the recurring element not only in the ecclesiastical sphere but also in the political and civil sphere, so that it appears with disconcerting evidence that the deep church and deep state are nothing other than two parallel tracks which run in the same direction and have as their final destination the New World Order, with its religion and its prophet.    The division is there, obviously, but it does not come from good Catholics and clergy who remain faithful to the doctrine of all time, but rather from those who have replaced orthodoxy with heresy and the Holy Sacrifice with a fraternal agape.     That division is not new today, but dates back to the Sixties, when the “spirit of the Council,” openness to the world and inter-religious dialogue turned two thousand years of Catholicity into straw and revolutionized the entire ecclesial body, persecuting and ostracizing the refractory.     Yet that division, accomplished by bringing doctrinal and liturgical confusion into the heart of the Church, did not seem so deplorable then; while today, in full apostasy, they are paradoxically considered divisive who ask, not for the explicit condemnation of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, but simply the tolerance of the Mass “in the extraordinary form” in the name of the much-vaunted multifaceted pluralism.    Significantly, even in the civilized world the protection of minorities is valid only when they serve to demolish traditional society, while such protection is ignored when it would guarantee the legitimate rights of honest citizens.     And it has become clear that under the pretext of the protection of minorities the only intention was to weaken the majority of the good, while now that the majority is made up of those who are corrupt, the minority of the good can be crushed without mercy: recent history does not lack illuminating precedents in this regard.    The tyrannical nature of Traditionis custodes    In my opinion, it is not so much this or that point of the Motu Proprio that is disconcerting, but rather its overall tyrannical nature accompanied by a substantial falsity of the arguments put forward to justify the decisions imposed.     Scandal is also given by the abuse of power by an authority that has its own raison d’etre not in impeding or limiting the Graces that are bestowed on its adherents through the Church but rather in promoting those Graces; not in taking away Glory from the Divine Majesty with a rite that winks at the Protestants but rather in rendering that Glory perfectly; not in sowing doctrinal and moral errors but rather in condemning and eradicating them.     Here too, the parallel with what takes place in the civil world is all too evident: our rulers abuse their power just as our Prelates do, imposing norms and limitations in violation of the most basic principles of law.     Furthermore, it is precisely those who are constituted in authority, on both fronts, who often avail themselves of a mere de facto recognition by the rank and file – citizens and faithful – even when the methods by which they have taken power violate, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of the law.     The case of Italy – in which a non-elected Government legislates on the obligation to be vaccinated and on the green pass, violating the Italian Constitution and the natural rights of the Italian people – does not seem very dissimilar to the situation in which the Church finds herself, with a resigned Pontiff replaced by Jorge Mario Bergoglio [Note: the name of Pope Francis before he became Pope] chosen – or at least appreciated and supported – by the Saint Gallen Mafia and the ultra-progressive Episcopate. It remains obvious that there is a profound crisis of authority, both civil and religious, in which those who exercise power do so contrary to those whom they are supposed to protect, and above all contrary to the purpose for which that authority has been established.    Analogies between the deep church and the deep state    I think that it has been understood that both civil society and the Church suffer from the same cancer that struck the former with the French Revolution and the latter with the Second Vatican Council: in both cases, Masonic thought is at the foundation of the systematic demolition of the institution and its replacement with a simulacrum that maintains its external appearances, hierarchical structure, and coercive force, but with purposes diametrically opposed to those it ought to have.    At this point, citizens on the one hand and the faithful on the other find themselves in the condition of having to disobey earthly authority in order obey divine authority, which governs Nations and the Church.     Obviously the “reactionaries” – that is, those who do not accept the perversion of authority and want to remain faithful to the Church of Christ and to their Homeland – constitute an element of dissent that cannot be tolerated in any way, and therefore they must be discredited, delegitimized, threatened and deprived of their rights in the name of a “public good” that is no longer the bonum commune but its contrary.     Whether accused of conspiracy theories, traditionalism, or fundamentalism, these few survivors of a world that they want to make disappear constitutes a threat to the accomplishment of the global plan, just at the most crucial moment of its realization.     This is why power is reacting in such an open, brazen, and violent way: the evidence of the fraud risks being understood by a greater number of people, of bringing them together in an organized resistance, of breaking down the wall of silence and ferocious censorship imposed by the mainstream media.    We can therefore understand the violence of the reactions of authority and prepare ourselves for a strong and determined opposition, continuing to avail ourselves of those rights that have been abusively and illicitly denied us.     Of course, we may find ourselves having to exercise those rights in an incomplete way when we are denied the opportunity to travel if we do not have our green pass or if the Bishop prohibits us from celebrating the Mass of all time in a church in his Diocese, but our resistance to abuses of authority will still be able to count on the Graces that the Lord will not cease to grant us – in particular the virtue of Fortitude that is so indispensable in times of tyranny.    The normality that frightens     If on the one had we can see how the persecution of dissenters is well-organized and planned, on the other hand we cannot fail to recognize the fragmentation of the opposition. Bergoglio knows well that every movement of dissent must be silenced, above all by creating internal division and isolating priests and the faithful.     A fruitful and fraternal collaboration between diocesan clergy, religious, and the Ecclesia Dei institutes is something he must avert, because it would permit the diffusion of a knowledge of the ancient rite, as well as a precious help in the ministry.     But this would mean making the Tridentine Mass a “normality” in the daily life of the faithful, something that is not tolerable for Francis.     For this reason, diocesan clergy are left at the mercy of their Ordinaries, while the Ecclesia Dei Institutes are placed under the authority of the Congregation of Religious, as a sad prelude to a destiny that has already been sealed.     Let us not forget the fate that befell the flourishing religious Orders, guilty of being blessed with numerous vocations born and nurtured precisely thanks to the hated traditional Liturgy and the faithful observance of the Rule.     This is why certain forms of insistence on the ceremonial aspect of the celebrations risk legitimizing the provisions of the commissar and play Bergoglio’s game.    Even in the civil world, it is precisely by encouraging certain excesses by the dissenters that those in power marginalize them and legitimize repressive measures towards them: just think of the case of the no-vax movements and how easy it is to discredit the legitimate protests of citizens by emphasizing the eccentricities and inconsistencies of a few.     And it is all too easy to condemn a few agitated people who out of exasperation set fire to a vaccine center, overshadowing millions of honest persons who take to the streets in order not to be branded with the health passport or fired if they do not allow themselves to be vaccinated.    Do not stay isolated and disorganized    Another important element for all of us is the necessity of giving visibility to our composed protest and ensuring a form of coordination for public action.     With the abolition of Summorum Pontificum we find ourselves taken back twenty years.     This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure, because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest.     And it is not a given that the entire Episcopate – as we are seeing in the last few days with relief – will be willing to passively submit to forms of authoritarianism that certainly do not contribute to bringing peace to souls.     The Code of Canon Law guarantees the Bishops the possibility of dispensing their faithful from particular or universal laws, under certain conditions.     Secondly, the people of God have well understood the subversive nature of Traditionis Custodes and are instinctively led to want to get to know something that arouses such disapproval among progressives.     Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated.     It will be our duty, whether as Ministers of God or as simple faithful, to show firmness and serene resistance to such abuse, walking along the way of our own little Calvary with a supernatural spirit, while the new high priests and scribes of the people mock us and label us as fanatics.     It will be our humility, the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls.     And let us remember that, since we have received much, much will be demanded of us.    Restitutio in integrum    What father among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent instead? (Lk 11:11-12). Now we can understand the meaning of these words, considering with pain and torment of heart the cynicism of a father who gives us the stones of a soulless liturgy, the serpents of a corrupted doctrine, and the scorpions of an adulterated morality. And who reaches the point of dividing the flock of the Lord between those who accept the Novus Ordo and those who want to remain faithful to the Mass of our fathers, exactly as civil rulers are pitting the vaccinated and unvaccinated against one another.    When Our Lord entered Jerusalem seated on a donkey’s colt, while the crowd was spreading cloaks as He passed, the Pharisees asked Him: “Master, rebuke your disciples.”     The Lord answered them: “I say to you that if these are silent, the very stones will cry out” (Luke 19:28-40).     For sixty years the stones of our churches have been crying out, from which the Holy Sacrifice has been twice proscribed.     The marble of the altars, the columns of the basilicas, and the soaring vaults of the cathedrals cry out as well, because those stones, consecrated to the worship of the true God, today are abandoned and deserted, or profaned by abhorrent rites, or transformed into parking lots and supermarkets, precisely as a result of that Council that we insist on defending.     Let us also cry out: we who are living stones of the temple of God.     Let us cry with faith to the Lord, so that he may give a voice to His disciples who today are mute, and so that the intolerable theft for which the administrators of the Lord’s Vineyard are responsible may be repaired.    But in order for that theft to be repaired, it is necessary that we show ourselves to be worthy of the treasures that have been stolen from us.     Let us try to do this by our holiness of life, by giving example of the virtues, by prayer and the frequent reception of the Sacraments.     And let us not forget that there are hundreds of good priests who still know the meaning of the Sacred Unction by which they have been ordained Ministers of Christ and dispensers of the Mystery of God.     The Lord deigns to descend on our altars even when they are erected in cellars or attics. Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus [“Anything to the contrary notwithstanding”].    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop     28 July 2021    Ss. Nazarii et Celsi Martyrum,    Victoris I Papae et Martyris ac    Innocentii I Papae et Confessoris
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MeetNew meetingJoin a meetingHangoutsCollapse

Hangouts

https://hangouts.google.com/webchat/u/0/load?client=sm&prop=gmail&nav=true&fid=gtn-roster-iframe-id&os=MacIntel&stime=1627795878763&xpc=%7B%22cn%22%3A%22odwu4p%22%2C%22tp%22%3A1%2C%22ifrid%22%3A%22gtn-roster-iframe-id%22%2C%22pu%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fhangouts.google.com%2Fwebchat%2Fu%2F0%2F%22%7D&ec=%5B%22ci%3Aec%22%2Ctrue%2Ctrue%2Cfalse%5D&pvt=AMP3uWbDawEwzc9AojNUJbGbuDY3yn6qoy64PIYGRR2CUBSVxQw6T1OB_H7OHfAYegM1ZKaOgztUOCehpr546K68U7YeYYTnnA%3D%3D&href=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2Fu%2F0%2F%3Frel%3D1%26hl%3Den%26shva%3D1%23inbox&pos=l&uiv=2&hl=en&hpc=true&hsm=true&hrc=true&pal=1&uqp=false&gooa=false&gusm=true&sl=false&hs=%5B%22h_hs%22%2Cnull%2Cnull%2C%5B1%2C2%5D%5D&moleh=380&mmoleh=36&two=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com&host=1&zx=yfplfpqoi2irhttps://hangouts.google.com/webchat/u/0/frame2?v=1627413475&pvt=AMP3uWbDawEwzc9AojNUJbGbuDY3yn6qoy64PIYGRR2CUBSVxQw6T1OB_H7OHfAYegM1ZKaOgztUOCehpr546K68U7YeYYTnnA%3D%3D&prop=gmail&hl=en&fid=gtn-roster-iframe-id#e%5B%22wblh0.11746634909627718-0%22,2,1,%5Btrue,%5B%5D%5D%5D   More1 of 7

Print allIn new windowLetter #79, 2021, Sat., July 31: ViganòInboxDr. Robert Moynihan via icontactmail4.com Jul 31, 2021, 7:42 PM (5 hours ago)to me    Letter #79, 2021, Saturday, July 31, Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola: Archbishop Viganò on Traditionis custodes    Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 80, has released a new text, dated July 28, on the recent papal decree Traditionis custodes [“Of tradition the guardians”]. The entire text is below. (Here is a link to the original text in Italian.)    ***    A few preliminary observations.    The archbishop took 12 days to reflect upon the decree and then to compose this text. (The decree of Pope Francis was published on July 16; this essay is dated July 28.)    The archbishop is, no doubt, very critical of the Pope’s text.    However, he begins by revealing that the published text is actually much milder than the original draft of the decree, which, the archbishop says, was sent for comment to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was returned with many suggested changes to make the document milder than it was. (How Viganò knows this is what happened, he does not say; evidently he is in contact with Vatican officials, either directly or through intermediaries, who informed him about this aspect of the text-editing process.)    ***    That said, Viganò still argues that the Pope’s text as published is notable, first of all, for its harshness toward the old liturgy, and toward those who love the old liturgy.    Those who love the old liturgy, he says, are harshly, and wrongly, characterized as “rigid” and “against Vatican II.”    ***    The archbishop says this harshness toward “traditional” Catholics is in marked contrast with the way the Pope embraces many on the “progressive” side in the Church (or even outside of the Church).    Viganò deduces from this perceived differing treatment of these two groups that Pope Francis is partial or favorable toward “any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic.”     Viganò even goes so far as to say that we have “a non-Catholic Pope,” then adds, quite soberly and a bit cryptically: “This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.”    Viganò is saying, then, that he regards it to be a “canonical problem” (somehow something not consistent with Church canon law) for the Catholic Church to have a leader like the present pontiff, repressing “traditionalists” and supporting “progressives.”    Still, he is also saying quite clearly that this “canonical problem” cannot yet be addressed, though it will have to be addressed “sooner or later.”    Readers may interpret this as they wish.    ***    To summarize: Viganò, in very strong terms, starts by setting the Pope’s treatment of Catholics who favor “Tradition” (that is, Catholics who embrace beliefs and customs considered in past ages to be central to the Catholic faith) in contrast to the Pope’s treatment of “a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key.”    For the archbishop, then, the Pope’s document reveals harshness toward Catholic tradition, while his other actions reveal gentleness and generosity toward “the ideological Left.”    ***    Then comes the central part of the text, which is a very strong defense of the Traditional Mass because of “the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls.”    Essentially, Viganò is saying that he believes the old Mass is filled with good things that will be lost to the Church in future generations if this recent decree is not softened or rescinded.    ”It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past,” Viganò writes. “Here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism.”    ***    Toward the end of his text, Viganò argues that the attempt by Pope Francis to suppress the old Mass will fail.    ”This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure,” Viganò writes, “because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest.”    And then he adds: “Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated.”    ***    Viganò ends with words that call for Catholic traditionalists to act, not with anger, but with quiet humility.    ”It will be our humility,” he writes, “the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess, that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls.”    Here is the text.    ***             LAPIDES CLAMABUNT [“The very stones will cry out”]    ”Dico vobis quia si hii tacuerint, lapides clamabunt.”    ”I say to you that if these (people) are silent, the very stones will cry out.”Jesus, speaking in the Gospel of Luke 19:40    By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, July 28, 2021    Traditionis custodes: this is the incipit [“beginning” or “first words”] of the document with which Francis imperiously cancels the previous Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI.     The almost mocking tone of the bombastic quotation from Lumen Gentium will not have escaped notice: just when Bergoglio recognizes the Bishops as guardians of the Tradition, he asks them to obstruct its highest and most sacred expression of prayer.     Anyone who tries to find within the folds of the text some escamotage[“sleight of hand” or “trickery”] to circumvent the text should know that the draft sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for revision was extremely more drastic than the final text: a confirmation, if ever it were needed, that no particular pressure was needed from of the historical enemies of the Tridentine Liturgy – beginning with the scholars of Sant’Anselmo – to convince His Holiness to try his hand at what he does best: demolishing. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.     [Editor’s note: The Latin words mean: “They (the Romans) make a desert (or a wasteland) and call it peace.” The words are from a speech by a certain Calgacus, reported by the Roman historian Tacitus in his work Agricola, Chapter 30.]    The Modus Operandi of Francis    Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches.     On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church.     And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II.     Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism.     His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one.     It matters little if the ways in which he acts against God, against the Church and against the Lord’s flock are in stark conflict with his appeals to parrhesia, to dialogue, to building bridges and not erecting walls: the church of mercy and the field hospital turn out to be empty rhetorical devices, since it ought to be Catholics who benefit from them and not heretics or fornicators.     In reality, each of us is well aware that Amoris Laetitia’s indulgence towards public concubinage and adulterers would hardly be imaginable towards those “rigid” ones against whom Bergoglio hurls his darts as soon as he has the opportunity.    After years of this pontificate, we have all understood that the reasons given by Bergoglio for declining a meeting with a Prelate, a politician or a conservative intellectual do not apply to the molester Cardinal, the heretic Bishop, the abortionist politician, or the globalist intellectual.     In short, there is a blatant difference in behavior, from which one can grasp the partiality and partisanship of Francis in favor of any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic.     Anything that even only vaguely evokes anything Catholic seems to arouse in the tenant of Santa Marta an aversion that is disconcerting to say the least, if only in virtue of the Throne on which he is seated.     Many have noted this dissociation, this sort of bipolarity of a pope who does not behave like a Pope and does not speak like a Pope.     The problem is that we are not faced with a sort of inaction from the Papacy, as could happen with a sick or very old Pontiff; but rather with a constant action that is organized and planned in a sense diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Papacy.     Not only does Bergoglio not condemn the errors of the present time by strongly reaffirming the Truth of the Catholic Faith – he has never done this! – but he actively seeks to disseminate these errors, to promote them, to encourage their supporters, to spread them to the greatest possible extent and to host events promoting them in the Vatican, simultaneously silencing those who denounce these same errors.     Not only does he not punish fornicating Prelates, but he even promotes and defends them by lying, while he removes conservative Bishops and does not hide his annoyance with the heartfelt appeals of Cardinals not aligned with the new course.     Not only does he not condemn abortionist politicians who proclaim themselves Catholics, but he intervenes to prevent the Episcopal Conference from pronouncing on this matter, contradicting that synodal path which conversely allows him to use a minority of ultra-progressives to impose his will on the majority of the Synod Fathers.    The one constant of this attitude, noted in its most brazen and arrogant form in Traditionis Custodes, is duplicity and lies. A duplicity that is a facade, of course, daily disavowed by positions that are anything but prudent in favor of a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key.     We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term.     This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.    Ideological Extremism    Another significant element of this pontificate, taken to its extreme consequences with Traditionis Custodes, is Bergoglio’s ideological extremism: an extremism that is deplored in words when it concerns others, but which shows itself in its most violent and ruthless expression when it is he himself who puts it into practice against clergy and laity connected to the ancient rite and faithful to Sacred Tradition.     Towards the Society of Saint Pius X he shows himself willing to make concessions and to establish a relationship as “good neighbors,” but towards the poor priests and faithful who have to endure a thousand humiliations and blackmail in order to beg for a Mass in Latin, he shows no understanding, no humanity.     This behavior is not accidental: Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement enjoys its own autonomy and economic independence, and for this reason it has no reason to fear retaliation or commissioners from the Holy See. But the Bishops, priests and clerics incardinated in dioceses or religious Orders know that hanging over them is the sword of Damocles of removal from office, dismissal from the ecclesiastical state, and the deprivation of their very means of subsistence.    The experience of the Tridentine Mass in priestly life    Those who have had the opportunity to follow my speeches and declarations know well what my position is on the Council and on theNovus Ordo; but they also know what my background is, my curriculumin the service of the Holy See and my relatively recent awareness of the apostasy and the crisis in which we find ourselves.     For this reason, I would like to reiterate my understanding for the spiritual path of those who, precisely because of this situation, cannot or are not yet able to make a radical choice, such as celebrating or attending exclusively the Mass of St. Pius V.     Many priests discover the treasures of the venerable Tridentine Liturgy only when they celebrate it and allow themselves to be permeated by it, and it is not uncommon for an initial curiosity towards the “extraordinary form” – certainly fascinating due to the solemnity of the rite – to change quickly into the awareness of the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls.     There is a perfect harmony that words cannot express, and that the faithful can understand only in part, but which touches the heart of the Priesthood as only God can.     This can be confirmed by my confreres who have approached the usus antiquior after decades of obedient celebration of the Novus Ordo: a world opens up, a cosmos that includes the prayer of the Breviary with the lessons of Matins and the commentaries of the Fathers, the cross-references to the texts of the Mass, the Martyrology in the Hour of Prime… They are sacred words – not because they are expressed in Latin – but rather they are expressed in Latin because the vulgate language would demean them, would profane them, as Dom Guéranger wisely observed.     These are the words of the Bride to the divine Bridegroom, words of the soul that lives in intimate union with God, of the soul that lets itself be inhabited by the Most Holy Trinity.     Essentially priestly words, in the deepest sense of the term, which implies in the Priesthood not only the power to offer sacrifice, but to unite in self-offering to the pure, holy and immaculate Victim.     It has nothing to do with the ramblings of the reformed rite, which is too intent on pleasing the secularized mentality to turn to the Majesty of God and the Heavenly Court; so preoccupied with making itself understandable that one has to give up on communicating anything but trivial obviousness; so careful not to hurt the feelings of heretics as to allow itself to keep silent about the Truth just at the moment in which the Lord God makes himself present on the altar; so fearful of asking the faithful for the slightest commitment as to trivialize the sacred song and any artistic expression linked to worship.     The simple fact that Lutheran pastors, modernists and well-known Freemasons collaborated in the drafting of that rite should make us understand, if not the bad faith and willful misconduct, at least the horizontal mentality, devoid of any supernatural impetus, which motivated the authors of the so-called “liturgical reform” – who, as far as we know, certainly did not shine with the sanctity with which the sacred authors of the texts of the ancient Missale Romanum and of the entire liturgical corpus shine.    How many of you priests – and certainly also many lay people – in reciting the wonderful verses of the Pentecost sequence were moved to tears, understanding that your initial predilection for the traditional liturgy had nothing to do with a sterile aesthetic satisfaction, but had evolved into a real spiritual necessity, as indispensable as breathing?     How can you and how can we explain to those who today would like to deprive you of this priceless good, that that blessed rite has made you discover the true nature of your Priesthood, and that from it and only from it are you able to draw strength and nourishment to face the commitments of your ministry?     How can you make it clear that the obligatory return to the Montinian rite represents an impossible sacrifice for you, because in the daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil it leaves you disarmed, prostrate and without strength?    It is evident that only those who have not celebrated the Mass of St. Pius V can consider it as an annoying tinsel of the past, which can be done without.     Even many young priests, accustomed to the Novus Ordo since their adolescence, have understood that the two forms of the rite have nothing in common, and that one is so superior to the other as to reveal all its limits and criticisms, to the point of making it almost painful to celebrate.     It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past: here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism.     Concepts that those who see their priesthood as a profession cannot even understand, just as they cannot understand the agony that a priestly soul feels in seeing the Eucharistic Species desecrated during the grotesque rites of Communion in the era of the pandemic farce.     The reductive vision of the liberalization of the Mass    This is why I find it extremely unpleasant to have to read in Traditionis Custodes that the reason why Francis believes that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated 14 years ago lay only in the desire to heal the so-called schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.     Of course, the “political” calculation may have had its weight, especially at the time of John Paul II, even if at that time the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X were few in number.     But the request to be able to restore citizenship to the Mass which for two millennia nourished the holiness of the faithful and gave the sap of life to Christian civilization cannot be reduced to a contingent fact.    With his Motu Proprio, Benedict XVI restored the Roman Apostolic Mass to the Church, declaring that it had never been abolished.     Indirectly, he admitted that there was an abuse by Paul VI, when in order to give authority to his rite he ruthlessly forbade the celebration of the traditional Liturgy.     And even if in that document there may be some incongruent elements, such as the coexistence of the two forms of the same rite, we can believe that these have served to allow for the diffusion of the extraordinary form, without affecting the ordinary one.     In other times, it would have seemed incomprehensible to let a Mass steeped in misunderstandings and omissions to be celebrated, when the authority of the Pontiff could have simply restored the ancient rite.     But today, with the heavy burden of Vatican II and with the now widespread secularized mentality, even the mere liceity of celebrating the Tridentine Mass without permission can be considered an undeniable good – a good that is visible to all due to the abundant fruits it brings to the communities where it is celebrated.     And we can also believe that it would have brought even more fruits if only Summorum Pontificum had been applied in all its points and with a spirit of true ecclesial communion.    The alleged “instrumental use” of the Roman missal    Francis knows well that the survey taken among Bishops all over the world did not yield negative results, although the formulation of the questions made clear what answers he wanted to receive.     That consultation was a pretext, in order to make people believe that the decision he made was inevitable and the fruit of a choral request from the Episcopate.     We all know that if Bergoglio wants to obtain a result, he does not hesitate to resort to force, lies, and sleight of hand: the events of the last Synods have demonstrated this beyond all reasonable doubt, with the Post-Synodal Exhortation drafted even before the vote on theInstrumentum Laboris.     Also in this case, therefore, the pre-established purpose was the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and the prophasis, that is, the apparent excuse, had to be the supposed “instrumental use of the Roman Missal of 1962, often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of Vatican Council II itself” (here).     In all honesty, one can perchance accuse the Society of Saint Pius X of this instrumental use, which has every right to affirm what each of us knows well, that the Mass of Saint Pius V is incompatible with post-conciliar ecclesiology and doctrine.     But the Society is not affected by the Motu Proprio, and has always celebrated using the 1962 Missal precisely by virtue of that inalienable right which Benedict XVI recognized, which was not created ex nihilo in 2007.    The diocesan priest who celebrates Mass in the church assigned to him by the Bishop, and who every week must undergo the third degree through the accusations of zealous progressive Catholics only because he has dared to recite the Confiteor [“I confess”] prior to administering Communion to the faithful, knows very well that he cannot speak ill of the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, because at the first syllable he would already be summoned to the Curia and sent to a parish church lost in the mountains.     That silence, always painful and almost always perceived by everyone as more eloquent than many words, is the price he has to pay in order to have the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass of all time, in order not to deprive the faithful of the Graces that it pours down upon the Church and the world.     And what is even more absurd is that while we hear it said with impunity that the Tridentine Mass ought to be abolished because it is incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II, as soon as we say the same thing – that is, that the Montinian Mass [Note: Giovanni Montini was the name of Pope Paul VI; Viganò means the Paul VI Mass of 1969] is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology – we are immediately made the object of condemnation, and our affirmation is used as evidence against us before the revolutionary tribunal of Santa Marta.    I wonder what sort of spiritual disease could have struck the Shepherds in the last few decades, in order to lead them to become, not loving fathers but ruthless censors of their priests, officials constantly watching and ready to revoke all rights in virtue of a blackmail that they do not even try to conceal.     This climate of suspicion does not in the least contribute to the serenity of many good priests, when the good they do is always placed under the lens of functionaries who consider the faithful linked to the Tradition as a danger, as an annoying presence to be tolerated so long as it does stand out too much.     But how can we even conceive of a Church in which the good is systematically hindered and whoever does it is viewed with suspicion and kept under control?     I therefore understand the scandal of many Catholics, faithful, and not a few priests in the face of this “shepherd who instead of smelling his sheep, angrily beats them with a stick”(here).    ***    The misunderstanding of being able to enjoy a right as if it were a gracious concession may also be found in public affairs, where the State permits itself to authorize travel, school lessons, the opening of activities and the performance of work, as long as one undergoes inoculation with the experimental genetic serum.     Thus, just as the “extraordinary form” is granted on the condition of accepting the Council and the reformed Mass, so also in the civil sphere the rights of citizens are granted on the condition of accepting the pandemic narrative, the vaccination, and tracking systems. It is not surprising that in many cases it is precisely priests and Bishops – and Bergoglio himself – who ask that people be vaccinated in order to access the Sacraments – the perfect synchrony of action on both sides is disturbing to say the least.    But where then is this instrumental use of the Missale Romanum?     Should we not rather speak of the instrumental use of the Missal of Paul VI, which – to paraphrase Bergoglio’s words – is ever more characterized by a growing rejection not only of the pre-conciliar liturgical tradition but of all the Ecumenical Councils prior to Vatican II?     On the other hand, is it not precisely Francis who considers as a threat to the Council the simple fact that a Mass may be celebrated which repudiates and condemns all the doctrinal deviations of Vatican II?    Other incongruences    Never in the history of the Church did a Council or a liturgical reform constitute a point of rupture between what came before and what came after!     Never in the course of these two millennia have the Roman Pontiffs deliberately drawn an ideological border between the Church that preceded them and the one they had to govern, cancelling and contradicting the Magisterium of their Predecessors!     The before and after, instead, became an obsession, both of those who prudently insinuated doctrinal errors behind equivocal expressions, as well as of those who – with the boldness of those who believe that they have won, propagated Vatican II as “the 1789 of the Church,” as a “prophetic” and “revolutionary” event.     Before 7 July 2007, in response to the spread of the traditional rite,  a well-known pontifical master of ceremonies replied piquedly: “There is no going back!”     And yet apparently with Francis one can go back on the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum – and how! – if it serves to preserve power and to prevent the Good from spreading. It is a slogan which sinisterly echoes the cry of “Nothing will be as it was before” of the pandemic farce.    Francis’ admission of an alleged division between the faithful linked to the Tridentine liturgy and those who largely out of habit or resignation have adapted to the reformed liturgy is revealing: he does not seek to heal this division by recognizing full rights to a rite that is objectively better with respect to the Montinian rite, but precisely in order to prevent the ontological superiority of the Mass of Saint Pius V from becoming evident, and to prevent the criticisms of the reformed rite and the doctrine it expresses from emerging, he prohibits it, he labels it as divisive, he confines it to Indian reservations, trying to limit its diffusion as much as possible, so that it will disappear completely in the name of the cancel culture of which the conciliar revolution was the unfortunate forerunner.     Not being able to tolerate that the Novus Ordo and Vatican II emerge inexorably defeated by their confrontation with the Vetus Ordo and the perennial Catholic Magisterium, the only solution that can be adopted is to cancel every trace of Tradition, relegating it to the nostalgic refuge of some irreducible octogenarian or a clique of eccentrics, or presenting it – as a pretext – as the ideological manifesto of a minority of fundamentalists.     On the other hand, constructing a media version consistent with the system, to be repeated ad nauseam in order to indoctrinate the masses, is the recurring element not only in the ecclesiastical sphere but also in the political and civil sphere, so that it appears with disconcerting evidence that the deep church and deep state are nothing other than two parallel tracks which run in the same direction and have as their final destination the New World Order, with its religion and its prophet.    The division is there, obviously, but it does not come from good Catholics and clergy who remain faithful to the doctrine of all time, but rather from those who have replaced orthodoxy with heresy and the Holy Sacrifice with a fraternal agape.     That division is not new today, but dates back to the Sixties, when the “spirit of the Council,” openness to the world and inter-religious dialogue turned two thousand years of Catholicity into straw and revolutionized the entire ecclesial body, persecuting and ostracizing the refractory.     Yet that division, accomplished by bringing doctrinal and liturgical confusion into the heart of the Church, did not seem so deplorable then; while today, in full apostasy, they are paradoxically considered divisive who ask, not for the explicit condemnation of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, but simply the tolerance of the Mass “in the extraordinary form” in the name of the much-vaunted multifaceted pluralism.    Significantly, even in the civilized world the protection of minorities is valid only when they serve to demolish traditional society, while such protection is ignored when it would guarantee the legitimate rights of honest citizens.     And it has become clear that under the pretext of the protection of minorities the only intention was to weaken the majority of the good, while now that the majority is made up of those who are corrupt, the minority of the good can be crushed without mercy: recent history does not lack illuminating precedents in this regard.    The tyrannical nature of Traditionis custodes    In my opinion, it is not so much this or that point of the Motu Proprio that is disconcerting, but rather its overall tyrannical nature accompanied by a substantial falsity of the arguments put forward to justify the decisions imposed.     Scandal is also given by the abuse of power by an authority that has its own raison d’etre not in impeding or limiting the Graces that are bestowed on its adherents through the Church but rather in promoting those Graces; not in taking away Glory from the Divine Majesty with a rite that winks at the Protestants but rather in rendering that Glory perfectly; not in sowing doctrinal and moral errors but rather in condemning and eradicating them.     Here too, the parallel with what takes place in the civil world is all too evident: our rulers abuse their power just as our Prelates do, imposing norms and limitations in violation of the most basic principles of law.     Furthermore, it is precisely those who are constituted in authority, on both fronts, who often avail themselves of a mere de facto recognition by the rank and file – citizens and faithful – even when the methods by which they have taken power violate, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of the law.     The case of Italy – in which a non-elected Government legislates on the obligation to be vaccinated and on the green pass, violating the Italian Constitution and the natural rights of the Italian people – does not seem very dissimilar to the situation in which the Church finds herself, with a resigned Pontiff replaced by Jorge Mario Bergoglio [Note: the name of Pope Francis before he became Pope] chosen – or at least appreciated and supported – by the Saint Gallen Mafia and the ultra-progressive Episcopate. It remains obvious that there is a profound crisis of authority, both civil and religious, in which those who exercise power do so contrary to those whom they are supposed to protect, and above all contrary to the purpose for which that authority has been established.    Analogies between the deep church and the deep state    I think that it has been understood that both civil society and the Church suffer from the same cancer that struck the former with the French Revolution and the latter with the Second Vatican Council: in both cases, Masonic thought is at the foundation of the systematic demolition of the institution and its replacement with a simulacrum that maintains its external appearances, hierarchical structure, and coercive force, but with purposes diametrically opposed to those it ought to have.    At this point, citizens on the one hand and the faithful on the other find themselves in the condition of having to disobey earthly authority in order obey divine authority, which governs Nations and the Church.     Obviously the “reactionaries” – that is, those who do not accept the perversion of authority and want to remain faithful to the Church of Christ and to their Homeland – constitute an element of dissent that cannot be tolerated in any way, and therefore they must be discredited, delegitimized, threatened and deprived of their rights in the name of a “public good” that is no longer the bonum commune but its contrary.     Whether accused of conspiracy theories, traditionalism, or fundamentalism, these few survivors of a world that they want to make disappear constitutes a threat to the accomplishment of the global plan, just at the most crucial moment of its realization.     This is why power is reacting in such an open, brazen, and violent way: the evidence of the fraud risks being understood by a greater number of people, of bringing them together in an organized resistance, of breaking down the wall of silence and ferocious censorship imposed by the mainstream media.    We can therefore understand the violence of the reactions of authority and prepare ourselves for a strong and determined opposition, continuing to avail ourselves of those rights that have been abusively and illicitly denied us.     Of course, we may find ourselves having to exercise those rights in an incomplete way when we are denied the opportunity to travel if we do not have our green pass or if the Bishop prohibits us from celebrating the Mass of all time in a church in his Diocese, but our resistance to abuses of authority will still be able to count on the Graces that the Lord will not cease to grant us – in particular the virtue of Fortitude that is so indispensable in times of tyranny.    The normality that frightens     If on the one had we can see how the persecution of dissenters is well-organized and planned, on the other hand we cannot fail to recognize the fragmentation of the opposition. Bergoglio knows well that every movement of dissent must be silenced, above all by creating internal division and isolating priests and the faithful.     A fruitful and fraternal collaboration between diocesan clergy, religious, and the Ecclesia Dei institutes is something he must avert, because it would permit the diffusion of a knowledge of the ancient rite, as well as a precious help in the ministry.     But this would mean making the Tridentine Mass a “normality” in the daily life of the faithful, something that is not tolerable for Francis.     For this reason, diocesan clergy are left at the mercy of their Ordinaries, while the Ecclesia Dei Institutes are placed under the authority of the Congregation of Religious, as a sad prelude to a destiny that has already been sealed.     Let us not forget the fate that befell the flourishing religious Orders, guilty of being blessed with numerous vocations born and nurtured precisely thanks to the hated traditional Liturgy and the faithful observance of the Rule.     This is why certain forms of insistence on the ceremonial aspect of the celebrations risk legitimizing the provisions of the commissar and play Bergoglio’s game.    Even in the civil world, it is precisely by encouraging certain excesses by the dissenters that those in power marginalize them and legitimize repressive measures towards them: just think of the case of the no-vax movements and how easy it is to discredit the legitimate protests of citizens by emphasizing the eccentricities and inconsistencies of a few.     And it is all too easy to condemn a few agitated people who out of exasperation set fire to a vaccine center, overshadowing millions of honest persons who take to the streets in order not to be branded with the health passport or fired if they do not allow themselves to be vaccinated.    Do not stay isolated and disorganized    Another important element for all of us is the necessity of giving visibility to our composed protest and ensuring a form of coordination for public action.     With the abolition of Summorum Pontificum we find ourselves taken back twenty years.     This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure, because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest.     And it is not a given that the entire Episcopate – as we are seeing in the last few days with relief – will be willing to passively submit to forms of authoritarianism that certainly do not contribute to bringing peace to souls.     The Code of Canon Law guarantees the Bishops the possibility of dispensing their faithful from particular or universal laws, under certain conditions.     Secondly, the people of God have well understood the subversive nature of Traditionis Custodes and are instinctively led to want to get to know something that arouses such disapproval among progressives.     Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated.     It will be our duty, whether as Ministers of God or as simple faithful, to show firmness and serene resistance to such abuse, walking along the way of our own little Calvary with a supernatural spirit, while the new high priests and scribes of the people mock us and label us as fanatics.     It will be our humility, the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls.     And let us remember that, since we have received much, much will be demanded of us.    Restitutio in integrum    What father among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent instead? (Lk 11:11-12). Now we can understand the meaning of these words, considering with pain and torment of heart the cynicism of a father who gives us the stones of a soulless liturgy, the serpents of a corrupted doctrine, and the scorpions of an adulterated morality. And who reaches the point of dividing the flock of the Lord between those who accept the Novus Ordo and those who want to remain faithful to the Mass of our fathers, exactly as civil rulers are pitting the vaccinated and unvaccinated against one another.    When Our Lord entered Jerusalem seated on a donkey’s colt, while the crowd was spreading cloaks as He passed, the Pharisees asked Him: “Master, rebuke your disciples.”     The Lord answered them: “I say to you that if these are silent, the very stones will cry out” (Luke 19:28-40).     For sixty years the stones of our churches have been crying out, from which the Holy Sacrifice has been twice proscribed.     The marble of the altars, the columns of the basilicas, and the soaring vaults of the cathedrals cry out as well, because those stones, consecrated to the worship of the true God, today are abandoned and deserted, or profaned by abhorrent rites, or transformed into parking lots and supermarkets, precisely as a result of that Council that we insist on defending.     Let us also cry out: we who are living stones of the temple of God.     Let us cry with faith to the Lord, so that he may give a voice to His disciples who today are mute, and so that the intolerable theft for which the administrators of the Lord’s Vineyard are responsible may be repaired.    But in order for that theft to be repaired, it is necessary that we show ourselves to be worthy of the treasures that have been stolen from us.     Let us try to do this by our holiness of life, by giving example of the virtues, by prayer and the frequent reception of the Sacraments.     And let us not forget that there are hundreds of good priests who still know the meaning of the Sacred Unction by which they have been ordained Ministers of Christ and dispensers of the Mystery of God.     The Lord deigns to descend on our altars even when they are erected in cellars or attics. Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus [“Anything to the contrary notwithstanding”].    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop     28 July 2021    Ss. Nazarii et Celsi Martyrum,    Victoris I Papae et Martyris ac    Innocentii I Papae et Confessoris
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Letter #78, 2021, Sat., July 31: Italians

Inbox

Dr. Robert Moynihan via icontactmail4.com 1:17 PM (4 hours ago)
to me
    The celebration this morning, Saturday, July 31, 2021, at 7 a.m. of a Mass or prayer for Pope Francis according to the old Tridentine rite, in the Church of St. John the Baptist Church in Front Royal, Virginia, USA, at the head of the Shenandoah Valley. The Mass was attended by about 70 people.         “In this case, the major lobby group in the Italian bishops’ conference was set against Summorum Pontificum, mainly because in Italy, rather later than in France, young priests were beginning to celebrate the traditional Mass and to adopt more traditional ideas. They noticed a “traditionalization” of the seminaries, which worried them greatly. In the Curia as well, people like Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Stella in the Congregation for Clergy, etc., were also very concerned. —Fr. Claude Barthe, a French priest who has been a leading proponent of the old Mass in France, in a recent interview in the French journal Présent, translated into English by Rorate Caeli hereHis point is that Pope Francis did not decide to publish his decree just on his own, but was urged to do so by these Italians prelates in his inner circle    ”The Virginian? He may not realize it yet, but he is the last hope of the Third Revolution. The First Revolution was won at Yorktown. The Second Revolution was lost at Appomattox. The Third Revolution will begin there, in the Shenandoah Valley.” —The late Walker Percy, a Catholic convert who won the National Book Award in 1962 for his novel The Moviegoer, in his later novel, Lancelot (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977), p. 220. Christendom College was founded in the Shenandoah Valley in 1977    Letter #78, 2021, Saturday, July 31: Italians were “the moving force” behind publication of Traditionis custodes on July 16, a French priest says    First, a brief note: a Mass in the Tridentine rite for Pope Francis was celebrated this morning at 7 a.m. in the Church of St. John the Baptist in the town of Front Royal, Virginia, not far from Christendom College.    The Mass was attended by about 70 people.        Second, an announcement: later today will come the text of a new letter by Archbishop Viganò on the liturgical question in a wider context.    =======================     Italian Bishops and Cardinals were the origin and moving force behind Traditionis Custodes (an Interview with Fr. Claude Barthe)    Rorate Caeli wrote yesterday (link):     Fr. Claude Barthe is a seasoned veteran of the pre-Summorum“liturgical wars”, now rekindled by Francis in his edict “Traditionis custodes“. Living in Paris, Fr. Barthe was also the main chaplain for the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimages that took thousands of Traditional Catholics to pray and attend the Holy Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite in Saint Peter’s Basilica during the past decade.    Fr. Barthe knows, therefore, all involved with the decision that led to the papal edict against the Traditional Mass. As he reveals (corroborated by several sources), the Italian bishops, and a couple of Italian cardinals in the Curia, were at the origin and the moving force behind this document.    Let us pray.***Interview with Fr. Claude BartheTraditionis custodes: A New Liturgical War”    With the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes published on July 16, Pope Francis “unravels” his predecessor Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007 by drastically limiting the celebration of the traditional Mass.    Father, rumors about this motu proprio, which practically cancels Benedict XVI’s motu proprio of July 7, 2007, have been floating around for some time. Did you expect it to be published so soon, on July 16?    Fr. Claude Barthe: None of us were quite sure. There had been various rumors. In Rome there was talk of an August publication, while others warned of an imminent publication. The latter version turned out to be true. The Secretariat of State, which led all this, was extremely discreet, it must be admitted.    Recent events seemed to point towards the possibility of an appeasement — such as the words of Cardinal Gambetti, archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, who appealed to Summorum Pontificum in a recent interview on Vatican News. Were these hopes unfounded?    Fr. Barthe: I don’t know what Cardinal Gambetti did or said to the Pope, but it is certain that requests were made to postpone this document so as not to start a new liturgical war in the Church. Notably, some say that Cardinal Ladaria, president of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, held it back as long as he could, as did others. In the end, the decision was made by the Pope and by those who lobbied him to take it, especially the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, the substitute, Cardinal Peña Parra, Cardinal Versaldi, and others who were involved, that is, who participated in these inter-dicastery meetings (meetings between the prefects of the congregations concerned: Divine Worship, Clergy, Bishops, and the Secretariat of State) and who have been working on this document for a long time.    How did the supporters of Francis’ motu proprio win through?    Fr. Barthe:It was enough to convince the Pope! He has the power to go against anyone… In this case, the major lobby group in the Italian bishops’ conference was set against Summorum Pontificum, mainly because in Italy, rather later than in France, young priests were beginning to celebrate the traditional Mass and to adopt more traditional ideas. They noticed a “traditionalization” of the seminaries, which worried them greatly. In the Curia as well, people like Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Stella in the Congregation for Clergy, etc., were also very concerned.    What are their arguments for questioning Benedict XVI’s document?    Fr. Barthe: They are laid out clearly in the accompanying letter. They can also be found on the blog of Andrea Grillo, a lay professor of liturgy at St. Anselm’s who has been extremely hostile to Summorum Pontificum. His idea, taken up by the Pope and the crafters of the recent motu proprio, is that the traditional Mass represents a state of doctrine prior to Vatican II while the new Mass represents the doctrine of Vatican II – something we all already knew. Therefore, it was no longer necessary for the traditional Mass to be a right, but only a tolerance, and even then a tolerance only granted to faithful and priests to help them gradually transition to the new Mass.    So the main reason is doctrinal?    Fr. Barthe: Yes, and it is very important to say this and to be aware of it because, paradoxically, this is all very providential. It is of course very painful. It will hinder the diffusion of the traditional Mass. It will start new persecutions. But, on the other hand, it puts the finger on what hurts, namely the doctrinal status of Vatican II, which has never been settled.    How does this motu proprio affect the Ecclesia Dei communities — if we can still call them that?    Fr. Barthe: It will affect them. They are also in the crosshairs, that’s for sure. The document says it clearly, the Pope’s letter indicates it in a cynical way. It is a question of destroying the traditional celebration of the Mass by ensuring there will be no more priests to celebrate it. These communities are particularly targeted because they are “factories” for such priests, as is the Society of St. Pius X, which was alone at the beginning. Henceforth, these institutes are no longer under the jurisdiction of Ecclesia Dei, which no longer exists, nor under the Congregation of the Faith, which is relatively protective, but under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Religious. They’ve been reduced from their status of pontifical right. The Congregation for Religious, presided by Cardinal Braz de Aviz, is very much aligned with Francis and is going to get work to put things in order. For example, they will make canonical visits to the seminaries to verify that the teaching given there is in conformity with Vatican II, and to ensure they study and celebrate the new liturgy there. In short: the goal will be to discourage vocations. When we object: “But you are going to cause these institutes’ vocations to dry up”, they answer, “But we don’t need these people, they are useless.” (That was the actual response of a certain person I shall not name!).    So for them, the good of souls is of little importance?    Fr. Barthe: In fact, yes. For them, the good of souls is Vatican II. They prefer not to have priests than to have those they think are bad priests. It’s appalling – even diabolical. It has to be said: this pontificate is attacking every place where there is priestly renewal. The Franciscans of the Immaculate was one example, but there are many others.    In fact, Benedict XVI’s motu proprio was never fully applied, but it did permit the application of John Paul II’s 1988 motu proprio. With Francis, are we now returning to the situation of the 1970s, the period right after the Council?    Fr. Barthe: We have forgotten how terrible those times were to live through. It is different in the sense that 50 years have passed and the persecutors are much less strong than they were at that time. The conciliar Church is very sick, in some places it is dying, like in many French dioceses. It has no more troops, especially no more priests.    For example, are we going back to the atrocious situation of the 1970s, when requests for a traditional funeral mass were systematically denied?    Fr. Barthe: Theoretically, yes. The last motu proprio does not speak of this, but it speaks of things that are permitted, and this is not one of them. I shall celebrate a traditional funeral in Provence in a few days. Theoretically I could be forbidden. For a wedding planned for September, it’s the same thing.    Even if you ask permission?    Fr. Barthe:We ask permission for group Masses. In general, it is better not to ask for clarification, and just to do it…    What will become of the authorization granted by Francis himself to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to celebrate marriages and funerals in parishes? Isn’t there a contradiction there?    Fr. Barthe: That hasn’t changed! Yes, there is a contradiction there… But will they still have the right to celebrate publicly in a parish? I repeat: it is better not to dig too deep for the moment. Each should interpret himself or leave it to the bishop to interpret, rather than getting into details.    What do you think the bishops’ reactions will be? I am thinking of the Archbishop of Ferrara, not at all a conservative, who erected a personal parish for the extraordinary form 15 days before the Pope announced his document. Do you expect this kind of reaction?    Fr. Barthe: The case of Ferrara is very interesting in many ways. It shows this “left-wing” bishop’s independence from Pope Francis. In Italy, and in the Curia, people are distancing themselves from the pontiff. They feel that he is at the end of his career and are thinking about the future. They find the present government chaotic, and they want something more serious, and more true liberalism. As for the Bishop of Ferrara, it is clear: aware of the document and knowing that personal parishes would no longer be allowed to be erected, he erected one immediately: it’s great!    How do you imagine the French bishops will react?    Fr. Barthe: Their reactions will vary. Some will use the Pope’s text to repress as much as possible. Others will simply be realistic, they will not want to light fires in their own homes. I am thinking of the bishop of Versailles, who has just published a communiqué that is a little difficult to interpret but which seems to say that nothing will happen for the moment. There are still others who are in favor, there is no doubt, of this traditional life in their dioceses, even if they do not share the ideas. They will circle the wagons, play for time…    If they wanted to resist, they could do so, even canonically: Canon 87 paragraph 1 of Canon Law says that “A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church.” This opens up many possibilities. The bishop still has to want to act. Now, contrary to what we are told about synodality, it really only works one way, in favor of bishops who think like the pope. But when this is not the case… I’m reminded of the words of Archbishop Roche, the new prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who recently said expressly – with a laugh: “We are going to destroy Summorum Pontificum. Liturgical power will be given to the bishops… but not to the conservative bishops!”    St. Pius V specifying that this Mass cannot be abrogated, Paul VI forbidding it, Benedict XVI re-establishing it, Francis again seeking to make it disappear: how can the Church’s decisions be taken seriously under these conditions?    Fr. Barthe: You are right. We must review the text of Quo Primum and what exactly St. Pius V says: he is saying that no one can prevent a priest from celebrating this Mass, no matter where he is in the Church, in order to oblige him to say it in one of the particular rites (Lyon, etc.)…    Aren’t we there in a certain way?    Fr. Barthe: In a certain way, we are there, indeed. The Mass of Saint Pius V, when it was abrogated by Paul VI (because it was abrogated, it must be said, Jean Madiran rightly pointed it out), was identical, almost in detail, to what it was in the eleventh century. Benedict XVI, in Summorum Pontificum, said that it had never been abrogated. Then Francis again abrogates it… That doesn’t sound very serious.    We come back to the fact that all experiments are permitted, including blessings of homosexual couples (forbidden by the Church), except “the experiment of Tradition”, according to the expression of Archbishop Lefebvre…    Fr. Barthe: Everything is allowed, any heresy can be professed by men of the Church , who still get to keep their Catholic “identity card” – except those who celebrate or attend the traditional Mass. No, they are accused by the Pope himself of tearing apart the unity of the Church.    So, the bottom line is that this hatred of the traditional Mass has a doctrinal basis?    Fr. Barthe: Absolutely. It is the hatred of the Tridentine ecclesiology, of all that this Mass represents from the point of view of Eucharistic doctrine as well as the doctrine of the Church.    Father, as chaplain of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage, often mentioned in our pages, you are well placed to answer us. Does this pilgrimage have a bright future ahead of it?    Fr. Barthe: Who knows? Let’s wait and see!    [Original publication in French by Présent; translation by Zachary Thomas.] 
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

    The celebration this morning, Saturday, July 31, 2021, at 7 a.m. of a Mass or prayer for Pope Francis according to the old Tridentine rite, in the Church of St. John the Baptist Church in Front Royal, Virginia, USA, at the head of the Shenandoah Valley. The Mass was attended by about 70 people.         “In this case, the major lobby group in the Italian bishops’ conference was set against Summorum Pontificum, mainly because in Italy, rather later than in France, young priests were beginning to celebrate the traditional Mass and to adopt more traditional ideas. They noticed a “traditionalization” of the seminaries, which worried them greatly. In the Curia as well, people like Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Stella in the Congregation for Clergy, etc., were also very concerned. —Fr. Claude Barthe, a French priest who has been a leading proponent of the old Mass in France, in a recent interview in the French journal Présent, translated into English by Rorate Caeli hereHis point is that Pope Francis did not decide to publish his decree just on his own, but was urged to do so by these Italians prelates in his inner circle    ”The Virginian? He may not realize it yet, but he is the last hope of the Third Revolution. The First Revolution was won at Yorktown. The Second Revolution was lost at Appomattox. The Third Revolution will begin there, in the Shenandoah Valley.” —The late Walker Percy, a Catholic convert who won the National Book Award in 1962 for his novel The Moviegoer, in his later novel, Lancelot (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977), p. 220. Christendom College was founded in the Shenandoah Valley in 1977    Letter #78, 2021, Saturday, July 31: Italians were “the moving force” behind publication of Traditionis custodes on July 16, a French priest says    First, a brief note: a Mass in the Tridentine rite for Pope Francis was celebrated this morning at 7 a.m. in the Church of St. John the Baptist in the town of Front Royal, Virginia, not far from Christendom College.    The Mass was attended by about 70 people.        Second, an announcement: later today will come the text of a new letter by Archbishop Viganò on the liturgical question in a wider context.    =======================     Italian Bishops and Cardinals were the origin and moving force behind Traditionis Custodes (an Interview with Fr. Claude Barthe)    Rorate Caeli wrote yesterday (link):     Fr. Claude Barthe is a seasoned veteran of the pre-Summorum“liturgical wars”, now rekindled by Francis in his edict “Traditionis custodes“. Living in Paris, Fr. Barthe was also the main chaplain for the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimages that took thousands of Traditional Catholics to pray and attend the Holy Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite in Saint Peter’s Basilica during the past decade.    Fr. Barthe knows, therefore, all involved with the decision that led to the papal edict against the Traditional Mass. As he reveals (corroborated by several sources), the Italian bishops, and a couple of Italian cardinals in the Curia, were at the origin and the moving force behind this document.    Let us pray.***Interview with Fr. Claude BartheTraditionis custodes: A New Liturgical War”    With the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes published on July 16, Pope Francis “unravels” his predecessor Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007 by drastically limiting the celebration of the traditional Mass.    Father, rumors about this motu proprio, which practically cancels Benedict XVI’s motu proprio of July 7, 2007, have been floating around for some time. Did you expect it to be published so soon, on July 16?    Fr. Claude Barthe: None of us were quite sure. There had been various rumors. In Rome there was talk of an August publication, while others warned of an imminent publication. The latter version turned out to be true. The Secretariat of State, which led all this, was extremely discreet, it must be admitted.    Recent events seemed to point towards the possibility of an appeasement — such as the words of Cardinal Gambetti, archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, who appealed to Summorum Pontificum in a recent interview on Vatican News. Were these hopes unfounded?    Fr. Barthe: I don’t know what Cardinal Gambetti did or said to the Pope, but it is certain that requests were made to postpone this document so as not to start a new liturgical war in the Church. Notably, some say that Cardinal Ladaria, president of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, held it back as long as he could, as did others. In the end, the decision was made by the Pope and by those who lobbied him to take it, especially the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, the substitute, Cardinal Peña Parra, Cardinal Versaldi, and others who were involved, that is, who participated in these inter-dicastery meetings (meetings between the prefects of the congregations concerned: Divine Worship, Clergy, Bishops, and the Secretariat of State) and who have been working on this document for a long time.    How did the supporters of Francis’ motu proprio win through?    Fr. Barthe:It was enough to convince the Pope! He has the power to go against anyone… In this case, the major lobby group in the Italian bishops’ conference was set against Summorum Pontificum, mainly because in Italy, rather later than in France, young priests were beginning to celebrate the traditional Mass and to adopt more traditional ideas. They noticed a “traditionalization” of the seminaries, which worried them greatly. In the Curia as well, people like Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Stella in the Congregation for Clergy, etc., were also very concerned.    What are their arguments for questioning Benedict XVI’s document?    Fr. Barthe: They are laid out clearly in the accompanying letter. They can also be found on the blog of Andrea Grillo, a lay professor of liturgy at St. Anselm’s who has been extremely hostile to Summorum Pontificum. His idea, taken up by the Pope and the crafters of the recent motu proprio, is that the traditional Mass represents a state of doctrine prior to Vatican II while the new Mass represents the doctrine of Vatican II – something we all already knew. Therefore, it was no longer necessary for the traditional Mass to be a right, but only a tolerance, and even then a tolerance only granted to faithful and priests to help them gradually transition to the new Mass.    So the main reason is doctrinal?    Fr. Barthe: Yes, and it is very important to say this and to be aware of it because, paradoxically, this is all very providential. It is of course very painful. It will hinder the diffusion of the traditional Mass. It will start new persecutions. But, on the other hand, it puts the finger on what hurts, namely the doctrinal status of Vatican II, which has never been settled.    How does this motu proprio affect the Ecclesia Dei communities — if we can still call them that?    Fr. Barthe: It will affect them. They are also in the crosshairs, that’s for sure. The document says it clearly, the Pope’s letter indicates it in a cynical way. It is a question of destroying the traditional celebration of the Mass by ensuring there will be no more priests to celebrate it. These communities are particularly targeted because they are “factories” for such priests, as is the Society of St. Pius X, which was alone at the beginning. Henceforth, these institutes are no longer under the jurisdiction of Ecclesia Dei, which no longer exists, nor under the Congregation of the Faith, which is relatively protective, but under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Religious. They’ve been reduced from their status of pontifical right. The Congregation for Religious, presided by Cardinal Braz de Aviz, is very much aligned with Francis and is going to get work to put things in order. For example, they will make canonical visits to the seminaries to verify that the teaching given there is in conformity with Vatican II, and to ensure they study and celebrate the new liturgy there. In short: the goal will be to discourage vocations. When we object: “But you are going to cause these institutes’ vocations to dry up”, they answer, “But we don’t need these people, they are useless.” (That was the actual response of a certain person I shall not name!).    So for them, the good of souls is of little importance?    Fr. Barthe: In fact, yes. For them, the good of souls is Vatican II. They prefer not to have priests than to have those they think are bad priests. It’s appalling – even diabolical. It has to be said: this pontificate is attacking every place where there is priestly renewal. The Franciscans of the Immaculate was one example, but there are many others.    In fact, Benedict XVI’s motu proprio was never fully applied, but it did permit the application of John Paul II’s 1988 motu proprio. With Francis, are we now returning to the situation of the 1970s, the period right after the Council?    Fr. Barthe: We have forgotten how terrible those times were to live through. It is different in the sense that 50 years have passed and the persecutors are much less strong than they were at that time. The conciliar Church is very sick, in some places it is dying, like in many French dioceses. It has no more troops, especially no more priests.    For example, are we going back to the atrocious situation of the 1970s, when requests for a traditional funeral mass were systematically denied?    Fr. Barthe: Theoretically, yes. The last motu proprio does not speak of this, but it speaks of things that are permitted, and this is not one of them. I shall celebrate a traditional funeral in Provence in a few days. Theoretically I could be forbidden. For a wedding planned for September, it’s the same thing.    Even if you ask permission?    Fr. Barthe:We ask permission for group Masses. In general, it is better not to ask for clarification, and just to do it…    What will become of the authorization granted by Francis himself to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to celebrate marriages and funerals in parishes? Isn’t there a contradiction there?    Fr. Barthe: That hasn’t changed! Yes, there is a contradiction there… But will they still have the right to celebrate publicly in a parish? I repeat: it is better not to dig too deep for the moment. Each should interpret himself or leave it to the bishop to interpret, rather than getting into details.    What do you think the bishops’ reactions will be? I am thinking of the Archbishop of Ferrara, not at all a conservative, who erected a personal parish for the extraordinary form 15 days before the Pope announced his document. Do you expect this kind of reaction?    Fr. Barthe: The case of Ferrara is very interesting in many ways. It shows this “left-wing” bishop’s independence from Pope Francis. In Italy, and in the Curia, people are distancing themselves from the pontiff. They feel that he is at the end of his career and are thinking about the future. They find the present government chaotic, and they want something more serious, and more true liberalism. As for the Bishop of Ferrara, it is clear: aware of the document and knowing that personal parishes would no longer be allowed to be erected, he erected one immediately: it’s great!    How do you imagine the French bishops will react?    Fr. Barthe: Their reactions will vary. Some will use the Pope’s text to repress as much as possible. Others will simply be realistic, they will not want to light fires in their own homes. I am thinking of the bishop of Versailles, who has just published a communiqué that is a little difficult to interpret but which seems to say that nothing will happen for the moment. There are still others who are in favor, there is no doubt, of this traditional life in their dioceses, even if they do not share the ideas. They will circle the wagons, play for time…    If they wanted to resist, they could do so, even canonically: Canon 87 paragraph 1 of Canon Law says that “A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church.” This opens up many possibilities. The bishop still has to want to act. Now, contrary to what we are told about synodality, it really only works one way, in favor of bishops who think like the pope. But when this is not the case… I’m reminded of the words of Archbishop Roche, the new prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who recently said expressly – with a laugh: “We are going to destroy Summorum Pontificum. Liturgical power will be given to the bishops… but not to the conservative bishops!”    St. Pius V specifying that this Mass cannot be abrogated, Paul VI forbidding it, Benedict XVI re-establishing it, Francis again seeking to make it disappear: how can the Church’s decisions be taken seriously under these conditions?    Fr. Barthe: You are right. We must review the text of Quo Primum and what exactly St. Pius V says: he is saying that no one can prevent a priest from celebrating this Mass, no matter where he is in the Church, in order to oblige him to say it in one of the particular rites (Lyon, etc.)…    Aren’t we there in a certain way?    Fr. Barthe: In a certain way, we are there, indeed. The Mass of Saint Pius V, when it was abrogated by Paul VI (because it was abrogated, it must be said, Jean Madiran rightly pointed it out), was identical, almost in detail, to what it was in the eleventh century. Benedict XVI, in Summorum Pontificum, said that it had never been abrogated. Then Francis again abrogates it… That doesn’t sound very serious.    We come back to the fact that all experiments are permitted, including blessings of homosexual couples (forbidden by the Church), except “the experiment of Tradition”, according to the expression of Archbishop Lefebvre…    Fr. Barthe: Everything is allowed, any heresy can be professed by men of the Church , who still get to keep their Catholic “identity card” – except those who celebrate or attend the traditional Mass. No, they are accused by the Pope himself of tearing apart the unity of the Church.    So, the bottom line is that this hatred of the traditional Mass has a doctrinal basis?    Fr. Barthe: Absolutely. It is the hatred of the Tridentine ecclesiology, of all that this Mass represents from the point of view of Eucharistic doctrine as well as the doctrine of the Church.    Father, as chaplain of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage, often mentioned in our pages, you are well placed to answer us. Does this pilgrimage have a bright future ahead of it?    Fr. Barthe: Who knows? Let’s wait and see!    [Original publication in French by Présent; translation by Zachary Thomas.] 
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Imprimis

Gender Ideology Run Amok

 • Volume 50, Number 6/7 • Abigail Shrier

Abigail Shrier
Author, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters


Abigail Shrier is a journalist and author. She received her A.B. from Columbia College, where she was a Euretta J. Kellett Fellow; her B.Phil. from the University of Oxford; and her J.D. from Yale Law School, where she was a Coker Fellow. A member of the Board of Advisors of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, she has written for numerous publications, including City JournalNewsweek, RealClearPolitics, The Federalist, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal. She is the author of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2021, in Franklin, Tennessee, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

In 2007, America had one pediatric gender clinic; today there are hundreds. Testosterone is readily available to adolescents from places like Planned Parenthood and Kaiser, often on a first visit—without even a therapist’s note. 

How did we get to this point? How is it that we are all supposed to pretend that the only way you can know I’m a woman is if I tell you my pronouns? How did we get to an America in which a 13-year-old in the State of Washington can begin “gender affirming” therapy without her parents’ consent? How did we get to an America in which a 15-year-old in Oregon can undergo “top surgery”—elective double mastectomy—without her parents’ permission? And what can we do about it?

*** 

To understand how we got to this point, it is useful to begin by considering gender dysphoria—the feeling of severe discomfort in a person’s biological sex. Gender dysphoria is certainly real. It is also exceedingly rare. It afflicts about 0.01 percent of the population, most of whom are male.

For nearly 100 years of diagnostic history, gender dysphoria typically began in early childhood, between the ages of two and four, and usually involved a boy who insisted that he was not a boy but a girl. Children afflicted are insistent, consistent, and persistent in the feeling that they are in the wrong body. It is by all accounts excruciating—I’ve talked to many transgender adults, most of them biological males, who describe the relentless chafe of a body that feels all wrong. 

Historically, this has been the classic presentation of gender dysphoria. When these children were left alone—when no one intervened medically or encouraged what we today call “social transition”—over 70 percent of them naturally outgrew their gender dysphoria. Most of those who outgrew it became gay men. Those who did not outgrow it became what used to be known as transsexuals. They did not believe they were women, but they felt most comfortable presenting themselves as females. 

Today, however, we don’t leave these children alone. Instead, the moment children seem not to be perfectly feminine or perfectly masculine, we label them as “trans kids.” Teachers encourage them to reintroduce themselves to their classes with new names and new pronouns. We take them to therapists or doctors, nearly all of whom practice so-called affirmative care—meaning they think it is their job to affirm the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and help the children medically transition. 

The typical first step in treatment administered to these kids is puberty blockers, which shut down the part of the pituitary gland that directs the release of hormones catalyzing puberty. The most common of these drugs is Lupron, whose original purpose was the chemical castration of sex offenders. To this day, the FDA has never approved this drug for halting healthy puberty. 

One has to wonder why a parent or a doctor would take measures to stop a child’s puberty, given that even a child with genuine gender dysphoria would most likely outgrow that condition if left alone. Some argue that it is traumatizing to let children go through the puberty of the sex to which they do not wish to belong. But in many cases, puberty seems to have helped children overcome gender dysphoria. The truth is that there is no satisfying answer, given that scientists have no way of predicting which children will outgrow the dysphoria on their own and which won’t. 

Proponents of “affirmative care” also argue that allowing puberty to occur is dangerous, because suicide rates for trans-identified youth and trans adults are very high. Therefore, they say, we need to start treating children with gender dysphoria as soon and as dramatically as possible. 

Yet there are no good long-term studies indicating that puberty blockers cure suicidality or even improve mental health. Nor are there studies that show puberty blockers are safe or reversible when used in this manner.

What we do know is that puberty blockers prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics, sexual maturation, and bone density. Indeed, because of the inhibition of bone density and other risks, doctors don’t like to keep children on puberty blockers for more than two years.

We also know that in almost every case when a child’s healthy puberty is medically arrested, placing the child out of step with his or her peers, that child proceeds to cross-sex hormones. And when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are administered to a girl, she becomes infertile. She may also have permanent sexual dysfunction given that her sex organs never reach adult maturity.

Given this, the claims made by so many doctors and gender activists today that these medical transition measures for children are safe and reversible—that they are a “pause button,” without serious downsides—are not only dishonest, but destructive. We would not accept this sort of glib salesmanship in any other area of medicine. 

Trans Identification among Teenage Girls

As I mentioned, for the nearly 100-year history of scientific study of gender dysphoria, it has been diagnosed almost exclusively in young children, and mostly in boys. But over the last decade, large numbers of teenage girls have begun to claim they have gender dysphoria. 

Prior to 2012, in fact, there was no scientific literature on gender dysphoria arising in teenage girls. Dr. Lisa Littman, then a Brown University public health researcher, used the phrase “rapid onset gender dysphoria” to refer to the subsequent sudden spike in transgender identification among teenage girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria.

This spike is not unique to America—we see it across the Western world. To offer just one statistic, there has been a decade-to-decade increase of over 4,400 percent in the number of teenage girls seeking treatment at the United Kingdom’s national gender clinic. Across the West, teen girls are now the leading demographic claiming to have gender dysphoria. 

What is behind this is social contagion—the spread of ideas, emotions, and behaviors through peer influence, one more instance of teenage girls sharing and spreading their pain. There is a long history of social contagion with this demographic—anorexia and bulimia are also spread this way. And we know that teen girls today are in the midst of the worst mental health crisis on record, with the highest rates of anxiety, self-harm, and clinical depression. 

The teen girls susceptible to this social contagion are the same high-anxiety, depressive girls who struggle socially in adolescence and tend to hate their bodies. Add to that a school environment where you can achieve status and popularity by declaring a trans identity. Add to that the teenage temptation to stick it to mom. Also add the intoxicating influence of social media, where trans activists push the idea that identifying as trans and starting a course of testosterone will cure a girl’s problems. Put those together, and you have a fast-spreading social phenomenon. 

I’ve spoken to families at top girls’ schools who attest that 15, 20, or in one case 30 percent of the girls in their daughter’s seventh grade class identify as trans. When you see figures like that, you’re witnessing a social contagion in action. There is no other reasonable explanation. 

These teen girls are in a great deal of pain. Almost all of them have at some point dealt with an eating disorder, engaged in cutting, or been diagnosed with other mental health comorbidities. And now they’re being allowed to self-diagnose gender dysphoria by a medical establishment that has decided that its job is to affirm and agree with trans-identified adolescents.

Turning a Blind Eye

You may not know the name Keira Bell. She is a young woman in the U.K., very troubled in adolescence, who was rushed to transition in her teen years and came to regret it. She underwent double mastectomy and spent years on testosterone, only to realize that her problem had never been gender dysphoria. She sued the U.K.’s national gender clinic, and last December, after the High Court of Justice examined her case and the claims of similarly situated plaintiffs, she won. 

The Court examined the medical protocols applied to Keira Bell—protocols identical to the ones we have in the United States—and was horrified that a young girl had been allowed to consent to begin a process of eliminating her future fertility and sexual function at an age, 15, when she could not possibly have gauged that loss.

Hailed as a “landmark case” by The Times of London, The Economist, and even The Guardian, Bell’s victory was widely viewed as a serious condemnation of the effort to fast-track teen girls to gender transition. One of the appalling things the Court noted was that the national gender clinic had been unable to show any psychological improvement in the adolescents it had treated with transitioning hormones. 

If, as I suspect, you haven’t read or heard about the Keira Bell case, that’s because America’s legacy media decided to pretend the case didn’t happen. Similarly, they continue to ignore or dismiss the stories of the thousands of “detransitioners”—young women who underwent medical transition, later regretted it, and attempt to reverse course. A lot of the treatments these girls have undergone are permanent, but they do what they can to try to reverse some of the effects. 

Thus it is that in the United States, this crisis among teenage girls gets treated as a political issue—a conservative issue—rather than a medical one. And so perhaps the greatest medical scandal of our time is dismissed as a conservative preoccupation.

The Assault on Women’s Sports and Safe Spaces

No discussion of gender ideology can ignore the ongoing movement to eradicate girls’ and women’s sports and protective spaces. Many or most of the people pushing this are not transgender themselves. But they are activists, they are energized, and they seem to be winning. 

This movement promotes dangerous bills like the Equality Act, which would make it illegal ever to distinguish between biological men and women—and thus to exclude a biological male from a girls’ sports team or a women’s protective space, whether it be a restroom, locker room, or prison. We have these laws now in California and in the State of Washington—and as you might imagine, one result is that hundreds of biological male prisoners, many of them violent felons, have applied to transfer to women’s units. 

For activists pushing this, it is not enough to create unisex bathrooms, a separate category for trans-identified athletes, or separate safe zones in prisons for trans-identified biological men. No, they are working to abolish all women’s-only spaces and they want to abolish them now. 

***

The common thread running through these topics is that the truth is being obscured by gender ideology. Lies are told about the risks of the transition treatments administered to young children, both to play down the dangers of those treatments and to exaggerate the degree to which those treatments are known to be helpful. Lies are told about the researchers and journalists who attempt to report on the crisis of social contagion among teenage girls undergoing transition treatments. And lies are told about the movement to eradicate women’s protective spaces. 

The gender ideology behind these lies is a sibling of critical race theory. While critical race activists are teaching kids that they are largely defined by their skin color, gender activists are teaching kids that there are a great many genders, and that only they know their true gender. And just as families who object to racial indoctrination in schools are told that their denials of racism are proof of racism, young women who object to biological males participating in girls’ sports are told that their objections are proof of transphobic bigotry. 

These mendacious dogmas have corrupted our K-12 schools, our universities, and our legacy media, as well as our scientific journals and our medical accrediting organizations—the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, etc. To give you a sense of how far things have gone, I was informed late last year by a member of the National Association of Science Writers—an association of journalists with scientific backgrounds—that a member of the association’s online forum had been expelled for mentioning my book on the transgender social contagion among teenage girls. He hadn’t even read my book. He just mentioned that it sounded interesting, and for that he was banned as transphobic. 

Similarly, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and researchers who are concerned about the risks of gender interventions report that they struggle today to get their research published. And public and private funding of research is almost entirely restricted to researchers who promote gender transition and downplay the risks. 

There are phalanxes of young doctors now, many of them in pediatrics or child psychiatry, who are open about their belief that their primary job is “social justice.” They unreservedly celebrate the increase in transitioning treatment of young people and are inexcusably complacent about the risks of those treatments. The Washington Post recently quoted some of these doctors to the effect that puberty blockers are fully reversible—which is not something that any honest doctor can claim to know. We simply don’t have the data to know whether puberty blockers are fully physically reversible when applied to halt healthy puberty—and they are certainly not psychologically reversible. We’re seeing a startling politicization of medicine and science, which is symptomatic of a larger woke corruption of American society.

***

Now, there’s something I make a point of saying whenever I speak, and I say it for the simple reason that it is true: transgender adults are some of the soberest and kindest people I have met in my work as a journalist. Many of them seem to have been helped by transition, and they are leading admirable and productive lives. They have no desire to harm women or to push transition on children. The gender ideology activists do not represent them. 

My understanding of freedom includes a belief that society should allow adults to make consequential decisions about their lives, which includes choosing to undergo sex reassignment surgery. And whenever I am asked by a transgender adult, I use his or her chosen name and pronouns. This seems to me the courteous and the right thing to do. But—and this is a big but—I never lie. This means I never say, and I will never say, that trans women are women. I think reciting this lie leads, as we are seeing, to unjust and dangerous consequences for women and girls. It is not courteous or right to parrot these lies. It is the cowardly surrender of women’s welfare to the woke gods. And it is wrong.

I’m also often asked why it is that the gender ideology activists are doing what they are doing. What possible justification could there be, for instance, for telling small boys that they might be girls and small girls that they might be boys? My best guess at an answer occurred to me while talking to detransitioners. I heard repeatedly from these young women that while they were transitioning, they were angry and politically radical. They often cut off relations with their families, having been coached to do so online by gender activists. Related to this, if you look, you’ll notice a disproportionate number of gender-confused people among the ranks of Antifa in cities like Portland. 

In other words, chaos is the point, and these troubled girls become prey for those who seek to recruit revolutionaries. Just as the destructive objective of critical race theory is to divide Americans racially, that of gender ideology is to disrupt the formation of stable families, the building blocks of American life.

So what do we do about it? How do we push back? First and foremost, we must oppose the indoctrination of children in gender ideology. There is no good reason for it, and it does real harm. We can absolutely insist that all children treat each other kindly without indoctrinating an entire generation in gender confusion. 

Second, we must overcome our squeamishness and speak the truth in public. Wherever we find ourselves, we must refuse to recite lies. And we must always clearly distinguish between transgender Americans, generally wonderful people, and the ideological transgender movement, which seeks to warp children and weaken families. 

This is a movement that would turn our children against themselves because its advocates know there is no greater harm—no quicker way to bring America to its knees—than by driving our children to do themselves irreversible damage. The people pushing this ideology have gotten a head start on us by perhaps a decade. But now I think they have awakened a sleeping giant. The success of my book is one indication. The many state legislatures that are now debating these issues is another. 

These are our kids and grandkids. Our future depends on our winning this fight. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MAIKE HICKSON

BLOGS

High-ranking Swiss priest discusses defects of Novus Ordo Mass and the Church’s need to listen to the faithful

‘The English writer Gilbert K. Chesterton once said that Protestants believe that God can only be worshipped by way of thinking. Catholics, he said, would do it with all their senses. He said this even before the liturgical reform of Vatican II. For today we have arrived at more or less this Protestant position…’Fri Jul 30, 2021 – 12:06 pm EST

Featured Image
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

July 30, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Dr. Martin Grichting, a priest and former vicar general of the Diocese of Chur, Switzerland, has raised once more spoken out regarding the recent July 16 motu proprio against the Traditional Latin Mass. He now argues that, instead of “beating the faithful with the shepherd’s crook,” Church leadership should actually listen to the faithful, seeing in them the “spirit of God” being active, yearning for a reverent sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

This is a very helpful commentary (full text see below), especially since Dr. Grichting does not celebrate the Traditional Mass (as he stated here). But he has the honesty and the courage to listen to the many faithful who are drawn to the ancient form of the Roman Rite, with its reverence and silence.

In very good words – and speaking for my own heart, too – Dr. Grichting speaks of the “laity, who are incessantly exposed to a rain of words [at the Novus Ordo Mass]. This overwhelms them and not infrequently generates the bad conscience of not having been attentive during the Mass. At the same time, the words of varying weight that are poured over everyone almost non-stop leave the soul dangling in the void.”He states that the soul is not fed, and the new Mass too much points to the intellect, instead of touching heart and soul and mind.With much gratitude, I publish below this statement of Dr. Grichting, because he calls upon the Church hierarchy to listen to the faithful and learn from them what they find missing in the new liturgy.The faithful of the ‘Extraordinary Form’ are the symptom, not the diseaseAs long as the Church leadership is not able to approve for the whole Church a form of liturgy that again truly helps to lift the heart to God, it is implausible to accuse those who articulate a problem that the Church leadership itself has caused. The day when people will have the courage to face the real problems of the liturgy will come.I really became aware that the liturgy created after Vatican II has regrettable shortcomings and leaves the faithful spiritually as well as emotionally starved when I became vicar general. For now I was no longer a celebrant as a parish priest, but much more often a concelebrant at episcopal liturgies. Functionally, I was thus not unlike the lay people who participated in the celebration of the Eucharist: fellow worshipers, secularly speaking: Spectators and, above all, listeners. It was then that I realized how  this form of the liturgy is one-sidedly oriented to the intellect. It can be enriched – especially in German-speaking countries – with genuinely spiritual songs. The church building can be majestically built and beautifully decorated. Ideally, the liturgical vestments are also something for the eye. The ear intermittently may get its reward with brilliant organists. But architecture and concert are no substitute for spirituality. And the enjoyment of aesthetics is not to be confused with the living relationship with God. So it remains that, during the course of an hour, one is sprinkled in one’s mother tongue with words that one understands, but with the best will in the world can only take in intellectually to a small extent. In the weekday Masses the problem is aggravated because it is even more influenced by the word – and this does not mean the Word of God. Even the most diligent, who follow the liturgical texts on their cell phones so as not to be too distracted, must at some point acknowledge that they are reaching their limits.If you are the celebrant yourself, the situation is different. One must concentrate on the texts, if only to recite them correctly. Moreover, one is always the doer. This alleviates the problem of attention and allows the aspect of feeling to fade into the background. This probably has the effect that many bishops and priests have so far felt too little understanding for the laity, who are incessantly exposed to a rain of words. This overwhelms them and not infrequently generates the bad conscience of not having been attentive during the Mass. At the same time, the words of varying weight that are poured over everyone almost non-stop leave the soul dangling in the void. The heart is rarely really reached. It is not warmed, but ignored. From this suffers the presentiment and respect for the sacred. And it is only when these come alongside intellectual apprehension that man is kept in the Faith. For otherwise Faith runs the risk of becoming at best an interesting intellectual occupation. But it no longer captivates the whole person.The celebrant, who is turned towards the people and talks to them incessantly, does the rest. Much has already been said about this. Even if one expressly withdraws oneself and does not want to act as an entertainer, nor does one put one’s own subject in the foreground through political or other good-human interludes: The fact that one represents Jesus Christ as a priest is the theological truth. That one nevertheless stands far too much in the foreground with one’s personality, which is perceived as more or less appealing, is the reality perceived by the faithful.The English writer Gilbert K. Chesterton once said that Protestants believe that God can only be worshipped by way of thinking. Catholics, he said, would do it with all their senses. He said this even before the liturgical reform of Vatican II. For today we have arrived at more or less this Protestant position. This is true even if the liturgy is not pedagogically abused for the propagation of social or environmental concerns or serves as a field of experimentation on which the liturgical designers can live out their imagination.There would be still much to say, first undoubtedly about the sacrificial character of the Mass, its quality as participation in the divine liturgy rather than as a gathering of “celebrants,” and so on. I would like to content myself here with the phenomenological reflection that tries to put itself above all in the position of the laity.On leaves these lay people spiritually hungry. And what do they do? They break away from the flock. They seek their nourishment elsewhere. The longer I watch this after almost 29 years of priesthood, the more convinced I become: The faithful, despised by the powerful, who have found a home in the extraordinary form [of the Roman Rite], are the symptom, not the disease. Instead of beating them with the shepherd’s crook, one should consider for once that they articulate – perhaps sometimes in an awkward way – a problem. If – as can be seen especially in France and the USA – now again relatively many young people (priests and married couples who are still open to children) prefer the Extraordinary Form, it would correspond to spiritual prudence in the sense of St. Benedict to ask oneself whether the Spirit of God does not also speak from these young people.Priests, who are closer to the faithful than liturgical theorists and curial experts of the liturgy, feel more and more that many lay people suffer, consciously or unconsciously, especially from the celebration of the Eucharist. Quite a few, especially older ones, liturgically endure what for them can no longer be changed. They remain faithful to the end and represent the typical worshippers today. Others stay away disappointed with the passage of time. For they have had the experience long enough that they have not been edified as well as comforted and that they have not stepped out of the church hall supported in their being Christians, which is difficult nowadays anyway. Of course, aging and staying away have other reasons, but liturgy is also one of them. Who wants to deny it? As long as the church leadership is unable to approve for the whole church a form of liturgy that again truly helps to lift the heart to God, it is not convincing to accuse those who articulate a problem that the church leadership itself has caused. Instead of harassing these believers, the church leadership should seek to understand what the Spirit of God is saying through these faithful, especially through the many lay people among them. As long as this does not happen, diocesan bishops should exercise reason in the face of a universal church disciplinary law that hurts and divides. The easiest way to do this at the diocesan level will be through generous dispensations from the norms of this law.The day will come when, on the part of the Church’s leadership, one will have the courage to face the real problems of the liturgy. For they persist. They cannot be eliminated with a law. However one judges natural selection according to Darwin: There is a supernatural selection, and it is at work.Martin Grichting was vicar general of the diocese of Chur (Switzerland) and publishes essays on philosophical and theological issues.Translation by Dr. Maike Hickson

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inline image
HOW THE APOSTLES and SOME DISCIPLES OF CHRIST DIED:1. Matthew – suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.2. Mark – died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.3. Luke – was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.4. John – faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin or caldron of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation there on the island of Patmos . The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as bishop of Edessa in modern day Turkey . He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.5. Peter – was crucified upside down on a cross. According to church tradition it was because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died.6. James – the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown down over a hundred feet from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller’s club. *This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the temptation.7. James the Son of Zebedee – was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched in amazement as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, the Roman officer declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.8. Bartholomew – also known as Nathaniel was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed for our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia where he was flayed to death by a whip.9. Andrew – was crucified on an X-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: ‘I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.’ He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.10. Thomas – was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the Sub-continent.11. Jude – was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.12. Matthias – the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.13. Paul – was tortured and then BEHEADED by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment, which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament. Perhaps this is a reminder to us that our sufferings here are indeed minor compared to the intense persecution and cold cruelty faced by the apostles and disciples during their times, for the sake of Christ and the faith.Make this message your contribution to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ! THE SALVATION OF OUR PRECIOUS SOULS IS NOT THROUGH RELIGIOUS PERSUASION BUT THROUGH A RELATION PERSONAL WITH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! Be blessed📖🙏❤️👍✌️

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

LifeSiteNews

MAIKE HICKSON

BLOGS

High-ranking Swiss priest discusses defects of Novus Ordo Mass and the Church’s need to listen to the faithful

‘The English writer Gilbert K. Chesterton once said that Protestants believe that God can only be worshipped by way of thinking. Catholics, he said, would do it with all their senses. He said this even before the liturgical reform of Vatican II. For today we have arrived at more or less this Protestant position…’Fri Jul 30, 2021 – 12:06 pm EST

Featured Image
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

July 30, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Dr. Martin Grichting, a priest and former vicar general of the Diocese of Chur, Switzerland, has raised once more spoken out regarding the recent July 16 motu proprio against the Traditional Latin Mass. He now argues that, instead of “beating the faithful with the shepherd’s crook,” Church leadership should actually listen to the faithful, seeing in them the “spirit of God” being active, yearning for a reverent sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

This is a very helpful commentary (full text see below), especially since Dr. Grichting does not celebrate the Traditional Mass (as he stated here). But he has the honesty and the courage to listen to the many faithful who are drawn to the ancient form of the Roman Rite, with its reverence and silence.

In very good words – and speaking for my own heart, too – Dr. Grichting speaks of the “laity, who are incessantly exposed to a rain of words [at the Novus Ordo Mass]. This overwhelms them and not infrequently generates the bad conscience of not having been attentive during the Mass. At the same time, the words of varying weight that are poured over everyone almost non-stop leave the soul dangling in the void.”He states that the soul is not fed, and the new Mass too much points to the intellect, instead of touching heart and soul and mind.With much gratitude, I publish below this statement of Dr. Grichting, because he calls upon the Church hierarchy to listen to the faithful and learn from them what they find missing in the new liturgy.The faithful of the ‘Extraordinary Form’ are the symptom, not the diseaseAs long as the Church leadership is not able to approve for the whole Church a form of liturgy that again truly helps to lift the heart to God, it is implausible to accuse those who articulate a problem that the Church leadership itself has caused. The day when people will have the courage to face the real problems of the liturgy will come.I really became aware that the liturgy created after Vatican II has regrettable shortcomings and leaves the faithful spiritually as well as emotionally starved when I became vicar general. For now I was no longer a celebrant as a parish priest, but much more often a concelebrant at episcopal liturgies. Functionally, I was thus not unlike the lay people who participated in the celebration of the Eucharist: fellow worshipers, secularly speaking: Spectators and, above all, listeners. It was then that I realized how  this form of the liturgy is one-sidedly oriented to the intellect. It can be enriched – especially in German-speaking countries – with genuinely spiritual songs. The church building can be majestically built and beautifully decorated. Ideally, the liturgical vestments are also something for the eye. The ear intermittently may get its reward with brilliant organists. But architecture and concert are no substitute for spirituality. And the enjoyment of aesthetics is not to be confused with the living relationship with God. So it remains that, during the course of an hour, one is sprinkled in one’s mother tongue with words that one understands, but with the best will in the world can only take in intellectually to a small extent. In the weekday Masses the problem is aggravated because it is even more influenced by the word – and this does not mean the Word of God. Even the most diligent, who follow the liturgical texts on their cell phones so as not to be too distracted, must at some point acknowledge that they are reaching their limits.If you are the celebrant yourself, the situation is different. One must concentrate on the texts, if only to recite them correctly. Moreover, one is always the doer. This alleviates the problem of attention and allows the aspect of feeling to fade into the background. This probably has the effect that many bishops and priests have so far felt too little understanding for the laity, who are incessantly exposed to a rain of words. This overwhelms them and not infrequently generates the bad conscience of not having been attentive during the Mass. At the same time, the words of varying weight that are poured over everyone almost non-stop leave the soul dangling in the void. The heart is rarely really reached. It is not warmed, but ignored. From this suffers the presentiment and respect for the sacred. And it is only when these come alongside intellectual apprehension that man is kept in the Faith. For otherwise Faith runs the risk of becoming at best an interesting intellectual occupation. But it no longer captivates the whole person.The celebrant, who is turned towards the people and talks to them incessantly, does the rest. Much has already been said about this. Even if one expressly withdraws oneself and does not want to act as an entertainer, nor does one put one’s own subject in the foreground through political or other good-human interludes: The fact that one represents Jesus Christ as a priest is the theological truth. That one nevertheless stands far too much in the foreground with one’s personality, which is perceived as more or less appealing, is the reality perceived by the faithful.The English writer Gilbert K. Chesterton once said that Protestants believe that God can only be worshipped by way of thinking. Catholics, he said, would do it with all their senses. He said this even before the liturgical reform of Vatican II. For today we have arrived at more or less this Protestant position. This is true even if the liturgy is not pedagogically abused for the propagation of social or environmental concerns or serves as a field of experimentation on which the liturgical designers can live out their imagination.There would be still much to say, first undoubtedly about the sacrificial character of the Mass, its quality as participation in the divine liturgy rather than as a gathering of “celebrants,” and so on. I would like to content myself here with the phenomenological reflection that tries to put itself above all in the position of the laity.On leaves these lay people spiritually hungry. And what do they do? They break away from the flock. They seek their nourishment elsewhere. The longer I watch this after almost 29 years of priesthood, the more convinced I become: The faithful, despised by the powerful, who have found a home in the extraordinary form [of the Roman Rite], are the symptom, not the disease. Instead of beating them with the shepherd’s crook, one should consider for once that they articulate – perhaps sometimes in an awkward way – a problem. If – as can be seen especially in France and the USA – now again relatively many young people (priests and married couples who are still open to children) prefer the Extraordinary Form, it would correspond to spiritual prudence in the sense of St. Benedict to ask oneself whether the Spirit of God does not also speak from these young people.Priests, who are closer to the faithful than liturgical theorists and curial experts of the liturgy, feel more and more that many lay people suffer, consciously or unconsciously, especially from the celebration of the Eucharist. Quite a few, especially older ones, liturgically endure what for them can no longer be changed. They remain faithful to the end and represent the typical worshippers today. Others stay away disappointed with the passage of time. For they have had the experience long enough that they have not been edified as well as comforted and that they have not stepped out of the church hall supported in their being Christians, which is difficult nowadays anyway. Of course, aging and staying away have other reasons, but liturgy is also one of them. Who wants to deny it? As long as the church leadership is unable to approve for the whole church a form of liturgy that again truly helps to lift the heart to God, it is not convincing to accuse those who articulate a problem that the church leadership itself has caused. Instead of harassing these believers, the church leadership should seek to understand what the Spirit of God is saying through these faithful, especially through the many lay people among them. As long as this does not happen, diocesan bishops should exercise reason in the face of a universal church disciplinary law that hurts and divides. The easiest way to do this at the diocesan level will be through generous dispensations from the norms of this law.The day will come when, on the part of the Church’s leadership, one will have the courage to face the real problems of the liturgy. For they persist. They cannot be eliminated with a law. However one judges natural selection according to Darwin: There is a supernatural selection, and it is at work.Martin Grichting was vicar general of the diocese of Chur (Switzerland) and publishes essays on philosophical and theological issues.Translation by Dr. Maike Hickson

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment