Writing here may be a bit slow today--I have a lot to catch up on and there may be additional fallout from yesterday's developments.
However, it's necessary to offer some comment on the Vatican's renewed effort to suppress the traditional liturgy--popularly known as "the Latin Mass", more popularly termed something like the Roman-Gregorian liturgy. That's because it was Gregory I "the Great" (c. 540 – 12 March 604) who codified the traditional liturgy of Rome. The first attempt to suppress this traditional liturgy--which can be traced back to Apostolic Tradition--occurred nearly 1400 years later in 1970--with very mixed results. Perhaps this latest and renewed effort at suppression of Christian worship means that the V2 was emboldened by the passive reception by catholics of Pachamama worship in the Vatican. Whatever. Bergoglio has issued the ironically titled motu propriu in our subject line, Traditionis custodes, with the obvious intent of suppressing the Roman liturgy of ages.
This event has implications in connection with the planned Great Reset--Bergoglio obviously hopes to transform the V2 into the 'spiritual' vehicle of the globalist Great Reset--a Neo-gnostic religion. We touched on this yesterday at the end of Class, Influence, Power by citing Maureen Mullarkey's Inside The Vatican’s Surprising Alliance With Biotech Venture Capital, which I highly recommend in its entirety. Nothing that we see happening around us is happening is some sort of a vacuum. It's all connected. The Power Elite really does have global ambitions, both literally and figuratively.
For the rest, I'll cite some early reactions. First are passages from Fr Hunwicke's several posts today, which touch on the significance of the Roman Canon and the meaning of what goes on at "the Mass," along with reflections on the legality of what Bergoglio and his clique are attempting. I note up front that Hunwicke is somebody that I disagree with on a number of key points that have a direct bearing on these new events. To me, the bottom line is that anyone who considers themselves to be in communion with Bergoglio must, perforce, also be in communion with New Age Pachamama worshippers. I see no alternative in any meaningful and practical sense. In my view, this is all the logical outcome of the cultivation of Hegelian influenced Neo-gnostic Modernism in Catholic circles since at least the late 19th century (the historical origins are more complicated).
With that preface, today Hunwicke wrote--and then deleted what he wrote--first about the Roman Canon's significance and its antiquity, traceable to Apostolic Tradition:
But are Cuckoos' Eggs Roman? (1)
ROMAN MISSAL, it says on the spine of that splendidly and expensively produced Altar Book which everybody bought three or four years ago; so much more attractive than the old plastic Altar Books with SACRAMENTARY blocked upon them. The change was part of the Hermeneutic of Reform in Continuity, just as the earlier description had been a conscious assertion of rupture. Our Liturgy, we are now taught, is to be seen as in continuity with what preceded it, just as the Edition of S Pius V was in continuity with the printed missals of the late fifteenth century. This motive is highly laudable ... its heart is in the right place ... but I wonder whether its assertion is quite true.
As Aidan Nichols neatly explained, "anaphoras ... are central to the definition of any Eucharistic style". And that is why the title ROMAN MISSAL is only a quarter-truth. The First Eucharistic Prayer, the Roman Canon, is indeed Roman. Its theology is the old theology of Consecration which preceded the changes driven in the East by the realisation that the Holy Spirit is fully God. In the Roman Canon, the Spirit only makes an appearance in the Doxology. Its [The Roman Canon's] doctrine is very simple: Divine acceptance is Consecration. In the Quam oblationem, we ask the Father to accept the offering; to bless it by writing it on the Official List of Eucharists (remember Christine Mohrmann's demonstration of the legalism of Roman religious thought both Christian and pre-Christian) and ratifying it (benedictam adscriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilem). The next word is ut; the linkage is precise and intended. God is asked to accept the offering in order that it may become the Lord's Body and Blood. Then follows Qui pridie ['who the day before he suffered took bread ...'] ... This qui has a sense of 'forasmuch as' (remember all those collects beginning Deus qui [God who] ..., in which the qui clause gives the factual basis upon the logic of which we base our request which follows in the second half of the collect). The Qui pridie gives the grounds upon which we centre our confidence that the Father will do what is asked. Accept this offering so that it becomes the Lord's body; and His statements at His Last Supper form the 'legal' basis for our confident request.
I provide this, because it is precisely this theology, with its roots in Israelite sacrificial theology, that the V2 seeks to suppress. Yes, I know that the Roman Canon remains an "option," but only ask: When was the last time you heard it used at a New Order liturgy?
Moving on to legality, Hunwicke writes:
From a private letter to me from Prebendary Michael Moreton (7 November 2001);
"I regard the Roman canon as part of the complex of traditions which characterised the life of the Church as it emerged from the centuries of persecution: a shared rule of faith in the creeds, a shared rule of what constituted Scripture, a shared rule of holy order, and a shared rule of prayer. I do not believe that any part of the Church in later centuries has any authority to alter these canons."
From Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Rites ... are forms of the Apostolic Tradition and of its unfolding in the great places of the Tradition. ... After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters ... the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition."
So much, then for Bergoglianist autocracy. ...
OK. Now from particulars of theology to the big picture, which affects everyone in the West because Christianity really is the West. Again, as with Hunwicke, I don't agree with everything Michael Matt says, but overall he's very much on point in what he writes today:
Francis is old and sickly, and yet he’s obsessed with crushing the old Catholic normal. Now he has locked down Summorum Pontificum. Why? Because, like a crucifix to a vampire, the old Catholic liturgy threatens the diabolical New Order. It united Catholics from every country in the world for a couple of thousand years like no government ever could.
And this is why our Globalist papal tool—the Pachamama Pope—is coming after the thing that united that resistance.
With war breaking out all over the place, violence and mayhem in the cities, abortion rampant, violations of the laws of God and Man rampant, Francis is determined to suppress the old Latin Mass. Why? Because that mass safeguards doctrine. It is the touchstone of the rigid faithful who care about worshipping God more than climate change. And that kind of Catholicism must be banned if the New World Order is going to work.
We must reject any claim of religious supremacy or objective truth. ...
What Francis wants is CRT – Critical Religion Theory to tear down the old Catholic religious supremacism.
The whole point of Assisi, Abu Dhabi and the rest of the ecumenical blasphemies is to erase the memory of the supremacist Catholic Church whose countries, popes, emperors, and kings built the Old Order of Christendom, the memory of which the New World Order plans to erase completely.
Christian privilege is over. Catholicism will be tolerated only to the extent that it nixes its non-inclusive dogma and moral teaching, is tolerant of every vice and sin, and is never “rigid” again.
Francis is abolishing the Traditional Latin Mass because it stands in the way of the New World Order.
And so, for the sake of our country, our souls, and the faith of our children we must resist Francis to his face from now on. There is no other way.
You can see why Bergoglio so hated Trump and Trump's supporters. Despite his disastrous personal life, Trump was the most Catholic president ever.
ADDENDUM: It's pretty obvious that the whole point of the V2 was to bring the Church into line with western Liberal Democracy. We see the results. In our "democracy," a Power Elite lays down the law to the proles, even to the point of staging fake elections and then flooding the streets of the Imperial City with troops.
The Vatican can no longer flood the streets of Rome with Swiss Guards, but we see the same sham. The V2 was supposed to be about "the people", in the same way, I suppose, that the Dems are about "the children" or the less "privileged." What really jumps out in Guardians of Tradition--after the utter cynicism of the title--is that it speaks right over the heads of the faithful. It speaks to the Clerical Elite and instructs them to lay down the law to the lesser beings out there.
Democracy has its blackrobed clergy in the courts, who interpret a "living constitution". The V2 has its own blackrobes who interpret a "living tradition."
The only people who deserve today's kick in the teeth are those 'conservative' Catholics who've spent the last few years praising the wisdom of the 'Holy Father' despite abundant evidence of his malevolence. You know who you are.— Damian Thompson (@holysmoke) July 16, 2021