Jorge's Intellectually Dishonest Defense of the Indefensible, part two

Efforts on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries to make gratuitous references to Pope Saint Pius X’s carefully considered reforms of the Roman Breviary and his restoration of Gregorian Chant in the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church as a progenitor of their own nefarious plan to transform what purports to be Holy Mass into an instrument of conditioning Catholics into accepting ceaseless change as a normal feature of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals are beneath contempt. Such gratuitous references are a form of mocking the sainted pope of humble origins in Riese, Italy. The conciliar revolutionaries love nothing so much as to empty

This contempt was on full display when Jorge Mario Bergoglio said the following in his address to the Italian Liturgical Council on Thursday, August 24, 2017, the Feast of Saint Bartholomew:

I think of Pius X, who ordered a reordering of sacred music[1] and the celebratory restoration of Sunday,[2] 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.”[3]  (Jorge's Intellectually Dishonest Defense of the Indefensible.)

Although I had highlighted Bergoglio’s gratuitous reference to Tra La Sollicitudini, November 22, 1903, in part one of this series, there are just a few other observations (well, actually more than few) that I want to make before discussing the false “pope’s” two other footnoted references to the great foe of Modernism, Pope Saint Pius X, starting with six words and a Roman numeral: “I think of Pope Saint Pius X.”

Jorge thinks of Pope Saint Pius X?

When he does he think of him?

Not on the one hundredth anniversary of Papa Sarto’s death on August 20, 2014.

Not when he rails against those who hold to the integrity of Catholic doctrine that Pope Saint Pius X so ably defended with every fiber of his holy being.

Not when he promotes the very Modernist propositions condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Not when he endorses the starry-eyed dreams of a world based upon pan-religious concerns for “creation” and for the “poor” that Pope Saint Pius X condemned in the following terms in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

No, Jorge Mario Bergoglio only “thinks” of Pope Saint Pius X in order to mock his commitment to the solemnity and dignity of the Sacred Liturgy by making it appear to the large numbers of uninformed Catholics that our last truly canonized Holy Father was indeed a progenitor of the conciliar revolution.

As noted in part one, it is a sad exercise in intellectual dishonesty and rank positivism to assert that Tra Le Sollicitudini had anything whatsoever to do with sort of “music,” much of it irreverent and entirely of the world, that is featured in in almost every parish under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

It is an equally sad exercise in intellectual dishonesty and rank positivism to assert gratuitously that Pope Saint Pius X’s Divino Afflatu, November 1, 1911, which reformed the Roman Breviary by the restoration of the reading of the entire Psaltery on a weekly basis and thus of the restoration of the readings for the Divine Office on Sundays that had become displaced as more saints were canonized and assigned feast days on the General Roman Calendar. Pope Saint Pius X was following the principles of true liturgical reform that of the Liturgical Movement as it had been intended by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., that he himself had favored as a bishop before his elevation to the papacy.

Pope Saint Pius X had assigned the work of prudent reform based upon sound, anti-Modernist theological and liturgical principles to those who shared his desire to assure that the ineffable Sacrifice of the Cross would be offered by priests in a spirit of reverent recollection. He was well aware from his own pastoral experiences as a priest and bishop prior to becoming pope that all too many priests, both in Italy and elsewhere around the world, were rushing through the offering of Holy Mass in a perfunctory manner.

The following vignettes indicate that Archbishop Giuseppe Mechiorre Sarto spared no efforts to instill the fear of God into his priests to do their work well for the love of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity:

Bishop Sarto once heard that two of his priests had been remiss for several years in making their obligatory annual retreat. One day he paid them a spontaneous visit. Stating he had a very busy schedule that day but needed to speak with them he invited them into his carriage. Both priests who were eager to please their bishop readily joined him. The bishop’s driver then promptly drove the carriage out into the country to a monastery where the abbot hastily came to receive His Excellency. After all the passengers stepped off the carriage, Bishop Sarto informed the abbot that the two priests were here to make their annual silent retreat. He gave them his blessing, prayed they may have spiritually fruitful exercises, and then drove off, leaving the two priests rather shocked and dumbfounded.

On another occasion, Bishop Sarto heard of a priest who was repeatedly arriving late to his confessional. Apparently, the priest was giving in to slothfulness and oversleeping. One day the priest, tardy as usual, was surprised to arrive at his confessional and see the line moving. He realized someone must have supplanted his place and this enraged him. As soon as a penitent exited, before anyone could step in, he marched in a fit of fury to the priest’s side of the confessional and ripped open the curtain, ready to lay a tongue-lashing on the usurper. What a shock when he found himself face to face with his bishop. The saint smiled and spoke kindly, “Dear Father, I am always disposed to help any of my priests who are struggling to fulfill their duties. If you need my help anytime, please let me know.” Red-faced and shamed that priest never arrived late to his confessional again.  (Stories About Pope Saint Pius X.)

Pope Saint Pius X loved Holy Mass, and he wanted to make sure that priests and consecrated religious would be able to pray the parts of the Divine Office in a meditative manner that would contribute to their own spiritual growth and thus redound to the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The great anti-Modernist and defender of the Catholic Faith desired reforms that had nothing in common with the spirit of antiquarianism, false ecumenism and antiquarianism that motivated those who seized control of the Liturgical Movement after World War I to lead the way to what would become the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service just around fifty years later.

It is thus an exercise of rank intellectual dishonesty for Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries to claim that Pope Saint Pius X’s work to effect a genuine reform of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, sought the sorts of anti-liturgical changes that would be wrought with great speed during the false “pontificate” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and in the aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council by Giovanni Maria Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI. The Argentine Apostate, you see, would have us believe that Abhinc Duos Annos, October 23, 1913, authorized a process of general reform that, though interrupted by World War II, resulted in a seamless and completely organic manner to the issuance of Montini/Paul VI’s Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969.

What was Abhinc Duos Annos?

It was a Motu Proprio issued by Pope Saint Pius X to express the principles that should govern a reform of the Breviary, an effort that would involve a reform of the Missale Romanum itself:

"Two years ago, in publishing Our Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu, We had especially in sight the recitation, as far as possible in its entirety, of the Psalter on weekdays, and the restoration of the ancient Sunday offices. But Our mind was occupied by many other projects – some mere plans, others already on the way to realization – relating to reform in the Roman breviary.

However, because of the numerous difficulties preventing Us from executing them, We had to postpone them for a more favourable moment. To change the composition of the Breviary to make it in accordance with Our desires, that is, to give it a finished perfection in every part would involve:

-restoring the calendar of the Universal Church to its original arrangement and style, retaining meanwhile the splendid richness, which the marvelous fruitfulness of the Church, the Mother of Saints, has brought to bear upon it.

-utilising appropriate passages of Scripture, of the Father and doctors, after having reestablished the authentic text;

-prudently correcting the lives of the Saints according to documentary evidence

Perfecting the arrangement of numerous point of the liturgy, eliminating superfluous elements. But in the judgment of wise and learned persons, all this would require considerable work and time. For this reason, many years will have to pass before this type of liturgical edifice, composed with intelligent care for the spouse of Christ to express her piety and faith, can appear purified of the squalidness brought by time, newly resplendent with dignity and fitting order.

In the meantime, through correspondence and conversations with a number of bishops, We have learnt of their urgent desire – shared by many priests – to find in the Breviary, together with the new arrangement of the Psalter and its rubrics, all the changes which have already come or which might come with this new Psalter. They have repeatedly asked Us, indeed they have repeatedly manifested their earnest desire that the new psalter be used more often, that the Sundays be observed more conscientiously, that provision be made for the inconvenience of transferred offices, and that certain other changes be affected which seem to be justified. Because they are grounded in objectivity and completely conform to Our desire, We have agreed to these requests and We believe the moment has come to grant them. (Pope Saint Pius X, Abhinc Duos Annos, October 13, 1913. English translation found in: The Liturgy Documents, Volume Three: Foundational Documents on the Origins and Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium (e-book. Foreword by Francis “Cardinal” George, OMI; Rev. Robert L. Tuzik; Jakob K. Rinderknecht; Rev. Anthony Ruff, OSB; Michael R. Prendergast; S. Judith M. Kubicki, CSSF; Rev. Richard Fragomeni; David W. Fagerberg; Corinna Laughlin; Deacon Francis L. Agnoli; Steven R. Janco; Rev. Msgr. Kevin Irwin; Rev. Msgr. Joseph DeGrocco; Rev. Msgr. Richard B. Hilgartner; Rev. Giblert Ostdiek, OFM; Rev. Paul Turner; Rev. Daniel J. Merz; Mary Elizabeth Sperry; S. Joyce Ann Zimmerman, CPPS; Richard E. McCarron; Christopher Carstens.)

The narrative spun by the contributors of The Liturgy Documents, Volume Three: Foundational Documents on the Origins and Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium agrees with that repeated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio on August 24, 2017, the Feast of Saint Bartholomew, in his address to the Italian Liturgical Council, namely, that the “liturgical reform” of “Pope Paul VI” brought Pope Saint Pius X’s own project of reform to its proper conclusion. This is complete intellectual dishonesty.

The great defender of Catholic doctrine knew all too well the intentions of Modernists with respect to the liturgy, something that he noted very clearly in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This is, of course, what happened from the outset of the counterfeit church of conciliarism under Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and is continuing to the present day under the tutelage of the wicked enabler of those steeped in lives of moral perdition, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Pope Saint Pius had explained earlier in Pascendi Dominci Gregis that the Modernists project onto to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ what their own false beliefs, making a false distinction between the “Christ of history” and the “Christ of faith,” who is whatever the “believer” wants Him to be. This false distinction, the Holy Father said, extended even to their plans for the Sacred Liturgy, which must be examined according to the Modernists’ historical-critical method of deconstruction:

Hence we have that distinction, so current among the Modernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith; the Church of history and the Church of faith; the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith, and so in similar matters. Next we find that the human element itself, which the historian has to work on, as it appears in the documents, is to be considered as having been transfigured by faith, that is to say, raised above its historical conditions. It becomes necessary, therefore, to eliminate also the accretions which faith has added, to relegate them to faith itself and to the history of faith. Thus, when treating of Christ, the historian must set aside all that surpasses man in his natural condition, according to what psychology tells us of him, or according to what we gather from the place and period of his existence. Finally, they require, by virtue of the third principle, that even those things which are not outside the sphere of history should pass through the sieve, excluding all and relegating to faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in harmony with what they call the logic of facts or not in character with the persons of whom they are predicated. Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done.

Is this not precisely what Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is a caricature of a textbook Modernist, has done throughout the course of his life as a lay Jesuit revolutionary? Bergoglio and his band of doctrinal, moral, liturgical and pastoral revolutionaries must distort and/or completely reject anything in the writings of the Holy Mother Church’s Fathers, Doctors, saints and general councils that do not accord with they have attributed to Our Lord because it is what that, the Modernists, would have done in like circumstances. There is a word for this: paganism.

Our last canonized Holy Father then explained the methods used by the Modernists to accomplish this end:

31. As history takes its conclusions from philosophy, so too criticism takes its conclusions from history. The critic on the data furnished him by the historian, makes two parts of all his documents. Those that remain after the triple elimination above described go to form the real history; the rest is attributed to the history of the faith or, as it is styled, to internal history. For the Modernists distinguish very carefully between these two kinds of history, and it is to be noted that they oppose the history of the faith to real history precisely as real. Thus, as we have already said, we have a twofold Christ: a real Christ, and a Christ, the one of faith, who never really existed; a Christ who has lived at a given time and in a given place, and a Christ who never lived outside the pious meditations of the believer — the Christ, for instance, whom we find in the Gospel of St. John, which, according to them, is mere meditation from beginning to end.

32. But the dominion of philosophy over history does not end here. Given that division, of which We have spoken, of the documents into two parts, the philosopher steps in again with his dogma of vital immanence, and shows how everything in the history of the Church is to be explained by vital emanation. And since the cause or condition of every vital emanation whatsoever is to be found in some need or want, it follows that no fact can be regarded as antecedent to the need which produced it — historically the fact must be posterior to the need. What, then, does the historian do in view of this principle? He goes over his documents again, whether they be contained in the Sacred Books or elsewhere, draws up from them his list of the particular needs of the Church, whether relating to dogma, or liturgy, or other matters which are found in the Church thus related, and then he hands his list over to the critic. The critic takes in hand the documents dealing with the history of faith and distributes them, period by period, so that they correspond exactly with the list of needs, always guided by the principle that the narration must follow the facts, as the facts follow the needs. It may at times happen that some parts of the Sacred Scriptures, such as the Epistles, themselves constitute the fact created by the need. Even so, the rule holds that the age of any document can only be determined by the age in which each need has manifested itself in the Church. Further, a distinction must be made between the beginning of a fact and its development, for what is born in one day requires time for growth. Hence the critic must once more go over his documents, ranged as they are through the different ages, and divide them again into two parts, separating those that regard the origin of the facts from those that deal with their development, and these he must again arrange according to their periods. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Domininci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X was thus both aware of and vehemently opposed to the very kinds of Modernist presuppositions that would be used as the foundation of the conciliar “liturgical renewal.”  No one can claim this sainted Successor of Saint Peter as any kind of witness in behalf of the wreckage of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals that has been made possible by one false conciliar doctrine after another and by the Novus Ordo service itself and the “liberated” style in which Bergoglio himself believes best suits the “needs” of the people. Yeah, “Pope Francis” loves a “liberated” style of liturgy and of doctrine itself—liberated from the truths and authentic traditions of the Catholic Faith.

Alas, Pope Saint Pius X died on August 20, 1914. The Modernists had gone underground but had not gone away, and they took advantage of the death of their great foe to plan for what the “Mass of the future. Indeed, for a very early look at what the revolutionaries wanted done, one can take a look at the text of The Mass of the Future, which was written by Father Gerald Ellard, S.J., and published in 1948, a full year after Pope Pius XII used Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, to warn against the very sort of developments favored by Father Ellard. Father Ellard wanted "Youth Masses," "Labor Masses," Mass facing the people, a simpler liturgy, etc.)

All manner of Modernist "opinions" were propagated in books published between the two world wars and in the thirteen years between the end of World War II and the advent of the age of conciliarism under Roncalli/John XXIII. The Modernist authors were careful to conceal their teaching by artfully crafted devices and endless nuances taught in seminaries and universities. They spoke at academic conferences. And they received protection from many bishops, a fact that was made clear to Pope Pius XI in 1923 at a time he was considering calling a general council:

A little-known drama that unfolded during the reign of Pope Pius XI demonstrates that the underground current of Modernist thought was alive and well in the immediate post-Pius X period.

Father Raymond Dulac relates that at the secret consistory of May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI questioned the thirty Cardinals of the Curia on the timeliness of summoning an ecumenical council. In attendance were such illustrious prelates as Cardinals Merry del Val, De Lai, Gasparri, Boggiani and Billot. The Cardinals advised against it.

Cardinal Billot warned, "The existence of profound differences in the midst of the episcopacy itself cannot be concealed . . . [They] run the risk of giving place to discussions that will be prolonged indefinitely."

Boggiani recalled the Modernist theories from which, he said, a part of the clergy and of the bishops were not exempt. "This mentality can incline certain Fathers to present motions, to introduce methods incompatible with Catholic traditions."

Billot was even more precise. He expressed his fear of seeing the council "maneuvered" by the worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists, who are already getting ready, as certain indications show, to bring forth the revolution in the Church, a new 1789."

In discouraging the idea of a council for such reasons, these Cardinals showed themselves more apt at recognizing the "signs of the times" than all the post-Vatican II theologians combined. Yet their caution may have been rooted in something deeper. They may also have been haunted by the writings of the infamous illumine, the excommunicated Canon Roca (1830-1893), who preached revolution and Church "reform" and who predicted a subversion of the Church that would be brought about by a council. [John Vennari, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, pp. 15-16.]

This having been noted, however, Pope Pius XI did grant at least one major concession to the use of “dialogue” on the part of specific groups of people, most typically members of religious congregations, on ad experimentum basis in 1922. Truth be told, though, this concession was made after the practice had been employed in an unauthorized manner between 1914 and 1922 in Germany and Belgium, both of which featured liturgists intent on “reconciling” with the world and with “canonizing” false ecumenism.

Some of the Modernists who were at work between the two world wars produced books and monographs that became the basis of at least some of the liturgical "reforms" that were presented to Pope Pius XII as "restorations" of past practices even though they were examples of the very antiquarianism (projecting back on to the past a false "history" that never existed) that he had specifically condemned in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, and would, of course become the very foundation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo itself.

Wearied and demoralized by World War I and the tremendous toll that it had taken upon the psyche of formerly Catholic Europe, these Modernists saw a glimmer of what they thought was "hope" for mankind in the nascent "ecumenical" movement that had begun in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a meeting of Protestants under the banner of the "World Missionary Conference," which met from June 14, 1910, to June 23, 1910. "World peace" could result if men could put aside their doctrinal differences for the "betterment" of mankind, a belief that is nothing other than an expression of Judeo-Masonry. It is no accident, of course, that this meeting, which served as the very foundation of conciliarism's own false ecumenism, has been praised by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (see Getting Bolder In His Apostasy and Generic Christianity Is Not Good Enough For God). This is no accident at all.

Some of the pioneers of the hijacked Liturgical Movement of the 1920s, such as Father Pius Parsch, C.R.S.A. (Canons Regular of Saint Augustine), would have been, it should be noted, aghast at the sorts of changes that eventually took place as a result of what some, including Michael Davies in his book Liturgical Time Bombs, referred to as "young wolves" (Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M.) sought to implement in the 1950s and thereafter. As noted over six years ago now, however, in Ratzinger's Revolution Unravels, part one), revolutions do produce unintended consequences that their progenitors do not foresee and are at a loss to explain, consequences that defy their every gargantuan effort to bring the revolution back to its "original intent." This is as true of social revolutions (American, French, Russian, et al.) as it is of theological-liturgical revolutions.

Michael Davies demonstrated the connection between false ecumenism and the hijacked Liturgical Movement that had begun with Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., in the Nineteenth Century and resulted in the issuance of the Missal of Pope Saint Pius X in 1910, restoring the chanting of Gregorian chant by the people, in a review that he wrote for the late Father Didier Bonneterre's Liturgical Revolution: Roots, Radicals, Results (Angelus Press, 2002):

If there is a villain of the book he is Dom Lambert Beauduin, but Father Bonneterre has no hesitation in paying tribute to the great contribution that he made to the movement in its early years:

The merit of having understood all that could be learned from the teaching of St. Pius X falls to Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960). Alas, this monk was unable to maintain throughout his life this hierarchy of the ends of the liturgy, i.e., worship first, teaching second, as we shall see in the course of this study, but let us not anticipate.

Dom Lambert Beauduin at first was a priest of the diocese of Liege, a "workers' missionary" under Pope Leo XIII. In 1906, at the age of thirty-three, he entered the Abbey of Mont Cesar, which had been founded by the monks of Maredsous at Louvain a few years earlier (1899). Because of his previous activity among the secular clergy, his mind had become habitually occupied by the problems of the apostolate and pastoral work, and so he viewed the liturgy in light of his habitual preoccupations. Very speedily he "discovered" in the liturgy, following St. Pius X, a wonderful method for forming the faithful in the Christian life. In 1909 he launched a Liturgical Movement at Mont Cesar which was an immediate success.

It is important to set the Liturgical Movement within the context of the Modernist crisis which is documented in my book Partisans of Error. Father Bonneterre writes:

Crushed by St. Pius X, the Modernists understood that they could not penetrate the Church by theology, that is, by a clear exposé of their doctrines. They had recourse to the Marxist notion of praxis, having understood that the Church could become modernist through action, especially through the sacred action of the liturgy. Revolutions always use the living energies of the organism itself, taking control of them little by little and finally using them to destroy the body under attack. It is the well-known process of the Trojan horse.

The Liturgical Movement of Dom Guéranger, of St. Pius X, and of the Belgian monasteries, in origin at any rate, was a considerable force in the Church, a prodigious means of spiritual rejuvenation which, moreover, brought forth good fruits. The Liturgical Movement was thus the ideal Trojan horse for the modernist revolution. It was easy for all the revolutionaries to hide themselves in the belly of such a large carcass. Before Mediator Dei, who among the Catholic hierarchy was concerned about liturgy? What vigilance was applied to detecting this particularly subtle form of practical Modernism?

It was from the 1920's onward that it became clear that the Liturgical Movement had been diverted from its original admirable aims:

Dom Beauduin first of all favored in an exaggerated way the teaching and preaching aspect of the liturgy, and then conceived the idea of making it serve the "Ecumenical Movement" to which he was devoted body and soul. Dom Parsch tied the movement to Biblical renewal. Dom Casel made it the vehicle of a fanatical antiquarianism and of a completely personal conception of the "Christian mystery." These first revolutionaries were largely overtaken by the generation of the new liturgists of the various preconciliar liturgical commissions.

This new generation is described by Father Bonneterre as the “young wolves.” In any revolution it is almost routine for the first moderate revolutionaries to be replaced or even eradicated by more radical revolutionaries, as was the case with the Russian Revolution when the Mensheviks (majority) were ousted by the Bolsheviks (minority).

Faced by this excessive acceleration of the movement, Dom Beaudin was frightened... We witness here the first phenomena of “permanent excesses,” a feature of all revolutions: yesterday’s managers are overtaken by today’s agitators, the first revolutionaries are overtaken by today’s agitators.

Just as nothing could prevent the rise to power of the Bolsheviks, nothing could prevent the triumph of the young wolves:

After the Second World War, the movement became a force that nothing could stop. Protected from on high by eminent prelates, the new liturgists took control little by little of the Commission for Reform of the Liturgy founded by Pius XII, and influenced the reforms devised by this Commission at the end of the pontificate of Pius XII and at the beginning of that of John XXIII. Already masters, thanks to the Pope, of the preconciliar liturgical commission, the new liturgists got the Fathers of the Council to accept a self-contradictory and ambiguous document, the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Lercaro and Fr. Bugnini, themselves very active members of the Italian Liturgical Movement, directed the efforts of the Consilium which culminated in the promulgation of the New Mass.

How could Pope Pius XII, the Pastor Angelicus, the most scholarly Pope of the century, and one whose orthodoxy could not possibly be questioned, have allowed the young wolves of the liturgical movement to consolidate their power during his pontificate? Father Bonneterre makes it clear that this saintly pontiff was well-aware of the subversive elements within the Liturgical Movement. In His Encyclical Mediator Dei, perhaps the most sublime exposition of the true nature of the Mass ever to be written, Pope Pius wrote: “We observe that certain people are too fond of novelty and go astray from the oaths of sound doctrine and prudence.... They sully this sacred cause with errors, errors which affect the Catholic faith and ascetical teaching.” Father Bonneterre insists that, alas:

Pope Pius XII did not know the true position of the Liturgical Movement. Its most dangerous leaders were being supported and protected by the highest dignitaries of the Church. How could the Pope have suspected that the "experts" who were so highly praised by Cardinals Bea and Lercaro were in fact the most dangerous enemies of the Church?

He laments the fact that: “Thus Pius XII gave the most inopportune encouragement to the congress at Assisi:

The Liturgical Movement is like an indication of the plans of divine providence for the present time, like the wind of the Holy Ghost blowing through the Church, bringing men closer to the mysteries of the faith and the treasures of grace, which flow from the active participation of the faithful in the life of the liturgy.”

Father Bonneterre comments: “This declaration could have been true and timely before 1920; in 1956 it was no longer so. In the intervening years, the Liturgical Movement had denied its origins and abandoned the principles laid down by Dom Guéranger and St. Pius X.”

The most influential of the new liturgists, the great architect of the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution, was Father Annibale Bugnini. Father Bonneterre recounts a visit by Father Bugnini to a liturgical convention held at Thieulin near Chartres at which forty religious superiors and seminary rectors were present, making clear the extent of the influence of the liturgical Bolsheviks on the Church establishment in France. He cites a Father Duployé as stating:

Some days before the reunion at Thieulin, I had a visit from an Italian Lazarist, Fr. Bugnini, who had asked me to obtain an invitation for him. The Father listened very attentively, without saying a word, for four days. During our return journey to Paris, as the train was passing along the Swiss Lake at Versailles, he said to me: "I admire what you are doing, but the greatest service I can render you is never to say a word in Rome about all that I have just heard."

Father Bonneterre comments:

This revealing text shows us one of the first appearances of the "gravedigger of the Mass," a revolutionary more clever than the others, he who killed the Catholic liturgy before disappearing from the official scene. So it was at this date that the "Counter-Church" completely pervaded the Liturgical Movement. Until then it had been occupied by the modernist and ecumenical forces: after the war it was rotten enough for Freemasonry to take direct control of the reins: Satan got into the Trojan Horse.

The reference to Freemasonry is based on the fact that in 1975 Pope Paul VI removed Bugnini, an Archbishop by then, from his position as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dissolved the entire Congregation, and in 1976 exiled him as Nuncio to Iran. Pope Paul did this because he had been given documentation which convinced him that the Archbishop was a freemason. Bugnini denied that he was a mason, but accepted that he was dismissed because the Pope believed him to be a member of the Brotherhood. All the relevant documentation is contained in Chapter 24 of my book Pope Paul’s New Mass.

Father Bonneterre explains that:

Although the reforms of Pius XII had given some satisfaction to the leaders of the Movement, the implacable orthodoxy that the Pope had maintained throughout had not been to their taste. New and more daring reforms were called for, and they needed a pope who understood the problem of ecumenism and who was a wholehearted supporter of the Movement.

He claims that “The news of the death of the Angelic Pastor was received with almost delirious joy by the deviated Liturgical Movement.” The aged Dom Lambert Beauduin had not the least doubt as to the cardinal he hoped would be elected, and confided his hopes to Father Bouyer:

If they elect Roncalli," he said "all will be saved. He will be capable of calling a Council and canonizing ecumenism..." Silence fell; then, with a return of his old mischievousness, he said with flashing eyes, "I believe we have a good chance. Most of the cardinals are not sure what to do. They are capable of voting for him.

Father Bonneterre comments:

To consecrate ecumenism, yes, indeed, but also to consecrate the Liturgical Movement, such would be the task of the long-awaited Council. For more than forty years the new liturgists had been spreading their errors, they had succeeded in influencing a considerable portion of the Catholic hierarchy, and they had won some encouraging reforms from the Holy See. All this patient underground work was about to bear fruit. The liturgical revolutionaries took advantage of the Constitution on the Liturgy to get their ideas accepted. Then, when they were appointed members of the Consilium, they only had to draw the extreme conclusions from the principles of Vatican II.

Father Bonneterre insists that:

This new rite carries on in its turn all the errors which have come forth since the beginning of the deviations of the "Movement." This rite is ecumenical, antiquarian, community-based, democratic, and almost totally desacralized; it also echoes the theological deviations of the modernists and the Protestants: toning down the sense of the Real Presence and diminution of the ministerial role of the priesthood, of the sacrificial character of the Mass, and especially of its propitiatory character. The Eucharist becomes much more a communal love feast than the renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

It is thus with the New Mass that the Liturgical Movement which had started so well ended so badly. The 1959 liturgy of the Protestant Taizé community is printed as an appendix to the book, and shows some disturbing similarities to the New Mass. Father Bonneterre does not, however, refer to the alarming correspondence of the changes, principally omissions, made to the Order of Mass in the Missal of St. Pius V in the concoction of the order of Mass in the 1970 Missal and the almost identical omissions from the Sarum Missal made by Thomas Cranmer in concocting his 1549 Communion Service. These are documented in great detail in my book Pope Paul’s New Mass. Nor does he refer to the equally alarming correspondence between the liturgical principles permeating the Mass of Paul VI and those of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia condemned as pernicious by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem Fidei of 1794. I would also say that, in places, Father Bonneterre seems to presume that the rite of Mass concocted by Father Bugnini’s Consilium represents what the leading members of the Liturgical Movement were aiming at.

This might be true in the case of the “young wolves” who took over the movement, but is certainly not true of priests such as Beauduin, Casel, Parsch, or Bouyer. The principal aim of these men was to use the existing liturgy to achieve their pastoral aims, and not to impose a radical reform which made the liturgy that they knew, loved, and celebrated daily unrecognizable.

In fairness to Father Bonneterre he does state that the leading figures of the original movement were frightened by the thinking of the young wolves. I have quoted him to this effect in this review. It would have been useful had he quoted the reaction of a priest such as Father Louis Bouyer, whom he cites quite often, to the actual reform that has been foisted upon us. He stated in 1969 that "We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church"[12]; and "Perhaps in no other area is there a greater distance (and even formal opposition) between what the Council worked out and what we actually have”[13]; and that, in practice, “those who took it upon themselves to apply [?] the Council’s directives on this point have turned their backs deliberately on what Beauduin, Casel, and Pius Parsch had set out to do, and to which I had tried vainly to add some small contribution of my own.”[14] 

In 1975, Father Bouyer stated:

"The Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more acceptable to the secularised masses, but in reality to conform it with the buffooneries that the religious orders were induced to impose, whether they liked it or not, upon the other clergy. We do not have to wait for the results: a sudden decline in religious practice, varying between twenty and forty per cent among those who were practising Catholics.... Those who were not have not displayed a trace of interest in this pseudo-missionary liturgy, particularly the young whom they had deluded themselves into thinking that they would win over with their clowning.[15] (The Liturgical Movement.) 

The Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service did not just "happen." It emerged after the first generation of Modernists ecumenists, spawned by the events of World War I, was succeeded by a second intent on turning the Sacred Liturgy into a grand laboratory in which they could assemble various of the condemned propositions of the illegal Council of Pistoia, redolent of Jansenism, into the life of ordinary Catholics and thus use what they purported was the Holy Mass to serve as the means of teaching and institutionalizing their doctrinal errors. Moreover, the true history of The Liturgical Movement is not at all the fable spun by the conciliar revolutionaries and repeated anew two weeks ago by Bergoglio.

Both generations of postwar liturgical revolutionaries were protected by cardinals and bishops. Both published books with imprimaturs. Behold the results as the seeds of revolutionary change were approved with episcopal approval and as the Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII, himself approved changes, although certainly not heretical in se, were based upon false representations that his trusted lieutenants knew would establish a road map to their true goal, the destruction of the Roman Rite.

The role of Pope Pius XII, whose Mediator Dei was also referenced in an intellectually dishonest manner by Jorge Mario Bergoglio nineteen days ago now, in the liturgical changes he authorized in the 1950s will be examined in depth in part three of this series. Suffice it to say for the moment, though, that our last true pontiff thus far was in favor of liturgical change according to right principles. He simply did not realize that those he had put in charge of liturgical reform were just waiting for him to die so that they could build on the significant changes they got him to authorize if they should get the “liberal” pope for which they had been hoping.

As all manner of distinctions need to be made in this regard, the entirety of part three will be devoted to a careful examination of Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, the specific changes Pope Pius XII authorized in the 1950s, including the “dialogue” Mass just a week before his death, and the 1956 address, alluded to by the late Father Didier Bonneterre in The Liturgical Revolution: Roots, Radicals, Results, His Holiness gave in Assisi, Italy, to liturgists.

For the moment, however, suffice it to say that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s gratuitous references to a canonized saint who fought Modernism as the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, Pope Saint Pius X, are a form of mocking him as the farm boy from Riese, Italy, would never have approved of the Novus Ordo and its efforts to “reconcile” with the world and with false religions, including Talmudism, whose “table forms” are the foundation of the “Preparation of the Gifts” that took the place of the Offertory in the “new Mass.”

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X told us what he thought about liberal Catholics and their intellectual dishonesty.

Liberal Catholics are "wolves in sheep's clothing; it is more important than anything else that murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced." (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 88.)

The Novus Ordo liturgy is the very enshrinement of the ethos of The Sillon which was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. The conciliar revolutionaries believe in a falsified Christ, and it is that bogus figure of Our Lord that is “encountered” in the collects and rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

As explained by Pope Saint Pius X, The Sillon’s view of Our Lord is itself a blasphemous mockery and caricature of how He dealt with sinners and erroneous beliefs:

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Finally, quite unlike his three successors (Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII), Pope Saint Pius X did not have much patience with bishops who were continuing to support various Modernist ideas and enterprises, including The Sillon. He also told us that precisely how Modernists should be treated, and it was not by seeking to “accompany” them on their journey to perdition:

“They [the Modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses,” he said of his antagonists. “But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.”  (http:/Saint Pius X: The Son of a Village Postman Who Urged Modernists to be Beaten With Fists)

Our last canonized Holy Father even removed a bishop who continued to support The Sillon after he, Pope Saint Pius X, had condemned it:

As Pope, St. Pius X had to correct and reprimand several bishops and priest who had fallen into heresy or were flirting dangerously close to that edge. Some of the French prelates who supported the Sillon (a precursor to modern Liberation Theology) were particularly problematic. One bishop who had been reprimanded continued to act against the Catholic Faith. Pope Pius X called him to Rome. When the bishop entered he made the customary genuflection before the Pope and waited to be acknowledged so he could rise. Pope Pius X remained busy at his desk ignoring the bishop for three quarters of an hour. This was a small penance which the saintly pontiff was imposing. At last, Pope Pius raised his eyes and looked the bishop directly in the eyes, holding his gaze steady and stern. Without a word he rose and walked over to the kneeling figure. Then he greeted him: “Good morning, your Excellency.” Before the Bishop could arise, Pope Pius X swiftly removed the zucchetto from the Bishop’s head and placed it on the edge of his desk. He then dismissed him, “Have a good day, Father.” And that was the end of the meeting. No more words had to be spoken. This great pope had sent a very clear warning shot across the bow of the Bark of Peter letting all know what the fate would be of those bishops, successors to Judas, who refused to resist and denounce heresy. (Stories About Pope Saint Pius X.)

Now, that’s papal governance for you!

May each Rosary that we pray help us to remain steadfast in the Catholic Faith in this time of apostasy and betrayal so that we will be ready to make whatever sacrifices we must to avoid all contact with the contagion of conciliarism and its intellectually dishonest, blaspheming and heretical “shepherds.”

Part three by Sunday, God willing and Our Lady interceding.

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 Cloud, pray for us.