Atila spent a few decades analyzing and writing about the non Catholic theology behind the docuмents of Vatican II.
An introduction to his 11 volume set is here: Link

He's therefore qualified to critique Fr. Pagliarani's letter addressing the SSPX's position on Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes.

He points out that once again, the SSPX is pulling a "fast one" on their faithful.





Bird’s Eye View of the News

Atila Sinke Guimarães  Source

THREE QUESTIONS TO FR. PAGLIARANI ¹  


1. The superior of the Society St. Pius X (SSPX) has taken an official position on the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes issued by Pope Francis on July 16, 2021. His first statement reads:

The motu proprio Traditionis custodes and the letter that accompanied it have caused a profound upheaval in the so-called traditionalist movement. We can point out, quite logically, that the era of the hermeneutics of continuity, with its equivocations, illusions and impossible efforts, is radically over – swept aside with a wave of a sleeve. These clear-cut measures do not directly affect the Society of Saint Pius X.

It was surprising to read this statement, since Francis affirms that the "schism with the movement of Msgr. Lefebvre" was the cause of the whole controversy over permission to say the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. The text taken from the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio in which Francis addresses the Bishops is here.

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty – granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 – was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Msgr. Lefebvre.

So, in the most recent official papal docuмent Francis calls Msgr. Lefebvre and his movement – the SSPX – schismatic, but Fr. Pagliarani does not believe that the SSPX is at all affected by it.



Francis called Msgr. Lefebvre & the SSPX schismatics, but ‘this does not affect us’

In 1988, after Msgr. Lefebvre and Msgr. Castro Mayer consecrated four Bishops in Écône, the six of them – along with the priests and people present – were excommunicated and declared schismatics. The older Bishops died and the four younger Bishops applied a double standard: on one hand, internally they spread that the excommunications were not valid. On the other hand, they approached the Vatican and made a great effort to have that excommunication lifted.

In 2009 Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four Bishops, but doubts continued to hover over the condition of the deceased Prelates, priests and  people. For 33 years the SSPX priests have been trying to convince their followers that there was no excommunication and that the movement is not considered schismatic by the Vatican.

Now, Francis uses the term "schism" to refer to both Msgr. Lefebvre and his movement. That is, the entire process of lifting the excommunication seems reversed and in appearance there is a return to ground zero. Nonetheless, the present day Superior of SSPX affirms that the matter does not directly affect the SSPX.

So, my first question to Fr. Pagliarani is: Why did you not defend your movement and your founder from the accusation of schism made by Pope Francis, which SSPX has been trying to escape for the last 33 years?

2. Fr. Pagliarani goes on to criticize the ecclesiology that came from Vatican II. He affirms:

After fifty years, the various elements that confirm the answer have become obvious to all well informed Catholics: 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.

This is the only criticism he made of Council Vatican II in his position paper. This statement has been interpreted by SSPX members and followers as a heroic, total and complete rejection of Vatican II. I really wish it were true. However, when we set aside emotions, we see that this is not what is written.



A skillful sleight-of-hand on the topic of Vatican II

Fr. Pagliarani does not say that he rejects the Council. He says that the Tridentine Mass is incompatible with the post-Council ecclesiology. That is, it is an accusation made against the theological abuses that followed Vatican II. There is nothing said about the actual texts of the docuмents or the ecclesiology that inspired Vatican II.

I compliment Fr. Pagilarani for finding a way to let his followers believe he is against Vatican II without actually saying that he is. It is a sleight-of-hand of a skillful prestidigitator.

However, since I am not one of his sycophants, I ask him my second question: Why did you not condemn the Council as you should have, by presenting it as Progressivism's official takeover of the Catholic Church? Is this absence of a real criticism of Vatican II a door to return to your "negotiations" with Rome after Francis dies or renounces the papal office? If so, are you not playing a double game with your grassroots, giving them the impression that you reject Vatican II when you do not?

3. In his letter Fr. Pagialrani made a significant defense of the Tridentine Mass, opposing it to the Novus Ordo Missae. He used strong words, referring to the fight between the two Masses as the fight between God and Satan, which violently implies that Paul VI was a representative of the latter.

However, the SSPX has never said the actual Tridentine Mass, which is the one said from 1570 to 1955, when the reforms made by Pius XII started the changes that resulted in the 1969 New Mass. Instead, all of the SSPX Bishops and priests say the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, which was a transitional step to reach the Novus Ordo. Let us not forget that the three steps of this process – the 1955 reform, the 1962 Missal and the 1969 New Mass – were all works of the same Msgr. Annibale Bugnini (here, here, here, here, here and here).



New directors were put in place to please Francis & reach the expected agreement... A frustraded longing?

When a person accustomed to the Novus Ordo Mass sees the '62 Mass, he believes that he is seeing the Tridentine Mass; when a person accustomed to the Tridentine Mass sees the '62 Mass, he believes he is seeing the New Mass. This is what happens with everything that is intermediary. When we have our hand in cold water and put it in tepid water, that tepid water seems hot; likewise, when we have our hand in hot water and put in tepid water, it seems cold. The '62 Missal is a tepid Mass between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.

With this as background, I ask Fr. Pagliarani my third question: Why are you trying to present yourself and your movement as defenders of the Tridentine Mass when the SSPX actually is, and always was, a follower of the middle-of-road '62 Missal? Are you renouncing the '62 Missal? In this case, why did you not make an explicit act of public rejection of the errors it contains? If you are not renouncing the '62 Missal, why are you, once again, playing a double game?

• I am interrupting my analysis of Andrea Riccardi's book The Church Burns to address this more urgent matter. I shall return to that examination soon.

If Vatican 2 had never happened, would anyone consider saying that the 1962 Missal is not the Tridentine Mass?

I highly doubt it.

There are many good articles on TIA, but it seems clear to me that they have a certain pleasure in criticizing the SSPX. It is difficult to separate their hate of the SSPX from true and rational criticisms.

This particular article for instance. It raises interesting points. Fr. Pagliarani doesn't seem to be trustworthy to me. That being said, I sense a certain "passion" behind the lines. One needs to be able to filter the words to actually get something good out of it.

I SHOULD POINT OUT that I did feel quite a difference when I went from my independent chapel to the Indult (Institute of Christ the King) in the mid 90's. They came to town, and some long-time Trads from my chapel were shock-and-awed by having a nicer building for Mass, coffee and donuts after Mass, etc. everything was like a 50's parish. And many more people, too. I remember the excitement I felt. I was no more than 20 years old, working at Best Buy as a PC tech.

But I wasn't comfortable there -- not because they used the 1962 Missale, but because they weren't Trad (per my universal, from-the-beginning, all-places-and-times basic definition of Traditional Catholic). Indult groups fail on point 3: they DO seek out permission to stay Catholic, and many of them scruple about getting married, confirmed, and/or confessed by a priest without regular jurisdiction. Sorry, but point 3 is non-negotiable. Trads from the beginning knew that God wanted them firstly to keep the Faith, so they sought out ALL sacraments from valid priests who would offer them -- never giving a thought to "we better clear this with the Pope and Church authorities".

They also didn't totally reject Vatican II. The battle cry of EVERY Trad is "Vatican II must be destroyed." Vatican II isn't 95% Catholic. It's 0% Catholic. The whole thing was conceived in the mind of satan, a fallen angel. Even the statements which seem to be true are expressions of a new twisted theology. The whole thing is subtle and satanic. 0% Catholic. We don't need "the reform of the Reform". The reform needs to go BACK to Hell where it came from.

Seeking permission to be Trad means you don't understand the Trad movement. In short, it means your eyes are still closed. You're not a Trad.

P.S. Here are my "3 points" of the Trad Movement, universally applicable to ALL Trads in all times and places.

1. Leave the Conciliar Church behind, shake the dust off your feet, total rejection of the Novus Ordo (stay home if no Trad Mass option)
2. Seek out properly trained, valid priests who will offer the Tridentine Mass and the pre-Vatican II forms of ALL of the sacraments. No scruples on jurisdiction for any of this.
3. Without seeking permission from Rome or the Pope, as it is not necessary. Do we ask permission to save our souls or to serve God by religion?

Bonus 1 (implied under #1): Vatican II must be destroyed. It must someday be thrown whole and entire into the dustbin of history -- into the lake of fire.

We don't need "the reform of the Reform". The reform needs to go BACK to Hell where it came from.

Right, a Trad slogan about V2 should be:
1.  Trads don't conform to the reform!
2.  The Reform was a Modernist storm!
3.  The Reform...isn't that what Protestants tried?
4.  The Deformed Reform!
.

P.S. Here are my "3 points" of the Trad Movement, universally applicable to ALL Trads in all times and places.

1. Leave the Conciliar Church behind, shake the dust off your feet, total rejection of the Novus Ordo (stay home if no Trad Mass option)
2. Seek out properly trained, valid priests who will offer the Tridentine Mass and the pre-Vatican II forms of ALL of the sacraments. No scruples on jurisdiction for any of this.
3. Without seeking permission from Rome or the Pope, as it is not necessary. Do we ask permission to save our souls or to serve God by religion?

Bonus 1 (implied under #1): Vatican II must be destroyed. It must someday be thrown whole and entire into the dustbin of history -- into the lake of fire.

It's sad that many Trads (i'd say over 50%, even on this site) would disagree with the above, to some degree.  Most converts aren't given the whole picture of Trad history.  They are attracted to the beauty of the TLM liturgy, the history, the reverence...but they aren't taught "how we got here", so they don't understand/accept why V2 and the new mass are the evils they are.  Then, a few decades later, with the old guard dying off, most "Trads" are so because they want the TLM, but don't understand the principles behind why they should want it, and, more importantly, why it's the only option.

Wathen was technically correct, as per usual, and as per the typical norm of what was an acceptable change for the day...however, from another point of view, the 1962 version made to be the standard, IS an overt compromise with the revolutionary church, and therefore, AS A COMPROMISE, cannot be accepted.
It is an overt sign to all involved that we do not eish to break with the N.O. church, which is false.
The fact is the N.O. church were those who seperated from the authority of The Church, not us, therefore we must not be seen as following them in ANY sense, or seen as courting to them with compromises in hope of appealing to them for the same, which is what a 1962 standard does beg; that we are being reasonable, so you should be reasonable and compromise as well, which they will not.
The religion is not ours to compromise, it is property of God Alone. None have authority to slice it up, IN ANY WAY, and make nice with other theologies by barter-swapping pieces and chunks away.
Thats what 1962 standard establishes; that Trads are "open for buisness" in the theological barter and trade mart.
1962 is an insideous standard, subtle in the extreme.

The Missal Crisis of '62

 Fr. Patrick Perez

The author, Fr. Patrick Perez,  is another example of straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. He is a Novus Ordo ordained trad "priest" (he is not a sedevacantes). Therefore, there  is doubt if he is a priest, and yet he has done nothing about it, but then writes against the 1962 missal of John XXIII and the missal of 1954 of Pius XIII, both valid popes in his mind. Crazy.

Thank you, Maria, you proved my point.  Changes were to the calendar and Holy Week only.  
.
The addition of St Jospeh was not part of the original, 62 missal approved by Pope J23.  St Jospeh was added in a 2nd edition by a liturgical commission, so arguably not papal approved.