The false “pontiffs” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have done incalculable damage to the simple truth that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter cannot err on matters of Faith and Morals and that it is acceptable for Catholics to treat a man they consider to be the visible head of the Catholic Church on earth with scornful contempt.
The situation has become so bad under Jorge Mario Bergoglio that many “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics who are attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the erroneous belief that it is the Catholic Church find themselves forced to rally around secular figures such as President-elect Donald John Trump to find what they think is a voice in defense of moral truth. Although this will be discussed at length in part three of my current series on the election, the fact that secular figures who seek promote, albeit inchoately, some attenuated understanding that surgical baby-killing is illicit, must be defended from “popes” who do the bidding of globalists such as George Soros represents a total evisceration of the Catholic doctrine on the papacy.
The open contempt that many “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics have for “Pope Francis” has reached a point of no return now in the immediate aftermath of the election results for the office of President of the United States of America. Unfortunately, however, most of these Catholics are not coming to the proper conclusion, namely, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is what his five predecessors have been: apostates and antipopes,
Thus it is that well-meaning Catholics are showing as much contempt for the institution of the papacy because of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s coddling of pro-abortion, pro-perversity statists and his endless harangues against those who try to adhere to the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith as the as the violent anti-Trump mobs that have sprung up all over the nation are showing contempt for the just laws governing the election of an American president. Veritable revolutions against the very nature of Holy Mother Church and against the just laws of men and their institutions have thus sprung up before our very eyes to prepare the way for the Antichrist. The chaos that is before our eyes is all-encompassing. (For a review of the obedience that Catholics must pay to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, please see The Conciliar Chair of Disunity and Division.)
One of the chief reasons that this chaos has been unleashed before our very eyes is the simple fact that the wellsprings of superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces have dried up as a result of the sacramentally invalid and sacrilegious conciliar liturgical rites. The forces of hell have been let loose upon us.
Knowing that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is the bulwark in defense of his minions, the adversary is using the supposed “pope” as a tool to attack it—and those who seek to find refuge from the conciliar wreckage in it—with such diabolical passion that it is not unjust or any degree of rhetorical excess to compare it to the physical damage against persons and property being done by the George Soros-funded-and-organized anti-Trump forces that are seeking to overturn the duly legal results of an election. (As I much as I have been and continue to be critical of President Donald John Trump and those who influence him, his electors, who will cast their votes for him in their respective state capitals on Monday, December 19, 2016, have been elected by the people of those states in which he received a plurality of the vote.)
Bergoglio’s contempt for Catholic doctrine, which has been on full display since his accession to the conciliar seat of governing authority on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, reached its apogee with the release of Amoris Laetitia on March 19, 2016. He is trying to shame anyone who is “rigid” and “closed-minded” into accepting his blasphemous and heretical concept of “free flowing spirit” who is not interested in formalism of worship or immutable doctrines and moral truths. He is the fiercest “hater” on the face of this earth, as he hates the very nature of God’s immutability, thus making him a hater of the souls redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Argentine Apostate, has once again attacked the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as the one he serves, whether wittingly or unwittingly, hates for what is: the means to sanctify the souls of men to provide them with the weapons they need to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church. The forum for the latest attack was an interview with “Father” Antonio Spadoro, S.J., in Civilta Cattolica:
Spadoro: The simplicity of children makes me also think of adults, with a rite that is direct, participated intensely [translator's note: reference to notion of 'actuosa participatio'], of parish masses experienced with so much piety. What comes to mind are proposals that encourage priests to turn their backs to the faithful, to rethink Vatican II, to use Latin. I ask the Pope what he thinks of this. The Pope answers:
[Bergoglio:] "Pope Benedict accomplished a just and magnanimous gesture [translator's note: the motu proprio 'Summorum Pontificum'] to reach out to a certain mindset of some groups and persons who felt nostalgia and were distancing themselves. But it is an exception. That is why one speaks of an 'extraordinary' rite. The ordinary in the Church is not this. It is necessary to approach with magnanimity those attached to a certain form of prayer. But the ordinary is not this. Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are. To speak of a 'reform of the reform' is an error." (Rorate Caeli Blogspot.)
Comment Number One:
Actually, this is a fair assessment of what Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told us when he issued Summorum Pontificum, on July 7, 2007. Ratzinger/Benedict wanted to “pacify the spirits” of those who felt an “attachment” to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition:
Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.
"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)
Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?
Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.
On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)
Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)
Ever the master of self-contradiction, Ratzinger/Benedict said in the explanatory letter he sent to the conciliar “bishops” at the time he issued Summorum Pontificum that there had been no rupture between the Immemorial Mass of Tradition the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service even though he had written in Milestones, published in 1999, that there had been such a rupture:
The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)
In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum," July 7, 2007.)
The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was an honest liturgical historian but not a traditionalist per se, noted the following in The Reform of the Roman Rite, in whose French language edition the quotation from the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger was found:
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.)
Ever the master of self-contradiction, Ratzinger/Benedict said in the explanatory letter he sent to the conciliar “bishops” at the time he issued Summorum Pontificum that there had been no rupture between the Immemorial Mass of Tradition the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service even though he had written in Milestones, published in 1999, that there had been such a rupture:
Unlike the self-contradictory Ratzinger/Benedict, Jorge Mario Begoglio cleaves to the Bologna School interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council and the conciliar liturgy as a rupture with the past, and thus it is that Catholics in the conciliar structures who have been clinging to the furtive hope that there would be some kind of “reform of the reform” under “Pope Francis” must come face-to-face with the cold, hard truth they have become in the ecclesiastical equivalent of the tooth fairy.
It is time for the next question and answer from the recent interview:
I ask him: "Other than those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of habit or devotion, can this desire express something else? Are there dangers?"
[Pope:] "I ask myself about this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless. I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else... [sic] The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid." (Rorate Caeli Blogspot.)
Comment Number Two:
Revolutionaries must use the “mental illness” card to denounce, belittle and disparage those who are said to be “counter-revolutionaries. Bergoglio has done this throughout his career as a lay presbyter, and he, who will turn eighty years of age in thirty-three days, has worn out so many “mental illness cards” as “Pope Francis” that one wonders if the Vatican Printing Office has to print out new decks of such cards every week.
Joseph Stalin, call your office.
To the final question and answer:
I insist: what about tradition? Some understand it in a rigid way.
[Pope:] "But no: tradition blooms!" he responds. "There is a Traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism: it is not good. Faithfulness instead implies a growth. Tradition, in the transmission from one age to the next of the deposit of the faith, grows and consolidates with the passage of time, as Saint Vincent of Lérins said in his Commonitorium Primum. I read it always in my breviary: 'Ita etiam christianae religionis dogma sequatur has decet profectuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate' (Also the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidating with the years, developing with time, deepening with the age.)" (Rorate Caeli Blogspot.)
Comment Number Three:
This is what Saint Vincent Ferrer wrote about tradition:
"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)
Aware that there might be a new reader or two who have happened upon this site, here are proofs from Catholic teaching that demonstrate that Catholics must adhere very firmly to the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith:
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).
They [the Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . . The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an ally of perdition. He rejects the very nature of Catholic truth, which means that He rejects the very nature of God Himself as Immutability is one of His attributes.
Moreover, Bergoglio's seething hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is premised upon the fact that he does not believe that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s propitiatory offering of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.
The Argentine Apostate does not understand that the Sacred Liturgy is about the worship of God, not about the reaffirmation of “the people,” which is why the priest faces the altar, which is generally, although not always, of course, oriented to the East, that is, to Jerusalem and the site of Our Lord’s Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Protestant fellowship service, although this is precisely what the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was designed to be.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio carictures the manner in which a priest offers the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as turning his "back on the people."
A true priest is in deep in conversation with God with the faithful who are present at Mass. Our focus in Holy Mass is upon God, not the priest's personality or celebratory style or even his own very person. A priest must be conscious of the fact that he is about to bring God down on the altar of sacrifice in the presence of His Most Blessed Mother, Saint Joseph, and all of at the angels of saints, each of whom are present mystically at every valid offering of Holy Mass. Such a truth is foreign to the mocking mind of Bergolio.
The priest, an alter Christus who acts in persona Christi at the Holy Mass, in a conversation with God as he, but a mere mortal, offers the Divine oblation to God the Father in Spirit and in Truth. Our focus in the true Roman Rite of the Catholic is Our Lord’s Redemptive Act, not on the “community.”
As I have noted on other occasions, the first person to celebrate a "liturgy" facing the people was Martin Luther. Father Joseph Jungmann, who was a supporter of "liturgical reform" but was intellectually honest about some points despite the questionable nature of much of his other research, noted, "The claim that the altar of the early Church was always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale." We do not need to look at the priest and he does not need to look at us.
Both priest and people are called to focus their attention on God, not on each other. While a particular priest celebrating a particular Mass is important in that there would be no Mass celebrated at that time without his having been ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, his individual personality is unimportant, totally irrelevant. We need to focus on the work he is doing in persona Christi by virtue of the powers given him by God at the moment of his priestly ordination. The orientation of the priest toward the High Altar of Sacrifice is an important constituent element of the solemnity befitting the Adoration of the God the Father through the God the Son in Spirit and in Truth.
Every aspect of the Mass demands solemnity, sobriety, and reverence. The priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition does not come out to greet the people as do those priests/presbyters who stage the conciliar liturgical travesty. He comes out to pray at the foot of the steps leading to the High Altar, preparing himself and the faithful gathered (if any) for the perfect prayer which is the Mass. As noted just above, a priest is in conversation with God. We unite our prayers with those of the priest. However, the focus of a priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not the people. It is Christ, the King.
Although there are responses that the choir sings in a Solemn High Mass, the priest addresses us as a priest, not as an entertainer who has to add something of his personality or his own wordiness to "make" the Mass a more "complete" experience for us. The entirety of the Mass must convey solemnity, especially at that sublime moment when the priest utters the glorious words, Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. . . . Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aerteni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. The very solemn nature of the Roman Rite does this. No priest had to exaggerate the elevation in order to convey that which is lacking in the essence of the Mass (as some do in the Novus Ordo). No priest had to improvise words to emphasize that the words of consecration are indeed the most important part of the Mass (as some do quite idiosyncratically in the Novus Ordo). Every aspect of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveyed reverence and solemnity.
Solemnity is also conveyed in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by the very positioning of the priest in conversation with God (or ad orientem, in the case of the actual, Eastward orientation of the High Altar of a particular church).
Permanence and Transcendence are two other constituent elements related to the end of Adoration found in the Mass. A rite is meant of its nature to be fixed, not ever changing. Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei in 1947 that the human elements (or accidentals) of the Mass are subject to change. If such change should occur, he noted, it should occur organically, slowly over the course of time.
Rapid change bewilders the faithful. Constant, unremitting change (and the variations that exist within parishes, among parishes, and among priests) lead people to conclude that doctrine itself must be subject to the sort of change and evolution evidenced in the liturgy. Everything is up for grabs, including the nature of God Himself. Nothing is fixed in the nature of things or by the Deposit of Faith Our Lord entrusted to the Church through the Apostles. That this is one of the chief goals of the liturgical revolutionaries is plain for all to see, and is something that has been the fodder of much discussion over the past forty years.
A liturgical rite is meant to reflect permanence. God is unchanging. Our need for Him is unchanging. His truths are unchanging. As the liturgy is meant to provide us with a sense of same sort of security we find in our earthly dwellings, our homes, as a foretaste of the security we will know in our Heavenly dwelling if we persist until our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace, it is obviously the case that it should reflect the permanence and transcendence of God and of the nature of His revelation. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveys this sense of permanence by virtue of the fixed nature of the rites (the gestures, the stability of the liturgical calendar, the annual cycle of readings, the repetition of the readings of a Sunday Mass during the following week if no feast days or votive Masses are celebrated on a particular day). It also conveys the sense of permanence and transcendence by its use of Latin, a dead language.
As Dr. Adrian Fortesque pointed out in his works, Latin is by no means a necessity for the celebration of the Mass. The various Eastern rites are offered in different idioms. And Latin itself was once the language of the people. (Indeed, one of the ways to rebut the charge made so sloganistically by Protestants that Catholics desired to "hide" the Bible from the people prior to the Protestant Revolt is to point out that when Saint Jerome translated the Bible from the Hebrew and the Greek into the Latin Vulgate, he did so to make it accessible to the people. Latin was the language of the people at that time.) The fall of the Roman Empire in the West, however, led to Latin's falling into disuse as the vernacular of the people. This was an "accident" of history, admitting, obviously, that all things happen in the Providence of God. This "accident," however, wound up serving to convey the sense of permanence and transcendence which is so essential to the Adoration of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
As Latin is now a dead language, it is no longer subject to the sort of ideological manipulation and deconstructionism found in a living language. A dead language is what it is. Its words have a permanent, precise meaning. This "accident" of history, which, of course, has occurred within the Divine Providence of God, has helped to convey the sense that God is permanent, His truths are permanent, our need for Him is permanent, and our worship of Him must reflect this permanence. Furthermore, Latin conveys the universality of the Faith. A dead language is beyond the ability of anyone, including a priest, to manipulate. Thus, the Mass of the Roman Rite is the same everywhere. It is the same in New York as it is Spain. It is the same in the United Kingdom as it is in Japan. It is the same in Nigeria as it is in Argentina. It is the same in its essence in 2016 as it was 1571. This furthers the sense of permanence as a constituent element of the end of Adoration.
Latin also conveys the sense of the Mysterium Tremendum. Although it is possible to pray the Mass with a priest by the use of a good Missal (such as the Father Lasance New Roman Missal), even those who are fluent in ecclesiastical and scholastic Latin understand that Latin conveys of its nature a sense of mystery. The Mass after all contains within it the mysteries of salvation. We know intellectually what the Mass is and what takes place therein. However, not even the greatest theologian in the history of the Church understands fully how these mysteries take place. We accept them as having been given us by Our Lord through Holy Mother Church. We want to plumb their depths by means of assiduous prayer and study. No human being, however, can possibly claim to understand the mystery of God's love for His sinful creatures, no less His desire to reconcile us to Himself through the shedding of His own Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Latin conveys the sense of the tremendous mystery which is the Mass.
Moreover, Latin is not an incomprehensible language, as some defenders of the new order of things contend so arrogantly.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has never been able to understand or to accept the simple fact even illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages understood the Mass as a result of their being immersed into it week after week after week. Indeed, they had a better understanding of the nature of the Mass (and of its ends) than do the lion's share of Catholics today, immersed as they have been in almost forty-six plus years of vernacular banality and incessant “innovations,” whether “approved” or “unapproved.” Nevertheless, Latin conveys the beauty and the glory and the honor and the permanence and the transcendence and the mystery associated with God and His Revelation.
To be sure, Latin is not an absolute guarantor of such qualities. The constituent prayers of the Mass must express the fullness of the Holy Faith, something which is not done in the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo. A simple comparison of the prayers found in the Missale Romanumpromulgated by Pope Saint Pius V and the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick demonstrates that the expression of the faith has been changed quite radically (as I noted when analyzing Paragraph 15 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in Change for change sake). This is especially the case with feasts of the Blessed Mother as I noted in the text of GIRM Warfare.
That those responsible the synthetic conciliar liturgy felt free to tamper with the expression of the faith indicates that it is not simply Latin in se which is the guarantor of the permanence associated with the Adoration of God in the Mass. It is the use of Latin and the prayers that most fully express within themselves the Deposit of Faith that conveys such permanence and universality. And, naturally, as Latin is the language of Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V, it does not need to be translated into a living language for its celebration by the priest, who thereby is simply an agent to whom has been entrusted our glorious liturgical tradition, to be celebrated in all of its beauty and splendor.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a mocker of the Holy Faith and of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
This is because Bergoglio believes in a different faith, a false faith that is the counterfeit ape of Catholicism, a false faith that demanded a new form of worship, one that stresses the horizontal relationship of men with each other, not the vertical relationship of man to His Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself described Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s blasphemous mockeries directed at everything to do with authentic Catholic Faith and Worship:
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (John 8: 44.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a Catholic, and it is generally a nifty kind of thing for one who claims to be a true pope to be a Catholic, and I will let both Saint Francis de Sales and Pope Leo XIII explain why Bergoglio is not a member of the Catholic Church:
With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
No, “partial credit” does not cut it to retain one's membership in good standing within the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.
Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way." (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)
Pope Pius XI, writing in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, also rejected any notion of a distinction between "fundamental" and allegedly "non-fundamental" doctrines of the Catholic Faith:
Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
It is very late for anyone not to see that the conciliar "popes" have not possessed the Catholic Faith, and they did not possess it at the time of their supposed "elections" by their brother apostates in 1958, 1963, twice in 1978, 2005, and 2013.
May we continue our devotions to the Poor Souls during this month of November as we seek to make reparation for the sins of men, starting with our own but including also, of course, the sins of mocking blasphemers such as Bergoglio, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day our as state-in-life permits 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 Didacus, pray for us.