I see that Bergoglio had the audacity to cite St. Vincent of Lerins, who couldn't condemn his innovation in stronger terms.
Bergoglio props up and promotes sodomites, and pro-sodomite-rights activists, and abortionists, and heretics and Modernists, and he has not a peep of rebuke for any of them. Yet he continues to be obsessed with Traditional Catholicism. For him, Traditional Catholicism is a greater evil than heresy, sodomy, and abortion combined.
This is one wicked man.
Anyone who thinks that this man is even remotely Catholic is suspect of having lost the faith.
There is a stripe of Novus Ordo Catholic who asserts that anything that takes place in the life of the Church, no matter how recently it happened, no matter what it is, is part of the "tradition of the Church" and is not to be questioned (especially if it's recent). They will tell you with a straight face that the Novus Ordo is "traditional" for this very reason (as well as that tired old chestnut of its supposedly "drawing from ancient liturgies"). Presumably, then, the 1969 Missal became "traditional" the day it was promulgated.
Here's a thought experiment: let's say that, tomorrow, Pope Francis comes out and says "from now on, we make the Sign of the Cross in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, because she is co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces". Moreover, all baptisms effective tomorrow are to be conferred in that fashion. This is supposedly not a rejection of the Trinity, because They are still there, just supplemented by Our Lady. Would there be Novus Ordo Catholics who would assert that this is valid, and legitimate, and that baptisms thus administered are valid "because the Trinity's still there"? That those who don't want to adopt this new formula are heretics? That as of tomorrow, this became "the tradition of the Church"?
"But he wouldn't do that", the NO Catholic would say. Yes, but what if he
did? What if?
Again, just a thought experiment.