Catholic Family News

This Month’s Edition

This month’s edition of Catholic Family News contains the articles listed below. Only a few of these are reprinted on this website. To read all of the articles contained in this month’s edition, choose one of our subscription options, each of which comes with access to the E-Edition of the paper so you can start reading these articles now.

December 2022 Contents

“Continuous ‘Aggiornamento‘”: Synod Seeks to Preserve “Precious Legacy” of Vatican II (Matt Gaspers)

After months of “listening to the People of God” and reviewing reports prepared by dioceses and episcopal conferences around the globe, the General Secretariat for the Synod of Bishops in Rome has produced a “Working Document for the Continental Stage” (DCS), the next phase of the three-year Synod on Synodality (Oct. 2021—Oct. 2024).

The 49-page text, released on Oct. 27 via a Vatican press conference, consists of four chapters and centers around a theme drawn from Scripture: “Enlarge the space of your tent” (Isa. 54:2). “This image and narrative,” the document states, “represents a key to an interpretation of the contents within the DCS in the light of the Word, placing them in the arc of God’s promise that becomes a vocation for his People and his Church: ‘Enlarge the space of your tent!’” (DCS, 10).

What does it mean to enlarge the tent? The phrase “radical inclusion,” found in a few different places throughout the text, seems to sum up the meaning, for example: “The vision of a Church capable of radical inclusion, shared belonging, and deep hospitality according to the teachings of Jesus is at the heart of the synodal process: ‘Instead of behaving like gatekeepers trying to exclude others from the table, we need to do more to make sure that people know that everyone can find a place and a home here’ (remark by a parish group from the USA)” (DCS, 31).

We will see what “radical inclusion” entails when we survey the contents of the document, but first let us focus on a crucial paragraph that appears towards the end of the text — arguably the key to interpreting both the document and the entire Synod on Synodality (emphasis added):

“… walking together as the People of God requires us to recognize the need for continual conversion, individual and communal. On the institutional and pastoral level, this conversion translates into an equally continuous reform of the Church, its structures and style, in the wake of the drive for continuous ‘aggiornamento,’ the precious legacy of the Second Vatican Council to which we are called to look as we celebrate its 60th anniversary.” (DCS, 101)

To continue reading, subscribe to Catholic Family News

Crisis in the Church: Understanding Benedict XVI’s Role (Brian M. McCall)

I know of a priest who sang a Te Deum when Benedict XVI resigned. No, he was not a Modernist or progressive. He was a traditional priest who only offers the True Mass and sound doctrine. Why would such a priest rejoice over the end of the Benedictine papacy? Did not Benedict free the Mass, nullify the alleged decrees of excommunication of the SSPX bishops, and bring a certain dignity back to the papal office?

These facts are all true and, as isolated incidents, they all did some good for the Church. But these facts are at the very heart of why this priest thought Benedict XVI was the most dangerous of the post-Conciliar popes to that point. He offered a false hope to the saner members of the Church that maybe a modus vivendi could be found between the Church and the Council. He appeared to hold out hope that the course of the Church could be righted without repudiating the Council and its texts (or at least parts of them). In short, he gave a false sense of security to the more conservative-minded Catholics while preserving the instruments of the Revolution within the bosom of the Church.

Viganò’s Text on Ratzinger

In early November, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò issued an intervention discussing the legacy of the ecclesiology of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The text was written in response to a letter that Joseph Ratzinger, formerly Benedict XVI, sent to the Franciscan University of Steubenville to be read at a symposium focused on the thought of Benedict XVI. In his intervention, Archbishop Viganò details the dangerous aspects of Ratzinger’s understanding of the Church that was obscured by the lace, gold, incense, and Latin of his exteriors.

Like his Dec. 22, 2005 address to the Roman Curia and his farewell address to the Roman Clergy on Feb. 14, 2013 (on the eve of the effective date of his abdication), this letter is a full-throttled defense of the Council. It is not a defense in the sense that the Council did not change things and is traditional. No, it is a defense of its radicality. To continue reading, subscribe to Catholic Family News

*The Popes Speak* Pius XI’s Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii on the Catholic Priesthood, Part VI

Grave Responsibility of Seminary Superiors

71. Let Superiors of seminaries, together with the spiritual directors and confessors, reflect on how weighty a responsibility they assume before God, before the Church, and before the youths themselves, if they do not take all means at their disposal to avoid a false step. We declare, too, that confessors and spiritual directors could also be responsible for such a grave error; and not indeed because they can take any outward action, since that is severely forbidden them by their most delicate office itself, and often also by the inviolable sacramental seal; but because they can have a great influence on the souls of the individual students, and with paternal firmness they should guide each according to his spiritual needs. Should the superiors, for whatever reason, not take steps or show themselves weak, then especially should confessors and spiritual directors admonish the unsuited and unworthy, without any regard to human consideration, of their obligation to retire while yet there is time; in this they should keep to the most secure opinion, which in this case is the one most in favor of the penitent, for it saves him from a step which could be for him eternally fatal. If sometimes they should not see so clearly that an obligation is to be imposed, let them, at least, use all the authority which springs from their office and the paternal affection they have for their spiritual sons, and so induce those who have not the necessary fitness to retire of their own free will. Let confessors remember the words of St. Alphonsus Liguori on a similar matter: “In general … in such cases the more severity the confessor uses with his penitents, the more will he help them towards their salvation; and on the contrary, the more cruel will he be the more he is benign.” St. Thomas of Villanova called such over-kind confessors: Impie pios — “wickedly kind”; “such charity is contrary to charity.”

Chief Responsibility Rests with the Bishop

72. The chief responsibility, however, rests with the Bishop, who, according to the severe law of the Church, “should not confer Holy Orders on anyone, unless from positive signs he is morally certain of canonical fitness; otherwise, he not only sins grievously but also places himself in danger of sharing in the sins of others.” This canon is a clear echo of the warning of the Apostle to Timothy: “Impose not hands lightly on any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins” [1 Tim. 5:22]. “To impose hands lightly,” Our Predecessor St. Leo the Great expounds, “is to confer the sacerdotal dignity on persons not sufficiently approved: before maturity in age, before merit of obedience, before a time of testing, before trail of knowledge; and to be a partaker of other men’s sins is for the ordainer to become as unworthy as the unworthy man whom he ordains”; for, as St. John Chrysostom says, “You who have conferred the dignity upon him must take the responsibility of both his past and his future sins.” Click here to continue reading

Cursed Cultus or Worthy Worship: The Choice That Faces Us (Peter A. Kwasniewski, Ph.D.)

Editor’s Note: The following is a transcript of prepared remarks delivered by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski at the official launch of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book, The Catholic Mass: Steps to Restoring the Centrality of God in the Liturgy (Sophia Institute Press, 2021), hosted by the publisher in Arlington, VA (Oct. 18, 2022).

*****

It is truly a great honor and joy to be here this evening, in the company of His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider, my long-time friend Diane Montagna, my newer friend Charlie McKinney, and all the distinguished guests and faithful Catholics who make up the audience. Thank you for coming tonight to learn about Bishop Schneider’s critically important book, The Catholic Mass. For a book with such a modest and straightforward title, I must say it packs a punch. To my mind, it ought to be required reading for every seminarian, deacon, priest, and religious, as well as any layman with an interest in the sacred liturgy—and that should be all of us.

I’d like to open my remarks with two quotations from Sacred Scripture. “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord with slackness” (Jer. 48:10, ESV), or as some other translations have it, “negligently” (cf. ASV); and, “Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness” (Ps. 29:2, KJV).

“Exalt Him as Much as Ye Can”

The first verse, taken from the Prophet Jeremiah, speaks of a terrible danger that faces mortal man in this life: the danger of neglecting the opus Dei, the work of divine worship for which we and the entire cosmos have been created and redeemed; the sin of performing it carelessly or fraudulently. In the tradition, “religion” names the virtue by which we give to God what we owe Him — the best we can, in the best manner, according to the Book of Sirach: “When you glorify the Lord, exalt Him as much as ye can; for even yet will He far exceed: and when ye exalt Him, put forth all your strength, and be not weary, for ye can never go far enough” (43:30). As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, religion is the highest of all moral virtues. Offering right religious worship is the most important task we have, ranking only behind the acts of the theological virtues of faith in God, hope in gaining Heaven by God’s help, and charity for God and for those who belong to Him. Jeremiah is warning us against a “cursed cultus,” in which either what we are offering or the manner in which we are offering it is displeasing to Almighty God, and brings upon us not blessing but curse.

The second verse, taken from Psalm 28 (or 29 in the Hebrew enumeration), speaks positively of the blessed obligation we have to “worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.” The beauty required for worship is first and foremost an internal spiritual beauty, that of holiness, of being in the state of grace; but since we are creatures of soul and body, the beauty of the invisible God and of the invisible soul in which He deigns to dwell are also meant to be reflected outwardly in the beauty of how we worship as rational animals — in the beauty of our churches, our liturgical ceremonies, our sacred music, our vestments, vessels, furnishings, paintings, sculptures, and windows. These things can teach us and tell us, wordlessly, that God is the ultimate beauty for which we long; that His beauty is luminous, radiant, ravishing, attractive, comforting, and calming, and yet also demanding, severe, strange, incomprehensible, mysterious. He is the God among us and the God beyond us: Emmanuel, but also the One “dwelling in light inaccessible, Whom no man hath seen nor can see,” as St. Paul says to St. Timothy (1 Tim 6:16). To continue reading, subscribe to Catholic Family News

Cardinal Cupich Encourages “Eucharistic Revival” Based on Several Modernist Errors (Anthony P. Stine, Ph.D.)

Cardinal Cupich begins the fifth installment of his tiresome, self-indulgent series of articles to the Church in Chicago on the USCCB-sponsored “Eucharistic revival” by recounting a conversation with a parishioner who must been nearly 80 years old, given that the man has memories of how the distribution of Holy Communion was handled before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Cupich starts by reminding us that before the ‘Only Council That Matters,’ the same priests who would be responsible for the most horrifying liturgical abuses in the 1970s played fast and loose with the Mass before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. This will come as no surprise to anyone who is capable of clear thinking:

“A parishioner recently mentioned that my series of articles on the Eucharist triggered memories about the way Mass was celebrated before the Second Vatican Council. One of them related to how Communion was distributed: ‘Right after the consecration,’ he noted, ‘the associate priest would come out and begin distributing Communion, using hosts from the tabernacle, as the pastor continued with the Mass. The pastor would do the same for the associate when he was celebrating Mass.’ This practice reduced the time it took to distribute Communion. Masses, scheduled every hour, had to be over in 30 to 40 minutes, given the high rates of attendance.”

It’s odd for a bishop to lament that there were so many Masses offered at a parish that they needed to be over relatively quickly, though he is blowing things out of proportion. Many older parishes had multiple chapels available in one building, and a few of those buildings are still around if you know where to find them.

Cupich’s critique is dishonest for at least one reason: the Masses most often celebrated at the typical diocesan parish were Low Masses, which are not sung, have no choir, and can be prayed quietly by the priest relatively quickly without abuse. When combined with a concise homily, the result is a Mass that can be offered and finished in 40 minutes (depending on the number of communicants, of course). This is still the norm in many places. My own Sunday Masses are divided between an FSSP parish on one Sunday and an SSPX chapel on another, with my family attending Low Mass with the FSSP that lasts maybe 45 minutes on average. How a properly offered Mass being conducted in a short time is a problem for the Cardinal is not something that is easily understandable, especially considering that the typical New Mass offered on a Sunday is about 45 minutes in length itself, with Pope Francis repeatedly stating that the priest’s homily should be short (no more than 8 to 10 minutes in length). To continue reading, subscribe to Catholic Family News

Catholics May Resist and Even Disobey the Pope Under Certain Circumstances, Part II (Paul Casey)

The Church Has Always Taught R&R

Traditional Catholics are under no obligation to accept the Sedevacantist position that the recent popes are invalid, given the ongoing debate on the possible requirement of a formal, authoritative declaration confirming as much. Those who hold the R&R position are therefore perfectly entitled to invoke in their defense Pope John Paul II, who, in 1990 promulgated the instruction Donum Veritatis, penned by Cardinal Ratzinger, who referred to potential “deficiencies” in magisterial documents:

“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. … It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.” (Donum Veritatis, nn. 24, 31)

Thus, a theologian can recognize the validity of a magisterial document — and the pope who promulgated it — while at the same time identifying “deficiencies” and, having done so, withhold assent. Theologians are here given permission to recognize and resist, which is exactly what they did when Pope Francis issued his “inadmissible” teaching on the death penalty and when the CDF issued a document on the COVID vaccines.

Of course, the Sedevacantists would not recognize Pope John Paul II’s authority, and, by extension, that of Cardinal Ratzinger. The Sedevacantists would claim, presumably, that since John Paul II is not a valid pope, Donum Veritatis is not valid magisterial teaching. But even if they did, they would still be ignoring popes they consider valid who did advocate R&R.

First, Pope Hadrian II (867-872):

“…Honorius…had been accused of heresy, which is the only offence where inferiors have the right to resist the initiatives of their superiors or are free to reject their false opinions…”

Note that Honorius was not considered by the Church to be a heretic at the time of Hadrian II and has always been considered a valid pope. He did not lose his office over the ambiguous letters he wrote during the Monothelite controversy, as even the Sedevacantists acknowledge. Honorius is, therefore, an example of a pope whom a successive pope, Hadrian II, stated could be accused of heresy while still being recognized as pope and then resisted, and Catholics in similar situations have “the right to resist the initiatives” and are “free to reject their false opinions” of valid popes without having to argue that the See is vacant. To continue reading, subscribe to Catholic Family News

Advent and the Four Last Things (Timothy Flanders)

Advent brings the most acute contrast between the celebration of the Church and the celebration of the world. This is because in Advent the Church remembers the Four Last Things: death, judgement, heaven, and hell. As worldly men hasten to “Christmas parties” in Advent, the Church prays against “the threatening dangers of our sins,” beseeching the Lord for grace to “despise the things of earth and to love those of heaven.”[i] As the world grows ever darker, both spiritually and physically, the Church cries out for deliverance from the Advent of Christ.

The First Sunday of Advent anchors the season in the Four Last Things by continuing the vision of the Second Coming that we heard in the final Sunday of Pentecost. It then follows with three Gospels on the following Sundays, centering on St. John the Baptist heralding Christ and calling for repentance. Then is interwoven Laetare Sunday, which bids the Church rejoice for the coming of Christ and introduces in the Embertide Gospels the coming of Christ in the flesh.

Thus have our fathers passed down Advent, the beautiful liturgical tapestry of fear and hope, darkness and light. A strong tradition, even in the West, also had a great deal of fasting involved, which has come down to us in the fasting of Embertide. Thus just as Paschaltide is preceded by a period of penance and fasting, so too Advent must be kept by pious souls as a period of penance to properly feast in the joyous season of Christmas. In Lent, the object of meditation is our Lord’s Passion especially through the Stations of the Cross. In Advent, the object of meditation is the Four Last Things.

On the Efficacy and Necessity of Remembering the Four Last Things

The Holy Ghost declares in Scripture: “In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin” (Ecclus. 7:40). It is a remarkable thing, indeed, when one remembers the Four Last Things as a remedy for temptation. Whenever a pious soul is seized in temptation, he can say out loud “death, judgement, heaven, and hell.” Immediately, a great clarity comes over the mind. The intellect is enlightened to remember the consequences of our actions. The will is strengthened to avoid hell and seize upon eternal life. The burning passions are cooled by the heat of eternal fire. Indeed, the remembrance of the Four Last Things is victory over every sin.

Thus, it is not surprising to find our modern world of opulent luxury and advanced medical science forgetting God, for we have forgotten death. This is nothing else than what the Holy Ghost has declared in Proverbs:

“Give me neither beggary, nor riches: give me only the necessaries of life: Lest perhaps being filled, I should be tempted to deny, and say: Who is the Lord? or being compelled by poverty, I should steal, and forswear the name of my God.” (Prov. 30:8-9)

To continue reading, subscribe to Catholic Family News

WEF’s Brave New World (Brandon Letsgo)

The events of the past several years on the world stage have certainly been … interesting. Police in Australia shooting crowds of hundreds with rubber bullets for defying “lockdown” (from a cold virus) to buy food; Ireland and other nations outlawing all church services, including baptisms and funerals, and passing laws defining how many people can be inside one’s own home at a given time; China “locking down” cities of tens of millions, causing mass starvation and death, over a “zero-COVID” policy that they admit is nothing more than a competition with Western governments that has nothing to do with “health”; the crackdown, including brutal beatings by apparent foreign mercenaries, on completely peaceful trucker protests in Canada. And all of the above is now being followed by the next phase of “The Great Reset”: the war against food and energy currently underway.

What is going on?

What is going on is that the position that there is a cabal of global “elites” that wish to transform society and bring the entire world under their control is no longer any kind of “conspiracy theory.” These “elites” and their plans are all but completely out in the open now. The World Economic Forum publishes their philosophy and their goals. Only a bare minimum of reading between the lines is necessary to see the entire picture.

They brag about the fact that Trudeau in Canada, Rutte in the Netherlands, Varadkar and Donohoe in Ireland, Morrison in Australia, and many others are all WEF associates — that is, puppets. These men and countless others are now putting into action the plans of the WEF. We will see what those plans entail below.

The Dutch Experiment

First, a quick look at recent events. Let’s start with the current Dutch situation.

They are conducting another one of their experiments in the Netherlands, crushing their farmers with unscientific, nonsensical “environmental” laws. This isn’t a problem to them — it’s the plan. Farmers must suddenly cut nitrogen use by up to 70%, completely arbitrarily, in a draconian move they are completely aware will destroy many farms and lead to severe food shortages.

They are brazen and powerful enough to literally starve people of energy and food, and they are getting away with it. They do not care how many lives “The Great Reset” ruins.

The entirely peaceful protests this was bound to provoke have once again been met with brutal crackdown, including undercover “police” and mercenaries beating and secretly arresting peaceful Dutch farmer protestors.

As with the COVID lockdowns and all of the entirely facile “climate change” policies, it is not about health or the environment, but about transforming society into something that can be controlled entirely from the top. To continue reading, subscribe to Catholic Family News

*Apologetics Series* Msgr. Fenton’s Handbook on Catholic Apologetics: The Discernibility of Revelation, Part I (Matthew Plese)

The Credibility of Divine Revelation

Continuing on with his didactic study of apologetics, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton opens the sixth chapter of Laying the Foundation by addressing the discernibility of divine revelation. Under this topic, he explains the three signs of revelation, the three kinds of miracles, their order in the universe, how to discern true versus false miracles, and their ultimate connection with the credibility of revelation. The first part of this lengthy chapter is devoted to the signs of revelation and miracles. He begins though with a foundational recap of what credibility means:

“In order to show that the testimony of some man is reliable we must point out three distinct facts. In the first place, we must demonstrate that the man himself is truthful, that he has no intention of doing other than tell the truth about the matter under consideration, and secondly that he actually knows what he is talking about in this given case. Finally, we must be at pains to show that the testimony in question was really and actually given by the person who was supposed to have given it.

When we are dealing with the matter of divine revelation, we obviously need offer only one of these proofs. There is no special need of insisting upon the fact that God is truthful. We know of the divine veracity and of the divine omniscience through the proofs of metaphysics. These qualities are known naturally as divine attributes. We demonstrate the existence of these attributes from the fact that God is that First Cause whose existence we know through the consideration of those beings which could neither be or act apart from His causality. The study of the divine attributes from the purely natural point of view belongs rather to metaphysics than to apologetics.”

Msgr. Fenton ties credibility in general to its specific purpose in the work of the apologist:

“On the other hand, it is the central and essential purpose of apologetics to point out the evident indications that Catholic dogma, offered as a message from God to man, has actually been revealed by God Himself. Because this teaching is put forward as mediate rather than immediate revelation, we cannot rely merely upon the experience of that one who has directly received the divine communication. We can establish the proper divine authorship of this message in the light of natural reason, only in that same way in which we can discern the authorship of any other communication which comes to us through indirect channels. We must look for something which is analogous to a divine signature, really attached to the message which comes to us in His name.

If we can show that the message is thus as it were signed by God, we shall evidently have sufficient reason for giving a prudent assent of divine faith to the truths contained in it. The message will be evidently and rationally credible, since obviously the all-just and veracious God could not knowingly signify His assent to a claim of divine authorship for a doctrine which He knew to be merely human in character. The point which we must consider then is the nature of this divine signature and its application to the doctrine which we propose as divinely revealed.”

Regarding the “divine signature,” Msgr. Fenton identifies three categories which he calls “signs of revelation”: (1) positive signs from God, (2) negative criteria by which false claims can be detected, and (3) internal criteria of revelation. He covers each of these in the context of miracles. To continue reading, subscribe to the Catholic Family News E-Edition

The Challenge of Corrective Conversation (Randall C. Flanery, Ph.D.)

As Christians we are supposed to be obedient to the Truth, supernatural and natural; we follow Christ’s example in all facets of our lives; and because it is good and beautiful, we want to share it with others. As such, we will feel compelled to correct someone if an error is stated about an essential truth. Perhaps it contradicts a teaching of the Church or a fundamental human value, is contrary to common sense, or relates to a matter of social or political significance. If so, the other person would be much better off if they only knew the truth, and each of us, in turn, would be better served by the correction.

All of us have had the experience of having a conversation with someone — a friend, a co-worker, a relative — in which something is stated that you or they are sure is contrary to truth. You may not intend to engage in controversy, but during the discourse you feel the urge to assert a truth or dispute an observation someone else makes. It is a matter of principle; to not speak up would be a dereliction of duty. Corrective conversations often do not go well. The pleasant conversation escalates into a mild dispute, then a major argument, and then finally angry words, hurt feelings, and perhaps one of you angrily departs. Hopefully, no physical harm results, but the relationship may be strained and is perhaps irreparably damaged.

Does it need to be this way? Is it inevitable? Could it be avoided? Or, is there no accounting for idiots who do not wish to know the truth? In our current divisive times with low tolerance for differences of opinion, these kinds of corrective conversations seem to be especially fraught.

Fortunately, we do not live in the days of St. Thomas More, who, after much public dispute, declined to explicitly assent to the Oath of Supremacy (that the King of England was also the Head of the Church, not the Pope). He lost both the argument and his head. Currently, it is sufficiently aversive to offer opinions at odds with those around you, causing many to remain silent, others to suffer estrangement from friends and family, and a few to resort to violence. Our network of friends is thus reduced only to those who share our views.

Having participated in and observed numerous dissatisfying conversations intended to achieve a better understanding, I began to reflect upon why so many well-intentioned endeavors failed in their purpose and, worse, may have caused harm. Many of these conversations by traditional Catholics go awry for reasons other than the obstinacy of those who reject the truth. To continue reading, subscribe to the Catholic Family News E-Edition

Abp. Viganò Blasts “Total Self-Referentiality of the ‘Conciliar Church’” in Response to Papal Homily (Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò)

With the prosopopoeia that distinguishes ideological propaganda, the recent Bergoglian panegyric (here) on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Opening of the Ecumenical Council Vatican II did not fail to confirm, beyond the empty rhetoric, the total self-referentiality of the “conciliar Church,” that is, of that subversive organization born almost imperceptibly from the Council and which in these sixty years has almost totally eclipsed the Church of Christ by occupying her highest levels and usurping her authority.

The “conciliar Church” considers itself heir to Vatican II apart from the other twenty Ecumenical Councils that preceded it over the centuries: this is the main factor of its self-referentiality. It disregards them in the Faith, proposing a doctrine contrary to that taught by Our Lord, preached by the Apostles, and transmitted by the Holy Church; it disregards them in Morality, derogating from principles in the name of situational morality; finally, it disregards them in the Liturgy, which as a prayerful expression of the lex credendi has wished to adapt itself to the new magisterium, and at the same time has lent itself as a most powerful instrument for indoctrinating the faithful. The faith of the people has been scientifically corrupted through the adulteration of the Holy Mass carried out through the Novus Ordo, thanks to which the errors contained in nuce in the texts of Vatican II took shape in the sacred action and spread like a contagion.

But if on the one hand the “conciliar Church” is keen to reiterate that it wants nothing to do with the “old Church,” and even less with the “old Mass,” declaring both of them distant and unproposable precisely because they are incompatible with the phantom “spirit of the Council;” on the other hand, it confesses with impunity the loss of that bond of continuity with the Traditio which is the necessary prerequisite — willed by Christ Himself — for the exercise of authority and power by the Hierarchy, whose members, from the Roman Pontiff to the most unknown Bishop in partibus, are Successors of the Apostles and as such must think, speak, and act.

This radical break with the past — evoked in dark shades by the primitive speech of the one who coins neologisms such as “backwardness” and hurls anathemas against “grandmother’s lace” — is obviously not limited to external forms — with all that they are precisely the form of a very precise substance, not tampered with by chance — but extends to the very foundations of the Faith and the Natural Law, reaching a real subversion of the ecclesiastical institution, such as to contradict the will of the divine Founder. Click here to continue reading