Letter #79, 2021, Sat., July 31: Viganň

Acasă > Ştiri > Arhiva Ştiri

Timp stanga: 0.05s...

Ştiri şi Evenimente

Letter #79, 2021, Sat., July 31: Viganň

[2021-08-01]

[Engleză]

Letter #79, 2021, Saturday, July 31, Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola: Archbishop Viganň on Traditionis custodes

 Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganň, 80, has released a new text, dated July 28, on the recent papal decree Traditionis custodes ["Of tradition the guardians"]. The entire text is below. (Here is a link to the original text in Italian.)

 ***

 A few preliminary observations.

 The archbishop took 12 days to reflect upon the decree and then to compose this text. (The decree of Pope Francis was published on July 16; this essay is dated July 28.)

 The archbishop is, no doubt, very critical of the Pope's text.

 However, he begins by revealing that the published text is actually much milder than the original draft of the decree, which, the archbishop says, was sent for comment to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was returned with many suggested changes to make the document milder than it was. (How Viganň knows this is what happened, he does not say; evidently he is in contact with Vatican officials, either directly or through intermediaries, who informed him about this aspect of the text-editing process.)

 ***

 That said, Viganň still argues that the Pope's text as published is notable, first of all, for its harshness toward the old liturgy, and toward those who love the old liturgy.

 Those who love the old liturgy, he says, are harshly, and wrongly, characterized as "rigid" and "against Vatican II."

 ***

 The archbishop says this harshness toward "traditional" Catholics is in marked contrast with the way the Pope embraces many on the "progressive" side in the Church (or even outside of the Church).

 Viganň deduces from this perceived differing treatment of these two groups that Pope Francis is partial or favorable toward "any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic."

 Viganň even goes so far as to say that we have "a non-Catholic Pope," then adds, quite soberly and a bit cryptically: "This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed."

 Viganň is saying, then, that he regards it to be a "canonical problem" (somehow something not consistent with Church canon law) for the Catholic Church to have a leader like the present pontiff, repressing "traditionalists" and supporting "progressives."

 Still, he is also saying quite clearly that this "canonical problem" cannot yet be addressed, though it will have to be addressed "sooner or later."

 Readers may interpret this as they wish.

 ***

 To summarize: Viganň, in very strong terms, starts by setting the Pope's treatment of Catholics who favor "Tradition" (that is, Catholics who embrace beliefs and customs considered in past ages to be central to the Catholic faith) in contrast to the Pope's treatment of "a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key."

 For the archbishop, then, the Pope's document reveals harshness toward Catholic tradition, while his other actions reveal gentleness and generosity toward "the ideological Left."

 ***

 Then comes the central part of the text, which is a very strong defense of the Traditional Mass because of "the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls."

 Essentially, Viganň is saying that he believes the old Mass is filled with good things that will be lost to the Church in future generations if this recent decree is not softened or rescinded.

 "It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past," Viganň writes. "Here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism."

 ***

 Toward the end of his text, Viganň argues that the attempt by Pope Francis to suppress the old Mass will fail.

 "This unhappy decision by Bergoglio to cancel the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict is doomed to inexorable failure," Viganň writes, "because it touches the very soul of the Church, of which the Lord Himself is Pontiff and High Priest."

 And then he adds: "Let us not be surprised therefore if we soon begin to see the faithful coming from ordinary parish life and even those far from the Church finding their way to the churches where the traditional Mass is celebrated."

 ***

 Viganň ends with words that call for Catholic traditionalists to act, not with anger, but with quiet humility.

 "It will be our humility," he writes, "the silent offering of injustices toward us, and the example of a life consistent with the Creed that we profess, that will merit the triumph of the Catholic Mass and the conversion of many souls."

 Here is the text.

 ***  

 LAPIDES CLAMABUNT ["The very stones will cry out"]

 "Dico vobis quia si hii tacuerint, lapides clamabunt."

 "I say to you that if these (people) are silent, the very stones will cry out."—Jesus, speaking in the Gospel of Luke 19:40

 By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganň, July 28, 2021

 Traditionis custodes: this is the incipit ["beginning" or "first words"] of the document with which Francis imperiously cancels the previous Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI.

 The almost mocking tone of the bombastic quotation from Lumen Gentium will not have escaped notice: just when Bergoglio recognizes the Bishops as guardians of the Tradition, he asks them to obstruct its highest and most sacred expression of prayer.

 Anyone who tries to find within the folds of the text some escamotage ["sleight of hand" or "trickery"] to circumvent the text should know that the draft sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for revision was extremely more drastic than the final text: a confirmation, if ever it were needed, that no particular pressure was needed from of the historical enemies of the Tridentine Liturgy – beginning with the scholars of Sant'Anselmo – to convince His Holiness to try his hand at what he does best: demolishing. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

 [Editor's note: The Latin words mean: "They (the Romans) make a desert (or a wasteland) and call it peace." The words are from a speech by a certain Calgacus, reported by the Roman historian Tacitus in his work Agricola, Chapter 30.]

 The Modus Operandi of Francis

 Francis has once again disavowed the pious illusion of the hermeneutic of continuity, stating that the coexistence of the Vetus and Novus Ordo is impossible because they are expressions of two irreconcilable doctrinal and ecclesiological approaches.

 On the one hand there is the Apostolic Mass, the voice of the Church of Christ; on the other there is the Montinian “Eucharistic celebration,” the voice of the conciliar church.

 And this is not an accusation, however legitimate, made by those who express reservations about the reformed rite and Vatican II.

 Rather it is an admission, indeed a proud affirmation of ideological adherence on the part of Francis himself, the head of the most extremist faction of progressivism.

 His dual role as pope and liquidator of the Catholic Church allows him on the one hand to demolish it with decrees and acts of governance, and on the other hand to use the prestige that his office entails to establish and spread the new religion over the rubble of the old one.

 It matters little if the ways in which he acts against God, against the Church and against the Lord's flock are in stark conflict with his appeals to parrhesia, to dialogue, to building bridges and not erecting walls: the church of mercy and the field hospital turn out to be empty rhetorical devices, since it ought to be Catholics who benefit from them and not heretics or fornicators.

 In reality, each of us is well aware that Amoris Laetitia's indulgence towards public concubinage and adulterers would hardly be imaginable towards those “rigid” ones against whom Bergoglio hurls his darts as soon as he has the opportunity.

 After years of this pontificate, we have all understood that the reasons given by Bergoglio for declining a meeting with a Prelate, a politician or a conservative intellectual do not apply to the molester Cardinal, the heretic Bishop, the abortionist politician, or the globalist intellectual.

 In short, there is a blatant difference in behavior, from which one can grasp the partiality and partisanship of Francis in favor of any ideology, thought, project, scientific, artistic or literary expression that is not Catholic.

 Anything that even only vaguely evokes anything Catholic seems to arouse in the tenant of Santa Marta an aversion that is disconcerting to say the least, if only in virtue of the Throne on which he is seated.

 Many have noted this dissociation, this sort of bipolarity of a pope who does not behave like a Pope and does not speak like a Pope.

 The problem is that we are not faced with a sort of inaction from the Papacy, as could happen with a sick or very old Pontiff; but rather with a constant action that is organized and planned in a sense diametrically opposed to the very essence of the Papacy.

 Not only does Bergoglio not condemn the errors of the present time by strongly reaffirming the Truth of the Catholic Faith – he has never done this! – but he actively seeks to disseminate these errors, to promote them, to encourage their supporters, to spread them to the greatest possible extent and to host events promoting them in the Vatican, simultaneously silencing those who denounce these same errors.

 Not only does he not punish fornicating Prelates, but he even promotes and defends them by lying, while he removes conservative Bishops and does not hide his annoyance with the heartfelt appeals of Cardinals not aligned with the new course.

 Not only does he not condemn abortionist politicians who proclaim themselves Catholics, but he intervenes to prevent the Episcopal Conference from pronouncing on this matter, contradicting that synodal path which conversely allows him to use a minority of ultra-progressives to impose his will on the majority of the Synod Fathers.

 The one constant of this attitude, noted in its most brazen and arrogant form in Traditionis Custodes, is duplicity and lies. A duplicity that is a facade, of course, daily disavowed by positions that are anything but prudent in favor of a very specific group, which for the sake of brevity we can identify with the ideological Left, indeed with its most recent evolution in a globalist, ecologist, transhuman and LGBTQ key.

 We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term.

 This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.

 Ideological Extremism

 Another significant element of this pontificate, taken to its extreme consequences with Traditionis Custodes, is Bergoglio's ideological extremism: an extremism that is deplored in words when it concerns others, but which shows itself in its most violent and ruthless expression when it is he himself who puts it into practice against clergy and laity connected to the ancient rite and faithful to Sacred Tradition.

 Towards the Society of Saint Pius X he shows himself willing to make concessions and to establish a relationship as “good neighbors,” but towards the poor priests and faithful who have to endure a thousand humiliations and blackmail in order to beg for a Mass in Latin, he shows no understanding, no humanity.

 This behavior is not accidental: Archbishop Lefebvre's movement enjoys its own autonomy and economic independence, and for this reason it has no reason to fear retaliation or commissioners from the Holy See. But the Bishops, priests and clerics incardinated in dioceses or religious Orders know that hanging over them is the sword of Damocles of removal from office, dismissal from the ecclesiastical state, and the deprivation of their very means of subsistence.

 The experience of the Tridentine Mass in priestly life

 Those who have had the opportunity to follow my speeches and declarations know well what my position is on the Council and on the Novus Ordo; but they also know what my background is, my curriculum in the service of the Holy See and my relatively recent awareness of the apostasy and the crisis in which we find ourselves.

 For this reason, I would like to reiterate my understanding for the spiritual path of those who, precisely because of this situation, cannot or are not yet able to make a radical choice, such as celebrating or attending exclusively the Mass of St. Pius V.

 Many priests discover the treasures of the venerable Tridentine Liturgy only when they celebrate it and allow themselves to be permeated by it, and it is not uncommon for an initial curiosity towards the “extraordinary form” – certainly fascinating due to the solemnity of the rite – to change quickly into the awareness of the depth of the words, the clarity of the doctrine, the incomparable spirituality that it gives birth to and nourishes in our souls.

 There is a perfect harmony that words cannot express, and that the faithful can understand only in part, but which touches the heart of the Priesthood as only God can.

 This can be confirmed by my confreres who have approached the usus antiquior after decades of obedient celebration of the Novus Ordo: a world opens up, a cosmos that includes the prayer of the Breviary with the lessons of Matins and the commentaries of the Fathers, the cross-references to the texts of the Mass, the Martyrology in the Hour of Prime... They are sacred words – not because they are expressed in Latin – but rather they are expressed in Latin because the vulgate language would demean them, would profane them, as Dom Guéranger wisely observed.

 These are the words of the Bride to the divine Bridegroom, words of the soul that lives in intimate union with God, of the soul that lets itself be inhabited by the Most Holy Trinity.

 Essentially priestly words, in the deepest sense of the term, which implies in the Priesthood not only the power to offer sacrifice, but to unite in self-offering to the pure, holy and immaculate Victim.

 It has nothing to do with the ramblings of the reformed rite, which is too intent on pleasing the secularized mentality to turn to the Majesty of God and the Heavenly Court; so preoccupied with making itself understandable that one has to give up on communicating anything but trivial obviousness; so careful not to hurt the feelings of heretics as to allow itself to keep silent about the Truth just at the moment in which the Lord God makes himself present on the altar; so fearful of asking the faithful for the slightest commitment as to trivialize the sacred song and any artistic expression linked to worship.

 The simple fact that Lutheran pastors, modernists and well-known Freemasons collaborated in the drafting of that rite should make us understand, if not the bad faith and willful misconduct, at least the horizontal mentality, devoid of any supernatural impetus, which motivated the authors of the so-called “liturgical reform” – who, as far as we know, certainly did not shine with the sanctity with which the sacred authors of the texts of the ancient Missale Romanum and of the entire liturgical corpus shine.

 How many of you priests – and certainly also many lay people – in reciting the wonderful verses of the Pentecost sequence were moved to tears, understanding that your initial predilection for the traditional liturgy had nothing to do with a sterile aesthetic satisfaction, but had evolved into a real spiritual necessity, as indispensable as breathing?

 How can you and how can we explain to those who today would like to deprive you of this priceless good, that that blessed rite has made you discover the true nature of your Priesthood, and that from it and only from it are you able to draw strength and nourishment to face the commitments of your ministry?

 How can you make it clear that the obligatory return to the Montinian rite represents an impossible sacrifice for you, because in the daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil it leaves you disarmed, prostrate and without strength?

 It is evident that only those who have not celebrated the Mass of St. Pius V can consider it as an annoying tinsel of the past, which can be done without.

 Even many young priests, accustomed to the Novus Ordo since their adolescence, have understood that the two forms of the rite have nothing in common, and that one is so superior to the other as to reveal all its limits and criticisms, to the point of making it almost painful to celebrate.

 It is not a question of nostalgia, of a cult of the past: here we are speaking of the life of the soul, its spiritual growth, ascesis and mysticism.

 Concepts that those who see their priesthood as a profession cannot even understand, just as they cannot understand the agony that a priestly soul feels in seeing the Eucharistic Species desecrated during the grotesque rites of Communion in the era of the pandemic farce.

 The reductive vision of the liberalization of the Mass

 This is why I find it extremely unpleasant to have to read in Traditionis Custodes that the reason why Francis believes that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated 14 years ago lay only in the desire to heal the so-called schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.

 Of course, the “political” calculation may have had its weight, especially at the time of John Paul II, even if at that time the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X were few in number.

 But the request to be able to restore citizenship to the Mass which for two millennia nourished the holiness of the faithful and gave the sap of life to Christian civilization cannot be reduced to a contingent fact.

 With his Motu Proprio, Benedict XVI restored the Roman Apostolic Mass to the Church, declaring that it had never been abolished.

 Indirectly, he admitted that there was an abuse by Paul VI, when in order to give authority to his rite he ruthlessly forbade the celebration of the traditional Liturgy.

 And even if in that document there may be some incongruent elements, such as the coexistence of the two forms of the same rite, we can believe that these have served to allow for the diffusion of the extraordinary form, without affecting the ordinary one.

 In other times, it would have seemed incomprehensible to let a Mass steeped in misunderstandings and omissions to be celebrated, when the authority of the Pontiff could have simply restored the ancient rite.

 But today, with the heavy burden of Vatican II and with the now widespread secularized mentality, even the mere liceity of celebrating the Tridentine Mass without permission can be considered an undeniable good – a good that is visible to all due to the abundant fruits it brings to the communities where it is celebrated.

 And we can also believe that it would have brought even more fruits if only Summorum Pontificum had been applied in all its points and with a spirit of true ecclesial communion.

 The alleged “instrumental use” of the Roman missal

 Francis knows well that the survey taken among Bishops all over the world did not yield negative results, although the formulation of the questions made clear what answers he wanted to receive.

 That consultation was a pretext, in order to make people believe that the decision he made was inevitable and the fruit of a choral request from the Episcopate.

 We all know that if Bergoglio wants to obtain a result, he does not hesitate to resort to force, lies, and sleight of hand: the events of the last Synods have demonstrated this beyond all reasonable doubt, with the Post-Synodal Exhortation drafted even before the vote on the Instrumentum Laboris.

 Also in this case, therefore, the pre-established purpose was the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and the prophasis, that is, the apparent excuse, had to be the supposed “instrumental use of the Roman Missal of 1962, often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of Vatican Council II itself” (here).

 In all honesty, one can perchance accuse the Society of Saint Pius X of this instrumental use, which has every right to affirm what each of us knows well, that the Mass of Saint Pius V is incompatible with post-conciliar ecclesiology and doctrine.

 But the Society is not affected by the Motu Proprio, and has always celebrated using the 1962 Missal precisely by virtue of that inalienable right which Benedict XVI recognized, which was not created ex nihilo in 2007.

 The diocesan priest who celebrates Mass in the church assigned to him by the Bishop, and who every week must undergo the third degree through the accusations of zealous progressive Catholics only because he has dared to recite the Confiteor ["I confess"] prior to administering Communion to the faithful, knows very well that he cannot speak ill of the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, because at the first syllable he would already be summoned to the Curia and sent to a parish church lost in the mountains.

 That silence, always painful and almost always perceived by everyone as more eloquent than many words, is the price he has to pay in order to have the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass of all time, in order not to deprive the faithful of the Graces that it pours down upon the Church and the world.

Sursa: www.InSideTheVatican.com

Contor Accesări: 542, Ultimul acces: 2026-07-28 20:27:10

Timp total: 0.05s...

[]:1