The Syllabus blog is back again, and after posting both +Thomas Aquinas's abd Fr. Pagliarani's commentaries on the recent motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, offers this commentary for your consideration:
https://syllabus-errorum.blogspot.com/2021/07/mas-repercusiones-de-traditionis.html


"The first commentary, by Bishop Dom Thomas Aquinas, a disciple of Monsignor Lefebvre, is terse and without rhetorical embellishments, like a good Benedictine who lives in an atmosphere of silence, but it is clear, firm and meritorious. He mentions that this measure of Francis is in absolute continuity with what has been done since the Council against the traditional Mass and the very identity of the Catholic Church, creating a new religion. With all due respect, he allows himself to mention the Popes responsible for these measures, while showing gratitude to Bishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer, who courageously stuck to Tradition without waiting or seeking any "permission" that they did not need to ask for to continue what the Church had always done.

The second commentary says a few truths about the Mass and the crisis of the Church. However, it overflows with hypocrisy and delusion or self-delusion. It is true that it does not come close to being like the lamentable sermon full of giggles of the prior of Mendoza and former Superior of the South American District, who even goes so far as to quote the red grasshopper ("let there be no panic", sic! 

). 

But neither is it the courageous plea or call to arms that some might have expected.  To begin with, and coinciding with the sharp commentary that appeared in Non Possumus (http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2021/07/carta-del-p-pagliarani-sobre-el-motu.html), Father Pagliarani does not mention Francis, signatory in the first person of the motu proprio, once. In fact, they avoid doing so in their criticisms in the Fraternity and when a Father dared to do so, he was removed from the Seminary of La Reja. They say in NP: "The Fraternity is trapped. It allowed itself to be trapped by accepting, without expressing reservations, Bergoglio's gifts. Now it feels that it cannot criticize its great "benefactor" and fears that what it has been given will be taken away. The FSSPX is now afraid. Fear that the Vatican will revoke the authorization to confess.... Fear that the permission for marriages will be cancelled.... Fear of upsetting Bishop Huonder (that declared friend of Francis who lives in a Fraternity priory).... Fear that there will be new excommunications.... Fear of being crucified again by the enemies of Christ".

Monsignor Viganò affirms: "God is truth. The Word of God is true and is God himself. To speak the truth, to shout it from the rooftops, to unveil the deception and its architects and their artifices is a sacred work. The Catholic, as the one who has preserved a minimum of dignity and honor, cannot back out of this duty".

However Pagliarani prefers to unveil the error but not its architects, so he chooses to say something neutral like "The last measures just taken against the Mass"... It is as if the pastor said that there is "the smell of wolf", that there are "howls of wolf" but does not say where and which is the wolf disguised as lamb... for fear of the wolf.

A diplomat would say, "No need to say anything, everyone knows it's Francis". Of course, that would be diplomatic language, and diplomatic language, by definition, is not combative language. Now then, are we not at war with the modernists? So?

Pagliarani says: "The battle of the last fifty years, which on July 16 has just experienced a certainly significant moment, is not the war between two rites: it is in fact the war between two different and opposing conceptions of the Church and of Christian life, absolutely irreducible and incompatible with each other. To paraphrase St. Augustine, we could say that two Masses build two cities: the old Mass has built the Christian city, and the New Mass intends to build the humanist and secular city."

It is all very well to talk about battles and war, because that is where we are. But how do the cordial relations and negotiations that the FSSPX has been maintaining with the enemy since - above all - 2012, when in June of that year it was on the verge of obtaining an agreement with Rome, which the latter canceled at the last minute when the letter of the three bishops criticizing Bishop Fellay was disseminated? How do the friendly relations with Francis, whom they do not dare to confront, because he treats them with kid gloves, through cunning concessions, fit into the "war"? Let us remember that Francis opened the doors of the main churches of Rome to the FSSPX, in which they celebrated Masses given anodyne sermons and without the least criticism to the Roman modernists, much less to the Pope. They paid their price for the favor.

In a recent interview with Pagliarani (June 2021), when asked what he would say to Francis - that is, to the Pope who is also and above all the head of the modernist sect that is destroying the Catholic Church, who brought Luther and the Pachamama to the Vatican, who promotes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and is a furious enemy of Tradition, to the friend of the ɠƖobaƖısts and the ѕуηαgσgυє, to the blasphemer and heretic who asks together with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ for an Onusian "universal Fraternity", compulsory vaccination, etc. -, if I gave him five minutes, he replied diplomatically: "I would talk to Pope Francis on the same subject. On this concern related to the formation, sanctification and perseverance of priests. But I am not sure that we would understand each other immediately."

He dares to say in another paragraph, the Superior General of the new Fraternity of St. Pius X: "May this "shock" provoked by the harshness of the official texts of July 16 serve to renew, deepen and rediscover our appreciation and our fidelity to the Tridentine Mass; this Mass, our Mass, must truly be for us as the pearl of the Gospel for which we renounce everything, for which we are ready to sell everything. Whoever is not willing to shed his blood for this Mass is not worthy to celebrate it. Whoever is not willing to renounce everything to keep it, is not worthy to attend it."

It seems very strong doesn't it, especially what we have highlighted in bold. What courage! Willing to give up everything to keep the Mass? Mmmm... Monsignor Lefebvre, who endured to die publicly infamous with an illegitimate excommunication, endured the affront of the authorities of the Church and the whole world, the contempt of the media and ecclesiastical circles, because he was not willing to renounce his Catholic faith and would have shed his blood without any doubt for the honor of Christ the King. But can the new Fraternity say the same? Since they asked Rome to remove that "stain" of the excommunications, since they accepted the plastic surgery that removed the scars of that glorious affront, fruit of the doctrinal combat, and since they preferred to expel one of their bishops in order not to bother Rome since the latter did not want to bother the ѕуηαgσgυє, can anyone believe that the Neo-Fraternity is willing to be again excommunicated and persecuted by Rome? If it were, it would have already repeated the words it has preferred to forget, the testament of its founder:

"It is therefore a strict duty for every priest who wishes to remain Catholic to separate himself from this conciliar Church, as long as she does not rediscover the tradition of the magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith."

But this is no longer up to them. The Fraternity of St. Pius X collaborates with the dioceses, particularly in the matter of marriages, and is hooked to them through Francis, having also within its ranks a modernist bishop who watches its steps. The Fraternity has hired branding specialists to soften its language and sell itself publicly as a commercial corporate brand, in order to gain numerous followers for its economically prominent enterprise. Can anyone believe that it will return to being the small and modest congregation of the early days of Bishop Lefebvre? A Fraternity that was quick to condemn the episcopal consecrations performed by Bishop Williamson because for it there was no state of need, and it feared being stuck with those consecrations, which it once performed without complexes?

As the Non Possumus commentary ends by saying:

"Crafty Rome led it into a quagmire in which it is neither possible to advance nor to retreat: it cannot reach agreement and neither can it (it does not want to) return to the previous attitude of heroic confrontation before the destroyers of the faith.

The FSSPX has taken the bait that cooled its charity, that made it ambiguous and cowed it. The flame is slowly dying out as time plays out in favor of the Roman modernists.

This was a great (and perhaps the last) opportunity to speak again loud and clear to liberal and apostate Rome, to return to the line of martyrial conduct bequeathed by Monsignor Lefebvre; but - as we see - the Fraternity missed it."



2) There have been many repercussions in the media about the Traditionis custodes or, as Father Chazal indicates, also in Latin it can be said "Jailers of Tradition", a name that is the most appropriate for it. This priest points out several of the lies of the motu proprio in a sermon () that deserve to be highlighted.

Continuing with the repercussions, Michael Matt as always gives a vigorous testimony with many hits and a heartfelt gratitude to Monsignor Lefebvre (https://gloria.tv/post/bnavfqYZttaf4n7BoNhCLezoc), mixed with his message of "union of the clans", putting everything in the same bag, without understanding that, for example, the Saint Peter Fraternity does not cease to be an invention of the conciliar Church and as such its testimony is not integrally Catholic, because it tolerates the doctrinal pluralism of the neo-church. But it happens that the North Americans are always too concerned about the "number", but it is not that which will give us strength, but the integrity of doctrine in the fight against the conciliar church!

Consulted Msgr. Schneider two days before the motu proprio, shows he still has a confusion:

"Regarding the possible abrogation or restriction of Summorum pontificuм, and traditionalist priests being asked to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass, the announcer asked, "If, God forbid, such a thing should come to pass, how would it affect the FSSPX? Would its priests be required to celebrate the Novus Ordo as well? Would they?"

To which Monsignor Schneider answered the following in conclusion:

"I don't think they would ask them [to pray the Novus Ordo Mass], and even if they were asked they wouldn't, because they have not yet fully submitted to the Holy See. So I don't think they will force them. And in case they force priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter and other orders to also celebrate the new Mass, there will be some who will move to the Fraternity of St. Pius X, because they will have more freedom to continue the Tradition of the Church. In any case, I hope it will not happen. Let us pray first that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the Pope so that he will not set limits to Benedict's motu proprio and so that the Fraternity of St. Pius X will obtain fuller recognition by the Church." https://adelantelafe.com/entrevista-a-monsenor-schneider-dos-dias-antes-de-traditiones-custodes-derogar-summorum-pontificuм-seria-un-abuso-de-autoridad/

Does he still want the Fraternity to submit more to modernist Rome, saying that he hopes that the "Fraternity of St. Pius X will obtain fuller recognition by the Church"? Which Church is he talking about? It is absurd. If the Fraternity has borne good fruit, it has been by staying out of the corrupt and corrupting official Vatican structure. And Schneider wants it totally inside?

No, we cannot hope for a real and strong resistance from these prelates, whose resistance is as timid and timorous as it is confused. Only from Bishop Viganò can we hear strong Catholic and virile words, as is appropriate in this fight against heretics and apostates who occupy the Church and want to destroy everything. This motu proprio of Francis will not generate a wave of resistance, but rather one of complaining and dispersion. The cards have been dealt.



3)Wrote Fr. Pagliarani on October 11, 2020, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the FSSPX, these words:

"I want to point out to you that Providence has always guided the FSSPX and has always protected it in the midst of a thousand difficulties. This same Providence, always faithful to its promises, always attentive and generous, cannot abandon us in the future, because it would cease to be what it is, which is impossible, since God is always the same.

In other words, after fifty years of the FSSPX's existence, our trust is rooted even more deeply in the countless signs of this benevolence that has manifested itself throughout all these years."

Yes, Providence is always faithful to its promises, but what about the FSSPX? In 2012 Providence saved the Fraternity through Monsignor Williamson, who uncovered the hidden maneuvers of Bishop Fellay and his associates to agree with Rome. But the Fraternity thanked him by kicking him in the butt. So it did with many other of its benefactors, who were giving it salutary warnings for its protection. The FSSPX has rather abused Providence, that is why it is now being punished with the worst of punishments: to suffer a self-delusion, and no longer be able to fight as it did before. Pagliarani's presumption, has its cost. "The greatest disorder of the spirit is to see things as we would like them to be, and not as they really are" (Bossuet).