MELTDOWN: Round-Up of Reactions to Francis’ Suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass

Chaos Frank triggers his trads!

MELTDOWN: Round-Up of Reactions to Francis’ Suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass

Now that almost two weeks have passed since the release of Traditionis Custodes, “Pope” Francis’ motu proprio “Apostolic Letter” that severely limits (and gradually eliminates) the Traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missal), a lot of reactions have poured in from various quarters of the Vatican II Church; especially, of course, from those who consider themselves traditionalists, since they are the ones negatively affected by the suppression of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum.

By phasing out the Traditional Latin Mass (aka Tridentine Mass), a decision he allegedly made based on answers procured through a questionnaire process, Francis has ripped the heart out of the traditionalists in his church. The TLM, as it is often abbreviated, is the one thing that masked the ugly Modernist reality of the Vatican II Church and made all its evils tolerable for those who were attending it exclusively.

As bad as the Pachamama idolatry and the constant stream of “papal” heresy and blasphemy have been, none of these things affected the semi-traditionalists (as we call them here) directly, that is, personally. They had the option of ignoring it. But to have their TLM taken away, that is an attack they take very personally, for it strikes cruelly at the very heart of their existence and that of their children. With Traditionis Custodes, “Pope” Jorge Bergoglio has dropped a bomb effecting nothing short of a nuclear blast — one that will, we pray and hope, shock many of them into reality.

Chaos Frank knows how to push buttons…

To see just how badly Francis has triggered his trads, it suffices to peruse the unhinged tweets posted on the Rorate Caeli Twitter feed since July 16, 2021. They’ve been throwing a tantrum. On their blog, they yelled in bold and all caps: “FRANCIS WILL DIE, THE LATIN MASS WILL LIVE FOREVER“, and days later they even removed the picture of the “Pope” they had prominently displayed there for years.

A survey of many other semi-trad web sites, blogs, podcasts, and YouTube videos that have covered the drama over Traditionis Custodes reveals people reacting not just with bewilderment but with anger, shock, despair, ridicule, frustration, and despondency — although there are also not lacking those who, depsite it all, try to sound hopeful and optimistic.

In this post we will present a large collection of links, though by no means exhaustive, to a great many reactions to the release of Traditionis Custodes, mostly from those negatively affected by it but also from some others, with a little bit of commentary by us here and there. We “survey the landscape”, so to speak, in order to provide a realistic picture of the initial fallout.

After the blast: surveying the landscape…

Official Responses

The TLM-only Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), directly affected by Traditionis Custodes, released an initial brief statement on July 16 saying that they “remain committed to serving the faithful attending our apostolates in accordance with our Constitutions and charism as we have done since our founding.” Four days later, an official communiqué from its world headquarters in Fribourg, Switzerland, reaffirmed “our unwavering fidelity to the successor of Peter on the one hand, and on the other, our desire to remain faithful to our Constitutions and charism, continuing to serve the faithful as we have done since our foundation.” One of these two will have to give, however, and this demonstrates once again how dangerous it is to accept a public apostate as the successor of St. Peter.

Angry and surprised that their trust in Modernists has now been betrayed, the organizers of the popular Chartres Pilgrimage accuse Bergoglio of clericalism and of building walls, adding that “the motu proprio will be difficult to apply in a Church which is in a catastrophic situation and which has many other difficulties — which the Vatican pretends not to see.”

The chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales deplored that a strict application of Traditionis Custodes “will seriously disrupt long-established celebrations of the older Missal, and will drive a great many faithful Catholics, who desire nothing more than to attend the ancient Mass in communion with their bishops and the Holy Father, to attend celebrations which fall outside the structures of the Church, above all those of the Society of St Pius X.” But then that is perhaps precisely what Francis wants. He can always deal with the SSPX separately, and deal with them he no doubt will.

The Fœderatio Internationalis Una Voce, in existence since 1965, released a statement in which they reacted with sadness and distress.

The Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which, although recognizing Francis as Pope refuses him submission, quickly issued a humorous but scathing rebuke against its “Supreme Pontiff” for his cancelation of the TLM. A more formal, more serious communiqué from its Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, was released a few days later, which we have critiqued here.

“Archbishop” José Gomez, president of the American USCCB (United States Conference of Novus Ordo Bishops) released a very brief statement saying he wants his “brother bishops to work with care, patience, justice, and charity as together we foster a Eucharistic renewal in our nation.” We wish good luck with that.

The Novus Ordo bishops of Poland, formerly favorably disposed to the TLM, have quietly changed their tune. Those in France are expressing their “esteem” for their TLM communities.

Reactions by individual Novus Ordo Bishops

Although Francis made Traditionis Custodes effective immediately, and thus the new provisions are offically in force already, there is a de facto delay in implementation simply because it takes time to study and understand the stipulations and figure out how to apply them in a given diocese. Different “Catholic bishops” are reacting differently.

Some are ecstatic and gung-ho and can’t wait to cancel the TLM fast enough, such as the “custodians of tradition” in Costa Rica. Others have already assured their people that the TLM will continue in their diocese — although, and this is crucial to understand, they will have to end it eventually as Rome requires any new priests who wish to offer the TLM to get Vatican permission first, which they of course will habitually deny, thus ensuring that the TLM will eventually become extinct. Still others are taking a wait-and-see approach to the whole issue, such as the notorious “Cardinal” Blase Cupich of Chicago, in whose territory the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius are at his mercy.

Inofficially, there has been set up a very useful web site that keeps track of which diocese does what in terms of Traditionis Custodes implementation. Using a “traffic light” approach of red-yellow-green, people can see right away whether their TLM is in trouble or not.

Mr. Robertus Mutsaerts, auxiliary of the Dutch diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, issued a stern rebuke of Francis, not holding back. In case he is soon promoted to the position of Apostolic Nuncio to Tonga, that may just be the reason.

The ever-present Kazakh auxiliary Athanasius Schneider had lots to say in an interview on Traditionist Custodes,

“Archbishop” Bernard Hebda of Minneapolis, who has no problem with the nightmare that is St. Joan of Arc parish, is busily studying the new norms and keeping things going for now, while over in Europe, the old Modernist “Cardinal” Walter Kasper also had something to contribute.

“Cardinals” Gerhard Ludwig Müller and Raymond Burke both made an appearance on Raymond Arroyo’s EWTN show The World Over:

In a written article, the extremely dangerous Modernist Müller also comments on Traditionis Custodes at length, calling it a “harsh disciplining of the old ritual minority.” Burke, too, issued a lengthy statement on the new “papal” decree in which he provides commentary and criticism.

“Cardinal” Joseph Zen released a powerful statement on Traditionis Custodes. He wants to know: “…can’t the anti-Ratzinger gentlemen of the Vatican patiently wait for the Tridentine Mass to die along with Benedict XVI, instead of humiliating the venerable Pope Emeritus in this way?”

In the diocese of Clifton, “Bp.” Declan Lang didn’t waste a nanosecond before banning the TLM at a Benedictine monastery. Meanwhile, sodomite liturgies still enjoy his generous support. After all, who is he to judge?!

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, the Least Rev. Frank Caggiano issued strict temporary norms rather quickly. In Westminister, “Cardinal” Vincent Nichols appears to be fairly lenient.

Interestingly enough, “Abp.” Augustine Di Noia, formerly part of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei commission dealing with the Lefebvrists, came out in support of Traditionis Custodes and expressed that, 50+ years after the introduction of the “New Mass”, it is a matter of “finding the true spirit of the liturgical reform” in the Novus Ordo missal. We wish happy searching!

Sundry responses from many more Novus Ordo bishops are summed up in this article on Catholic World Report and in that one here.

Reactions by Novus Ordo Priests

For example, “Fr.” Gerald Murray, who frequently appears on EWTN, is wondering whether Bergoglio’s harsh new directives suppressing and phasing out the TLM is “what the Church needs just now”.

“Fr.” Peter Stravinskas criticizes an “unncessary and divisive motu proprio”, saying that “Francis’ letter to the bishops comes off as judgmental and mean-spirited, reeking with a hermeneutic of suspicion.”

The blogging “I was ordained by St. John Paul II!” presbyter “Fr.” John Zuhlsdorf found a way to turn the Traditionis Custodes drama into an opportunity to crank out mugs, buttons, and T-shirts — advertising prayer and penance. In an earlier post, he observed that “the vulgarity of this document is matched only by its cruelty” (italics his). Trying to calm down his readers, he throws out a red herring: “At your judgment, you will not find popes, priests or bishops between you and your Savior” — which is true enough but irrelevant, since we will be judged on our submission to lawful ecclesiastical authority: “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them” (Heb 13:17).

The Pope in Washington, D.C. — we are talking about “Mgr.” Charles Pope — says he is “grieved and stunned” by the Frankster’s Latin Mass decree.

Meanwhile, “Fr.” Dwight Longenecker is trying to comfort the victims of Traditionis Custodes by proposing the proverbial “lipstick on a pig”: There are ways to make Paul VI’s New Mass look traditional, you know — lest the Vatican II Church become an “archipelago”.

The insufferable “Fr.” John Hunwicke is probably not interested in that. He thinks that a quote from “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger and another from some obscure cleric, together with yet another mention of “hyperuebersuperultrapapalism”, are enough to neutralize a (putative) papal motu proprio. If only St. Pius X had known that!

By the way: The Jesuit bridge-to-hell builder “Fr.” James Martin, LGBT, has also weighed in on Traditionis Custodes.

Semi-trad bloggers respond to Francis…

Reactions by Bloggers, YouTubers, Journalists, Professors, Other Writers

A number of them quickly unleashed verbal fire and fury on their “Vicar of Christ”. It turns out that Traditionis Custodes is so bad that even George Weigel, himself a “Novus Ordo man”, as he says, calls it “unnecessary” and “cruel.” Over at Crisis, editor-in-chief Eric Sammons has determined that his “Holy Father” is being not so holy and not so fatherly, giving his children a serpent instead of a fish (cf. Lk 11:11).

More “instant consternation” from various pundits is included in this Life Site report. At Crisis magazine, one writer observes: “For eight years [Francis’] actions have pushed traditionalist Catholics to the margins, and now he has decided that the margins must be eliminated.”

On another site, one disillusioned man writes with palpable exasperation: “Those who attend the Latin Mass love the Church. We love God. We try to live good lives as Catholics. As ordinary people attending Mass we should be to bishops and priests nothing less than the face of Christ. I am not sure why we warrant such contempt.” Ah, but that is precisely the reason why! The Vatican II Sect doesn’t want people who love the Church, love God, or try to live good Catholic lives. That’s the whole point! And that explains why the Modernists in charge have been acting the way they have since their takeover in 1958.

Of course not everyone reacted emotionally to Traditionis Custodes. On the more professional side, Peter Wolfgang at Catholic Herald offered “twelve quick thoughts” the very day of release, July 16, which, incidentally, was also World Snake Day. How fitting! The famous American Vaticanist John Allen weighed in two days later, and Christopher Altieri quickly laid out three concrete scenarios — best, worst, and in between — for the short term.

When Traditionis Custodes was first released, among the major American semi-trads many quickly looked to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski for guidance, a liturgically-savvy but theologically-clueless professor who enjoys tremendous popularity among TLM attendees, especially here in the United States. His expertise — real or imagined — was in immediate high demand: Life Site got an interview with him right away, he appeared for over 90 minutes on Restoring the Faith‘s “The Rundown!” on YouTube, and penned a substantial reaction for The Remnant. A few days later, he published an article for Crisis magazine, one in which he once again attacks the Papacy in an attempt to be incredibly traditional.

In an article for New Liturgical Movement, Kwasniewski boldly defies his “Pope” and declares on his own, non-existent authority that others ought to do the same: “The new Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes is illicit on numerous grounds and should be ignored or resisted rather than accepted and implemented.” Unfortunately for the self-styled “theologian” Kwasniewski, by traditional Catholic principles it is his statement that deserves to be ignored, inasmuch as it is presumptuous, devoid of authority, and injurious to the rights of the Holy See, and stands in direct contrast to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII that “if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua).

Writing a piece for Life Site, Kwasniewski considers whether Traditionis Custodes “lack[s] juridical standing”, when it is clear that if anyone is lacking canonical standing, it is the author himself. Kwasniewski also gave a long interview for The Remnant, in which he assesses Traditionis Custodes as “the worst document promulgated by a pope in the history of the Roman Church.” Now that is a most interesting comment, considering that we’ve never had the impression that Kwasniewski is terribly well-versed in papal documents. In other words: How would he know?

At Rorate Caeli, the pseudonymous editor “New Catholic” took it upon himself to override the “Holy Father’s” universal law with his own judgment, telling clergy and laity to “ignore it. Ignore its message. Ignore its motivation caused by pure hatred and vengeance. Keep calm and keep on going as if it does not even exist.” That is exactly the kind of thing Pope St. Pius X condemned in the Modernists when he lambasted them who “falsify the concept of obedience [and] arrogate to themselves the right of judging the actions of authority even to the extent of ridiculing them … opposing the faulty judgment of some individual without any real competence, or of their own inner conscience deceived by vain subtleties, to the judgment and commandment of the one who by divine mandate is their lawful judge, master, and shepherd.” Not even Massimo Viglione can change that.

At The Remnant, editor-in-chief Michael Matt wasted no time to announce that “we must resist Francis to his face from now on” — as though that were some kind of a novel approach for them. In a follow-up video, Matt discussed the “options” adherents of his resistance religion now have — loyal submission to the “Pope” strangely not being one of them. Welcome to the “Matt-gisterium”.

For the Fatima Center, lawyer-rhetorician Christopher Ferrara tried to come up with all sorts of reasons for why Traditionis Custodes isn’t binding or valid, and of course his interlocutor Brian McCall was happy to concur. The retired attorney Ferrara apparently believes that a papal document must first meet with his approval before it takes effect, or that his outrage alone is sufficient to nullify a motu proprio. But then such is the understanding of the Papacy these self-appointed “guardians of Tradition” (in Latin: traditionis custodes) have. His piece for The Remnant isn’t any better.

As they’re grappling with the cruel edict of their “Holy Father”, it is par for the course that the semi-trads now look for ways to neutralize it, either by declaring it invalid or by arguing that it has no binding force. Alas, their resolute attempts often make them oblivious to the utter absurdity of some of their arguments.

For example, at Rorate Caeli people seem to believe that whereas a (supposed) Pope’s liturgical directives given in an Apostolic Letter are not binding or authoritative, nevertheless something said by a 17th-century theologian or a 2oth-century liturgist is. (Of course they believe this only because it supports their argument, and if contradicted it, they would dismiss it as the mere non-infallible opinions of two theologians.)

Since they will not countenance Sedevacantism and yet also refuse to obey their incredibly valid “Pope”, the semi-trads have maneuvered themselves into a position in which they continually tell themselves, and each other, that they don’t have to to obey or are even required to resist.

But, according to some, it had better be the right kind of resistance! Writing for his Corrispondenza Romana, historian Roberto de Mattei muttered something about the “only legitimate resistance [being] that of those who do not ignore canon law and firmly believe in the visibility of the Church; of those who do not give in to Protestantism and do not presume to become pope against the pope; of those who moderate their language and repress the disordered passions that can lead them to rash gestures; of those who do not slip into apocalyptic fantasies and maintain a firm balance in the storm….” Whatever. In the Catholic Church, the legitimacy business is a lot simpler: You simply “recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 11) and “follow with more zeal not only the orders, but even all the directives of the Apostolic See … certain that you cannot be deceived or betrayed” (Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Didicimus Non Sine; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 439).

Then there are people like Joseph Shaw, who, perhaps thinking they will be able to beat Chaos Frank at his own game, argue that Beroglio’s crackdown on the TLM “harms interreligious dialogue”. Who knew Vatican II would come in so handy one day, especially when you get to pick and choose? In a related post, Shaw considers whether Traditionis Custodes contradicts the documents of Vatican II — which of course would be a real bummer.

At Catholic Family News, Brian McCall and Matt Gaspers strategized on how best to keep themselves safe from the man they hope and pray will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. McCall also had a follow-up live video chat in which he explained what faithful Catholics, rather than follow their “Pope”, should be doing instead. Nothing like a journalist overruling the Pope, huh? Pope Leo XIII had something to say about that:

No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly to arrogate to themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion.

…

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Est Sane Molestum)

For all their blustering about traditional Catholicism, these self-appointed pundits seem to have very little interest in the actual traditional Catholic teaching and practice.

On the question whether it would be permissible to attend a sedevacantist Mass now — apparently we sedes may just be good enough for the sacraments at least — McCall, like Fr. Albert Kallio, gave the incredibly meaningful answer of, “Talk to a good spiritual director you trust.” Just don’t let it be the “Pope”, huh? Of course when Francis says something the semi-trads think they can interpret to their advantage, then suddenly he becomes “the Supreme Legislator in the Church”. And if that doesn’t work, there’s always “diabolical disorientation”.

On his blog Settimo Cielo, veteran Vaticanist Sandro Magister observes that with Francis’ move, not only did the TLM get the red card — an allusion to soccer, where a player has to leave the field if the referee shows him a red card — but, moreover, “the game is getting nasty”.

At the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam, the editor is wondering: “If Francis is concerned about the growth of traditionalism that rejects the post-Conciliar Church, giving the SSPX their single biggest marketing boost of all time is certainly a strange way to show it.” But then Francis may just have a move planned against the SSPX in the near future. More on that further down below.

Only the hapless souls of Where Peter Is could manage to crank out a sentence like this: “If you like the Latin Mass, you can keep the Latin Mass, because the Missal of Paul VI is the Latin Mass.” Be careful as your head hits the desk! Yes, yes, we know that Paul VI officially marketed his Novus Ordo missal as simply a “revision” of the TLM, and we’ve argued for a long time that that’s what you must believe if you acknowledge Paul VI as a true Pope, but of course the obvious reality is that the New Mass is a complete butchering of the traditional rite and resembles it as much as a hot dog does the cow from which it once came. Be that as it may, their own Adam Rasmussen is hopeful about the “opportunity to allow ourselves to be informed by each other and enriched by the perspective of others, in the hope of a more profound unity in Christ.” So perhaps there will be “mutual enrichment” after all.

Writing for First Things, Raymond de Souza made the interesting comment that Traditionis Custodes “is the first papal liturgical intervention drafted in response to an online phenomenon” (underlining added).

Relatively speaking, blogger Steve Skojec gave a suprisingly restrained assessment of Traditionis Custodis, days before handing over his One Peter Five operation to Eric Sammons. In a follow-up post, Skojec called Bergoglio’s decree “an act of war”, and that’s exactly what it was. Alas, why Skojec is part of a church whose head is the successor of Judas rather than of St. Peter, he does not explain.

Wounded but not defeated, journalist Jeanne Smits vows to “fight on”.

At Voice of the Family, one contributor sees in Traditionis Custodes “the recognition of a defeat … an apparent act of strength that covers a basic weakness and incompetence” or tell themselves that it could be a “blessing in disguise”. Over at The Spectator, Tim Stanley opined that “this is a desperate last stand by the 1960s generation of clerics, a generation that is about 10 years from losing its grip on power.” On the other end of the spectrum, a contributor to the Modernist rag Commonweal writes that “Pope Francis’s move is one of great strategic importance” that “safeguards the integrity of the Council.”

A truly interesting conversation between two Novus Ordos trying to grapple with the release of Traditionis Custodes can be found in the July 21 edition of the Kale Zelden Podcast, where host Kale Zelden and his guest Larry Chapp discuss the “motu inapproprio”:

In a different video conversation, a vociferous E. Michael Jones also has plenty to say on the topic.

Since Traditionis Custodes concerns ecclesiastical law, canon lawyers were consulted as well. One such man weighs in here, and another tries his luck here. The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales also provides some canonical guidance, for what it’s worth.

Canon 87 of the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, thoroughly rooted in Vatican II’s error of collegiality, is being invoked by opponents of Traditionis Custodes. Apparently it more or less permits bishops to dispense from even a papal law for their diocese. Mr. Zuhlsdorf is already singing its wonders, and “Bp.” Richard Stika of Knoxville, Tennessee, is already applying it. Yet, if Francis finds out that he is being undermined in this way, it may just happen that he decides to revise or revoke Canon 87. As “Pope”, that is in his power, after all.

A number of young international traditionalist laymen have issued a heartfelt video appeal to the Frankster

The theoretical attempts to fight Francis’ suppression of the Traditional Mass are varied and numerous.

Some are throwing every possible (and impossible) argument at Traditionis Custodes, hoping at least some of it will stick. Others are bombarding the decree with all kinds of questions, perhaps hoping to distract from the obligation to obey it.

Others are pointing to the obvious contradictions between Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes to justify their refusal of submission to the rag published by Francis. But again they do not consider the traditional doctrine: “…[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua).

At Catholic World Report, Christophe Geffroy opines that the Frankster “has legislated on the basis of an incomplete argument and false information.”

In an attempt to find historical precedent for Chaos Frank, philosopher Ed Feser regurgitates the usual historical errors about Popes Honorius, John XII, John XXII, and others addressed by St. Robert Bellarmine.

Others, such as Ann Barnhardt, bring up the popular argument that since Pope St. Pius V’s 1570 bull Quo Primum, which codified the traditional Roman rite of Mass, was decreed to be valid “in perpetuity”, Bergoglio cannot contradict or abolish it. This objection, however, rests on a mistaken premise. The fact of the matter is that all kinds of papal legislation are decreed “in perpetuity”, yet without this being understood in literal fashion. For example, when Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuit order in 1773, he did so likewise “in perpetuity” (in this translation, “to all eternity”), yet that decision was reversed by his successor Pius VII in 1814. (Under neither decision, by the way, was resistance permitted.)

Now of course there are not just critics of Traditionis Custodes. The ultra-Modernist wing of the Vatican II Sect, for example, has been in ecstasy.

Professional Bergoglio admirer Austen Ivereigh, for instance, hailed Bergoglio’s nuclear detonation a “prophetic act”. Bob Mickens, not known to be a friend of real Catholicism, cynically wrote that Bergoglio had announced a “requiem for the Old Latin Mass”. Calling his move “truly gutsy”, Mickens triumphantly concludes: “And now we know what the pope’s doctors did not remove during his recent surgery.” In a follow-up post, he correctly noted that it’s not about Latin but about theology.

Writing for Catholic Herald, one “Mgr.” Eric Barr gave kudos to the Frankster “for understanding the need of the Church to fully embrace the liturgical reform called for by Vatican II.”

The Jesuit rag America shares the story of a former TLM attendee who is happy he left the Mass that made him “bitter and arrogant”. Presumably, he now goes to the “Eucharistic celebration” invented in the 1960s, perhaps full of sweetness and humility. As for “the spiritual goods that the Latin Mass taught”, he is now looking for them “in other places”, such as “service to the poor” and, of course, in “caring for creation, our common home”.

On the Jesuit-sponsored web site Sapientia, one David Gibson decries “Latin Mass Hysteria”, which Joseph Shaw was quick to respond to. In yet another post, Shaw fisks a column by Modernist “Fr.” Thomas Reese, S.J., who laments that the “Latin Mass is not going away soon”.

Novus Ordo liturgist Andrea Grillo, who is extremely close to Bergoglio, comments on Traditionis Custodes here. He candidly confirms what we have said from the beginning, namely, that Ratzinger’s idea of “two forms of the one Roman rite” is “bold sophistry”. He also confirms that Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae (“New Mass”) and the Traditional Latin Mass “contradict each other”, which is proof positive that they do not express the same Faith/religion. But if the TLM expresses Catholicism and the New Mass a different religion, then it it is obviously not Catholic! Thank you, Prof. Grillo, for helping the sedevacantist cause.

Grillo is professor of sacramental theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum of Sant’Anselmo in Rome, whose influence on the Vatican has recently been increasing noticeably.

For a more sedevacantist-leaning perspective, Louie Verrecchio has provided a powerful reality check here and a magnificent Traditionis Custodes questionnaire you don’t want to miss. In a third post, he points out that the “days of having one’s traditional cake and eating it too are over.” And now he’s also produced a nifty little video clip in which he explains the “reform” of the Roman liturgy since 1962:

Concluding Thoughts

By making the new provisions of Traditionis Custodes take effect immediately, Antipope Francis has ensured maximum chaos and distress. Bergoglio may not be terribly intelligent, but he is clever. He knows how to manipulate people and situations in order to get what he wants. Therefore, people who think they can simply outsmart Francis’ suppression of the TLM by going to the Masses offered by the disobedient Lefebvrists (Society of St. Pius/SSPX) instead, will probably find that he is one step ahead of them. Francis knows, of course, what is obvious to everyone, namely, that the SSPX is an extremely attractive option for the people he has now marginalized by taking away (however gradually in some places) their Tridentine Mass.

The apostate dictator in the Vatican ought not to be underestimated in his mischievous plans. It is he himself who has bent over backwards to be kind and generous to the SSPX, even to the point of explicitly granting them faculties for confessions and marriages and also the permission to ordain priests. At the same time, he has come down with an iron first against several religious communities “in full communion” with him that have displayed a traditional bent, most infamously the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, for whom he prohibited the use of the 1962 Missal as far back as 2013, a mere four months after his election.

Taken at face value, that is a manifest inconsistency. Yet is easily explained once one understands how Francis operates, as explained in books such as The Dictator Pope and El Verdadero Francisco (“The True Francis”). It is simply part of his overall strategy to get what he wants. Therefore, one may expect that if people now flock in droves to the Lefebvrists for Mass, the Jesuit apostate in the Vatican will have a trump card up his sleeve.

Given all his “kindness” to them, they are highly indebted to him, and of course it won’t take too much longer before the question of new SSPX episcopal consecrations will present itself. Without the necessary “papal” mandate, the SSPX bishops will once again face automatic excommunication if they consecrate bishops unlawfully. Is that really the route they want to go — a return to the schism of 1988? Even if they do, how many of the “refugees” who just began attending the SSPX for lack of a diocesan TLM will be willing to go along with it?

All of Francis’ de facto power lies in his being recognized as Pope. No matter how much people try to “resist”, at the end of the day, if people grant him the status of Pope, he will win. That’s how the Papacy works — it’s a divinely-instituted monarchy. The only theologically consistent and orthodox way to resist Francis’ wrecking of souls is to deny that he is Pope. It is also the conclusion demanded by Catholic teaching:

Sedevacantist Fr. Damien Dutertre on Traditionis Custodes and Catholic principles

Sedevacantist Bp. Donald Sanborn on Traditionis Custodes and the Novus Ordo religion

Sedevacantist Fr. Carlos Borja on how Francis’ antics help the cause of truth

Thus far our roundup of initial reactions to the release of Traditionis Custodes.

The middle and long-term fallout is very difficult to predict at this time, because it will depend on a number of things, such as how strictly the motu proprio will be enforced, how the Vatican will clarify questions regarding the provisions, whether certain disobedient clergy “flying under the radar” will be tolerated, whether the more TLM-friendly Novus Ordo bishops will be removed from their dioceses, whether the bulk of TLM devotees will vote with their feet or at least make their anger known by skipping the collection basket, etc. At this point there is simply no telling how all of this will play out. What is certain, however, is that the latest silly online petition from Life Site, as well as any other heartfelt pleas for Francis to reconsider, will go where all such past efforts have gone: nowhere.

With his revocation of Summorum Pontificum, Francis is also taking a bit of a gamble, for a number of semi-trads will realize that, with the TLM gone, there is virtually nothing they have in common with the Vatican II Church and hence it is theologically disingenuous to remain attached to it. As explained in our recent podcast on the topic, TRADCAST EXPRESS 136, the false pope has taken the ‘traditional mask’ away from his Modernist sect, thus exposing the hideous reality underneath.

No longer able to find refuge in the weekly TLM will mean for many that they must now look squarely at what the Novus Ordo religion truly is. This, in turn, has the potential for people to ask themselves what the point is of belonging to a church outside of which, they have believed, there is no salvation, when it is now becoming evident that there is really no salvation inside of it.

We pray that this shocking reality will lead them not to abandon Faith in Catholicism or the Catholic Church but to conclude that the Vatican II Church cannot be that Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ but must be a counterfeit. We pray that they will resist the temptation to defect to the Eastern Orthodox and instead seek out real Catholics, both clergy and lay, where they may be found, even if at this point we don’t have all the answers.

Image sources: shutterstock.com
Licenses: paid