Jorge Codifies His Irreversible Revolution/Jorge's Intellectually Dishonest Defense of the Indefensible, part three

As was the case with Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who used his false “pontificate” as a means of codifying and canonizing many of the heresies and errors contained in his various books, many of which were transcriptions of lectures and presentations, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a man who scoffs at the eternal laws of God, no less of even the remotest concept of the Natural Law, is using the full “papal” authority, including the revision of the conciliar code of canon law whenever he deems it necessary, in a very methodical manner to codify his own heretical beliefs and sacrilegious liturgical practices that long antedate his appearance on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, as the sixth in the current line of antipopes.

It was two years ago this month, six months before he issued Amoris Laetitia on March 19, 2016, that the Argentine Apostate used his “holy year of mercy” to assuage the consciences of women who had paid for the execution of their preborn children:

One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence. (Jorge to Rino: Yo, Time to Blow Some More Smoke in the Faces of the Gullible.)

Although lengthy, my commentary on this particular act of “mercy” on the part of “Pope Francis” was designed to downplay the gravity of the killing of the innocent preborn by using subjective considerations that were almost identical to the same kind of moral casuistry used by then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on May 17, 2009, when he delivered the commencement address at my own Master’s alma mater, the University of Notre Dame du Lac, Notre Dame, Indiana:

Sixth, perhaps even more importantly than Berogoglio’s proviso concerning the Society of Saint Pius X is the apostate’s treatment of the moral crime of abortion, which is willful murder, that minimizes its horror while using almost the exact same language about a supposedly difficult, existential "decision” facing a woman who finds herself pregnant unexpectedly. The man most people in the world believe is “Pope Francis” clearly does not believe that fornication is any kind of real problem and he clearly finds no blame to be assigned to those who use the privileges God Himself has reserved for the married state in a sinful manner. Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that a woman should be “surprised” to find herself pregnant even though the conception of a child is the nature of the exercise of the marital privilege during a woman’s fertile years of childbearing.

Perhaps even more shockingly, the lay Jesuit revolutionary who turns seventy-nine years of age in three and one-half months, referred to the unspeakable crime of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in almost exactly the same terms as that used by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in his infamous commencement address at the University of Notre Dame du Lac, Notre Dame, Indiana, on Sunday, May 17, 2009, the Fifth Sunday after Easter.

Consider Bergoglio’s choice of language in the 2015 letter to Rino Fisichella with that of Obama’s eight years, four months ago:

Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. (Jorge to Rino: Yo, Time to Blow Some More Smoke in the Faces of the Gullible.)

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.

He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama/Soetoro Speech at the University of Notre Dame du Lac.)

Although Bergoglio is not wrong in saying that many women have killed their babies surgically as a result of pressure being placed upon them by the fathers of their children and/or their own parents and friends, to say nothing of the butchers at facilities such as Planned Barrenhood and of obstetricians and gynecologists who love to strike fear into the hearts of older women about the "dangers" to themselves and their preborn child if they do not kill the baby, the false "pope" does not name the source of this pressure, thus leaving open for the consideration of other "pressures" (such as the necessity of holding onto a particular job, pursuing one's studies, facing economic poverty, the possibility of a child to be born with one or more birth defects) as making a woman's "decision" more difficult to the extent that they experience what he describes as an "existential and moral ordeal." Obama/Soetoro referred to a "heart-rending decision."

Without for a moment minimizing the scars of women who have had their babies killed by surgical executioners, the fact remains that there is no "decision" to be made, only a child to be welcomed and love unto his eternal salvation. A woman must be instructed in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance that she must be sorry not only for the act of child-killing but must repent of the act of fornication that led to the conception of the child she paid to have murdered if she is in the state or to repent for the act of adultery in the case of a married woman. Moreover, married women who have killed their children because of pressure from husbands and/or the various ecomonic considerations must be counseled to welcome as many or as few children as God wills for them to have without seeking to frustrate the natural process of the transmission of life. Then again, the counterfeit church of concilairism has inverted the ends of marriage, making it "understandable" to the likes of Bergoglio that a married woman might have to "agonize" over accepting the child given her by God.

It is no accident that the figure of Antichrist in the White House who supports unrestricted baby-killing and the figure of Antichrist in the Casa Santa Marta within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River who says tht he is opposed such killing speak of the crime of willful murder with such great "understanding" of the "difficulties" involved. Most, although far from all, of those "difficulties," however, are entirely self-made, stemming from an unwillingess to keep oneself from the near occasion of sin and a casual embrace of contraception as that which is normal, natural and completely morally acceptable.

To write as "Pope Francis" did to Salvatore Rino Fisichella made it appear as though there are circumstances in which a woman may be convinced that it is "necessary" for her to kill her preborn child and that she can do so with the certain knowledge of absolution in the conciliar church's "Sacrament of Reconciliation" no matter her rationale for having done so. A good confessor must make the necessary distinctions in each circumstance is presented before him, and if he cannot administer absolution if it is his judgment that the penitent is not committed to amend her life after having killed the fruit of her womb. Will she give up her sins of fornication if she is single or, if giving, give up her adultery?

These are not heartless or insensitive questions. As the late Father John Joseph Sullivan instructed his students at Holy Apostles Seminary when I was his student there, priests do not beat up penitents in the confession. At the same time, however, they have the obligation to ask prudent questions in a fatherly manner that bear on the circumstances of a sin if they judge such questions necessary. Bergoglio, though, is making it appear as though there can never be a circumstance in which a woman who has killed her child can be denied absolution (not that it is available from a conciliar presbyter, of course) in the “Sacrament of Reconciliation.” Sadly, there are such circumstances if a priest judges that there is not true contrition and a firm purpose on the part of the penitent to amend his life. Bergoglio is making it appear that the retention of sins in the case of abortion would not be “merciful.” (From Jorge "Gives" What He Does Not Have.)

You know what else was lacking in Bergoglio’s letter to “Archbishop” Rino Fisichella two years ago?

Any mention of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

This was because the egregious scoundrel from Buenos Aires, Argentina, has about as much contempt for the Ten Commandments as did Martin Luther himself. All that matters to Jorge is “luv.”

Bergoglio is simply doing as “Pope Francis” what he did as Jorge Mario “Cardinal” Bergoglio to impose universally his own Jacobin/Bolshevik beliefs about the conciliar revolution that informed and directed his work as “Father” and “Archbishop” Bergoglio.

No one, therefore, should have been the least bit surprised last week when the false “pope” made a revision to the conciliar code of canon law that makes the conciliar Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments a mere clearinghouse for decisions about all liturgical matters (liturgical translation, “radical” liturgical adaptations, etc.)  that have been determined by national “episcopal” conferences:

In particular, in the new formulation of the said canon, there is a more adequate distinction, as far as the role of the Apostolic See is concerned, between the scope of the recognitio and that of the confirmatio in respect of what belongs to the Episcopal Conferences, taking account of their pastoral and doctrinal responsibility as well as the limits to their actions. The recognitio, mentioned in canon 838 §2, implies the process of recognising on the part of the Apostolic See legitimate liturgical adaptations, including those that are “more radical” (Sacrosanctum concilium 40), which the Episcopal Conferences can establish and approve for their territories within defined limits. In the encounter between liturgy and culture the Apostolic See is called to recognoscere, that is, to review and evaluate such adaptations in order to safeguard the substantial unity of the Roman Rite: the references for this material are Sacrosanctum concilium nn. 39-40; and its application, as and when indicated in the liturgical books, is regulated by the Instruction Varietates legitimae. (An Interpretative Summary Magnum Principium, September 3, 2017.)

Oh, by the way, do you think it is any accident that this document that this document was dated September 3, 2017?

What do I mean?

Well, think for a moment.

Whose feast is celebrated on September 3 in the calendar of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition?

That’s right, Pope Saint Pius X, who explained almost everything about the conciliar agenda for the “reform” of the Catholic Church in the following summary, contained in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, of what the Modernists intended to do:

38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles? (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 7, 1907.)

No, I do not think there was any “coincidence” that Magnum Principium was dated September 3rd.

There are several immediate reasons why “Pope Francis” undertook this “initiative,” and I want to explore these in a little bit of detail before providing some historical background.

First, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is canonizing what he has called his “liberated” style of staging the sacrilegious and sacramentally barren Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service.

Remember, this is what he said as to why he kept “Archbishop” Guido Marini as his master of ceremonies even though the latter came from the “stricter” “Genoan School” that traces its roots to the late Giuseppe Cardinal Siri:

"See? They say that my Master of papal ceremonies [Guido Marini] is of a Traditionalist mold; and many, after my election, have asked me to remove him from his position and replace him. I have answered no, precisely because I myself may treasure his traditional formation, and at the same time he might take advantage of my more emancipated formation." (RORATE CÆLI.)

Some "emancipation."

Jorge Mario Beroglgio is just one in a long, long line of conciliar revolutionaries who have "emancipated" themselves from the very bosom of Holy Mother Church. We are eyewitnesses to quite a remarkable series of events as a result.

Here are some video reminders of Jorge’s “emancipated style” of staging the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service when he was presiding over the destruction of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, Argentina: Pinocchio "Mass" and Jorge's Tango Mass.

Second, Jorge is “making irreversible,” to use the phrase he uttered in his address to the Italian Liturgical Council on August 24, 2017, a complete rejection of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s criticism of those who ignore liturgical norms because they dislike “excessive formalism” and of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s efforts to “reform the reform.”

This is what Wotyla/John Paul II said in Dominicae Cenae, February 24,1980, and in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wojtyla/John Paul II’s efforts to curb liturgical abuses were bound to be of no avail because the enterprise he was trying to steer, namely, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, on a “correct” course while respecting “liturgical pluralism” as envisioned by the fathers of the “Second” Vatican Council was and remains not of God. That which is not of God is bound to degenerate over time.

Moreover, nothing ever happened to those “bishops,” including Bergoglio himself, who was, after all, appointed by “Saint John Paul II,” who countenanced liturgical abuses in violation of the multiple number of efforts on the part of the conciliar Vatican to remind bishops, both true and false, and priests/presbyters that they had to adhere to the conciliar revolution’s liturgical “norms,” such as they were, that were spelled out in numerous postconciliar documents, particularly Inaestimabile Donum, 1980, a copy of which I was wont to wave in the face of “wayward” priest/presbyters who did precisely what “Pope Francis” is codifying in the conciliar code of canon law.

What about Ratzinger/Benedict’s “reform of the reform”?

Well, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been telling us for some time that this is not going to happen, including when he said the following in 2015:

However, some excerpts of the Pope's discourse were released thanks in part to several priests who spoke to the press following the meeting. Some even managed to record the Pope's words. In addition to several phrases reported by a few Italian news agencies this morning, the 78 year old Pontiff touched upon the theme, for example, on the "traditional rite" with which Benedict XVI granted to celebrate Mass. Through the Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum, published in 2007, the now Pope Emeritus allowed the possibility of celebrating the Mass according the liturgical books edited by John XXIII in 1962, notwithstanding that the "ordinary" form of celebration in the Catholic Church would always remain that established by Paul VI in 1970.

Pope Francis explained that this gesture by his predecessor, "a man of communion", was meant to offer "a courageous hand to Lefebvrians and traditionalists", as well as to those who wished to celebrate the Mass according to the ancient rites. The so-called "Tridentine" Mass – the Pope said – is an "extraordinary form of the Roman Rite", one that was approved following the Second Vatican Council. Thus, it is not deemed a distinct rite, but rather a "different form of the same right". (sic)

However, the Pope noted that there are priests and bishops who speak of a "reform of the reform." Some of them are "saints" and speak "in good faith." But this "is mistaken", the Holy Father said. He then referred to the case of some bishops who accepted "traditionalist" seminarians who were kicked out of other dioceses, without finding out information on them, because "they presented themselves very well, very devout." They were then ordained, but these were later revealed to have "psychological and moral problems."

It is not a practice, but it "happens often" in these environments, the Pope stressed, and to ordain these types of seminarians is like placing a "mortgage on the Church." The underlying problem is that some bishops are sometimes overwhelmed by "the need for new priests in the diocese." Therefore, an adequate discernment among candidates is not made, among whom some can hide certain "imbalances" that are then manifested in liturgies. In fact, the Congregation of Bishops – the Pontiff went on to say – had to intervene with three bishops on three of these cases, although they didn't occur in Italy.

During the beginning of his address, Francis, spoke on homiletics and the Ars celebrandi, calling on the priests to not fall into the temptation of wanting to be a "showman" on the pulpit, perhaps even by speaking in a "sophisticated manner" or "overt gestures."

However, priests shouldn't also be "boring" to the point that people "will go outside to smoke a cigarette" during the homily. (Jorge Holds Two Hour Meeting with Roman Clergy.)

This what Bergoglio said in his address to the Italian Liturgical Council on Thursday, August 31, 2017, the Feast of Saint Bartholomew:

And there is still work to do today in this direction, in particular, rediscovering the reasons for the decisions taken with the liturgical reform, surmounting unfounded and superficial readings, partial reception and practices that disfigure it. It’s not about rethinking the reform by looking again at the choices, but of knowing better the underlying reasons, also through historical documentation, as well as to internalize the inspirational principles and observing the discipline that regulate it. After this magisterium, after this long journey we can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible. (Jorge's Intellectually Dishonest Defense of the Indefensible.)

So much for the following hope of his predecessor, “Pope Benedict XVI,” as expressed in his explanatory letter on Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007:

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

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's belief in a "reform of the reform" that was designed to merge the "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the "one Roman Rite" into one synthetic whole over the course of time is now a thing of the past. Gone. And this is one of the clearest reasons why Bergoglio revised the conciliar code of canon law with his recent motu proprio, Magnum Principium.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is using the "Petrine Ministry" to reintroduce the world to those wonderful, heady days of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI as expressed in the latter's January 13, 1965, general audience address. Bergoglo is thus using his own bully pulpit as the alleged "Bishop of Rome," which is all he considers himself to be (and he is NOT even that in actual truth), to let it be know nthat his liturgical "style," such as it is, is to be followed worldwide without fear of any kind of "papal" disapproval. Indeed, the “pope” encourages innovation and experimentation.

Third, Bergoglio is using his revision of the conciliar code of canon law to devolve liturgical decision-making to the local level in order to open up the possibility of even more “radical” adaptations at the local level in full accord with the following provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963:

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.

40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963.)

Bergoglio has now dispensed with the qualifications offered in paragraphs 22 and 40.1, thus binding the conciliar Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to grant pro forma recognition of whatever changes and adaptations are approved by “episcopal” conferences that even goes beyond the wide atitude found in paragraphs 395-399 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

395. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare requires variations and more thoroughgoing adaptations in order that the sacred celebration respond to the culture and traditions of the different peoples, then Bishops' Conferences may propose such to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the latter's consent, especially in the case of peoples to whom the Gospel has been more recently proclaimed. The special norms given in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation should be carefully observed.

Regarding procedures to be followed in this matter, the following should be followed:

In the first place, a detailed preliminary proposal should be set before the Apostolic See, so that, after the necessary faculty has been granted, the detailed working out of the individual points of adaptation may proceed.

Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops' Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision. (General Instruction to the Roman Missal.)

This calls to mind what a conciliar presbyter said to me when riding from Emmaus, Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's liturgical extravaganza at Logan Circle there on Thursday, October 4, 1979, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi, as he envisioned a day where "Rome was nothing more than a clearinghouse for the ideas and liturgies developed at the local level." I found this idea to preposterous at the time, telling the man that this would never happen. 

Guess what?

It’s happening now as Bergoglio’s makes what has been up to this time a de facto devolution of decision-making on many matters pertaining to the Faith de jure (a matter of law).

This leads to the Fourth observation, namely, that the new motu proprio, Magnum Principium, is designed to end all of the translation wars that have taken place within conciliar “episcopal” conferences and between those conferences and the conciliar Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In other words, it’s free for all time.

Consider, if only for a moment or forty, the unprecedent history of conflict generated by having what is said to be the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church staged in living languages.

Numerous pitched battles were fought by "conservative" "bishops" and various priests/presbyters and laymen in the 1970s and 1980s to assure "proper" translations of Latin edtio typica to the English as it was as early as the late-1970s that some of the American "bishops," working in conjunction with the ultra-progressive revolutionary apparatchiks who served as consultants to ICEL

Memorably, the late "Bishop" Austin Vaughan, an auxiliary of the Archdiocese of New York, a truly humble and scholarly priest who worked very hard to maintain the Catholic Faith in the conciliar structures, rose to the floor at the November 1979 meeting of then-named "National Conference of Catholic Bishops" (hereinafter referred to as the NCCB) to protest the demands being made by others, many of whom at that point were indeed true bishops, for "gender-inclusive" language. Although written after his death on June 25, 2000, at a time I was still under the misapprehension that the counterfeit church of conciliarism was the Catholic Church, the following description of "Bishop" Vaughan's intervention at the NCCB meeting provides a glimpse into the pitched battles that were fought on the matter of the "proper" translation of the atrocity that has been the singular instrument of perdition in catechizing Catholics to accept the apostate ways of conciliarism, the Novus Ordo

Humble though he was, however, Bishop Vaughan was also a man of abiding courage. Without any degree of bitterness or sarcasm, he would use his interventions during the annual meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to stand foursquare in behalf of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical reverence. He was a thorn in the side of those intent on making the Mass their ideological plaything. At a time in 1979 when the bishops and the International Committee for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) were pushing for all types of “gender-neutral language,” Bishop Vaughan reminded his brother bishops that there were more than 1,100 errors in translation from the Latin Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI found in the English Sacramentary. Many of his brother bishops just gnashed their teeth as he quietly and calmly spelled out how the faith was being eviscerated by real revolutionaries. (A True Friend of Our Lord and Our Lady.)

The vote taken by the conciliar "bishops" in 1979 paved the way for the "bishop" members of ICEL to petition the conciliar Vatican to approve their proposed change of the words "pro multis," which had been mistranslated originally by ICEL as "for all men," in the four "Eucharistic prayers" to "pro omnibus," "for all," which was considered to be "gender inclusive." The Vatican gave approval for this change in the Fall of 1981 when I was studying at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, while on leave from teaching at Nassau Community College.

The whooping and hollering was noticeable in the hallways of that once venerable seminary when word arrived that "Rome" had approved the "gender inclusive" change. Although other ICEL-proposed changes were rejected at the same time, the elimination of the word "man," in the various "Eucharistic Prayers" was deemed to be a major victory. Such are the problems created by living languages and by the heightened sensitivities of those who are concerned about their own feelings and sense of earthly empowerment. It was not too long thereafter, however, that the word "man" was blacked out in the missalettes in the chapel at Mount Saint Mary's, reminiscent of how a Ruthenian Rite Catholic Church, Saint Andrew's in Westbury, Long Island, had blacked out the words "and the Son" in the Filioque of the Nicene Creed (a phenomenon in Uniat Rite churches that had the full approval of “Saint John Paul II.”

Battles continued raging into the 1990s as the ideologues who worked and served as consultants to ICEL, egged on by many in the American conciliar "episcopate" and by their feminist minders in the older communities of consecrated religious, pushed and pushed and the pushed the envelope to snowball the "conservatives" into accepting various changes designed to create a totally "gender inclusive" liturgy, including in the ordinary of the Novus Ordo Sacramentary and in the conciliar rite for presbyteral installation. Believe me, I was eyewitness to the proceedings at the NCCB meeting in Washington, District of Columbia, in November of 1993 as a correspondent for The Wanderer.

My work for The Wanderer and as a covert aide to a conciliar "bishop" who was working with prominent "conservative" priests to stop the "avalanche" of ICEL's propagandizing, gave me an opportunity to work in a more formal way with very prominent "conservative" priests to keep those "gender inclusive" translations from making their way into the texts of the Collects in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. There was even a little bit of a victory at the annual meeting of the then named National Conference of Catholic "Bishops" in 1993 as some "conservative" 'bishops" stood their ground against a set of translations that was being foisted upon the entire body of "bishops" by the apparatchiks in the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, whose longtime executive secretary, Dr. John Page, had been interviewed by me just a short time before that 'bishops'" meeting.

The following report, written by a "conservative" presbyter in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, summarized some of the complex history of ICEL's relentless efforts to get the conciliar Vatican to "hold the line" on the ideologues' "abuses." The report contained the remarkable back-hand admission by "Bishop" Anthony Bosco that the American conciliar "bishops" should stop arguing about the "translations" as "Rome" would serve as a "safeguard" against any doctrinal "hanky panky" on the part of ICEL: 

The decade of the 1990s saw ICEL in a flurry of translation and revision. The most significant ICEL project was the revised ICEL Sacramentary. This is ICEL's first major revision of the translation of the Latin Roman Missal since 1973. The Sacramentary is the book of prayers used by the priest to celebrate Mass. ICEL expected its Sacramentary to be routinely confirmed by the Vatican in 1994 after an anticipated quick approval by the American (and other English-speaking) bishops.

But at their November 1993 plenary meeting, the American bishops delayed the approval process up to three years when they rejected the first segment of the new ICEL Sacramentary. That action set back the work of ICEL for several years. A year later, during the November 1994 meeting of American bishops, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie— then the chairman of the bishops' Committee on Liturgy—admitted that instead of producing a revised Sacramentary in 1994 as originally planned, ICEL now envisioned a 1998 release as more likely. Even that estimate proved optimistic.

The texts for the revised Sacramentary —eventually released in eight segments, along with certain ancillary texts—were finally approved by the American bishops in 1997, after an exhausting and confusing review process. The Vatican received the texts in 1998. It remains uncertain if and when these texts will be confirmed. The National Catholic Reporter is probably correct in reporting (in a December 24, 1999 article) that, "most observers doubt [the ICEL Sacramentary] will be approved without significant revision."

Revisions by the Vatican—significant or not—were certainly expected by some of the bishops. At the November 1994 plenary meeting of bishops, Bishop Anthony G. Bosco of Greensburg, tried to allay any fears among his brother bishops by suggesting that questions of orthodoxy in the translated texts would be ultimately resolved by the Holy See. He predicted that the Holy See would review the texts with a "fine sieve." He suggested, therefore, that the bishops not continue the "debate on taste" with respect to the translations.

In a September 20, 1997 letter to Bishop Anthony M. Pilla, who was then the president of the NCCB, the then-Archbishop Medina indicated that ICEL's revised Rites of Ordination "cannot be approved or confirmed by the Holy See for liturgical use." Archbishop Medina wrote that the texts of the Rites of Ordination would not be confirmed "not only by reason of its failure to adhere faithfully" to the Latin original "and to convey accurately in English its contents, but also because the translation is not without doctrinal problems." Archbishop Medina observed that because "the shortcomings are so diffused . . . minor isolated corrections will not suffice."

The ICEL translation of the Rites of Ordination is a translation project separate and distinct from the ICEL Sacramentary. For reasons that have never been revealed, the former translation was never approved by the body of the American bishops. Had it been confirmed by the Vatican without that approval from the US bishops' conference, a precedent would have been set that would obviously have influenced the confirmation process for the revised ICEL Sacramentary. (War of the Words: ICEL Called to Accountability.)

Look at all of this insanity, which I thought prior to 1994 actually meant "something" good was happening. Karol Josef Wojytyla/John Paul II’s decision to to permit altar girls in April of 1994 drove me away from such battles, which is why I did not attend the 1994 meeting of the NCCB as I had had quite enough, concluding that the Novus Ordo was, although valid, something that I realized later it was not, was irredeemable.

What is truly laughable about the information "Father" Jerry Pokorsky, whose heart was certainly in the right place, provided in his article was that it documents unintentionally the argument against a liturgy in a living language. None of this madness was known before in the history of the Catholic Church. None of it.

There were no "episcopal conferences" and multi-national commissions to deal with "translations" of the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V, who made that missal mandatory in 1570 to standardize the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition so as to avoid the minor regional differences that had arisen over time and to eliminate any possibility that some of the "innovations" that some bishops had authorized prior to the Council of Trent to "respond" to the "spirit" of the Protestant Revolution of being a permanent feature in the liturgical life of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

The mammoth efforts to translate and re-translate and to revise and revise yet again the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service have engendered confusion in the ranks of the conciliar "episcopate," "presbyterate" and laity that would have absolutely unimaginable even as late as the 1950s as Catholic Worship is an expression of the Catholic Faith, which unites men around the altar of sacrifice, not confuses and divides them over which "translation" from the Latin editio typica to the vernacular is "kosher," shall we say.

Perhaps most to the point is the simple fact that all of the conflict and controversy engendered and all of the efforts expended to understand "what the prayer really says" is absurd on its face as the Latin editio typica and the conciliar rites of "episcopal consecration" and "priestly ordination" themselves are invalid and contains prayers that have been influenced by various Protestant and Judeo-Masonic currents. The then-Archbishop Medina's concern for the doctrinal validity of the proposed ICEL translation of the conciliar rite of "priestly ordination" is itself sadly ironic as the Latin original itself is invalid on its face.

The Novus Ordo's ideology is anthropocentric (man-centered), not Christocentric. The liturgical revolutionary, "Archbishop" Piero Marini, a direct acolyte of the Freemason Annibale Bugnini, C.M., has been telling us for decades that we have not yet seen the full "fruit" of the "renewal" contained within the hideous liturgical service that he helped to write and whose implementation he sought to implement in the most scandalous expansive manner possible, especially as he planned and executed the outdoor extravaganza liturgies at which Wojtyla/John Paul II presided between October 16, 1978, and April 1 (or 2, depending on when he actually died), 2005:

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

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

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

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

When did Piero Marini say this?

Well, it wasn't fifty years ago. It was in Erie, Pennsylvania, during a conference of liturgical revolutionaries that was held between October 7 and 12, 2014. And guess who thinks very highly of Marini, who now serves as the president of the conciliar committee on pretended Eucharistic Congresses and served as the master of ceremonies for Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, , from 1987 to 2007?

That's right.

You got.

None other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who praised the "bishop" members of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy on Friday, October 18, 2013, the Feast of Saint Luke, for their "exemplary" work in making the liturgy more "accessible" to the "people" to afford them a life of "full, active and conscious participation" the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service: 

I welcome the members and staff of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy as you gather in Rome to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Commission’s establishment. I thank Archbishop Arthur Roche, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and a former President of ICEL, for presenting you. Through you, I send greetings and the expression of my gratitude to the Conferences of Bishops which you represent, and to the consultors and personnel who cooperate in the ongoing work of the Commission.

Founded as part of the implementation of the great liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Divine Liturgy, ICEL was also one of the signs of the spirit of episcopal collegiality which found expression in the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, 22-25). The present anniversary is an occasion for giving thanks for the work which the Commission has accomplished over the past fifty years in providing English translations of the texts of the liturgy, but also in advancing the study, understanding and appropriation of the Church’s rich sacramental and euchological tradition. The work of the Commission has also contributed significantly to that conscious, active and devout participation called for by the Council, a participation which, as Pope Benedict XVI has rightly reminded us, needs to be understood ever more deeply “on the basis of a greater awareness of the mystery being celebrated and its relation to daily life” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 52). The fruits of your labours have not only helped to form the prayer of countless Catholics, but have also contributed to the understanding of the faith, the exercise of the common priesthood and the renewal of the Church’s missionary outreach, all themes central to the teaching of the Council. Indeed, as Blessed John Paul II pointed out, “for many people, the message of the Second Vatican Council was perceived principally through the liturgical reform” (Vicesimus quintus annus, 12).

Dear friends, last evening you celebrated a solemn Mass of thanksgiving at the tomb of Saint Peter, beneath the great inscription which reads: Hinc una fides mundo refulget; hinc unitas sacerdotii exoritur. By enabling the vast numbers of the Catholic faithful throughout the world to pray in a common language, your Commission has helped to foster the Church’s unity in faith and sacramental communion. That unity and communion, which has its origin in the Blessed Trinity, is one which constantly reconciles and enhances the richness of diversity. May your continuing efforts help to realize ever more fully the hope expressed by Pope Paul VI in promulgating the Roman Missal: that “in the great diversity of languages, a single prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our high priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit”.

To you, and to all associated with the work of the Commission, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of abiding joy and peace in the Lord. (Pope meets with International Commission on English in the Liturgy.)

In other words, all the pitched battles fought to prevent the International Commission in the Liturgy from mistranslating and/or creating "alternative" prayers based on a "sense" of the "spirit" of the Sunday readings or of a particular feast day have been for naught. Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not really care "what the prayer says" as long as there is a "sense" of permitting the people to "feel at home" and to be fully "active and conscious" participants in the "renewed liturgy," which is to say that Catholics had been inactive and unconscious passive bystanders for oh, well, let me see, yes, that's right, around nineteen centuries.

It's time for all of those, including those associated with Catholics United for the Faith, and those who "blog" for semi-traditional websites to shut up, Bergoglio is saying now with Magnum Prinicpium. He's got ICEL's back, and he’s got the backs of all other “episcopal conferences” throughout the world. It’s time to stop writing all those “respectful” letters to Rome to stop “liturgical abuses” as the Novus Ordo, which is the abuse par excellence, has been “emancipated” from any further “constraints” that might be placed upon it by “restorationist” fuddy-duddies in the Vatican dicasteries.

This calls to mind the following comments, made by "Bishop" Wilton Gregory, a direct acolyte of the then President of the National Conference of Catholic "Bishops," Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin, a friend of all things lavender, and now the conciliar "archbishop" of Atlanta, Georgia, in response to the objection of some "conservative" "bishops" in 1993. Gregory’s remarks twenty-four years ago reflect the mind of the current universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, with great exactitude:

Bishop Anthony Bosco [Greensburg; member, Committees on Women in Society and in the Church, Pastoral Practices and Administrative Committee; recently appointed a member of the BCL]: Bishop Gregory, each year I look forward to seeing which of our agenda items is going to generate the most mail and thus enrich the U.S. Postal Service. The winner by far this year was inclusive language, obviously generated, since most of the letters said the same thing, but included also- and I'm sure I'm not the only bishop that received this - was a critique of the English translation of Comme le prévoit. That about exhausts my French right there. [laughter] And since I don't know what the provenance of that was there is some question as to whether there was some malice in it, some manipulation, that it was a poor translation of the French and consequently misled those of us who are not fluent in French. 

Would you have anything to say about the origin of our English translation and whether it deserves the disdain that it has provoked? 

Bishop Gregory: Bishop Bosco, I am aware of the questions regarding the translation. May it suffice to say that the translation was 'indeed prepared by ICEL but it was submitted as a draft translation to the Concilium which did not accept uncritically the draft that it received and made corrections in that draft and issued it in its own name. 

But the concern that some have regarding the translation might properly be addressed to the Concilium rather than to ICEL since the Concilium made adjustments - perhaps some would consider not enough adjustments - but the Concilium did issue the text as we have it in English as a legitimate translation.  

Much beyond that, Bishop, I cannot say, but I think part of the difficulty was that some people were saying that the Concilium really had nothing to do with this translation, that it simply received it and in an uncritical manner issued it, and there are documents which would argue against that. Whether they would convince those parties who have trouble with the translation, of its accuracy or validity, it is de facto a document from the Holy See. 

[Note: Concilium was an agency created to implement the Vatican II constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum conciliumand was eventually absorbed into the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments. Members of ICEL who were also Concilium members provided the English translation of Comme le prévoit. ed.

Archbishop Keeler: Thank you. Before I recognize the next speaker, I've received a bulletin amending the amended deadline for amendments. It will now be not twelve noon but 12:30 [laughter] for those who are rushing in with amendments to liturgical documents. Bishop Weigand, a question for clarification. 

Bishop William Weigand [Salt Lake City, member Adm. Committee. Now Bishop of Sacramento.]: Bishop Gregory, I don't relish the prospect of comment and debate on every one of these prayers when we later get to that point, but could you help those of us who are not at all experts on translation to understand the philosophy behind it? Are these generally literal translations or a more fluid kind of translation and, depending on that - at least if you think there's going to be outlandish discussion later - wouldn't it be better to get a sense of the body about those two ways of translating? 

Bishop Gregory: Bishop Weigand, I would like to separate in the first segment two types of prayers. 

The first type are the prayers that are translated from the Latin. The guiding principles that ICEL has followed are those that are enunciated in your green book and are in conformity with Comme le prévoit and other documents from the Holy See regarding the translation of Latin. I guess the operative word is "literal," since a number of bishops and individuals believe that literal means an absolute word-by-word even word order conformity with the Latin. 

The principles that Comme le prévoit outlined is that that type of literal translation is not required, that what is more important is that the truth of the prayer in Latin be rendered in a suitable, knowable way in the modem language.  

It also means that in those translations from the Latin it might be possible to amplify and enrich them, so for those who are looking for an absolute literal translation, the difficulty, perhaps, is not so much with this text as with some of the guiding principles in Comme le prévoit. 

The second type of prayers are the newly composed prayers that are original English composition and those prayers are written to reflect- or at least allude to - the scripture readings of the Sundays on which they are assigned and thus they sometimes make reference to the Gospel or one of the readings in an oblique fashion. They are new compositions; they are not translations from Latin. So you really have to look at it from those two different vantage points. (NCCB Debate on Liturgical Revisions. I attended this entire meeting, sitting in the press section next to a true Jesuit scholar and journalist on side and a "conservative" presbyter on the other. Reading through the transcript once again called to mind everything about that meeting, which I thought at the time represented "progress" when it was a mere shifting of the deck chairs on the Titanic that was doomed to be sunk sooner or later.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Magnum Principium  has now mooted all past arguments that occupied the time of the conciliar "bishops" so needlessly as they got lost in the trees of forest of apostasy and sacrilege without realizing that everything they were arguing about is the exact result of papal condemnations of rendering the liturgy of the Roman Rite into the vernacular rather than be content with a dead language whose precision safeguards the transmission of the Holy Faith with doctrinal soundness and whose grandeur provides a sense of the mysterium tremendum that is conveyed in the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's sacrificial offering of Himself to His Co-Eternal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.

Here is what Pope Pius VI had to say about the illegal Synod of Pistoia's efforts to encourage liturgies in the vernacular: 

33. The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, "by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

Moreover, Pope Pius VI also condemned prophetically Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s rejection of saying a prescribed number of prayers that the conciliar "pontiff" has mocked as "Pelagianism" when it is pure and simple Catholicism: 

The doctrine which notes as universally superstitious "any efficacy which is placed in a fixed number of prayers and of pious salutations"; as if one should consider as superstitious the efficacy which is derived not from the number viewed in itself, but from the prescript of the Church appointing a certain number of prayers or of external acts for obtaining indulgences, for fulfilling penances and, in general, for the performance of sacred and religious worship in the correct order and due form,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, injurious to the piety of the faithful, derogatory to the authority of the Church, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

Pope Pius XII also noted the importance of Latin as a means to preserve the integrity of the doctrine of the Holy Faith in the Sacred Liturgy: 

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

Behold the paralysis and weakening of the "process of sanctification" wrought by the liturgical revolution that likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Piero Marini believe have not even begun to unfold its "matrix of reform."

By issuing Magnum Principium, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has also made entirely irrelevant each of the following conciliar documents that were issued to try to correct "abuses" in the implementation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and/or designed to "finalize" the process of rendering that hideous liturgy's Latin editio typica into the vernacular: Inter Oecumenici, Ecclesiae Semper, Comme le Prevoit, Eucharisticum Mysterium, Memoriale Domini. Actio Pastoralis Ecclesiae, Cenam Paschalem, Liturgiae InstataurartionesCongerentiarum Episcopalium, Dominicae Cenae, Inaestimabile Donum, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Sacramentum Caritatis, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Liturgiam Authenticam

Liturgiam Authenticam was issued on March 28, 2001, and was supposed to stop "abuses" engendered by ICEL's ideologically-laden translations and original composition, resulting in an entirely re-translated English version of the third edition of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo missal. The re-translated text was implemented on the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011, and was criticized by ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries as being "too traditional" and thus "clumsy" rather than "conversational." The re-translation of the English text of the conciliar liturgical abomination represented Ratzinger/Benedict’s desire to make the staging of the conciliar service "more reverent and devout." It is, however, impossible to make something that is sacramentally invalid on its face and a sacrilege in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity no matter how one attempts to "dress it up," to use a phrase invoked frequently by a conciliar presbyter once in my acquaintance.

Bergoglio has no use for such documents as Liturgiam Authenticam. He has authenticated "papally" the Piero Marini "matrix of reform" paradigm that served as the principal guiding force for those who worked as members and consultants of ICEL and other such groups and that guided the “pontifical” celebrations of two conciliar “popes” for two decades.

Indeed, Dr. John Page, the Executive Director of ICEL from 1980 to 2002, told me in an extensive interview that I conducted with him for The Wanderer in ICEL's Washington, D.C., headquarters in 1993, just prior to the NCCB meeting that year, that he believed it was the job of ICEL to "push the liturgy into the Twenty-first Century." He did not give me a direct answer when I asked him if there were "scholars," many of whom were arch-feminists, male and female alike, in the employ of ICEL who supported contraception or surgical abortion or who believed in women's ordination as part of "pushing the liturgy" into the then upcoming century. John Page had the full support of the then episcopal head of ICEL, "Archbishop" Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, and of many other leading American "bishops" in the conciliar church. The retired Dr. Page, who was very sincerely committed to ICEL's program of "pushing the liturgy into the Twenty-first Century," has now lived long enough to see his work vindicated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s change of the conciliar code of canon law announced in Magnum Principium.

Those who continue to fight for "reverence" in a liturgical abomination ought to realize that they are Still Hunkered Down In Mindanao as it's liturgical "free-for-all" time in the counterfeit church of conciliarism courtesy of the full "papal" support provided for an  “emancipated liturgical style” as part of the conciliar sect’s code of canon law.

None of this should come as any kind of surprise as to believe in evolution of doctrine and liturgy, whether it was justified by Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition or by Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” results in impermanence and instability as a norm in the life of every false church, including the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Lost in all of the argumentation that has gone on since the issuance of Sacrosanctum Concilium on December 4, 1963, by the "Second" Vatican Council is that the conciliar the front-line revolutionaries who planned the abomination that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service boasted of their plans to create a "Mass" stripped of Catholic elements that would be "liked" by Protestants.

Douglas Horton, a Protestant observer at the "Second" Vatican Council who wrote a four-volume diary of that council's sessions, explained his hope for a Catholic liturgy that was able to speak to the times, a goal that has worked so well in "mainstream" Protestant sects that most of them on the verge of absolute extinction, something that is practically the case with the false religion of conciliarism in once proudly Catholic Europe. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Horton's diaries:

Some of the fathers are grandly radical. "Reformation is not only desirable but necessary." Today's mind is not that of the sixteenth century, and therefore a liturgy to reach the people with the unchanging truth of Christ should not be exactly like that of the sixteenth century." Uniformity when not needed contradicts the very nature of the church." We have pomp and ceremony: we should take out the pomp--and the ceremonies should be made more understandable." "Better say one word in a known language than a thousand words in an unknown one—a sentiment which suggested that the council should be at least as radical as St. Paul. . . .

It has just come over me that the most striking and memorable rite of all to be seen here in St. Peter's would be the celebration of the Lord's Supper as we know it in our local village church in New Hampshire, and as it is well known in hundreds of thousands of Protestant communities where Puritan simplicity is the norm. Imagine, at the head of the nave in the mighty cathedral, a table such as might be found in any home in the neighborhood, a minister inviting to it the entire Christian community gathered at the church, the same and bread and cup being used (whether wine or grape juice) as are used in everyday life, the words of the service being in the mother tongue of the worshipers, the living Christ present, his Spirit pervading all--this, in my mind, would be an exciting event for the old basilica. (But I should add that I expect to wait a few generations before the sons of Rome agree with me.) (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1962: A Protestant Observes the First Session of Vatican Council II, pp: 45; 118.)

Mr. Horton did not have to wait generations for his "dream" to come true. His dream was shared by the man who became the conciliar "pontiff" in 1963, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI: 

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)

Behold the fulfillment of Mr. Horton's "dream," which has become a nightmare that was unimaginable fifty-nine years ago upon the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958.

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service has bred disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord ad Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament and has countenanced disrespect and familiarity with what purports to be His Eucharistic Species as part and parcel of its very perverse nature. 

Contempt for the sacrificial nature of the priesthood and the Mass has been bred by having the celebrant, whether validly ordained or not, of the Novus Ordo service face the people, a novelty that was introduced by Protestantism and made its appearance in any number of "Mass of the Future" celebrations that took place here and there prior to the altars being turned around in the 1960s as the focus of Catholics was no longer on the priest as an alter Christus but as a "presider" who gawked at them as they gawked at him and noted his own "individual" style of "presiding" during the "liturgy."

Contempt for the distinctive nature of the ordained priest as a sacerdos, not the "presider" of a service, has been bred by the removal of the altar rail in most conciliar-occupied Catholic churches, thereby obliterating the distinction between the sacerdotal nature of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the faithful that each Catholic has by virtue of his Baptism.

The removal of the altar rail has also obliterated the distinction between time and eternity that is supposed to be represented, respectively, by the nave of a Catholic church and the sanctuary. Holy Mass, although at a particular time and in a particular place by a particular priest, is the unbloody re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. It is at one and the same time Calvary and a foretaste of the eternal glories of Heaven. The very architecture of a Catholic church is supposed to signify this distinction. The removal of the altar rail--and the introduction of the time-bound vernacular languages, which are subject to change and ideological manipulation--have combined to make of what purports to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a culture-conditioned "celebration" that celebrates the here-and-now, not the transcendent mystery of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The invasion of the sanctuary by lay people to fulfill all manner of roles has further obliterated the distinction between the sacerdotal priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the faithful by which we, by means of our prayers and sacrifices and sufferings and mortifications and penances, help to sanctify our own daily life and the world by uniting  our prayers and offerings to those of the alter Christus in the Mass. The priest has thus been reduced to a mere (and apparent) "sacramental machine" who is to sit during most the "Mass" as the lay people read and sing and serve at the altar.

Disbelief  in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Eucharist has been bred by mandating, at least in most instances in most places around the conciliar world, that the faithful stand for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion, signaling that they are but the equal of the One they believe they are receiving in "Holy Communion."

This disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist has been hastened further by the "permission" granted by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI in 1977 for the reception of what purports to be "Holy Communion" in the hand, thereby making it appear once again as though we are not dumb sheep who need to be fed on the tongue by our shepherds, that we are capable of "feeding ourselves" with our unconsecrated hands.

The proliferation of "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" (otherwise known as "Eucharistic Ministers") has added to the confusion of roles between the laity and the putative clergy while it has led to numerous, repeated instances of allegedly consecrated "hosts" falling to the ground and spillage of what purports to be the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer onto clothing and the floor.

Little needs to be mentioned concerning the decorum of many of the faithful, the immodesty of attire, the endless talking in church before, during and after the "service," the banal and sometimes most offensive "music" that enshrines the false spirit of the world and reaffirms the faithful in their essential "goodness" (which coincides with the General Instruction to the Roman Missal's contention in Paragraph 15 that "outward signs of penance belong to another age in the history of the Church"), and the disgraceful conduct of many of the "presiders" during Novus Ordo services.

Alas, it would be useful to note once again that of all of the egregious elements of the "liturgical reform" effected by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath, the elimination of the universal language of the Church, Latin, has resulted not in a "greater understanding" of the Mass, as was expected by the fathers of the "council," but in a contempt for the Mass and a loss of the sacred, the mysterious and the transcendent. Latin expresses the universality and immutability of the Faith, lifting our spirits above the time bound constraints of the moment to God, Who lives outside of time and space.

The incredible arrogance of "modern man," which asserted that Latin made the Mass "inaccessible" to the people, helped to create a false "memory" of the past that sought to wipe out the truth that hundreds of millions of illiterate peasants over the centuries knew the Mass very well, being immersed in its glories from the time that they were in their mothers' wombs. One can behold the rotten fruit of such arrogance in a local conciliar parish, where very few people even care to genuflect as they dress immodestly and congregate to speak loudly right in front of where the Blessed Sacrament is supposed to be reposed, no less in such spectacles that have taken place at the theatrical farces represented by the outdoor "liturgies" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself.

A true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can never disturb our peace. A true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is, of course, the unbloody re-presentation of God the Son's Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. The Twenty-second Session of the Council of Trent made this abundantly clear with the following pronouncement on September 17, 1562, four hundred years, twenty-four days before the opening of the "Second" Vatican Council by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, on October 11, 1962, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio may have “codified” the “spirit” of the conciliar sect’s liturgical revolution by means of Magnum Principium, but that codification has no standing in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity. It is time for those who have reluctant to accept this as being true to examine the situation in a dispassionate search for the truth as they consider the following question: Can the Catholic Church ever approve of a liturgy that proves to be an incentive to impiety?

All right, here is a second question: Did the Catholic Church ever do so prior to the “Second” Vatican Council and its aftermath?

Well, the hour is very late, and this article, which will read in its entirety probably by ten to twenty people, needs to come to an end.

Let us keep Our Lady of Dolors company today by praying the Rosary of her Seven Dolors in addition to the Sorrowful Mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary, seeking, as the consecrated slave of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to make reparation for our own many sins and those of the whole world with ever beat of our heats, consecrated as they must be to the twin, matchless hearts that beat in unison for love of us erring sinners, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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


Saint Nicomedes, pray for us,