Cardinal Müller: "The Pope Can Never Decide to Bless Homosexual Pairs"

Cardinal Gerhard Müller: The Congregation for the Faith should correct Bishop Johan Bonny.

“The blessing of rainbow couples is heresy. The Belgian bishops cannot legitimize them by referring to alleged statements by the Pope. Even if he had said so, it is not within his competence to alter revelation." Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who was prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2017, put the coordinates in the Church in clear terms, revealing where there are serious undesirable developments, especially in Germany, but also in Rome. He also clarified: "To attack the ancient Rite is absurd."

Nico Spuntoni of La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana conducted an interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller on the occasion of the publication of the Italian edition of his book "The Pope. Mission and Ministry”. The German edition was published in 2017.

NBQ: Your Eminence, why did you characterize the words of Pius XI, who condemned the emergence of national churches, as "truly prophetic words that retain their meaning even in today's confrontation with media-driven totalitarian claims"?

Cardinal Müller: The national church is a complete contradiction of God's will to save all mankind and to unite all people in the Holy Spirit. One cannot reduce the faith to a single nation as the Orthodox do with autocephaly. This is not a Catholic principle. We are the Catholic Church, ie universal, for all peoples.

NBQ: The thought inevitably goes to what is happening in 'your' Germany. Do you fear that the results of the German Synodal Way could infect the next synod on synodality?

Just published Italian edition of “The Pope. Mission and Ministry"

Cardinal Müller: Yes, of course. The proponents and supporters of the German synodal path do not want to separate themselves from the Catholic Church, but on the contrary, want to become its engine. Their agenda has been known for more than half a century and is still that of the Central Committee of German Catholics. They are not the true representatives of the German lay faithful, but officials who have been fighting for decades against priestly celibacy, against the indissolubility of marriage and for the ordination of women.

NBQ: These proposals were presented during the synodal meetings as a solution to the problem of child abuse by clerics. Didn't the admission of guilt and resignation over their failure on this issue by German bishops who were key players in this path undermine the credibility of this narrative?

Cardinal Mueller: The truth is that in Germany these sad events committed by some priests have been used to a large extent to push through an agenda that existed before and which has nothing to do with this tragedy. On the other hand, the mainstream media in Germany do nothing but praise the changes in teaching promoted by the Synodal Path. For them, only the Frankfurt congregation is good in the church, while everything else is slandered, using labels like conservative or even fascist! The majority of the German press is for the Synodal Way, not to improve the Church but to destroy it. It is no coincidence that they have cases of pedophilia, committed by priests while remaining silent on those committed in sport, in universities or in politics [Or among other denominations and religions, like Judaism], where the percentage of crimes is even higher. Those who have always opposed priestly celibacy and the Church's sexual morality have now found in the tragedy of child abuse by priests an instrument to destroy what they have always wanted to destroy.

NBQ: Regarding the German Synodal Way, did you hear the intervention of the Bishop of Antwerp Monsignor Johan Bonny, who supported the blessing of homosexual couples by propagating the scheme brought to Rome by the Belgian Bishops' Conference? Allegedly, the Roman authorities told the Belgian bishops that it was their decision and even the Pope told them: "It's your decision, I can understand that".

Cardinal Mueller: Anyone who represents heterodox positions today tries to legitimize themselves by referring to alleged statements or interviews by Francis. But in doing so, they exceed their competence. There have been many heretical bishops throughout history. This pro-rainbow blessing scheme is clear heresy. To legitimize it, they cannot cite a moment when the Pope said something to them. Even if the Pope actually said so, they can never institute the blessing of same-sex couples as if it were marriage. That's absolutely impossible. It is not within the competence of a pope to change revelation and the basis of Christian and Catholic morality. And certainly, neither can bishops' conference do this.

NBQ: Do you think that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith should intervene to reprimand the Bishop of Antwerp?

Cardinal Müller: Yes, it must intervene.

NBQ: If you were still Prefect, would you have intervened?

Cardinal Müller: Maybe that's why they no longer wanted me as Prefect because I would have intervened (laughs, editor's note). That is the task of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. You can't just argue with political or diplomatic logic. The time has come to confess the truth.

NBQ: In your book, you write about the Second Vatican Council that "there can only be a hermeneutic of reform and continuity". A few days ago, to justify the restrictions against the so-called Tridentine Mass, Cardinal Arthur Roche said that "the theology of the Church has changed". How do you judge these words?

Cardinal Mueller: As a theologian, I am not happy about this statement by Cardinal Roche. The belief is always the same. We cannot change beliefs. Theology evolves, but always on the basis of the same faith. The Second Vatican Council did not change belief in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the sacramental representation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the real presence of Jesus Christ. Only the liturgical forms have developed from this good idea of the active participation of all believers. The external form of the liturgy has evolved, but there are no substantive changes. I think to express oneself, one should do so with a deep understanding of the theology of the development of the Mass and the liturgy. The great councils on the Eucharist - the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council - teach that there has never been a single rite in the Catholic Church.

NBQ: So you see no threat to the unity of the Church in the so-called Tridentine Mass?

Cardinal Müller: No, not as such. There are some who say that this is the only orthodox form and that the form developed after Vatican II is invalid. These are extremists. But one should not react by wanting to hit a few extremists in an extremist way and punishing the great majority of these communities who love the Church, the Pope, and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. There are extremists on both sides: on the one hand, there are those who say that orthodoxy depends only on the Rite. So the Greek Catholics don't have a true Mass? That is absurd. These public statements are made without deep thought.

NBQ: Would you advise the Holy Father to withdraw the restrictions in the Rescriptum ex audientia signed by Cardinal Roche?

Cardinal Müller: It would be better to follow the line of Benedict XVI. to hold, the greatest connoisseur of the liturgy and also the greatest theologian. The supreme authority of the Church must always seek reconciliation. It takes a dialectic to find a path to peace. In Christ, the Church is the symbol of the unity of mankind. And I'll add something else.

NBQ: Please...

Cardinal Müller: These communities, linked to the so-called Latin Mass, suffer from the prejudice that they are enemies of the Second Vatican Council. But there are bishops in Germany who openly deny Vatican II! They question it or say it's just a stage in the past. They do not accept the teaching of the Council.
What is Rome's reaction to this? Why is there a reaction against one side with all authority, while against the other side - which promotes the blessing of homosexual couples, for example - there is practically no reaction?

NBQ: In 2022 the long-awaited reform of the Roman Curia saw the light of day, decided in the General Congregations before the Conclave in 2013. In your book, you write that "waiting for a plan from experts in politics, finance and economics to reform them misses the mark". So you don't agree with the innovation of Praedicate Evangelium that lay people can also become dicastery leaders.

Cardinal Müller: If you look at the dicastery as a kind of civil institution of the Vatican, the layman can also be a minister. But the Roman Curia is different from the Vatican City State. It is a Church institution. The congregations are now called 'dicasteries' to avoid an ecclesiological term. I am against the secularization of the Roman Curia. The head of the communication department can be a competent layman. But a clear distinction must be made between the institutions of Vatican City, which is a state and which the Church cannot govern. The Vatican has nothing to do with the Church.

NBQ: In plain language: a layman can be governor of Vatican City State but not direct the former Holy Office?

Cardinal Müller: Exactly. The basis of the Roman Curia is the College of Cardinals. There is a Roman Curia that serves the Pope in his ministry to the universal Church. I think those who designed these innovations didn't think about all of this. We've looked at the financial scandals, but haven't thought enough about what the Roman Curia really is on a theological level. Vatican II speaks of the Roman Curia, but as an ecclesiological body: what touches the Church is the business of our congregations and of the Pope as Pope, not as head of state.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image : NBQ

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

New Archbishop of Paris: Hope for Liturgical Peace?

 From a Catholic Lady

On May 23, Msgr. Laurent Ulrich was solemnly inaugurated in the church of Saint-Sulpice in the presence of around 2,000 faithful and a good 40 bishops from various dioceses. He had previously celebrated Vespers on the forecourt of his actual Episcopal Cathedral, Notre-Dame.

On April 26, the previous Archbishop of Lille was appointed by Pope Francis as the successor to the resigned Michel Aupetit. as the new Archbishop of Paris.

The pope's choice fell on an experienced churchman. He is regarded as approachable, as a man of dialogue. Like Pope Francis, however, he relies on synodal paths for a Church of tomorrow. However, Ulrich, who is already 70, will only be in office for a good four years before he has to hand in his resignation.

Paix liturgique explains that In Paris it will be seen whether he can regain the trust of the faithful who are bound to tradition, after his predecessor, Michel Aupetit smashed all the porcelain after the publication of Traditionis Custodes (TC) by choosing many places for the old mass prohibited and priests of the Society of St. Peter (FSSP) were no longer allowed to celebrate in Paris churches, but only biritual diocesan priests. His repressive actions, which rejected any dialogue, led to the fact that the shocked and deeply hurt believers met and still meet for weekly rosaries in churches and demonstrations in front of the Apostolic Nunciature. They have high hopes for their new archbishop. And there seems to be hoped that this could actually contribute to pacification.

In Lille at least Archbishop Ulrich, in contrast to a whole series of other French bishops, did not fight against the traditional liturgy after the appearance of TC, but used his decision-making authority as diocesan bishop to continue to allow the old Mass in his diocese as before.

Only recently, in Lille, in the Saint-Etienne church, which the Institute Christ the King and High Priest is entitled to use, he administered Confirmation in the Traditional Rite for 55 candidates of the Institute, as he had done before the Roman repressions also affected this sacrament. However, one must also know that the Institute does not exclude concelebration. That has taken place for example, in Dijon, where the priests of the FSSP had to leave the diocese last summer by episcopal order, a priest from the Institute of Christ the King and High Priest was allowed to take care of the traditional faithful instead of a diocesan priest.

It is to be hoped that the new archbishop will also demonstrate fair dealing in Paris, where the Society of St. Peter, which does not concelebrate, is affected by Aupetit's prohibitions, and that the Pope will let him do as he pleases - even if it is not to risk that the ongoing resistance of the French faithful to too many re-education decrees for second-class Catholics has become a conflagration even before papal educational measures are written to bring the stray sheep back into the liturgical family of the Novus Ordo. Because the “lost ones” still feel no need for liturgical salvation and do not want to be re-educated.

Associations in which believers work to defend the traditional liturgy have come together. Founding members are Juventus Traditionis (Paris and France), but also Foi et Tradition (Nantes) and AFSAN ( Association des Fidèles de Saint-André et Notre-Dame de l'Isle, Grenoble). The bishops of these dioceses are characterized by their particular harshness against tradition. For Paris, Lex Orandi formulates the expectation of believers: In particular, they "desire not to be considered second-class Catholics, but to bring to the life of the diocese all the strength of their bond with the Church".

In Paris, the faithful can finally hope for talks about an end to the restrictions. In Grenoble, on the other hand, they did not know how to help themselves other than by occupying the cathedral, where they spent the night from May 21 to 22 in prayer and hoped to finally find the attention and hearing of the vicar general of the diocese, who after the Resignation of Bishop Kerimel as Apostolic Administrator for a transitional period in charge of the diocese. Without success. In a letter of May 11, he had made it clear that Bishop Kerimel's decree would be implemented. The future of 500 believers, two FSSP priests, and more than 60 masses per month seems sealed. A diocesan priest takes over at least the Masses in the traditional Rite in addition to his own congregation. It is the end of the FSSP apostolate. The two priests will have to leave the diocese at the end of August.

It is to be hoped that Paris, which as a diocese has a special position in France, can now send out a positive signal under the new Archbishop Ulrich.

Image: Youtube/kto (screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

New Archbishop of Paris Administers Confirmation to the Faithful in the Immemorial Rite

Archbishop Ulrich of Lille administered Confirmation in the Immemorial Rite last Saturday in his archdiocese

(Paris) The appointed new archbishop of Paris administered Confirmation in the Immemorial Rite of All Ages in his previous diocese. The change to the Bishop's Chair on the Seine could be a stroke of luck.

Monsignor Laurent Bernard Marie Ulrich, originally from Burgundy, was appointed the new Archbishop of Paris by Pope Francis on April 26. The inauguration will take place next Monday.

Last Saturday, May 14, he administered the Sacrament of Confirmation to a group of 55 faithful in Lille, his previous diocese. A real boost in the atmosphere of Traditionis Custodes.

On May 23, Msgr. Ulrich will succeed Archbishop Michel Aupetit, who retired on December 2, 2021 at his own request by Pope Francis. Aupetit may have fallen victim to an orchestrated intrigue, but his retirement seems to have unexpectedly turned out to be a stroke of luck.

Laurent Ulrich was born in 1951 in Dijon, Burgundy. He studied at the Universities of Burgundy and Lyon and was ordained a priest for his home diocese in 1979. He worked in parish pastoral care, from 1985 also as Bishop's Vicar and from 1990 as Vicar General. In 2000, Pope John Paul II appointed him Archbishop of Chambéry in Savoy. Pope Benedict XVI then promoted him to Archbishop of Lille in French Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of France, in 2008. As such, offered confirmation in the traditional Rite a few days ago in his cathedral.

Archbishop Ulrich's decision to personally confirm the faithful in the traditional Rite contrasts surprisingly well with the repressive climate created by Pope Francis with the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes on July 16, 2021 and tightened by the Congregation for Divine Worship with its answers to Dubia on Traditionis Custodes.

These tightenings have it all. The new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Arthur Roche, announced on December 4, 2021 in the answers to the Dubia that only the Sacrifice of the Mass may be celebrated in the traditional form, while all other sacraments are to be administered in the Bugnine Liturgy of Paul VI. However, Archbishop Lille ignored this Roman repression and offered – perhaps for that very reason, personally – 55 faithful in the church of Saint-Étienne in Lille to be confirmed in the traditional Rite. He was assisted by priests of the traditional institute Christ the King and Sovereign Priest.

It is unlikely that this would endear the new Archbishop of Paris to Santa Marta, where any movement of the traditional liturgy that occurs outside of narrow confines is viewed with great suspicion. However, his appointment has already been made and his inauguration is imminent. In any case, Pope Francis no longer links cardinalatial dignity to specific bishoprics. The last Archbishop of Paris to receive purple was André Vingt-Trois, who was then admitted by Pope Benedict XVI to the College of Cardinals.

Even bishops, who have a reputation for being very close to Pope Francis, fall from grace when they show a gesture of benevolence to the traditional Rite. An example of this is Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna and senior cleric in the ranks of the Community of Sant'Egidio. He implemented the Motu proprio Traditionis Custodes in his Archdiocese to the letter, not being more generous than the Pope would allow, but using all the possibilities contained therein for the benefit of the traditional Rite. Until then, Cardinal Zuppi was considered a possible crown prince by Pope Francis, which changed abruptly. In Santa Martha, Zuppi's concessions to traditional circles were interpreted as a "gambit" to make himself popular in a future conclave.

What Pope Francis wanted was demonstrated by his protégé and ghostwriter, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández, Archbishop of La Plata and perhaps soon Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Cardinal. Msgr. Fernández eliminated the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in the Archdiocese of La Plata at Christmas 2018. In doing so, he anticipated by two and a half years what Pope Francis was to achieve with his Motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. 

It will be seen how the relationship between Monsignor Ulrich and Santa Marta will develop. First of all, it is to be hoped that the new archbishop of Paris will take his benevolent attitude towards the traditional Rite with him to the Seine, where his predecessor Aupetit imposed restrictions, and exert an influence on the French episcopacy as a whole.

The 55 confirmands with Archbishop Ulrich and the priests and assistants of the Institute of Christ the King and High Priest.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image : Facebook/ICRSS (Screenshots)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Traditiones Custodes: The Hermeneutic of Arbitrariness

On February 4, Pope Francis received two priests from the Society of St. Peter who were able to express their concerns about the implementation of Traditionis Custodes. On February 11, he granted the Society of St. Peter a special decree on Traditionis Custodes.

Argentine blogger Wanderer, “ a traditional Catholic in unity with Rome,” has been running the Caminante-Wanderer blog for many years. A few days ago he published a hermeneutics of arbitrariness. In it, he tries to give a slightly different interpretation to the decree for the Society of St. Peter, with which Pope Francis largely freed this Ecclesia Dei community from the yoke of the Motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, and to draw attention to some aspects that, in his view, have not been sufficiently addressed so far have received attention.

Hermeneutic of Arbitrariness

by Wanderer

The Decree of February 11, by which Pope Francis authorized the Society of St. Peter (FSSP) and with it, it seems, the other Ecclesia Dei Institutes to use the surviving liturgical books, including the Roman Pontifical, has triggered countless comments. Few of us expected such a measure, and it came as a surprise, especially to those who claim that the pontiff was possessed of a particular hatred of the traditional liturgy. Traditions Custodes was certainly bad news and seemed to confirm this assumption: Francis is attempting to suppress the traditional liturgy and, by forbidding the use of the Roman Pontifical before liturgical reform, effectively condemns the traditionalists to extinction or to relying on one or the other to join the Society of Saint Pius in any other way, which would result in the “resignation” from the Church.

In this blog, however, we have always maintained that Pope Francis is neither a traditionalist nor a progressive on liturgical matters. He's a Jesuit, maybe the best Jesuit who ever lived, and as such he doesn't care about the liturgy. He does not understand them, for a purely practical mind is unable to understand the worship offered to God for its own sake. He is interested in politics and pastoral action. The rest is incomprehensible to him. The decree favoring the Society of Peter confirms this hypothesis.

The surprise has led many observers to speak of a kind of papal "schizophrenia": the pope issues a motu proprio fatal to the traditional liturgy and shortly thereafter opens the floodgates for a sizeable group of traditionalists to continue celebrating their Latin Masses as they want. And we must not forget that the authorization granted to the Society of St. Peter is not the first, that of the motu proprio deviates from what he himself had proclaimed. In addition to several granted by him on a personal level, and despite intense pressure, he has granted others that are public. For example, in St. Peter's Basilica, where even the rite of Paul VI. cannot be celebrated privately, according to Traditions Custodes, two solemn masses are celebrated in the traditional Rite.

The possible papal "schizophrenia" is not the only explanation for the decree. I propose the following hermeneutical keys to the papal contradiction:

1. We all know how good Pope Francis is with the language of gestures, for better or for worse. Suffice it to recall, for example, the grim and sullen face with which he can be seen in photos with Donald Trump or Mauricio Macri. With the priests of the Society of St. Peter, on the other hand, he shows a smiling and satisfied face, which suggests that the conversation took place in the best conditions and that he felt comfortable with them, and this is one of the traditionalist groups, considered the most rigid, as you can imagine.

2. The conversation is said to have lasted an hour, which is a very long time for a papal audience granted to two priests who hold important positions within the Society of St. Peter but are not its supreme authority. Perhaps a reader more knowledgeable than I can tell us whether Pope Francis frequently receives Superiors General of religious orders and congregations and, if so, how long these audiences last.

3. It is known, because it has also been published, that the origin of the audience was a letter that some priests of the Society of St. Peter sent to the Pope expressing their concern about the consequences of Traditions Custodes, and in response to the letter they were summoned to Rome to meet with the Holy Father. And I believe that the initiative for such a privilege came directly from the pope and not from a secretary of the papal household. No halfway skilled and loyal subordinate would put his superior in an embarrassing and compromising situation. Everyone knew it was a touchy and thorny subject. This fact and the two points mentioned above suggest that the Holy Father has no particular aversion to the traditional liturgy. If that were the case, it would be easy for him, plain and simple, to apply Traditions Custodes to demand what he has every right in the world to do. Or, as is his habit, he would avoid any interviews or meetings where he expects a confrontation. It should be remembered that Francis practically suspended the consistories at which cardinals and other Roman prelates meet with the pope to discuss ecclesiastical matters. Bergoglio, as Bishop of Buenos Aires, has always avoided confrontations and therefore avoids granting audiences or going to places where he foresees a difficult situation. I know a number of people who have asked for a personal audience with the Pope and have not even received an answer. The Priests of the Society of Peter were summoned to Santa Marta by Pope Francis to discuss the motu proprio.

4. To what extent can Traditiones Custodes be considered as a Franciscan manifesto against the traditional liturgy? This is certainly the first and simplest reading, but the facts on which we are commenting allow for other interpretations that were not possible until recently. Let's look at some facts:

a. The motu proprio comes from the office of Archbishop Arthur Roche and his staff. This English Archbishop was appointed by Benedict XVI. as Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and is not a liturgist, which suggests that all his liturgical knowledge and consequent bungling is the fruit of the express training he received from Andrea Grillo, and this is no exaggeration as illustrated: The text of Traditiones Custodes repeats almost verbatim many paragraphs from articles and other writings that Grillo has been publishing for at least fifteen years ( here, here and here ), and the principles on which it is based are exactly the same ones propagated by this Bolognese liturgist since Pope Ratzinger promulgated the Summorum Pontificum. In short, Traditiones Custodes was not written or conceived by Bergoglio; he merely signed what others wrote for him.

b. I don't mean to say that Bergoglio didn't know what he was doing. He knew that very well. For years he was under constant pressure from the Italian bishops, who were alarmed at the growth of the traditionalist movement and, above all, at the strong sympathy among young priests for the traditional Mass. And the Pope did not want to have any problem with the Italian bishops, especially in the midst of the excesses that he committed and still commits himself in that episcopacy (suffice it to say the recent appointment of the new Archbishop of Turin). And he gave in to the pressure.

c. Bergoglio was also aware of the American bishops' functional sympathy for conservative and traditionalist positions. Bergoglian hostility towards Americans deepened after the shocking incident of the American Bishops' Conference virtually flouting papal wishes regarding Biden and the admission of pro-abortion politicians to Communion. To obstruct the traditional Mass would be to anger Americans, which, being a good Peronist, he abhors, all the more so when it threatens his power.

5. Several traditionalist websites rightly argue that the permission given to the Society of St. Peter is an "indult" and can therefore be revoked at any time, which would prove the malice and duplicity of Francis. It is true that it is a gesture of mercy, but we should keep a few points in mind:

a. For Bergoglio, everything is a gesture of grace, even canon law. He made several reforms to the code just a few weeks ago. The only thing he hasn't changed is the Scriptures. We cannot expect him to proclaim a universal law.

b. It should be remembered that for decades the only way to celebrate the traditional Mass was by indult and that there had to be a “schism” for it to be granted. According to some scholars,  Benedict XVI's authorization given in Summorum Pontificum is also an indult. The curious thing is that with both the indults of John Paul II and Pope Ratzinger, a long time must have passed and/or extraordinary events must have taken place. The indult to the Society of St. Peter was granted immediately after an audience.

c. What other legal form was possible besides an indult? Only one: the abolition of the Missal of Paul VI, which is the only "ordinary" form of celebration of the Latin Rite. We can't expect that much.

i.e. Many believe that the Indult is a very fragile legal form and that its days are numbered. We recall, however, that this is not always the case: the Crusade Bull is an indult that has been, or is still, valid for more than eight centuries, and we traditionalist Spaniards rely on it to eat meat on Fridays. Or Communion in the hand is an indult that still applies and is unlikely to be abolished.

6. It is also said that the papal decree insists on Traditions Custodes in the last paragraph and I think this is one of the most interesting and positive aspects of the situation. There it is suggested ( suadet ) that as far as possible ( quantum fieri potest ) this motu proprio should be carefully considered ( sedulo cogitetur ) . It's something minimal, remarkably minimal. The priests of the Society of Peter are not even obliged to read Traditionis Custodes . They are just suggested to think about it, if possible.

7. It is also said that the indult was not published and is therefore of dubious validity. However, it should be noted that this is not a law that comes into force upon its publication in the country's official gazette. It is permission given to a specific group within the Church. One could make a long list of indults that have never been published and yet whose validity has not been compromised. For example, the so-called "Agatha Christie Indult," which makes it possible for the traditional Mass to continue to be celebrated in the United Kingdom under certain circumstances.

I think that the above facts lead to the conclusion that for Pope Francis, Traditions Custodes is a document of political rather than liturgical significance, while for Archbishop Roche and his collaborators in the Congregation for Divine Worship it is an eminently liturgical measure with a clear intention to destroy the traditional liturgy. Consequently, and paradoxically as it may seem, Pope Francis is our main or only advocate on liturgical questions, for whatever reason.

Precisely for this reason, it makes sense to reconsider the strategy of groups and analysts from the traditional world who, after the publication of the motu proprio, devoted themselves to the violent attacks on Francis, even committing incomprehensible mistakes, the consequences of which we are all feeling. The priests of the Society of St. Peter have shown us a path that has led to the goal.

But what is the goal we are striving for? To protect as much as possible the position that Pope Benedict XVI. has won for the traditional liturgy, to preserve it as much as possible, or to make a name for oneself with constant attacks on the Holy Father for what he does or does not do on liturgical questions? If it is the first option, we should be cautious and meek, which does not mean that we remain silent in the face of the devastation the Argentine Pope is wreaking on the Church. But it means having clear goals in mind and using the necessary common sense.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image : Caminante Wanderer

Trans: Tancred vekronn99@hotmail.com

AMDG