Author Topic: The Logical Development of Bergoglio’s Pontificate (Read 261 times)

Hermes · « **on:** July 23, 2021, 03:33:13 PM »

Say what you will about Francis, at least he has integrity

By Louie Verrecchio

In his letter to bishops, Francis claimed that he was moved to issue his Motu Proprio because adherence to the Traditional Latin Mass is “often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself.”
His Hostileness went on to say:

Quote

To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cuм Petro et sub Petro in an ecuмenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

Francis is very nearly correct. One may even say that he is demonstrating a higher degree of intellectual honesty than his immediate predecessors, Ratzinger included, each of whom also pledged allegiance to the Almighty Council but were too weak to even attempt to carry out its liturgical wishes as he is.
The truth of the matter is that devotion to the Traditional Roman Rite – and more to the point, insistence upon its continuation according to the 1962 (or earlier) Missal – necessarily entails a rejection of Vatican Council II. As current events plainly demonstrate, however, very few seem bright enough to realize this fact, and fewer still possess the integrity to admit it aloud.
So, listen up those of you who are wailing and gnashing your teeth over Traditionis Custodes:
If you believe that Vatican II is a valid ecuмenical council, the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, and Francis is a valid pope and the visible head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, then cease your incessant whining about Bergoglio’s assault on the Traditional Latin Mass. On second thought, if you believe any one of these things, put a sock in it, you have no right whatsoever to complain: Not only are your positions entirely inconsistent with one another, your actions are far more Protestant than Catholic.
This applies not just to Peter and Polly Pewsitter, but also to any number of high-profile Catholic commentators who should, and perhaps may, know better. Some examples:

Quote

I think of all the people I’ve met in recent years who have discovered the traditional Latin Mass and found it to be a source of strength and comfort in their spiritual pilgrimage here on earth. They don’t reject Vatican II; they don’t think they are better than Novus Ordo Catholics; they don’t hate the pope. By and large, they don’t concern themselves with Church politics. They simply love the beauty and reverence and richness of the traditional Latin Mass—a beauty, reverence, and richness they could not find at their local parish.
– Eric Sammons, Crisis Magazine

This is utter nonsense, on a number of levels, but let’s just look at one: They don’t reject Vatican II…
If one doesn’t reject Vatican II and therefore believes that Sacrosanctum Concilium is the product of a valid ecuмenical council, approved by valid popes, then there is no justification whatsoever for insisting that the Catholic Church retain the Latin Mass as it existed in 1962.
In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to expect more than just one Roman Rite to exist in our day. The only thing such a person can reasonably expect to find in the Church [sic] today is the “reformed” Traditional Latin Mass and guess what; it’s readily available and it’s called the Novus Ordo!
There is no indication that the Council Fathers ever imagined, or desired, for the ancient rite to carry on just as it was alongside whatever the “reform” happened to produce. None.
Forget any arguments about whether or not the so-called reform that actually took place met with their expectations; it did for some, not so much for many others. It also matters not one whit whether or not the reform reflects the letter of the conciliar text. Either way, the “reformed” liturgy was approved by the same “Saint” Paul the Pathetic who approved Sacrosanctum Concilium, and not one of his successors have ever challenged that approval.
So, if you happen to consider Francis the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, suck it up, buttercup. No one wants to hear your disjointed claims of liturgical hardship.
This brings me to Dr. Joseph Shaw, President of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, who told LifeSite News:

Quote

Pope Francis appears to be punishing all priests who celebrate the Traditional Mass and all the laity who attend it for the alleged sins of a few: who ‘reject Vatican II’, whatever exactly that means.

Really, he doesn’t know what that means? Please, he knows precisely what that means, that particular potato is just a little too hot for him to handle. Just for fun, check out his organization’s FAQ page and their answer to the question: Isn’t the theology of the Traditional Mass at odds with the theology of Vatican II? The tap dance routine that follows puts Fred Astaire to shame!
As it is, Shaw is plainly suggesting that the Second Vatican Council and the TLM are in some way compatible. He couldn’t possibly be more wrong on several levels, the most obvious of which has been mentioned.
The Council called for the Roman Rite to undergo a reform and it did. Shaw may not like what it produced, but last I checked, it’s the pope’s call whether or not the reform is acceptable, and Francis, whom Shaw calls “Pope,” insists that it is. So there.
If Bergoglio really is the Holy Roman Pontiff gloriously reigning, or even belligerently reigning, then who in the Hell is Joseph Shaw or anyone else to piss and moan about his liturgical judgment?
And then there’s the inimitably witty Fr. John Hunwicke, whose vocabulary alone is enough to make the “full communion” trad-cons swoon. He writes:

Quote

Vatican II was an Ecuмenical Council (albeit, a pastoral Council), just as much as all the other Ecuмenical Councils. What it mandated, possessed auctoritas [a sense of authoritativeness].

If you happen to agree with Fr. Hunwicke and sincerely believe that Vatican II is as much an ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church as any other and, therefore, possesses real authority, then spare us your lamentations over the “Pontiff’s” latest ruling, you have no leg to stand on.
Now, let’s hear from Dom Alcuin Reid, another revered figure in such circles:

Quote

+ Our Holy Father Pope Francis has, last Friday, enacted legislation in respect of the usus antiquior of the Roman rite – the more ancient form of the liturgy – in the light of his grave concerns that its celebration has endangered the unity of the Church and fostered division within it, including a rejection of the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium of the popes following it. These are grave concerns, and any pope is right to address them when he believes they exist.

“+ Our Holy Father…” That alone sums things up rather nicely, does it not? Reid went on to state, as if to reassure Modernist Rome of his conciliar bona fides:

Quote

So too, we have no business other than to affirm the Second Vatican Council as a legitimate Ecuмenical Council of the Church and to hold as true that which any Ecuмenical Council, including the most recent one, defines to be a matter of faith.

Well, then, if that’s where you’re coming from, take your Novus Ordo medicine like a big boy and quit your bellyaching.
We could go on, but you get the point.
Traditionis Custodes is a Godsend inasmuch as it forces all who express devotion to the Traditional Roman Rite to reexamine their beliefs concerning the Second Vatican Council; the Novus Ordo; the papacy and the Church, each in the light of authentic Catholic doctrine. If only this be done with the same degree of consistency and intellectual honesty that Jorge Bergoglio is showing, I dare say that many will come away singing a different tune than they are today.
This challenge applies all the more to public figures, especially those whose work is published by media outlets that lay claim to tradition – Remnant and Catholic Family News immediately come to mind.
It also applies in a uniquely profound way to individual churchmen, in particular those attached to societies like the Fraternity of Saint Peter and Institute of Christ the King, as well as to those societies themselves.
All of that said, it seems to me that the onus rests most squarely upon the SSPX:
Will they speak the plain truth about the utter invalidity of Vatican Council II; the present claimant to the Chair of St. Peter; the institution that he heads and the bogus liturgy that it celebrates, or will they play the shrinking violet, subtly encouraging Our Lord’s enemies as they usher the naive all the way to Hell?
The days of having one’s traditional cake and eating it too are over.
https://akacatholic.com/francis-integrity/

Meg · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2021, 04:34:24 PM »

I remember when Louie Verrecchio was an advocate and diehard fan of the Hermeneutic of Continuity of Vatican ll. He even published his version of how to read the Council in the light of Tradition.

So really, I don't care for his sanctimonious preaching about no one having the right to complain if they don't accept his now sede views on the subject. Not that he isn't right about some things.

Hermes · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2021, 08:49:40 PM »

Traditionis Custodes: The SSPX makes its position plain

By Louie Verrecchio

On July 22, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX, issued a letter on the “profound upheaval in the so-called traditionalist movement” caused by Traditionis Custodes.
At last, the question posed at the conclusion to yesterday’s post has been answered:

Will the Society of St. Pius X respond to the Motu Proprio by speaking the plain truth about the utter invalidity of Vatican Council II; the present claimant to the Chair of St. Peter; the institution that he heads and the bogus liturgy that it celebrates, or will they play the shrinking violet, subtly encouraging Our Lord’s enemies as they usher the naive all the way to Hell?

The letter begins with a hopeful bang, a pull quote taken from the body of the text, presented in all capital letters:
THIS MASS, OUR MASS, MUST REALLY BE FOR US LIKE THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE IN THE GOSPEL, FOR WHICH WE ARE READY TO RENOUNCE EVERYTHING, FOR WHICH WE ARE READY TO SELL EVERYTHING.

The heart of the letter consists of Fr. Pagliarani’s description of two “Churches,” the one that clings to the Traditional Latin Mass, the other that insists upon the Novus Ordo.

Before doing so, however, he prefaces his comments by reassuring the faithful that the present state of affairs is, in a certain sense, to be expected, and not just because we live in the shadow of the conciliar revolution.

He says that “we must remember that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the continuation in time of the most bitter struggle … between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.”
In this, Fr. Pagliarani would be entirely correct, at least insofar as he intended to echo the sentiments expressed in a previous post in this space:
The present assault on the true Mass is nothing less than a manifestation of Satan’s efforts, with the aid of those who have given themselves over to his service, like Bergoglio, to destroy the Catholic Church, the Kingdom of Christ on earth.

I regret to say, however, that what Fr. Pagliarani appears intent on conveying is that one really shouldn’t be all that surprised that the pope, the Vicar of Christ, has declared war on the Traditional Latin Mass, the “pearl of great price for which we must be ready to sell and to renounce everything.”
He writes:

Quote

Since Our Lord’s victory was through the Cross and through His Precious Blood, it is understandable that its perpetuation will also be marked by conflicts and contradictions …
It is not surprising that the Mass, which perfectly expresses Our Lord’s definitive victory over sin through His atoning Sacrifice, is itself a sign of contradiction.

NB: And all of this, he insists, “within the Church itself.”
Get that? Within the Church itself!

Excuse the Hell out of me, but the notion that the Holy Roman Pontiff, the visible head of the Holy Catholic Church on earth – Peter himself! – is laboring to eliminate an ancient and eminently venerable sacred rite that perfectly embodies the one true Faith in favor of one that clearly glorifies man in opposition to that Faith – by Fr. Pagliarani’s own admission – is not “understandable” in the least.
What I find most surprising is that anyone, especially those with even a shred of sensus Catholicus, might consider such a preposterous suggestion a reasonable explication of, much less a defense of, the one true Faith. And yet, I have little doubt that the Society’s cheerleaders will come out in full force to applaud Fr. Pagliarani’s reflections.

The Superior General went on at length to describe two opposing “conceptions” of the “Church” as “expressed” by the Traditional Roman Rite and the Novus Ordo respectively. Expressions and conceptions… This is a theme invoked repeatedly throughout the letter.

Really? Is that all that the sacred liturgy does, express certain conceptions? Of course not. Be that as it may, Fr. Pagliarani does come rather close to speaking like a true leader of Christian soldiers, saying:

Quote

The Tridentine Mass expresses and conveys a conception of Christian life – and consequently, a conception of the Catholic Church – that is absolutely incompatible with the ecclesiology that emerged from the Second Vatican Council.
The problem is not simply liturgical, aesthetic or purely technical. The problem is simultaneously doctrinal, moral, spiritual, ecclesiological and liturgical. In a nutshell, it is a problem that affects all aspects of the Church’s life, without exception. It is a question of faith …
On the other side stands the Mass of Paul VI. It is an authentic expression of a Church that wants to live in harmony with the world and that lends an ear to the world’s demands. It represents a Church that, in the final analysis, no longer needs to fight against the world because it no longer has anything to reproach the world.

Rest assured, his words were chosen very, very carefully in order to avoid the obvious, namely, the undeniable reality that neither the conciliar church nor its bogus “Mass” are Catholic. And if this be so, then what is one to say of the head of that despicable society?

Yes, Fr. Pagliarani is at severe pains to avoid such questions and their conclusions, obvious though they may be.

In truth, the Mass is much more than merely an expression of a conception. In the case of the Traditional Latin Mass, “the entire liturgy has the Catholic faith for its content.” Furthermore, the sacred rites “make it possible to tell genuine Christians from their false or heretical counterparts.” (cf Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 47, 23)
Please, read those citations from Pope Pius XII again.
Sadly, Fr. Pagliarani is unwilling to identify Jorge Bergoglio – the one individual most responsible for, and vehemently committed to, establishing a liturgy that has not the Catholic faith for its content over and against the liturgy of the Church – as a falseChristian, and the society that he leads as a falsechurch.

If Fr. Pagliarani really was prepared to treat the true Mass as a pearl of great price, he would be willing to suffer the slings and arrows that always land upon those who speak the truth plainly; he would repeat the words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, albeit with greater conviction still in light of subsequent godless events, and in particular, Traditionis Custodes:

This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic.

What began with a bang, ended with a whimper. Now we know, the Society of St. Pius X is content to play the shrinking violet, subtly encouraging Our Lord’s enemies as they usher the naive all the way to Hell.

https://akacatholic.com/traditionis-custodes-the-sspx-responds/

Author Topic: The Logical Development of Bergoglio’s Pontificate (Read 261 times)

Hermes

The Logical Development of Bergoglio’s Pontificate

Meg

Re: The Logical Development of Bergoglio’s Pontificate

Hermes

Re: The Logical Development of Bergoglio’s Pontificate