Jorge Mario Bergoglio Has a Burning Hatred for Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals

It is no secret whatsoever that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has a burning hatred for Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals, which is the reason he wants to stamp out almost all offerings/stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that reflect the anti-liturgical Jansenism of the Sillonist and Rosicrucian Mason named Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII.

The reason behind the hatred that the conciliar revolutionaries have for the Immemorial Memorial Mass of Tradition is that it reflects the permanence, order, and transcendence of the Most Blessed Trinity and is thus Christocentric, not anthropocentric. The false religion of the conciliar sect is premise upon dogmatic, liturgical, moral, Scriptural, and pastoral evolutionism as it glorifies man and revels in disorder, chaos, impermanence, and, at times, sacrilegious ugliness.

The late Monsignor Klaus Kamber, who was not a traditionalist and was in favor of what would later become know as the “reform of the reform,” explain the hatred of the conciliar revolutionaries for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as follows:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)

Monsignor Klaus Gamber was not an ideologue. He was a honest liturgical scholar who saw the harm represented by the Novus Ordo and saw it as his duty to point out the simple fact that it was based upon a rejection of the Catholic Faith, which is why Jorge Mario Bergoglio seems to be hellbent on stopping the movement of young people what they believe to be the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as he cannot abide yet another generation of young Catholics within his conciliar structures having what he thinks is an “attachment to the past” rather than an acceptance of the “reformed liturgy” as responsive to the “promptings of the “holy spirit,” who blows with the wind and accommodates Faith, Worship, and Morals to the alleged “needs” of times:

OVIEDO, Spain (LifeSiteNews) — A thriving traditional pilgrimage in Spain has been prohibited from holding its customary end of pilgrimage traditional Mass in the Marian shrine of Covadonga. 

In a July 6 social media post, organizers announced that the Vatican had intervened to restrict the Our Lady of Christendom traditional-Mass walking pilgrimage, which draws numerous young families despite being only in its fourth year in Spain.

letter from the pilgrimage organizers stated that “the Archbishopric of Oviedo has informed us that they have received instructions from the Dicastery for Divine Worship indicating the Traditional Latin Mass is not to be celebrated in Covadonga.”

As such, the Our Lady of Christendom pilgrimage schedule is to be reorganized: Mass on the third and final day of the pilgrimage will be offered at the campsite in the morning before pilgrims begin the day’s hike.

“This situation must not be a reason for us to be saddened,” wrote the organizers. “Instead, it should strengthen us in persevering in the love and devotion that we profess for the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar within the bosom of Holy Mother Church.”

Rather than being permitted to offer the traditional Mass at the ancient site of the Marian shrine of Covadonga – the culminating highlight of the pilgrimage – pilgrims will instead sing the Te Deum in front of the exposed Blessed Sacrament before making a consecration to Mary.

Now only in its fourth year, the Our Lady of Christendom pilgrimage is attracting a swiftly growing number of pilgrims, as evidenced in the 2023 group photo. It has attracted numerous young people, families and clergy, with pilgrims also beginning to come from outside Spain – very much in imitation of the famous Chartres pilgrimage.

Its aim, the organizers note, “is the sanctification of the soul through the graces asked [of] Our Lord, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by the offering of prayers, sacrifices and mortifications during three days. During these days of pilgrimage we especially commend our Homeland and the Holy Father.”

Modelled on the Chartres pilgrimage, which is centered around the traditional Mass, the Our Lady of Christendom pilgrimage places great emphasis on the Mass as the “basis of the Christian life.” The organizers write:

The Church has always taught that the Holy Liturgy is one of the ways by which the Good God communicates to us His Grace, that is, the Trinitarian Life itself; it also teaches us the truths of Revelation in a particularly admirable way (lex orandi, lex credendi), for it is inspired by the words and deeds of Our Savior. With this in mind, NSC-E wants to make known and loved the Mass celebrated according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, whose celebration was favored and recommended by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. {Emphasis original}

The news comes amidst increasing implementation of Traditionis Custodes and rumors of future, more severe restrictions on the ancient rite of the Mass. Nor is such a measure without precedent: last year the international Ad Petri Sedem (“To the Seat of Peter”) pilgrimage was, for the first time, prohibited from offering a traditional Mass in the Vatican upon order of the Vatican’s Archpriest Cardinal Mauro Gambetti. The cardinal was described as acting “due to a superior order.” (Vatican bans Latin Mass in Marian shrine for thriving Spanish walking pilgrimage.)

Admitting that the men who wanted to stage the Immemorial Mass of Tradition at the Shrine of Our Lady of Covadonga are not priests and that the Most Sacrament of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will not be truly present during the Te Deum that will be sung there, this sad episode demonstrates yet again the bitter, cruel heart that beats inside the chest of the crapulous Modernist from Buenos Aires, Argentina. This wretched little demon of a human being is intent on crushing the spirits of these fine young Catholic people as he does his dirty Jacobin work of eradicating all vestiges of the Catholic past and, if possible, from the hearts of innocent Catholics who of full of zeal for what they think are true offerings of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. These young Catholics trust in a “holy father” who is unholy and the father only of lies and sacrilege.

There are also well-meaning Catholics and non-Catholics in England who are appealing to the destroyer of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals, Jorge Mario Bergoglio to permit what they think are valid offerings of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to continue as has been the case since members, including the mystery writer Agatha Christie, of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, wrote to Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI in 1971 to ask him for an indult to continue having access to the true Mass, which at that time was offered by true priests.

Here is a news report about what is being called The Agatha Christie Letter 2.0:

The letter echoes the sentiments of the famous “Agatha Christie letter” of 1971, which was signed by leading cultural figures of that time and which persuaded Pope St Paul VI to grant an indult permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar rite in certain circumstances.

The new letter, published in The Times today, hails the ancient Mass as a valuable cultural artefact, “a cathedral of text and gesture” and an irreplaceable spiritual treasure, with a unique ability to “encourage silence and contemplation”.

It was organised by Scottish composer Sir James MacMillan, a patron of the Latin Mass Society, and signed also by Lord Moore of Etchington (Charles Moore), a fellow patron, former newspaper editor and a high-profile convert to the Catholic faith.

The letter says: “On July 6, 1971, The Times printed an appeal to Pope Paul VI in defence of the Latin Mass signed by Catholic and non-Catholic artists and writers, including Agatha Christie, Graham Greene and Yehudi Menuhin.

“This became known as the ‘Agatha Christie letter’ because it was reportedly her name that prompted the Pope to issue an indult, or permission, for celebration of the Latin Mass in England and Wales. The letter argued that ‘the rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired priceless achievements … by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture’.

“Recently there have been worrying reports from Rome that the Latin Mass is to be banished from nearly every Catholic church. This is a painful and confusing prospect, especially for the growing number of young Catholics whose faith has been nurtured by it. The traditional liturgy is a ‘cathedral’ of text and gesture, developing as those venerable buildings did over many centuries. Not everyone appreciates its value and that is fine; but to destroy it seems an unnecessary and insensitive act in a world where history can all too easily slip away forgotten. The old rite’s ability to encourage silence and contemplation is a treasure not easily replicated, and, when gone, impossible to reconstruct. This appeal, like its predecessor, is ‘entirely ecumenical and non-political’. The signatories include Catholics and non-Catholics, believers and non-believers. We implore the Holy See to reconsider any further restriction of access to this magnificent spiritual and cultural heritage.”

The letter was signed by Robert Agostinelli; Lord Alton of Liverpool; Lord Bailey of Paddington; Lord Bamford; Lord Berkeley of Knighton; Sophie Bevan; Ian Bostridge; Nina Campbell; Meghan Cassidy; Sir Nicholas Coleridge; Dame Imogen Cooper; Lord Fellowes of West Stafford; Sir Rocco Forte; Lady Antonia Fraser; Martin Fuller; Lady Getty; John Gilhooly; Dame Jane Glover; Michael Gove; Susan Hampshire; Lord Hesketh; Tom Holland; Sir Stephen Hough; Tristram Hunt; Steven Isserlis; Bianca Jagger; Igor Levit; Lord Lloyd-Webber; Julian Lloyd Webber; Dame Felicity Lott; Sir James MacMillan; Princess Michael of Kent; Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest; Lord Moore of Etchingham; Fraser Nelson; Alex Polizzi; Mishka Rushdie Momen; Sir Andras Schiff; Lord Skidelsky; Lord Smith of Finsbury; Sir Paul Smith; Rory Stewart; Lord Stirrup; Dame Kiri Te Kanawa; Dame Mitsuko Uchida; Ryan Wigglesworth; AN Wilson and Adam Zamoyski.

Sir James said: “The people who have signed this letter are an impressively mixed bunch – Catholics, Protestants, Jews, agnostics atheists, all convinced that the Traditional Latin Mass is a thing of great beauty, wonder and awe, and a profound shaper of our culture, one way or another over the centuries.

“I stand with them in my appreciation of the form – ‘a cathedral of text and gesture’, which has given rise to great music and poetry through the ages.

“But it is as an observant and loyally practising Catholic that I wrote my cover article for The Times. If Rome were to do what is rumoured, it would be grossly unjust and make an utter mockery of ‘synodality’.

“And many observers outside the Church, in these difficult days of ideological and political tension, see this now as an issue of religious freedom. It is surely a mark of diversity, inclusion and equity that the Church can celebrate different rites – the Old Dominican rite, the liturgy of the Ordinariate, the rites of our eastern co-religionists, the Novus Ordo and, God willing, the Traditional Latin Mass.”

The Agatha Christie letter of 1971 was signed by 105 intellectuals, musicians, politicians, and cultural figures.

They argued that the Latin Mass has “inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts – not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs”.

“Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians,” their letter said.

Signatories included the Controller of Radio 3, the Director of the National Gallery, a former Director of Music at Westminster Cathedral, two Anglican bishops, the philosopher Iris Murdoch, the sculptress Barbara Hepworth, the soprano Joan Sutherland, the novelist Robert Graves, and many others. An earlier petition, in 1966, had been signed by Benjamin Britten and W.H. Auden; a later petition, in 2007, was signed by Franco Zeffirelli and René Girard.

The permission granted by Pope St Paul for continued celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, using the 1962 Missal, was extended to the whole world in 1984 by Pope St John Paul II.

Restrictions were fully lifted by Summorum Pontificum, the 2007 motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, but were partially reimposed by Pope Francis Traditionis Custodes, his motu proprio of July 2021. 

Two further waves of restrictions followed, leading to bishops cancelling the Old Rite Mass in parish churches all over the world.

Last year, Pope Francis explained that the restrictions were necessary to prevent the Old Rite from being misused “in an ideological way”.

The Pontiff told a group of fellow Jesuits in Hungary that he was afraid of the rise of ideological “restorationism”, which he believed was a form of indietrismo, an Italian word meaning “backwardness”, agitating against the reforms of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s.

Francis said the trend toward restorationism also ran counter to the intentions of Pope St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI when they liberated the traditional form of the Latin Mass from restrictions imposed after the Council.

“Going backwards does not preserve life, ever,” he said. “The danger today is indietrismo, the reaction against the modern. It is a nostalgic disease.”

According to news sources, new restrictions are being planned because of the resistance in the Church to Traditionis Custodes and the rescripts, with young people in particular drawn in increasing numbers to Mass in the traditional rite, rendering the actions to suppress it effectively defunct.  (Leading British figures appeal for access to Latin Mass in echo of 'Agatha Christie Letter.)

This is a very noble effort on the part leading figures of British society to preserve that which they recognize to be a priceless treasure a “cathedral of text and gesture” that enables recollection and meditation.

However, these are the precise reasons that Jorge Mario Bergoglio hates Mass of the ages, which he considers to be a cold, fossilized museum of the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not God.

Not His Catholic Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This is what Saint Vincent of Lerins wrote about tradition:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio cannot accept this as he believes in a different faith. All vestiges of the Faith of our Fathers must be stamped out, therefore, which is why he authorized the former conciliar “archbishop” of Westminster, Arthur Roche, to attack the true Mass as follows six months after the issuance of Traditionis Custodes on July 16, 2024, the Commemoration of Our Lady of Mount Carmel:

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

Following the publication by Pope Francis of the Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” Traditionis custodes on the use of the liturgical books from prior to the reform of the Second Vatican Council, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which exercises the authority of the Apostolic See for material within its competence (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 7), received several requests for clarification on its correct application. Some questions have been raised from several quarters and with greater frequency. Therefore, after having carefully considered them, having informed the Holy Father and having received his assent, the responses to the most recurrent questions are published herewith.

The text of the Motu Proprio and the accompanying Letter to the Bishops of the whole world clearly express the reasons for the decisions taken by Pope Francis. The first aim is to continue “in the constant search for ecclesial communion” (Traditionis custodes, Preamble) which is expressed by recognising in the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite (cf. Traditionis custodes, n. 1). This is the direction in which we wish to move, and this is the meaning of the responses we publish here. Every prescribed norm has always the sole purpose of preserving the gift of ecclesial communion by walking together, with conviction of mind and heart, in the direction indicated by the Holy Father.

Interjection Number One:

“This is the direction in we wish to move.”

That is, those Catholics who are attached to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition within the conciliar structures as a refuge from the abomination of desolation that is the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service are being told in no uncertain terms that their days of refuge are numbered, that they are going to have to learn to “love” what is offensive to God, namely, a “worship” service that begins with the officiant greeting the people rather after making the Sign of the Cross rather than of praying Psalm 42 in preparation to ascend to the altar of God, to the God Who giveth joy unto my youth.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s predecessor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who lived longer than the Argentine Apostate expected to him to live and thus got tired of waiting for him to die so that he could revoke Summorum Pontificum, believed in the absurdity of “two forms of the one Roman Rite (Ordinary Form—the Novus Ordo—and the “Extraordinary Form”—the 1962 Missale Romanum of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, which was in effect for precisely three years before it was replaced by the Ordo Missae of Montini/Paul VI on Sunday, November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent). Ratzinger/Benedict further believed that the two forms were “mutually enriching” and he authorized a few of his surrogates to say that his eventual goal was the much vaunted “reform of the reform” in a new rite combining elements of the “ordinary” and the “extraordinary”:

From this point of view, then, the new prayer for the Jews in the liturgy in the ancient rite does not weaken, but postulates an enrichment of the meaning of the prayer in use in the modern rite. Exactly like in other cases, it is the modern rite that postulates an enriching evolution of the ancient rite. In a liturgy that is perennially alive, as the Catholic liturgy is, this is the meaning of the coexistence between the two rites, ancient and modern, as intended by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

This is a coexistence that is not destined to endure, but to fuse in the future "in a single Roman rite once again," taking the best from both of these. This is what then-cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2003 – revealing a deeply held conviction – in a letter to an erudite representative of Lefebvrist traditionalism, the German philologist Heinz-Lothar Barth. (Sandro Magister, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)

"Neither the Missal of Pius V and John XXIII -- used by a small minority -- nor that of Paul VI -- used today with much spiritual fruit by the greatest majority -- will be the final 'law of prayer' of the Catholic Church." ("Father" Federico Lombardi, Zenit, July 15, 2007.)

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."

"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made sure that all the talk of a “reform of the reform” will be buried forever as he is a full believer and a fervent practitioner of the “liberated” liturgical style made possible by the synthetic concoction created by a committee that was advised by Protestants, who made their recommendations during coffee breaks that were later incorporated by actual members of the Consilium. All the hopes, all the expectations, all the anticipation associated with the talk of a “reform of a reform” since “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s book-length interview with Peter Seewald in 1985, The Ratzinger Report.

Arthur Roche went on to decry the “divisions” that came into existence with the implementation of the Novus Ordo on the First Sunday of Advent, November 29, 1969, even though the sort of “renewal” that was foisted on Catholics was unprecedent in the history of the Catholic Church even when one considers all the incremental ways that the liturgy had changed under Pope Pius XII in the 1950s and then under Roncalli/John XXIII before the Ordo Missae of 1965:

It is sad to see how the deepest bond of unity, the sharing in the one Bread broken which is His Body offered so that all may be one (cf. Jhn 17:21), becomes a cause for division. It is the duty of the Bishops, cum Petro et sub Petro, to safeguard communion, which, as the Apostle Paul reminds us (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34), is a necessary condition for being able to participate at the Eucharistic table.

One fact is undeniable: The Council Fathers perceived the urgent need for a reform so that the truth of the faith as celebrated might appear ever more in all its beauty, and the People of God might grow in full, active, conscious participation in the liturgical celebration (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 14), which is the present moment in the history of salvation, the memorial of the Lord’s Passover, our one and only hope.

Interjection Number Three:

Arthur Roche is not entirely wrong on the point made in the first paragraph just above as, yes, it is the duty of the bishops to safeguard communion with the Successor of Saint Peter, although his reference to the “Eucharistic table” rather than the altar of sacrifice explains just how revolutionary the changes were at the time and why many Catholics who knew better risked everything, including family relations, rather than to give the appearance of approval to a “liturgy” based on Protestant and Judeo-Masonic principles.

Roche’s contention that there was an “urgent need for a reform” is gratuitous as attendance at Holy Mass was around seventy-five percent in the United States of America in 1958 at the time of the death of Pope Pius XII and stood at sixty-five percent in 1965 at the end of the “Second” Vatican Council. Most surveys in recent years have indicated that Sunday Mass attendance around twenty percent at this country prior to the plandemic and is almost nonexistent in many European countries. The numbers do not lie. There was no need for the “liturgical reform” and the results speak for themselves. Only ideologically blind fools such as Arthur Roche and Jorge Mario Bergoglio refuse to see that this is so.

Arthur Roche went on to decry “sterile polemics” even though his “pope,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, never ceases to engage in polemical attacks against Catholics who take the Act of Faith they pray daily by understanding that Holy Mother Church teaches what Our Lord has revealed and that He can neither deceive nor be deceived. Bergoglio’s recent screed against believing Catholics, a scold that was dressed up as his annual address to the conciliar curia, was replete with sterile polemics and a seething hatred for the Holy Faith and those who adhere to it that could have emanated only from the depths of hell itself:

As pastors we must not lend ourselves to sterile polemics, capable only of creating division, in which the ritual itself is often exploited by ideological viewpoints. Rather, we are all called to rediscover the value of the liturgical reform by preserving the truth and beauty of the Rite that it has given us. For this to happen, we are aware that a renewed and continuous liturgical formation is necessary both for Priests and for the lay faithful.

Interjection Number Four:

It is interesting how the conciliar revolutionaries use the word “ideological” to describe legitimate theological arguments against the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that were made by such theologians as Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and the Bishop of Campos, Brazil, Antonio Castro de Mayer in 1969. The Novus Ordo abomination is based entirely on ideological presuppositions, starting with false ecumenism, as it was the specific desire of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI to conform what purported to be the Catholic Mass to the Calvinist “Mass of the Lord’s Supper”:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

"[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.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

As conciliar “bishop,” James Sullivan of Fargo, North Dakota, explained in 1999 in a phone call to upbraid me for my support for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that I had been expressing in The Wanderer, “That Mass was never supposed to come back.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes the same thing, of course.

“Archbishop” Arthur Roche, though, much like his boss Bergoglio, prefers the use of easy pejoratives to dismiss criticism of the Novus Ordo liturgical service, which, as he noted at the close of his introducing remarks to the replies given to the dubia about Traditionis Custodes, is “irreversible,” citing the “authority” of both Montini/Paul VI and the latter’s ideological acolyte, Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

At the solemn closing of the second session of the Council (4 December 1963), St Paul VI said (n. 11):

“The difficult, complex debates have had rich results. They have brought one topic to a conclusion, the sacred liturgy. Treated before all others, in a sense it has priority over all others for its intrinsic dignity and importance to the life of the Church and today we will solemnly promulgate the document on the liturgy. Our spirit, therefore, exults with true joy, for in the way things have gone we note respect for a right scale of values and duties. God must hold first place; prayer to him is our first duty. The liturgy is the first source of the divine communion in which God shares his own life with us. It is also the first school of the spiritual life. The liturgy is the first gift we must make to the Christian people united to us by faith and the fervour of their prayers. It is also a primary invitation to the human race, so that all may lift their now mute voices in blessed and genuine prayer and thus may experience that indescribable, regenerative power to be found when they join us in proclaiming the praises of God and the hopes of the human heart through Christ and the Holy Spirit”.

When Pope Francis (Address to the participants in the 68th National Liturgical Week, Rome, 24 August 2017) reminds us that “after this magisterium, after this long journey, We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible” he wants to point us to the only direction in which we are joyfully called to turn our commitment as pastors.

Let us entrust our service “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4,3), to Mary, Mother of the Church.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 4 December 2021, on the 58thanniversary of the promulgation of the Constitution on the Scared Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Interjection Number Five:

The conundrum for traditionally minded Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is this: It is impossible to reconcile the fealty that a Catholic must give to men they believe to have been true popes in the immediate past and to the one they believe is serving at this time with a rejection of their authority to impose upon the Universal Church a liturgy of their choosing.

The Catholic Church cannot give her children anything that is false or harmful, which is why a rejection of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service must come with the realization that the entity that promulgated the Novus Ordo is not the Catholic Church and the man who promulgated it and those who have thereafter defended it have not been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter.

It is as simple as that, unless, that is, the following Canon of the Council of Trent was mistaken:

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.)

No intellectually honest Catholic can deny that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service does indeed provide incentives to impiety and has not given rise to the institutionalization of blasphemies, sacrileges, and pagan spectacles of the sort that even heretics of yore would have found revolting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intent of Traditionis Custodes, no matter how vastly it differs from Summorum Pontificum in its particulars, is the same as that which motivated Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II to issue Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta and motivated Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to issue Summorum Pontificum: to lead the poor goofballs attached to the past to an appreciation and then an embrace of the Novus Ordo as the normative rite of what is purported to be the Catholic Church.

Yet it is that believing Catholics understand that the battle we fight is for the integrity of the Holy Faith and not for having a very restricted access to a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is offered/staged mostly by men who are not validly ordained.

Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”

This revelation is, in my opinion, an extraordinary confirmation that John XXIII did not want any continuity with the previous Ecumenical Council convened and directed by Pius IX. When he affirmed that Vatican II must not follow Vatican I “either in its substance or in its form,” he was saying that it should be completely different; this is not far from saying that it should be the opposite.

Indeed, to say that the substance should be different means that the doctrine defended must be different. To say that the form should be different means that the militant character of Vatican I’s documents must be avoided. Incidentally, the reason alleged to explain a change in the Church’s position regarding the world – that now she wants to be mother and teacher – confirms that he wanted Vatican II to steer clear of the militant spirit of Vatican I. (Atila Sinka Guimaraes, John XXIII Wanted A Rupture With The Past.)

Jansenist that he was, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII even “simplified” the Divine Office and suppressed or demoted various feast days in the General Calendar of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Despite the protestations of some of his defenders, these liturgical changes presaged the full-scale liturgical revolution that would take place after his death no matter his professed love for the Latin language. A love of Latin means nothing if it is not accompanied by a love for the truths of the Holy Faith without any kind of alteration whatsoever, and Roncalli used his anti-pontificate to avenge the “harshness” and certitude of the [First] Vatican Council and, of course, to “canonize” The Sillon’s propositions that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X but that he supported forty years after their condemnation:

Pius XII was succeeded by John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:

As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr. Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.

While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity."

Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr. Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.

John XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."'  (Liturgical Revolution.)

Roncalli/John XXIII’s desire for a rupture with the past provided the pillars of what have become cornerstones of the whole edifice of the counterfeit church of conciliarism: an alleged conflict between “mercy” and discipline, and the very foundation of what would late become known as the “new ecclesiology” after his death. It is this "new ecclesiology" that has been used to claim that Protestant sects are actually "ecclesial communities" that possess "elements of truth and sanctification" although they are instruments of the devil to spread error and foment the sort of liturgical travesties that paved the way for the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty. 

Roncalli/John XXIII's desire for a rupture with the past thus helped to prepare the way over the course of time for an endless series of "joint agreements" between his antipapal successors and leaders of various heretical and schismatic sects of false religions, and it has given impetus to an endless series of debates inside and outside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River about articles of the Holy Faith that are beyond debate. Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries have made it a habit of debating the undebatable.

Furthermore, the master of Hegelian contradiction, the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI stated in his explanatory letter to the since abrogated Summorum Pontificum that there is “growth and progress, but no rupture” in the history of liturgy even though he stated explicitly in his preface to the French language version of Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Rite that there had been a rupture caused by the conciliar liturgical reform, which he claimed in Milestones had been banned even though he stated in his explanatory letter seventeen years ago that it had never been prohibited:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place, matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph "Cardinal: Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)

Much like the leading figures of British society who have a cultural appreciation for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believed the Mass of the ages was to be preserved for those who had an attachment to it because of his historical importance and aesthetic qualities, not because it is a fitting expression of the reverence due to the Most Holy Trinity reflecting His permanence and transcendence. Summorum Pontificum was not a matter of preserving the Catholic Faith but of giving Catholics access to a beautiful liturgy.

As Jorge Mario Bergoglio has no appreciation for the “preconciliar past,” he must rid himself of the “old Mass” and disparage those who are attached to it as mentally ill, although he will accommodate those former Ecclesia Dei group whose leaders are willing to make concessions to the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical travesty, including “concelebrating” with the conciliar “ordinary” the annual Chrism liturgy. Bergoglio is a destroyer and crusher of Catholic spirits of the first order. The so-called “pope of mercy” is without mercy and without a heart towards those who believe he is a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter but want to take shelter from the conciliar storm in what they think are legitimately valid offerings of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

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

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

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

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

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saints Rufina and Secunda, pray for us.

The Seven Holy Brothers, pray for us.