The subject of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s liturgical revolution has been examined hundreds of times on this website and in a book, G.I.R.M. Warfare, that was published in 2004 and revised in 2005 but is need of substantial revision in light of all that has happened since then. Although there are only so many ways to explain the fact that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was devised by minions of the adversary to be vessel of sacrilege and perdition, this long study is an effort to provide readers with a reference resource for future use.
An Immense Task
There are times when it is very useful to quote from the conciliar revolutionaries themselves. Permit me to do so by way of explaining why it has taken so long to complete this study:
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.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, who worked with Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, Quoted and footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)
"[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 men quoted just above were either participants in the conciliar liturgical revolution or, in the case of Jean Guitton, a friend of the man who oversaw its development, and gave it his “papal” approval, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI. Each described the liturgical revolution as a decisive break with the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, not as an organic development as “conservative” apologists of the Novus Ordo such as James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead have long contended.
Such a break was necessary as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was meant to enshrine a different religious faith than the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, replete as it is with references to a God Who judges sinners and the necessity of making reparation for our sins by living more penitentially, the possibility of losing our souls for all eternity in hell, and constant references to the miracles wrought by the saints. As such, therefore, the Novus Ordo is redolent of the same kind of Jansenistic ethos that was expressed by the illegal Synod of Pistoia in the Eighteenth Century and condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.
Pope Pius VI condemned the very following liturgical propositions advanced by the Synod of Pistoia:
The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship
31. The proposition of the synod enunciating that it is fitting, in accordance with the order of divine services and ancient custom, that there be only one altar in each temple, and therefore, that it is pleased to restore that custom,—rash, injurious to the very ancient pious custom flourishing and approved for these many centuries in the Church, especially in the Latin Church.
32. Likewise, the prescription forbidding cases of sacred relics or flowers being placed on the altar,— rash, injurious to the pious and approved custom of the Church.
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.)
One can see rather readily that Proposition 33 is a cogent summary of the very essence of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s liturgical revolution both as it was conceived by “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini, C.M., Ferdinando “Cardinal” Antonelli, O.F.M., “Archbishop” Rembert George Weakland, O.S.B., and, of course, by the sick one himself, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI.
Nothing that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said—or continues to say—about the conciliar liturgical revolution is in the least bit original or new. The octogenarian from Buenos Aires, Argentina, who turns eighty-one years of age on December 17, 2017, was formed in the cradle of Montinism, and he remains fully committed to Montini/Paul the Sick’s Jacobin/Bolshevik agenda for the “renewal” of doctrine, pastoral practice and the liturgy. He is the Leonid Brezhnev of the conciliar revolution who spends his days extolling a revolution that has emptied the pews of formerly Catholic churches, undermined belief in almost every Catholic doctrine (the unicity of the Catholic Church, Papal Primacy, the Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, Purgatory, and, among so many others, even eternal damnation in hell), reaffirmed non-Catholics, including those who deny and mock the Most Blessed Trinity and Our Lord’s Sacred Divinity, in their false religions, and has made what purports to be Holy Mass into an exercise in communitarian self-congratulations and a jamboree of “fellowship.”
All of this, Bergoglio, believes, is a cause of celebration as the “real liturgy” has been “rediscovered” and brought “up-to-date.” As a philosophical son of John Locke and Friedrich Georg Hegel, Bergoglio can never admit that anything is in the least bit wrong with the conciliar revolution. Its “fruit,” he believes, is apparent, although it could have borne more “fruit” if those whose “nostalgia” for the past and “rigidity” had not clung tenaciously to a liturgy that he believes did nothing to advance “spirituality” and was expressive of doctrines that “stifled” the living God. This is why he must disparage and mock believing Catholics who understand that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveys and protects the integrity of the Holy Faith and the glory of the God Who has given It to us.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the ineffable, unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for the sins of men.
Holy Mass is offered by one priest on one altar of sacrifice at one time, but it mysteriously transcends time itself by placing us at the foot of the Holy Cross as the priest, acting in persona Christi, takes the place of the Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world and makes the Innocent Victim truly present under the appearances of bread and wine. Yet it is also true that Holy Mass is a foretaste of Heavenly glories as every member of the Church Triumphant in Heaven and of the Church Suffering in Purgatory, who benefit from the merits of every offering of Holy Mass, is mystically present, surrounding the priest in their songs of adoration and praise for the King of Kings Who gave Himself up to us as a ransom for our sins. Each awaits the fearsome words of Consecration uttered sotto voce by the priest as they with great anticipation the coming of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the mere elements of the earth.
The Sacred Liturgy, therefore, is a matter of solemnity and sobriety, not familiarity and levity. Holy Mass centers on what the creature owes His Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, namely, Adoration and Thanksgiving while providing the creature to make Reparation for his sins and to offer Petition for his spiritual and temporal needs (as well as for those, both living and deceased, he calls to mind while assisting at Holy Mass).
In other words, a true understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the very antithesis of the false theological precepts upon which the ever-evolving and thus perpetually unstable Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was meant to be from its very inceptions.
The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, a liturgist who, though not a traditionalist and who was in favor in some liturgical reforms, explained in The Reform of the Roman Rite that it was necessary to destroy the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and replace it with a synthetic liturgy because the former express a religious faith at odds expressed by the latter:
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.)
Anyone who is unwilling to see that this is so is intellectually dishonest or willfully blind.
Bergoglio’s Defense of the Indefensible
Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows that the religious “faith” he professes is different than that expressed and protected by the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which he why he hates the Mass of our fathers, the Mass of all time, and this is also why he must constantly resort to feats of rank intellectual dishonesty to defend the indefensible, that is, to defend the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.
Mind you, each conciliar “pope” has engaged in feats of intellectual dishonesty to make it appear that our true popes and many saints, including some of Holy Mother Church’s Fathers and Doctors, can be brought to bear as perjured witnesses in behalf of their false doctrines and their sacrilegious and sacramentally invalid liturgical rites.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, did this all the time, including when he tried to make Saint Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, into a “witness” in behalf of Martin Luther’s heresy of “sola fide” (by faith alone):
The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.
That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).
Paul knows that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same in next Sunday's Gospel for the solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What I ask is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked? So justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel, we can say: love alone, charity alone. However, there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St. Paul. It is the same vision, the one according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the realization of communion with Christ. Thus, being united to him we are just, and in no other way.
At the end, we can only pray to the Lord so that he will help us to believe. To really believe; belief thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can really be just in the eyes of God. (Ratzinger Coerces Perjured Testimony from the Apostle to the Gentiles.)
The entire premise of Ratzinger/Benedict's November 19, 2008, "general audience" address was based on the implication that Saint Paul the Apostle has a teaching on the Doctrine of Justification that is different than that defined by the Council of Trent. There is not one reference anywhere in Ratzinger/Benedict's remarks, quoted in full above, to the following dogmatic definition of the Doctrine of Justification made by the Council of Trent, whose infallible decrees must bind the consciences of every person on the face of this earth, Catholic and non-Catholic. Consider the Chapters IX and X from the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification:
Against the vain confidence of Heretics.
But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
On the increase of Justification received.
Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity." (Session VI, Council of Trent, January 13, 1547.)
Such irreformable decrees meant nothing to Ratzinger/Benedict, and they mean nothing to his successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who masquerades as “Pope Francis.” Neither the nonagenarian Girondist/Menshevik conciliar revolutionary nor the Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionary believe that the Fathers of the Council of Trent were guided infallibly in their pronouncements and their deliberations by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. This is why they believe, albeit by different methodologies (Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity” and Bergoglio’s Protestant belief that the “Gospel” was corrupted by Holy Mother Church’s councils of the Second Millennium, especially the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council, that they can ignore, if not disparage “past” teachings that do not conform with their own Modernist presuppositions. And this is also why they use rank intellectual dishonesty to make it appear that various saints, including Saint Paul, popes and Fathers and Doctors of the Church were veritable precursors of the conciliar revolution.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio did this “right off the bat” in the address that he delivered to the Italian Liturgical Council, which was singularly important in hijacking the Liturgical Movement begun by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., and endorsed by Pope Saint Pius X, on Thursday, August 24, 2017, the Feast of Saint Bartholomew:
I welcome you all and I thank the President, His Excellency Monsignor Claudio Maniago, for the words with which he presented this National Liturgical Week, at 70 years from the birth of the Center of Liturgical Action.
This span of time is a period in which, in the history of the Church and, in particular, in the history of the liturgy, essential and not superficial events have happened. As Vatican Council II will not be able to be forgotten, so will the liturgical reform be remembered from which it issued.
The Council and the reform are two directly linked events, which did not flower suddenly but were prepared for long. It is attested by what was called the liturgical movement, and the answers given by the Supreme Pontiffs to the hardships perceived in ecclesial prayer. When a need is noticed, even if the solution isn’t immediate, there is the need to start to move.
I think of Pius X, who ordered a reordering of sacred music and the celebratory restoration of Sunday, and instituted a Commission for the general reform of the liturgy, knowing that it would entail a work both great and short-lived; and therefore – as he himself recognized – it was necessary for many years to pass, before this, so to speak, liturgical edifice [. . .] reappeared shining in its dignity and harmony, once it had been cleansed from the squalor of ageing.” (Jorge's Intellectually Dishonest Defense of the Indefensible.)
Bergoglio’s two gratuitous claims concerning Pope Saint Pius X are nothing new as they constitute one of the liturgical revolution’s architects’ building blocks to claim that they have only “completed” what was begun by those they know are venerated by “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The liturgical revolutionaries of past decades knew—and their successors know now—that very few Catholics take the time and go to the trouble of actually reading the sources they cite in gratuitous manner with quotations taken out of context. Indeed, they count on this being the case, which is why this feat of intellectual dishonesty is employed time and time again.
Omitted by the Argentine Apostate, of course, is the fact that Pope Saint Pius X’s Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903, was issued out His Holiness’s concern that profane and secular elements were being introduced into the celebration of Holy Mass. In other words, Tra Le Sollictudni, which is the first footnoted source of Bergoglio’s address eight days ago, is a condemnation of the use of profane, irreverent music that is commonplace in the stagings of the Novus Ordo, including those staged by Bergoglio throughout his presbyteral and “episcopal” careers.
This will become very clear when one considers the concerns that prompted Pope Saint Pius X to issue his motu proprio on the Feast of Saint Cecilia in the very first year of his pontificate:
Still the good work that has been done is very far indeed from being common to all, and when We consult Our own personal experience and take into account the great number of complaints that have reached Us during the short time that has elapsed since it pleased the Lord to elevate Our humility to the supreme summit of the Roman Pontificate, We consider it Our first duty, without further delay, to raise Our voice at once in reproof and condemnation of all that is seen to be out of harmony with the right rule above indicated, in the functions of public worship and in the performance of the ecclesiastical offices. Filled as We are with a most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the faithful, We deem it necessary to provide before anything else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly upon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple.
Hence, in order that no one for the future may be able to plead in excuse that he did not clearly understand his duty and that all vagueness may be eliminated from the interpretation of matters which have already been commanded, We have deemed it expedient to point out briefly the principles regulating sacred music in the functions of public worship, and to gather together in a general survey the principal prescriptions of the Church against the more common abuses in this subject. We do therefore publish, motu proprio and with certain knowledge, Our present Instruction to which, as to a juridical code of sacred music (quasi a codice giuridice della musica sacra), We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)
In other words, Pope Saint Pius X acted on reports of innovations in the Sacred Liturgy just as his canonized predecessor, Pope Saint Pius V, had done in 1570 to standardize the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by forbidding any local usage that was not more than two hundred years old, thereby excluding all of the unauthorized adaptations that had been made in various places, especially in the German states, to make incorporate the “concerns” of Jan Hus, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Pope Saint Pius X wanted to prevent the use of secular melodies that profane the Sacred Liturgy that the conciliar revolutionaries consider as evidence of their “openness” to the world.
First and foremost in the mind of Pope Saint Pius X was the restoration of Gregorian Chant, which is hardly the foundation of the work of most “liturgical committees” within formerly Catholic parishes that have been in the captivity of the counterfeit church of conciliarism for over half a century:
These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.
On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.
The ancient traditional Gregorian Chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship, and the fact must be accepted by all that an ecclesiastical function loses none of its solemnity when accompanied by this music alone.
Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.
4. The above-mentioned qualities are also possessed in an excellent degree by Classic Polyphony, especially of the Roman School, which reached its greatest perfection in the sixteenth century, owing to the works of Pierluigi da Palestrina, and continued subsequently to produce compositions of excellent quality from a liturgical and musical standpoint. Classic Polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian Chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church, such as those of the Pontifical Chapel. This, too, must therefore be restored largely in ecclesiastical functions, especially in the more important basilicas, in cathedrals, and in the churches and chapels of seminaries and other ecclesiastical institutions in which the necessary means are usually not lacking. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)
The conciliar revolution has not been particularly noteworthy for its use of Gregorian Chant and Classic Polyphony. Unless, that is, one considers to be compositions of the St. Louis Jesuits to be examples of either, which I do not.
One can see from the following words of Pope Saint Pius X that he made careful distinctions between what sorts of more recent musical compositions could be used in the Sacred Liturgy and what of that genre was forbidden, noting specifically that the theatrical genre of music, which is featured in all manner of “papal” extravangaza liturgies and in a whole lot of parishes under conciliar control:
The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages — always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.
Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)
This is hardly a ringing endorsement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s contention that Pope Saint Pius X’s “reordering of sacred music” to be a harbinger of the liturgical conciliar “renewal.”
Moreover, our last truly canonized pope elaborated on the inadmissibility of the theatrical style of music into the Sacred Liturgy and he stressed the Latin, not the vernacular, was the language of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, explaining that no part of Holy Mass or the Divine Office may be sung in the vernacular:
Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.
The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions — much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)
Once again, this demonstrates two things.
First, that whoever wrote the text of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s address to the Italian Liturgical Council sought deliberately to misuse Tra Le Sollicitudini in defense of the sort of liturgical “renewal” that took place during and after the “Second” Vatican Council. Pope Saint Pius X forbade Latin; Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963, the first document of the “Second” Vatican Council, called for its use according to the decisions of national episcopal conferences, and used it would be in the Ordo Missae that went into effect on November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent:
57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:
a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism.
Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.
58. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.
59. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.
VI. FACULTY OF REPEATING COMMUNION ON THE SAME DAY (SC art. 55)
60. The faithful who receive communion at the Mass of the Easter Vigil or the Midnight Mass of Christmas may receive again at the second Mass of Easter and at one of the Day Masses of Christmas.
Chapter III. The Other Sacraments and Sacramentals
1. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR (SC ART. 63)
61. The competent territorial authority, on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular for:
a. the rites, including the essential sacramental forms, of baptism, confirmation, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage, and the distribution of holy communion;
b. the conferral of orders: the address preliminary to ordination or consecration, the examination of the bishop-elect at an episcopal consecration, and the admonitions;
d. rite of funerals.
Whenever a more extensive use of the vernacular seems desirable, the prescription of the Constitution art. 40 is to be observed. (INTER OECUMENICI, Sepember 26, 1964.)
The nature and the extent of the changes were bound to--and did in fact--bewilder at least a few ordinary Catholics. This is why the following announcement was inserted into the parish bulletin of Saint Matthew's Church in Norwood, Ohio, a facility that is now Immaculate Conception Church, which operates today under the auspices of the Society of Saint Pius V, on November 29, 1964, to tell the sheep just to do what they were told as a revolution unfolded before their very eyes and with their own "full, active and conscious participation:"
Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the beginning of the Church's new liturgical year. Today we begin our "New Liturgy". Beginning today many parts of Holy Mass will be said in English. We ask each of you to do your very best to join the priest in the prayers of the Mass. Leaflets with the official text of these prayers were given most of your last Sunday. (For those of you who were unable to obtain your copies last Sunday, you may obtain one at the bulletin stands today.) For the Masses with singing (including the 9:45 a.m. High Mass), you are asked to use the cards found in the pews. Kindly stand, sit and kneel, according to the directions on your leaflet or the card. At the Masses today, seminarians will be on hand to help and guide you in this new participation. We wish to thank Msgr. Schneider, Rector of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary, for his kindness in sending us his students; and also the young men themselves for their generosity in helping us. We know that it will take a while (perhaps even months) before we have this new method of participating in Holy Mass perfected; we earnestly ask each one to cooperate loyally and faithfully to the best of his or her ability to make the public worship of God in St. Matthew Parish a true and worthy "sacrifice of praise." [Historical note: the Mount Saint Mary's Seminary referred to in the bulletin was known as Mount Saint Mary's Seminary of the West, located in Norwood, Ohio.]
It the height of intellectual dishonesty, therefore, to claim that Pope Saint Pius X’s reordering of music had anything to do with presaging the conciliar revolution. Pope Saint Pius X forbade the use of Latin in the singing of the Mass; the conciliar revolution permitted it even in its early phases.
Second, Pope Saint Pius X’s concern about innovations in the use of inappropriate music and even of the vernacular in some Italian parishes at the turn of the Twentieth Century tells us that it was no accident that the Italian Liturgical Council became a chief instrument of the hijacked Liturgical Movement in the post-World War II era leading up to the “election” of Angelo Roncalli as the first in the current line of antipopes to pave the way the conciliar liturgical revolution.
Among the many other contrasts with the underlying thrust of the conciliar liturgical revolution (false ecumenism and an “opening up to the world”) found in Tra Le Sollicitudini was the absolute prohibition of the piano during Holy Mass and the admission of wind instruments only under special circumstances:
The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.
20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.
21. In processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious associations which take part in the procession. (Pope Saint Pius X, Tra Le Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903.)
Please note that Pope Saint Pius X forbade the use of the vernacular in the singing of the parts of Holy Mass (the Introit, the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei), not in processions that took place outside of the church. This is a vital distinction as an intellectually dishonest person might claim that the sainted pontiff from Riese, Italy, gave “permission” for the vernacular in the parts of the Mass. He did not.
Thus, there is no justification for Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s gratuitous reference to Tra Le Sollicitudini in order to claim Pope Saint Pius X as a perjured witness in behalf of a liturgical “renewal” that offends God and has produce a vast wreckage of soul as part of its “fruit.”
The restoration that Pope Saint Pius X sought was that of Gregorian Chant in the Sacred Liturgy, not of a “reconciliation with the world” and the use of the Sacred Mysteries as a means to introduce ceaseless change as the norm in the life of Catholics in order to accustom them to the false belief that everything, including Catholic Faith and Morals, can undergo similarly rapid and ceaseless changes or “evolutions,” if you will.
As time is at a premium now, it is necessary to close part one of this study. However, part two will explain that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s second gratuitous reference to Pope Saint Pius X’s effort to strip away some of Modernism’s corrupting influences on the praying of the Divine Office can be construed as a prophetic call for the process that resulted in the conciliar liturgical revolution. Once again important distinctions need to be—something that will be true in each of this study’s succeeding parts, which is why it is taking time to gather the proper sources and use them in a systematic manner.
In the meantime, remember that today is the First Friday of the month of September, the Month of the Holy Cross and the Dolors of Our Lady. May our devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was pierced with the sword of sorrow, help us to be serious about making reparation for our own sins, each of which grieve the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to say nothing of how they offend God, hurt our own sins and worsen the state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large.
May the Rosaries we pray every day be a means to console the good God, which little Francisco Marto, loved to do, and to make a small matter of reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through 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 Giles, pray for us.