© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
The question posed in the above title appears to be an oxymoron, given the fact that for over 40 years this author has believed John 23 to be a false pope, and has proven he was invalidly elected. A false pope cannot issue anything and placing his name in the Canon of those masses following his election invalidated them, as the “una cum” thesis by Donald Sanborn explains. But incredibly there are a good number of Traditionalists who follow this missal and truly believe that it is the Latin Mass of the ages with just a few tweaks here and there. Sadly this is far from the truth. While many know Paul 6 officially introduced the Novus Ordo Missae, they may not know that with those una cum masses and the alterations to the lay mass prayers introduced in 1959, the true Mass already was effectively taken away. It was finally abrogated officially by John 23rd’s Missal in 1962.
There are many facets to this story and the road leading to these changes places us right in the midst of preparations for liturgical renewal and the ecumenism leading to the false Vatican 2 council. It was all a preplanned event, and it began with the destruction of discipline, something carefully plotted for decades by the Modernists.
Ecclesiastical discipline and the liturgy
As Pope Pius XII explained in Mediator Dei, after reminding the faithful that the Credo is a key part of the liturgy,
“The entire liturgy has the Catholic Faith for its content…it bears public witness to the faith of the Church. For this reason whenever there was a question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils, in their recourse to ‘theological sources,’ as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the Liturgy…’The rule for prayer determines the rule for belief.’ The Sacred Liturgy does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic Faith…If one desires to differentiate and described the relationship between faith and the Sacred Liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say…’let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.’”
And so Catholic doctrine stands outside and above the liturgy. And yet this clear teaching of the ordinary magisterium is rejected as false and injurious to the Church even by Traditionalists today. This is proven by the many “opinions” concerning the validity of the NOM, the lawfulness of attending an NOM, and other matters. And yet Pope Pius taught in this same encyclical that:
“The Sacred Liturgy does include Divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men…The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…No private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body, and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.”
This is only a reiteration of Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, never abrogated, despite what some Trads now aver. Treating of changes in the Canon of the Mass, the Council of Trent, in DZ 953 and 956, condemned any abrogation or changes on the pretext of errors; and DZ 956 proscribes the use of the vernacular in the Canon. In analyzing Quo Primum, Loudikis and Whitehead, in their The Pope, the Council and the Mass, also other self-appointed theologians, conclude that this document was merely a “disciplinary” act and as such could not be infallible. (Several conclude the same concerning a large portion of Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.) But these authors are laboring under a grave misconception concerning the Church’s true teaching on the subject of discipline. In the first place, this topic has been shamefully confused by a misprint (?) in the 1955 edition of Henry Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma. In the Introduction to this edition, the 30th, translator Roy Deffarari credits none other than Charles (Karl) Rahner, S.J. as responsible for “the 28th, 29th and 30th editions.” This may well account for any discrepancies in these editions of Denzinger’s work. The problem concerns an omission in DZ 326, a condemnation of various heresies under Pope Nicholas I by the Roman Council in (860 and) 863 A.D. There Denzinger’s printed:
“If anyone condemns dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic Faith, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or future ills, let him be an anathema.
Writing in 1875, Henry Cardinal Manning, in his The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance gives this rendition of the council’s condemnation of that same error:
“Si quis dogmata, mandata, interdicta, sanctiones vel decreta, pro Catholica fide, pro ecclesiastica disciplina, pro correctione fidelium, pro emendatione scleratorum, vel interdictione imminentium vel futurorum malorum, a Sedis Apostolica Praeside salubriter promulgata contempserit,: Anathema sit.”
Notice that the words in bold, clearly translated as “for ecclesiastical discipline,” are omitted from Denzinger’s translation. Nor can it be argued that an ecumenical council erred, or such teaching was later amended without denying the infallible teaching of the Church. We find the following proposition condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorum Fidei (DZ 1578):
“In every article, that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline,” the Jansenists maintained. Pope Pius VI taught: “As if the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty but which is dangerous and harmful,” condemned as at least erroneous, dangerous and injurious to the Church, among other things. Under Can. 2317, those clerics who teach condemned propositions are “barred from the ministry of preaching the Word of God and of hearing sacramental confessions, and from every other office of teaching, without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation of the doctrine may perhaps have decreed.”
Next we read from the Vatican Council:
“The pastors and faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…let him be anathema,” (DZ 1827, 1831).
And finally there is this:
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 1873
“…as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often so closely related to doctrine and has such a great influence on its preservation and its purity, that the sacred councils have not hesitated to cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.”
Three years after writing Quartus Supra, Pope Pius IX, wrote:
Quae in patriarchatu, September 1, 1876
“In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite).
Loudikis and Whitehead were obviously subscribing to V2 theology in stating that a disciplinary decree could not be infallible. That can only be the direct result of Roncalli’s promotion of collegiality and the inevitable erosion of Apostolicity. The consequences of this erosion are most notable in the refusal of Traditionalists today to heed the teaching of the ordinary magisterium prior to October 1958. Those calling themselves Catholic, especially in a traditional sense, cannot fail to adhere to the very principles proper to tradition and still consider that they are faithful members of Christ’s Church. The faith is an all or nothing proposition; deny one article and it is lost.
The ordinary magisterium
Many ignore Pius XII’s obvious intent in Mediator Dei to reserve all decisions on the liturgy to himself. No firm assent there, despite the fact that the ordinary as well as the extraordinary magisterium is de fide, and that both equally bind Catholic consciences. To make theology answerable to what is contained only in the liturgy is to turn sacred science on its ear. Doctrine is the very bulwark of the Church, and the liturgy, by comparison, is only one of several aspects of the Church’s existence. As Rev. Augustine Rock explained in the June, 1953 issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review, “The liturgy is a part of the Church’s life, but it is not the Church…The liturgy is not directly and immediately ordained to the salvation of men,” no matter how loudly Traditionalists object to the contrary. “Theology is capable of teaching the meaning of the liturgy, but the liturgy cannot teach theology,” (“Liturgy, Theology and the Church of God”). So any understanding of the liturgy must be based strictly on theological principles, not proofs presented in a style popular with secular journalists.
We must comment further on Pius XII’s teaching that “The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites and also to modify those that require modification.” Loudikis and Whitehead offer a brief summary of historical changes to the liturgy as Pope Clement VIII’s changes to Bible chant pieces in 1604; Urban VIII’s changes in the wording of the rubrics in 1634; and the revisions based on the reforms of Pope St. Pius X introduced in 1920. Here we must remember that Divine worship encompasses many more things than the Sacrifice of the Mass. Many incidentals are connected to the liturgy and it is these incidentals that were changed or adjusted — not the ceremony of the Mass itself — and most certainly not the Canon of the Mass. Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B. tells us that “There is one unchanging ritual called the ‘Canon,’ during which the words of Consecration are pronounced over the bread and the wine…Our present detailed knowledge of the Mass goes back for 1,300 years [this in 1913], and, with the exception of one short clause inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, it has remained unchanged to the present day,” (Breaking With the Past).
This very fact should tell Catholics all that they wish to know concerning the inviolability of the Canon of the Mass, Christ’s very words. It is this Divine element of the Mass that Pope Pius XII says cannot be touched by man. Nor, he adds, can any person, religious or cleric, presume to alter the liturgy. Period. These teachings, also those found in Sacramentum Ordinis, should tell us something else. The rites of the Mass and Sacraments are not to be disturbed and cannot be disturbed — even by valid and licit bishops — for any reason. No questionably valid priest or bishop — and all Trads consecrated without the apostolic mandate never became priests or bishops by virtue of Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — can possess apostolicity; they are not legitimate pastors. They cannot so much as venture an opinion as to whether the NOM effects valid consecration or whether priests may be ordained by those other than the diocesan bishop. Pope Pius XII forbids clerics to make these decisions, reserving them to the Pope alone. When in doubt, Canon Law tells us to obey the old law, (Can. 6 §4). Why this is so hard for Traditionalists to comprehend is baffling; all they need to do is to follow TRADITION. The reason they are unwilling to do so will be examined below.
The 1962 John 23 Missal
Despite the attempt to blame Pius XII for the first relaxations concerning the liturgy, the issue remains: Was the 1962 Missal sound? Was Roncalli a true pope able of even promulgating a new rite?
1.) Prior to Pope St. Pius X’s death, Angelo Roncalli was appointed secretary to Bp. Radini, who was originally a protégé of Cardinal Rampolla’s. At the time, Radini was under surveillance by the Sodalitum Pianum, the society established personally by Pope St. Pius X to flush out Modernists. Prior to this appointment, Roncalli had served as a part-time professor of Patrology at the Lateran College in Rome. His appointment was short-lived, however, for after serving only one term, he was purportedly dismissed “for having fallen into Modernism,” according to his friend Dom Lambert Beauduin. Paul Johnson documents this incident in his biography of Roncalli, Pope John XXIII.
2.) According to Fr. Bonnetere, as stated in a book review by Michael Davies: “Although the reforms of Pius XII had given some satisfaction to the leaders of the [Liturgical] Movement, the implacable orthodoxy that the Pope had maintained throughout had not been to their taste. New and more daring reforms were called for, and they needed a pope who understood the problem of ecumenism and who was a wholehearted supporter of the Movement. [Bonnetere] claims that: “The news of the death of the Angelic Pastor was received with almost delirious joy by the deviated Liturgical Movement.” The aged Dom Lambert Beauduin had not the least doubt as to the cardinal he hoped would be elected and confided his hopes to Father Bouyer: ‘If they elect Roncalli,’ he said ‘all will be saved. He will be capable of calling a Council and canonizing ecumenism…’ Silence fell; then, with a return of his old mischieviousness, he said with flashing eyes, ‘I believe we have a good chance. Most of the cardinals are not sure what to do. They are capable of voting for him.’”
3.) Many cite John 23’s Veterum Sapiente on the retention of Latin as proof that Roncalli favored the old Mass and would not have approved of the Novus Ordo. This is disproved by Paul 6 biographer Andre Fabert, who wrote: “Giuseppe Cardinal Pizzardo… had drawn up a paper reaffirming Latin as the language of the universal Church…Montini went to visit his old friend, begging him to reconsider. But Pizzardo was firm. Montini had to submit the draft of Pizzardo’s to the Pope. Pope John left it on his desk for two months, and then finally signed it…to appease the Curialists. He was waiting for the Council to begin. Privately he told the bishops: ‘Pay no attention to Veterum Sapiente,’” (Pope Paul VI).
4.) In the early days of Roncalli’s reign, the new pope’s first “mass” appeared, substituting “for all men” vs. “for many” in the English translation of the Canon, (Our Parish Prays and Sings, Order of St. Benedict, Collegeville, MN, first edition printed in January, 1959; The People’s Mass, Paulist Press, January 1959). These mass booklets were widely distributed and used throughout the U.S. and even abroad until the Novus Ordo was established in 1969. They came into the hands of the faithful within a bare three or four months following Roncalli’s election. So in essence, the most devastating change made in the liturgy and the one that proves Roncalli’s denial of divine law and Scripture —falsifying Our Lord’s very own words and His meaning of redemption —occurred not in 1969 during the reign of Paul 6, but in 1959.
5.) This proves that Roncalli was as much a humanist as his dear friend Montini. Indeed, Montini wrote or assisted him in writing several of his major encyclicals and was his “guiding light” so to speak. Secular humanism in and of itself is a heresy, and perhaps the predominant heresy of the anti-Church. It is the “practical Catholic” who believes that the vernacular must be used in favor of the people rather than a dead language; that the laity must be allowed a democratic share in the governing of the Church; that the Church must update itself to suit modern people and times. As we shall see below, humanism is the byproduct of another error known as pragmatism. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, this error was rampant among American Catholics, especially, and was well entrenched prior to the death of Pope Pius XII.
— “The United States [is where] pragmatism has flourished most…Individualism or nominalism is the starting point of the pragmatist…Pragmatism…is a non-rational philosophy; practical consequences used as a test of truth…[It] is a separate system of philosophy…In reality, it is the application of humanism to the theory of knowledge.”
— “Pragmatism is a philosophico-religious system…which can be defined in general as a tendency to consider everything from the practical point of view, i.e., in terms of action, seeking in action itself the reason of truth and certainty, of life and religion…The truth of an idea depends on its practical verification,” (Rev. Pascal Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Here we see echoes of Hecker’s heresy of action, also condemned by the Church.)
— “Pragmatism makes out the true to be something relative and changeable,” (A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Cardinal Mercier)
Because pragmatism, then, is essentially humanism, humanism must be defined. In the 15th to the 17th centuries it was a studied reaction to Scholasticism, the philosophical method of St. Thomas Aquinas adopted by the Church. Owing to new discoveries of Latin and Greek classics during the Renaissance, a spirit of learning was revived that especially stressed the use of reason in determining truth and falsehood. Humanists appealed to the classics (especially Aristotle without St. Thomas and Plato) as a true and pure form of philosophy outside of Scholasticism. Cosimo de’ Medici, a 15th century Humanist favoring Platonism, founded a Platonic academy in Italy where a new philosophy was envisioned. Humanists Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola called this philosophia perennia (a philosophy that always would be true). This philosophy embraced all the humanities — art, languages, literature, science, mathematics and so forth.
At that time the Church had not yet solidified Her reliance on Scholasticism as the only system of philosophy approved by the Church. St. Thomas More was sympathetic to humanism, and in its first blush, this philosophy was not what it later became. Individual responsibility for the application of Catholic principles to their lives, aided by the erudition of Latin and Greek scholars, was not in itself an objectionable goal, as long as the truths of faith were not harmed in the process. But the Reformation soon redirected Humanism against Catholic teaching, and this is what queered the movement. The Anglicans, Church of Scotland moderates, German pietists, and Kant preserved humanism after its condemnation by the Church. Montini’s close friend Jacques Maritain and the heretic Hans Kung are its proponents today in Novus Ordo theology. This failed attempt by Kung and Maritain to reconcile humanism with Scholasticism is the explanation for much of the confusion and error in the field of Scholastic thought today.
Humanism today is better known as secular humanism, defined by the Novus Ordo priest Fr. Burke as the “common heritage of all Americans… a way of looking at reality that denies the impact of God on human affairs… It denies the existence of an absolute and knowable objective truth.” In other words, secular humanism differs very little from pragmatic philosophy. And as we will see below, it is practically indistinguishable from religiosity and Catholic conformism.
6.) Roncalli’s “new mass” was intended to test the waters for the potential success of the council he intended to call. Politically it achieved what Rev. Albert Kaiser observed in his December 1953 article for The American Ecclesiastical Review: “The Gallican and Febronian pretension of limiting Papal jurisdiction in favor of episcopal equality was more or less a cover-up for an underground movement to nationalize the Church. The ‘Free from Rome’ movement in a sense dove-tailed with the Nazi political movement. As the French Revolution’s disastrous effects helped bring the dissident clergy back to the Pope, so Hitler’s providential defeat contributed to help the Pope reclaim the ‘German nationalists.’” (Doesn’t this sound suspiciously like the Sedevacantists among Traditionalists, many of whom are blatantly anti-Semitic and block any effort to restore the papacy?) Rev. Kaiser blamed “liturgical novelties and errors” on “overzealous activists” in Germany, who frequented liturgical and Catholic Action meetings in order to combat National Socialism. According to Kaiser, all the later abuses found in the Novus Ordo already were practiced in Germany in 1937. These included Mass facing the people, removal of the tabernacle to a safe in the wall (a necessity during the war), standing to receive Holy Communion and forbidding the Rosary and all other private devotions at Mass. But the liturgical movement had a long history in Europe even before the advent of World War II.
Around the feast of the Ascension in 1922, at St. Gertrude’s Church near Klosterneuberg, Austria, “…the so-called lay liturgical movement began,” Rev. Pius Parsch wrote. “In Germany it was the abbeys of Maria Laach and Beurin which ardently took up the idea.” Parsch, a professor of theology who wrote several books on the liturgy was among the first to begin dismantling the Mass, as his brief autobiography reveals. “The lay liturgical movement…looks for all possible ways of bringing the laity into its celebration. The laity must realize that much in the Mass has become set and fossilized (!) The fore-mass has almost completely lost its purpose… A new type of piety has been developed which goes back to the early Church…Our work will extend in ever-widening circles in the Church and… will erect a bridge of agreement with our separated brethren.” Here in a nutshell we have all the errors promulgated by the V2 anti-Church http://www.catholicauthors.com/parsch.html .
Besides Parsch, we also have Dom Beauduin operating in approximately the same time frame in Belgium. Although he saw in the liturgy great opportunities to instruct, catechize and inspire the faithful, in his intemperate zeal for lay participation and change Beauduin “…began to think in terms of freeing the liturgy from old traditions and rules…(He) was the first to make experiments in the Ecumenical Movement.” The monk was involved in forming an ecumenical monastery embracing both Catholic and Orthodox monks in 1924, but instead of converting the Orthodox, the Orthodox began recruiting the Catholics. This led Pope Pius XI to issue “Mortalium Animos” on true and false ecumenism. Beauduin resigned, but never publicly abjured his heresy. Later his good friend Angelo Roncalli would reign in Rome and vindicate his life’s work.
The monastery of Maria Laach in Germany mentioned by Parsch produced Dom Odo Casel, another fly in the liturgical ointment. Casel used archaeological study to promote the idea that the Church had, over time, lost the true sense intended by Christ for the liturgy. He taught that the second millennia of Christianity was not faithful to the liturgical practice and intent of the first millennia, creating in the faithful a desire to return to this initial “primitive purity.” Parsch and Casel emphasized the interaction of priest and celebrant as truer to the meaning of the liturgy in the early Church. By stressing the importance of the God-man Christ bodily with the Apostles and faithful following the Resurrection, less emphasis was placed on Christ’s Presence in the Host. This was a mystery requiring belief in the unseen based on Christ’s teaching, not His physical presence as represented by the priest. Thus was lost the Mystery of Faith. All the elements of the Novus Ordo Missae are here.
7.) “Liberals have wrongly envisioned liturgical Tradition as an experimental ground for testing doctrines before they are embodied in the teaching of the Church,” (Rev. Kaiser’s “The Historical Backgrounds and Theology of Mediator Dei,” Pt. I, American Ecclesiastical Review). Thus did the law of praying ultimately become the law for believing and accepting when the Novus Ordo Missae was finally introduced 10 years later. This may explain why Pope Pius XII insisted on clarifying this maxim, modifying it to read that the rule for belief must determine the rule for prayer. The statement in its reverse was probably already being used to justify the modernization of the liturgy. Certainly Roncalli knew all about the new prayer books issued in 1959; his old friend Dom Beauduin and other extreme liturgist friends were quick to inform him of all progress on the liturgical and ecumenical front. And Roncalli, as Johnson reports, had no problem in contradicting the teachings of his predecessors, even if it meant experimenting with the liturgy by falsifying Christ’s words. For this little experiment only illustrated the fact that what one prays becomes what one believes.
8.) Adding St. Joseph to the Canon may appear to be a slight change or minor inroad to most. Yet it was the first official change in the Canon of the Mass since the time of St. Gregory the Great, if Roncalli’s sly falsification of the Canon is overlooked. http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1979_August/Developement_Roman_Mass2.htm
Roncalli was an avowed ecumenist long before his election and this was no secret. His encyclical on religious liberty, Pacem in terris (written either wholly or in part by Montini), clearly states that all are free to practice the religion they see fit to practice. “Where he was absolutely adamant was in his insistence on total liberty of conscience,” Paul Johnson said in Pope John XXIII, (p. 153). “Here he demolished orthodox and traditional Catholic teaching.” St. Joseph’s name in the Canon was not an expression of his devotion to St. Joseph, or a liturgical concession; it was a doctrinal concession that complemented the phrase “for all men” silently overlooked in the missalettes mentioned above, widely circulated beginning in 1959. It was a clear signal to the Anglicans that Rome finally blessed their reunionist activities in cooperation with Catholics, condemned by Pope Pius IX in 1864, when these same reunionists first proposed adding St. Joseph’s name to the Canon. And Roncalli’s final blessing of these activities was to grant at last their many petitions. As Roncalli’s biographer Johnson commented, John XXIII had no qualms in overturning the decrees of his predecessors.
9.) But Roncalli’s real coup was the victory won during the first council schema on the liturgy in 1962. “On the surface, it seemed like little more than dropping the Traditional Latin from certain parts of the Mass and permitting those parts to be said in the language of the people,” another papal biographer, Lawrence Elliot wrote. “But most of the council fathers, and certainly all of the Traditionalists among them, understood clearly that to deprive the curia of its historically held right to decide all liturgical matters was to open the door to decentralization. If, as proposed, national conferences of bishops would choose when to use Latin and when to use the vernacular, wouldn’t they soon also want a voice in missionary activities and the control of the seminaries?” (I Will Be Called John, p. 301). The Constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was officially promulgated in November 1963. And in this decree we find the following:
“Holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself… For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted and elements subject to change. The latter not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features by chance have crept in that are less harmonious with the intimate nature of the liturgy or if existing elements have grown less functional. In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people, as far as possible should be able to understand them with ease, and be able to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”
This certainly does not sound like Paul 6 or the council fathers considered that Pope Pius XII had changed the liturgy in any meaningful way. In fact the Davies article (see hyperlink listed in # 3 above) identifies those who trace the reform back to Pius XII and even to earlier popes as covert supporters of the liturgical revolution: “No change of significance was made in the Roman Missal until the post-Vatican II revolution got underway,” Davies wrote. “APOLOGISTS FOR THIS REVOLUTION (emph. mine) attempt to give the impression that it is but the latest in a series of similar reforms.” Also, the message sent by Sacrosanctum Concilium is that the unchangeable part of the Mass, the Canon, will not be touched. But what was actually done is a different matter, as all know.
10.) In Pope John and the Ecumenical Council, Carlo Falconi stated, under the title ‘The competent authority to decide on liturgical reform’: “Henceforth, in addition to the Pope and the Bishop, such reforms can be decided on also by a ‘super-diocesan territorial episcopal authority, territorial, episcopal assemblies of various kinds,’ (…regional or national episcopal conferences, etc).” The rector of the pontifical Academy of Sant’ Anselmo, the Benedictine Cipriano Vagaggini, warned that this was “a great novelty, because it sanctions the establishment of decentralization in the liturgical field in favor of…a super-diocesan territorial authority,” (p. 333). This same authority was again referred to as being responsible for use of the vernacular in the liturgy. These committees later manifested themselves in two forms: the first, the establishment of the International Committee of English in the Liturgy (ICEL), and secondly, Paul VI’s establishment of a “Consilium” to oversee the use of vernacular in the liturgy. Subsequently, in 1967, it granted permission for the entire Mass, including the canon, to be said aloud in the vernacular, (see DZ 956 below) and granted the bishops liturgical powers.
As Rev. Bryan Houghton related in Mitre and Crook, Paul VI issued a “motu proprio” in 1964 fixing the parts of the Mass to be said in the native dialect. In doing this he stated that he was following the guidelines laid down by the 1963 decree of the V2 council on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. As Houghton noted, “It [the motu proprio] also announced the creation of a special Consilium… or advisory body, to put into effect the Council’s recommendations.” And this was the “supra diocesan territorial authority” provided for in 1962 by Roncalli. Houghton, however, seems unaware of the actual power given to the Consilium. Nor does he seem to realize that the 1962 session determined that in matters of the vernacular, what is decided by “…the territorial authorities… shall be examined or confirmed by the Apostolic See,” (but promulgated by the Consilium; Pope John and the Ecumenical Council, p. 334). For later in his work he continually complains that what is produced by the Consilium is promulgated without the express consent of Paul VI. Long story short, the Consilium eventually worked for the compilation of the Novus Ordo Missae. And so it was that ecumenism and collegiality, both introduced by John XXIII, culminated in the creation of the NOM and the obrogation of the Latin Mass.
For Roncalli, Johnson said, “The Council was the supreme legislative organ of the Church…The Council and the collegiality it embodied, was to remove from the shoulders of the Pope the immense burden of lonely decision… In general, the hieratic element of the Church has been diminished, and the role of the congregation enlarged…This liturgical revolution embodies the spirit of aggiornamento Pope John conjured into existence…The pace of liturgical change has, however, enormously strengthened the impetus of the liturgical movement. In this respect Pope John’s work has already achieved substantial results…The doctrinal conflict between transubstantiation and consubstantiation… has been placed in a new and sophisticated context, and is now on the road to resolution,” (p. 236-40). Johnson credits Roncalli with establishing collegiality then, and notes that when it has been fully accepted, “the separated episcopal churches will take their place in the collegiate machinery,” (p. 241). The end result of Roncalli’s open-arms approach to the separated brethren culminated in the following statement by Paul 6:
“This is why the Fathers felt they had a solemn duty to warn the faithful that, in reflecting upon this most sacred Sacrament, they should not pay attention to the senses, which report only the properties of bread and wine, but rather to the words of Christ, which have power great enough to change, transform, ‘trans-elementize’ the bread and wine into His body and blood. As a matter of fact, as the same Fathers point out on more than one occasion, the power that does this is the same power of Almighty God that created the whole universe out of nothing at the beginning of time,” (Mysterium Fidei, paragraph 47). If we analyze the meaning of the word transelementize here, we will discover that it is a new word not carried in the dictionaries. Elements, according to Webster, can refer to the bread and wine. But the prefix trans, meaning beyond, over or across, gives this word an ambiguous cast that allows Protestants to better read the error of consubstantiation into Montini’s meaning. All was done in the name of ecumenism.
11.) We learn the following from Leon de Poncin’s work, Freemasonry and the Vatican:
“The campaign for closer relations with Freemasonry remained quiescent while Pius XII was pope…The progressives realized they had little chance of success during the Pope’s lifetime. With the accession of Pope John XXIII, and the growth of the new conceptions of ecumenism…something like an explosion took place. A sudden flowering of works devoted to Freemasonry blossomed forth from a variety of authors. Historians, philosophers, journalists and politicians all worked, each in their own sphere, in favor of a reconciliation between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry.”
Even before his “election,” Roncalli had rehabilitated Marc Sangier, founder of the Sillon and “undisputed master” of the Christian Democrats, as Brother Michael of the Trinity relates. “Abp. Roncalli, in a letter clearly intended to be circulated in French political circles, canonized the founder of the Sillon [following his death], rejoicing that for their part ‘the most authoritative voices in French public life,’ Masonic, laicizing and Socialist voices, also canonized him in their own way,” (The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, pg. 354).
It is not difficult to align Roncalli with the forces intent on destroying the Church. Once it is understood that Roncalli introduced the concept of collegiality, putting it into practice at the Council by declaring that the liturgy was not subject to the pope alone, one can see that he dealt a deadly blow both to papal primacy and the Mass, successfully destroying the two-fold center of unity in the Church. Pope Pius XII reserved decisions on the liturgy to the Pope alone for a reason, that reason being the Divine promise made to St. Peter and his successors via the delivery of the keys that whatever they would bind on earth also would be bound in heaven. The liturgists could show their true hand all they wanted, present their requests and the Pope would concede only what he wished to concede. But the decisions of bishops already imbued with liberal and modernistic ideas were an entirely different matter.
“Traddie world” myths
There is no argument that can topple Divine law, and yet certain Traditionalists will still argue that Roncalli was a true Pope; a pawn in an unholy game perhaps, but valid nevertheless. But if this is the case, why not make Paul 6 an unquestionably valid pontiff? And why bother to contest the falsification of Christ’s words in the supreme sacrificial act of Redemption at all? They read the same in 1959 as they did in 1969. They offer the same unspeakable insult to God, the same heretical frame of reference and the same intent to deceive and pervert. Roncalli was not a Catholic, far less Pope, and his actions speak for themselves.
Given all the above, it is difficult to understand how Roncalli can escape the same categorization as his successors. Yet strangely enough the John 23 Missal, which in essence and reality differed very little from the NOM itself, is deemed good enough for God. That Roncalli was crafty enough to retain “for many” in the Vatican editions of the missal is not a good enough reason to justify its use. The true effects of the secret campaign to establish ecumenism as a Catholic belief is completely ignored here. This pernicious campaign changed Catholic belief by changing the Canon, the pivotal prayer of the Mass, when liturgy is defined by the Church as revealed Tradition and this was the alteration of that Tradition. Previously Catholics firmly believed that Christ died for all men only insofar as those men could find the visible Church Christ established and convert. Collegiality and ecumenism poisoned that belief. The hypocrisy here is that “all men” was the critical open door to pagans and unbelievers, the very same pagans and unbelievers who would later be openly embraced by Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger. How can it not be crucial to everything that followed?!
Rev. Rock’s article quoted above emphasizes that no matter how much we may value the liturgy, it is not theology. Rock defined theology as “an orderly understanding, insofar as that is possible, of God and all things seen in their relationship to God.” He then refers to the “haphazard” formation, even in his day, of young people who then went on to develop “false notions, erroneous concepts [and] distortions” concerning theology. Those young people were later the parents and grandparents of today’s Traditionalists. One of the distortions they passed on to their children and grandchildren was the exaggerated importance of the relationship of the liturgy to the Church as a whole, primarily because what often is missing in one’s life assumes distorted proportions of importance. And this is the most pervasive Traddie myth of all: that the Church’ s very existence and the doctrines She teaches are somehow antecedent to the liturgy, and that unity in truth, the integral connection of all the Church teaches is not necessary to a true appreciation and understanding of doctrine. As we have seen above, this is not the teaching of the Church.
Rev. Kaiser, quoted previously in this article, accurately predicted every heresy that would result if Mediator Dei was ignored, and the liturgical movement given free rein. He discussed these heresies in the January 1954 issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review as follows:
“The Quietistic, Jansenistic and Hegelian heresies that affected those who took their cues from Dom Odo Casel and others led “to a kind of Pantheism,” and the rest of those errors condemned in Mediator Dei were born of the confusion this pantheism created. The confusions were many: “It confused the natural and sacramental priesthood of Christ…the sacramental and Mystical Body of Christ…the temporary Eucharistic presence of Christ’s humanity in the soul of the communicant with the longer-lasting presence of sanctifying and sacramental grace in the souls of the just…It mistook antiquarianism and simplicity for true historical and scientific research into the backgrounds of doctrine, liturgy and theology…It confused objective and subjective holiness…Hegelian monism and unity of truth…Scientific scholasticism and mere arbitrary and perfunctory nominalism, or in other words, real thinking and mere labeling…It mistook Quietism for mysticism, syncretism for integration, humanism for divine faith. And finally its socialistic community worship led to community of priest, community of Christ, community of God,” and not long after Kaiser wrote, to the People of God. This, Kaiser concluded, was “Not evolution, but revolution and devolution.”
Here we find summarized an entire collection of Traddie and Novus Ordo myths, particularly concerning grace and its operation, the necessity of theological study and research, the emptiness of exterior religion, the bane of secular humanism and the insanity that became the Novus Ordo. Already in the 1950s, Kaiser warned of the threat that emerged as collegiality. “The pretense [of the extreme liturgists] at giving all bishops equal power and denying supreme papal jurisdiction was a cover-up for so-called nationalistic… delusions of Febronianism (German Gallicanism).” As Rev. Bruno Hagspiel explained in 1957, “The experience of centuries bears out the truth that generally speaking, the subjects will be what the superior is…’as the shepherd, so the flock,’” (Live in the Holy Spirit). Bishops and other clergy entrusted with the revision of the liturgy do not share with the Pope the charism of infallibility, therefore it is no wonder they spawned a false rite. Nor is it any wonder that their exalted opinions of their importance and antipathy towards authority eventually rubbed off on the faithful.
Secular humanism already a reality
Just because Roncalli was accepted peacefully by “Catholics,” this does not make him validly elected, especially when, as will be shown below, most of those accepting him were no longer Catholic at all. The antipope Anacletus II, not Innocent II was accepted by the majority as a true pope, a notable exception to the Church’s own rule that the man in Rome is most likely to be in possession of the papacy. At that time there was no notable decline in faith and morals among the faithful like there was in the late 1950s, early 1960s. Those trying to make sense out of the disintegration of the Church today are nonplussed at why Catholics seemingly well educated in their faith gave up so easily on the unchangeable Church, giving into V2 changes and accepting the New Order of the Mass. While there is more than one answer to this question as is often the case, the most plausible answer is the one provided by Rev. Paul Furfey in his Mystery of Iniquity.
Writing in 1944, Furfey summed up the problem already at work in his day as follows: “Catholic conformism can be explained only in terms of cowardice… Catholic conformists are Catholics in the sense that they deny no doctrine of the Church outright, and conform as closely as they dare to the viewpoint of unbelievers…” Such conformists, he continues, are “timid Catholics (who) hesitate to assume their normal burden of suffering to accept persecution for the sake of their opinions…” It was Christ’s intention, Furfey points out, that “Christians make a clean break with the world…and that they should suffer the consequences.”
Furfey goes on to list “the variety of cruel punishments” that awaits the Catholic non-conformist. “In some times and in some places the punishment is the prison cell, the concentration camp, or the firing squad…” Other less drastic but equally painful methods include “withholding rewards,” connected with worldly success; employing ridicule, “when most persons are terrified of ridicule. It requires a real bit of heroism to stand up for one’s convictions when they make one the butt of jokes and insults.” And of course there is the general unpleasantness of just being different, and the loneliness that accompanies being opinionated in matters of religion. After all, conformism is rewarded with all the perks of life – companionship, mutual favors, everyday pleasantries, inclusion in social affairs and the endorsement of those in positions to further one’s business and social life. And non-conformism results effectively in social exile.
How did Catholics, supposedly trained to be other-Christs and imitate the heroic sanctity of the martyrs, descend to Catholic conformism? The best training in conformism and the herd mentality was offered in public schools, where over 50 percent of Catholics in this country received their education; heroic sanctity, if taught to children at all, was a weekly sidebar offered in CCD classes. In public schools, Horace Mann early on mandated conformism as the best way to assure assimilation of the doctrines taught by public education and enforce the disciplinary codes. Even in many “Catholic” schools, emphasis was placed on the social and political flavor of Catholicism – its external components, not its internal core beliefs. Families failed as well in encouraging the predominance of internal religion and a daily, personal relationship with God. Too often, all emphasis was placed on the superficial and the worldly.
In concluding his explanation of Catholic conformism, Furfey observed that such behavior constitutes a deadly dualism, defined by Pope Pius XI as “moral, juridical and social modernism…Social modernism combines two characteristics: an (outward) profession of loyalty to Catholic social doctrine plus a disregard for the encyclicals as though they were ‘out of date.’ Would it be rash then to assert that social modernism and Catholic conformism is one and the same thing?” And we can add here that Furfey’s description fits both Novus Ordo adherents and Traditionalists alike, demonstrating that the ordinary magisterium was already being ignored. A Protestant author defined Furfey’s social modernism as a sort of “civic idolatry” permeating America even before V2.
Catholic scriptural scholar Rev. Bruce Vawter, for all his later divergence from Catholic orthodoxy, identified the “re-emergence” of Americanism in the 1950s as a distinctly new American religion — a synthesis of Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism characterized by an avid civic involvement. So long before Roncalli arrived, the ground was prepared. Author Will Herberg, in his Protestant, Catholic, Jew, already had documented the new religion’s existence, even quoting scholastic theologians’ observance of the phenomenon. But Vawter pinned the hybrid to the wall, naming it “religiosity.” And here Americanism’s true link to Jansenism can be discerned. For like this parent heresy, Americanism relied primarily on the appearance of holiness — the formalism and hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the Jansenists — rather than true interior mortification and genuine sanctity. As Vawter rightly defined it, religiosity is the appearance of religion devoid of its substance. Christ warned His Church to judge not by appearances, but by the fruits of those claiming to be holy.
Herberg and others chronicled the gradual metamorphosis of Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism into one religion in this country; a religion that kept as its standard the expectations of the State and society in general, not their respective religious beliefs and practices. Herberg had this to say about religious conformism: “The religiousness characteristic of America today…is without serious commitment, without real inner conviction…The very notion of being ‘singled out,’ of standing ‘over against’ the world is deeply repugnant to one for whom well-being means conformity and adjustment. Religion is valued as conferring a sense of social acceptability and ’belonging,’ a sense of being really and truly of the world and society,” when the Catholic knows only too well he must be in the world of necessity, but not of it. “Biblical faith…is a declaration of permanent resistance to the claims of society, community culture and cult…,” Herberg continued. Those embracing this conformism he calls “religiosity” protect themselves “against this profoundly disturbing aspect of biblical faith by refusing to understand it… Nonconformity, uncompromising witness are so ‘unsociable,’ so terribly ‘unadjusted’! The very purpose of man’s built-in radar apparatus is to protect him against such perils. It protects him so well that it makes the prophetic faith of the Bible almost unintelligible to him.”
Speaking on the subject of biblical faith at the Vatican Council in 1869, St. Anthony Mary Claret noted that if those denying the doctrine of infallibility would take the time to study Scripture, the teaching of this doctrine would be clearly seen and understood. The saint then went on to explain why Scripture is not understood, and his explanation applies to Biblical teaching on many other doctrines today as well.
1.) Men do not really LOVE God
2.) They lack humility
3.) Men do not wish to understand Scripture simply because they do not wish the good.
Herberg agreed with the saint, identifying this lack of humility with the rise of secular humanism. In the end, he concluded, it is “…not man who serves God, but God who serves man…” Faith is used as “a surefire device to get what we want,” be it prosperity, social standing, security, peace of mind, Mass and Sacraments outside the laws and teachings of the Church or “popes” outside these same laws and teachings. And if this was the case in the 1940s and 1950s, what can we expect today?
Herberg further identified religiosity as “a kind of national messianism…a fusion of religion with national purpose…American culture-religion is the religious aspect of Americanism,” and Pope Leo XIII condemned Americanism as a heresy. What Herberg really said is that American Catholics long ago placed their culture and government superior to the teachings and laws of the Church, paying only lip service to Church authorities. The war was lost long ago, and over time obedience to the Pope and Church teaching eroded to the point that allegiance to both placed second, and personal autonomy came first. This is the undeniable triumph of religious liberty and indifferentism; the reversal of the order of the universe as established by God the Father, with man assuming precedence over God, Church and civil rulers. Secular humanism, first espoused, it seems, by the heretic John Eckart was long ago condemned by Pope John XXII as heretical. Eckart taught:
“We are transformed entirely in God and we are changed into Him; in a similar manner as in the sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ, so am I changed into Him because He Himself makes me to be one with Him, not like (to Him); through the living God it is true that there is no distinction there,” (Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma; DZ 510). Nothing better expresses the spirit of the liturgical movement than Eckart’s error. Likewise Pope Pius IX condemned the following in his Syllabus of Errors:
“Human reason, with absolutely no regard to God, is the only judge of the true and false, the good and the evil; it is a law unto itself and is, by its own natural powers, sufficient to guide for the good of individuals and of peoples, (op. cit., DZ 1703).
“All truths of religion flow from the natural power of human reason; hence reason is the chief norm by which man can and should come to a knowledge of all truths of whatever kind,” (op. cit., DZ 1704).
By the time V2 commenced, most American Catholics were only too happy to make concessions to their Protestant brethren in the name of “ecumenism,” a high-sounding phrase synonymous with secular humanism, individualism and religiosity. And it was Roncalli, assisted and supported even then by Montini, who was responsible for raising this ecumenism to new heights. Catholicism and ecumenism being mutually exclusive terms, Roncalli was never a Catholic pope and his followers were not Catholics themselves. Roncalli built the NO framework; Montini only fleshed it out. It’s called gradualism and this dynamic duo applied it slowly but surely. To separate the goals of these two men, to pretend Roncalli was not in league with Montini from the beginning, is to ignore the history of the era. And Church history, the Catechism reminds us, is also a part of revealed Tradition.
Trads are as much practitioners of religious liberty as their NO brethren. This has occurred because of their refusal to put the axe to the root of ecumenism’s tree in declaring Roncalli a false pope, an omission that has succeeded in blinding what is left of the elect. For as Pope St. Pius X warned in the case of the Modernist heresy, unless this ecumenism mingled with other errors is eradicated entirely, “it will diffuse poison through the whole tree so that there is no part of Catholic truth that they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt,” (Pascendi Dominici gregis). Roncalli is why Trads consistently resort to their own opinions and not those of established authority, as the Church’s disciplinary code insists, (Can. 6 §4). He is the reason why they refuse to seriously consider suspending any activities, any judgments on these matters, until the hierarchy returns and a true Pope can be elected. Collegiality rules among the bishops of their various sects, deprived of apostolicity by their lack of jurisdiction. For unless both Orders and jurisdiction exist, these men cannot be true successors of the apostles, and this is the unquestionably de fide teaching of the Church. Even the late “Fr.” Anthony Cekada admitted this, stating that “NO ONE IN THE TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT POSSESSES ORDINARY JURISDICTION!”
According to Rev. Van Noort, “What is required for GENUINE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION is that a man enjoy THE COMPLETE POWERS (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction.” Rev Adolphe Tanquerey writes: “The successors of the Apostles as regards the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful are the bishops collectively taken, who have their authority by Divine right. The thesis is historically certain and theologically de fide, being proposed as an object of faith by the ordinary magisterium,” (Dogmatic Brevior). All know that both in Ad Apostolurum Principis, a binding decree entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, and Mystici Corporis, (which 1950s theologians agreed was an infallible pronouncement) Pope Pius XII insists that without the Supreme Pontiff’s express permission and approval, these bishops cannot exercise their right. And yet all these men and the priests beneath them are considered legitimate and are obeyed and followed as such. This is the direct result of ignoring a de fide teaching of the Church, now an option since Roncalli has opened the door to religious liberty. As long as these people are able to shelter even partially under his ecumenical, secular humanist umbrella, the acid rain of V2 will be shed and they will appear to be dry, even though wringing wet in reality.
The hard questions must be asked and answers must be given
1.) Why are those calling themselves TRADITIONALISTS tolerating a professed ecumenist and his perverted missal when clearly this completely contradicts Tradition? “The Church finds the revealed truths She is bound to teach in the Holy Scripture and revealed traditions…The Church finds the revealed traditions in the decrees of its [unquestionably approved] Councils; in its books of worship; …in the lives of its saints, the writings of the Fathers and in its own history,” (Kinkead’s Baltimore Catechism #3, Q. 557 and 560). Revealed Traditions are faithfully preserved and handed down; they do not permit innovation.
2.) Why, pray tell, have Traditionalists gone to the trouble of establishing the method for determining whether or not one must be avoided as a heretic when they fail to apply this formula to those who present the biggest threat to the faith of Catholics? Why do they “debate’ whether B16 is a true pope and assume that Roncalli was Catholic on election — henceforth validly elected — without providing answers concerning why his pre-election activities did not constitute heresy? Canon 2200, which states that orthodoxy must be proven and heresy ruled out before making such assumptions, is clearly reflected in Alexander VII’s condemnation of the following: “Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him if you cannot prove it,” (DZ 1105).
3.) Why are Catholics following the counsels of men who are not legitimate pastors and cannot, in any case, decide on matters concerning the liturgy? Rev. Kinkead states: “By lawful pastors we mean those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who, therefore, have a right to rule us. The lawful pastors in the Church are: every priest in his own parish, every bishop in his diocese, and the Pope in the whole Church,” (op. cit., Q. 494). Here we must add that such a Pope cannot be even suspected of manifest heresy, either before or after his election; that he must be both validly ordained and consecrated and elected by qualified voters, and that he himself must be qualified both mentally and spiritually to assume the papal duties.
4.) Why do Traditionalists insist they must have the Mass and Sacraments when these can be received from illegitimate pastors only by cooperating in sin and committing sacrilege? The reformer Martin Luther said: “Worship used to be addressed to God as an homage. Henceforth it will be addressed to man to console and enlighten him,” (quoted by Fr. Paul Trinchard in his New Age, New Mass). God’s laws are his signified will. Unless we do God’s will, we cannot be saved. Can we be certain that these priests are offering Masses and administering Sacraments pleasing to God? And if we cannot be 100 percent certain that this is happening, doesn’t the Church in Her teachings concerning a doubtful conscience tell us that we must suspend judgment until we obtain certainty? Is there even a remote chance that any of these Sacraments is possibly invalid? Because in this case Pope Innocent XI forbids us to receive them under penalty of excommunication. Are Trads receiving these Sacraments from schismatics? If so both they and their ministers are guilty of communicatio in sacris and suffer its censures.
The following quote from Rev. Winifred Herbst’s 1932 work, Holy Mass is one Traditionalists should ponder long and well: “With justice might one of the faithful who wishes to assist at the Sacrifice ask [the priest]: ‘Tell me, in whose name do you stand there and who has sent you? You claim to be here to be able to offer to the eternal God my adoration, thanksgiving, reparation and petition in union with the adoration, thanksgiving, reparation and petition of Jesus. ‘Tis well. But who has given you this commission and this plenitude of power?’ A serious startling question this, and one of momentous importance; for it depends upon the answer whether the Mass is the most exalted and the most holy of all actions, or whether it must be called the most miserable and sacrilegious of all deceptions.”
5.) All of the above in no. 3, despite the fact that prior to the death of Pope Pius XII these doctrines and laws clearly taught and promulgated, are dismissed by Traditionalist wizards wielding the magic Gallicanist wands of epikeia and necessity. Man MUST be consoled and enlightened in these evil times. No truly merciful God would deprive him of Mass and Sacraments. And we are to believe these illicit pastors and lay experts because…? They lack the apostolicity necessary to minister to souls but Our Lord would not mind if His faithful followed them? And He has no say in this matter?
6.) Rev. Patrick Madgett teaches with the Church that “The only time one of the faithful is justified in withholding assent [to the teaching of a bishop] in matters of faith and morals and in matters intimately connected with faith and morals is when he can clearly prove that their teaching is not in accord with the doctrines of the Church…In doubt, established authority holds precedence over private opinion,” and heretics, also bishops admittedly lacking apostolicity are not established authority. Nearly all Sedevacantists agree that the last truly Catholic Pope was Pope Pius XII, and yet even his calendar and other laws have been subjected to criticism and revision. Trads will use their liberty to judge a valid pope’s calendar defective in some way. But they cannot use it to condemn a man who clearly was an antipope and hesitate or refuse to condemn his liturgy.
The bottom line is this: Trads love their own opinions — and the freedom to express and formulate these opinions — too much to admit that Roncalli was never a true Pope. They have no use for disciplinary laws and especially prohibitory laws. A return to the strict doctrinal views of Pius XII is not appealing to them. While they may espouse many of Pius XII’s teachings and views in their own defense and in the course of their voluminous ruminations, this is not the same as living strictly according to these very teachings. They and their descendants are children of Jefferson and Roncalli, like it or not; and their works they will do. If those reading these pages find this uncharitable, they should re-educate themselves on the true meaning of charity. For as Rev. Felix Sarda so rightly said, “Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity…To offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin. When a third party…is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all…this is inflexible Catholicity,” (What Is Liberalism?).
Like it or not, by the definitions found in Sarda’s book, Trads are at least tainted with liberalism for having lived in such close proximity to it. And Roncalli was simply a moderate liberal, among many other things; masquerading as a Catholic in the true Modernist tradition. Since the charity of Traditionalists even tainted with liberalism tends to be of the liberal variety, Sarda says it is not true charity. For “while tender in appearance, is at bottom, an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God. It is human self-love usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.” In short, it is nothing other than the secular humanism espoused by Roncalli and Montini.