Today is the capstone feast of Mary’s Month, and thus eliminated, of course, from this month in the novus ordo calendar. The traditional Feast of the Visitation (July 2) is placed today to cover the tracks of “de-throning” Our Lady. The Feast of her Queenship was moved to August 22 in the n.o. and displaces the Feast of Mary’s Immaculate Heart, which was relegated to an optional memorial in June. Curious, that.
On this Memorial Day, ask yourself while remembering the brave sacrifices of so many, “Has there ever been a country under the patronage of Our Lady that needed to rush to her feet and beg her to save us from our own evil ways?”
Rorate Caeli presents a hearsay report that Bergoglio told the recent meeting of the Italian Bishops Conference that he intends to abolish the motu proprioSummorum Pontificum. Some thoughts on this item, in order to reiterate some key points before such a thing may occur.
1. One must always remember that only a pope can abolish a motu proprio issued by the pope. This “duh” principle must always be remembered in our corrupt times. Let’s just spitball, and “speculate”, that Pope Benedict is still the pope. Who cares what a heretical prelate from Argentina says about Summorum Pontificum. His authority to do anything about it is about the same as his authority in my homeowners association: zero. But, for the sake of completeness, let us assume, arguendo for the rest of this post that Bergoglio is definitively and actually the pope.
2. One must always remember what Summorum Pontificum did and did not do, legally speaking, and thus understand the legal effect of abolishing it. Pope Benedict mostly just acknowledged a preexisting fact: the TLM was never abrogated and thus in principle could always have been (and can be) celebrated by any priest without need of any episcopal approval. Abolishing the motu proprio does not change the preexisting fact.
3. What the motu proprio did do was establish a juridical regime that declared that the ancient rite and the novus ordo were actually two different expressions of one only Roman Rite of Mass. This always seemed hard to square with reality, as it sure SEEMS like the two Masses are two different rites. Abolishing the motu proprio abolishes this purely juridical reality and thus we can go back to the more logical way of contrasting the two rites of Mass, the Roman Rite and the novus ordo.
4. Some say that abolishing the motu proprio would bring everyone back into an indult-only TLM regime. Of course Bergoglio and his minions will assume this and act as it is so. But since the TLM hasn’t been abrogated and every priest continues to have the right to celebrate it, it will be like the scamdemic regime has been in the secular sphere. Do you pretend that lies are reality, or do you man up? It is a question for all priests, prelates and laymen to answer at the appropriate time.
5. Since only the motu proprio limited (at the time) the TLM to the 1962 Missal, contra Quo Primum, any attempt to limit use of the immemorial custom of the Mass formally codified in 1570 has to address Quo Primum‘s declaration that it can never be prohibited for any priest to celebrate it. It would be interesting to watch the current intellectual lightweights in the curia try to do so.
6. Finally, abolishing Summorum Pontificum would be extremely interesting in Bergoglio’s interactions with the SSPX. He has showered them with Francismercy in the past several years, granting jurisdiction for confessions, lowering hurdles to be able celebrate weddings and attendant Masses, providing canonical review of their disciplinary decisions, and basically giving them more breathing room to operate without being hassled. Well, interestingly enough, Summorum Pontificum states any priest who is not “prevented by law” may say the TLM. Here is where my lack of canon law expertise prevents a fuller analysis. But I find the elimination of this requirement interesting. Is a cleric who is suspended a divinis “prevented by law”? Is this a loosening of restrictions on their priests by default? Likely not, but I just want to note the provision allegedly being abolished.
In short, as I have written before on my deleted pages, it is time to brush up on Quo Primum and to grow a spine. We have a right to this Mass. Priests have a right to this Mass. Anyone who maintains otherwise is like a person wanting to risk death to have an experimental biohazard derived from aborted fetal cell lines injected into their bodies to gain a 1.3% reduction in the likelihood of catching a cold.
R. Spíritus Dómini replévit orbem terrárum, * Allelúia, allelúia. R. Spíritus Dómini replévit orbem terrárum, * Allelúia, allelúia. V. Et hoc quod cóntinet ómnia, sciéntiam habet vocis. R. Allelúia, allelúia. V. Glória Patri, et Fílio, * et Spirítui Sancto. R. Spíritus Dómini replévit orbem terrárum, * Allelúia, allelúia.
V. Spíritus Paráclitus, allelúia. R. Docébit vos ómnia, allelúia.
“The coming of a world state is longed for, by all the worst and most distorted elements. This state, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and a community of possessions, would banish all national loyalties. In it no acknowledgement would be made of the authority of a father over his children, or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror.”
Today is the feast of Pope St. Peter Celestine, a pope who actually was canonically elected to the throne of Peter and who validly abdicated the office thereof. As an aside, after abdicating he left Rome, re-assumed his life as a simple monk, did not wear white, did not wear a papal ring, and did not give his papal blessing. Just saying. I can never mark the day without thinking of the description of that holy soul by the great Dante Alighieri in Canto III of the Inferno, which is the title of this post. Wait, the Inferno, you say? Isn’t that the book about Dante’s journey through hell? Why would a saint be in hell?
Well, dear reader, you are correct. It is the portion of the Divine Comedy about hell. And St. Peter Celestine is portrayed by Dante as being there, among the lukewarm. You see, Dante had a huge problem with Pope Boniface VIII, who during his lifetime supported the political enemies of Dante and his political party in Florence, Italy.
In Dante’s defense, St. Peter Celestine was canonized in 1313, after Dante wrote the Divine Comedy. I can see why Dante was, ahem, “cheesed” at Pope Celestine, because his abdication led to the election of Boniface VIII. I don’t wish to speak ill of the dead, but it is possible that Pope Boniface was not a very kind man and who may have been ruthless in the realm of the political. I wasn’t there, of course. As an aside, this Pope promulgated the bull Unam Sanctam, which defined as infallible dogma that it is necessary for salvation to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
The Church’s decision to canonize a person a saint is considered, among the overwhelming majority of theologians, to be infallible. So it is that, innocent or otherwise, Dante’s placement of St. Peter Celestine in hell for cowardice and lukewarmness is one of the great calumnies of history.
Fast forward to the moment in April of 2009 when Pope Benedict left his pallium– the symbol of his metropolitan authority– on the tomb of St. Peter Celestine. Coincidence? A sign he would, too, abdicate? A feint?
Peter Seewald asked His Holiness whether his case was to considered as Celestine’s. The answer: “The situation of Celestine V was extremely peculiar and could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent.”
“In no way” could it be invoked as Benedict’s precedent. In no way. Celestine resigned the office of the papacy. If Benedict resigned the papal office, would not that be “one way” in which it is precedent? Is Benedict telling us something here? Can you not see the irony here, the interplay between Celestine, Boniface, submission to the Roman Pontiff, Benedict and Bergoglio?
Dante blamed St. Peter Celestine for cowardice. Some people blame Pope Benedict XVI for cowardice. Celestine’s abdication led to the papacy of Boniface the VIII. Pope Benedict’s action led to the papacy, or antipapacy, of Bergoglio. It is natural to be disappointed when one sees the disaster that follows upon a pope refusing to fulfill, to the end, his office given him by Our Lord. Bad things happen. It is natural to try to make sense of it all.
And yet good can come out of all such disasters, because God is sovereign. Unam Sanctam is a true and beautiful document, in which is defined dogma that can see us through these days of woe. Who cares if the person who wrote it is less than perfect, even by a lot? The probable usurpation by Bergoglio could lead one to wonder why Benedict would have done this. But hasn’t the event shaken the tree so much that we see who wants to “submit to the Roman Pontiff” and who does not? And by that I mean who really want to, regardless of accuracy of identifying who the person of the Pope really is. What if Pope Benedict XVI wasn’t a coward who fled “for fear of the wolves”? What if Our Lord or Lady told him to do this, as the Pope himself said?
What if Benedict is being calumniated– even by persons who mean well– just like St. Peter Celestine was by Dante? Celestine was a saint. Benedict is still on this earth…what is his fate?
We are being asked to remain faithful; the Church is going through a dark night. God’s plans are beyond us, and we need to trust Him. We can use our intellects to analyze the unprecedented events of the last nine years. God knows our hearts and our minds.
But use that intellect through the light of faith. God in no way wants our faith in Him, His Son, or His Son’s Mystical Body to be lost.
There is one pope. He is acting in a mysterious way about which we don’t know everything relevant. Let’s pray for him, and that his actions will serve to glorify God and His Holy Mother. The prophecy of Fatima has yet to fully play out, and her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Final point. You may have noticed I’m blogging again. Didn’t I quit? Was it only a month? Yes, and yes. Why? I don’t know. As St. Paul says, “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings.” (Romans 8:26). Well, I certainly don’t know what I should pray for as I ought. But just consider what you may read here, as often or seldom as you read them, as the unspeakable groanings of one Catholic in the (former) Rome of the (former) West. I expect I’ll eventually say something stupid and imprudent and will end up carted off to a camp for it. So pray for me by all means, if you are willing.
“Here are Ten Things We Have Learned During the Covid Coup.
1 Our political system is hopelessly corrupt. Virtually all politicians are hopelessly corrupt. No political party can be trusted. They all can be, and have been, bought.
2 Democracy is a sham. It has been a sham for a very long time. There will never be any real democracy when money and power amount to the same thing.
3 The system will stop at nothing to hold on to its power and, if possible, increase its levels of control and exploitation. It has no scruples. No lie is too outrageous, no hypocrisy too nauseating, no human sacrifice too great.
4 So-called radical movements are usually nothing of the sort. From whatever direction they claim to attack the system, they are just pretending to do so, and serve to channel discontent in directions which are harmless to the power clique and even useful to its agendas.
5 Any “dissident” voice you have ever heard of through corporate media is probably a fake. The system does not hand out free publicity to its actual enemies.
6 Most people in our society are cowards. They will jettison all the fine values and principles which they have been loudly boasting about all their lives merely to avoid the slightest chance of public criticism, inconvenience or even minor financial loss.
7 The mainstream media is nothing but a propaganda machine for the system and those journalists who work for it have sold their sorry souls, placing their (often minimal) writing skills entirely at the disposition of Power.
8 Police are not servants of the public but servants of a powerful and extremely wealthy minority which seeks to control and exploit the public for its own narrow and greedy interests.
9 Scientists cannot be trusted. They will use the hypnotic power of their white coats and authoritative status for the benefit of whoever funds their work and lifestyle. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
10 Progress is a misleading illusion. The “progress” of increasing automisation and industrialisation does not go hand in hand with a progress in the quality of human life, but in fact will “progressively” reduce it to the point of complete extinction.”
And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. Then two shall be in the field: one shall be taken, and one shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding at the mill: one shall be taken, and one shall be left. Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come.
The title of this post is from Eccesiasticus 24:31. The great Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó, in an interview with Radio Spada, expounds on the Blessed Virgin and of the one source of “unity” of all heretics: they cannot love her. in his answer, he drops some major truth bombs which I will emphasize in bold:
What unites heretics of all times is their intolerance of the cult reserved for the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Marian doctrine it presupposes and of which it is the liturgical expression. Moreover, this is not surprising: Satan sees in the Mother of God she who in Her Son has crushed the head of the Ancient Serpent, she who in the course of History has defeated the assaults of Hell against the Church and who at the end of time will achieve the final victory over the Antichrist and Satan.
The Most Holy Trinity is pleased to share the work of Redemption with Our Lady, to Whom it has granted privileges that no creature has ever even been able to conceive of, the first of which is having preserved Her from original sin and having preserved her Virginity intact before, during, and after the birth of the Savior. In Mary, the New Eve, Satan sees the creature who triumphs over him, making reparation for the temptation and fall of Eve: this is why She is Co-Redemptrix, in union with Christ the New Adam.
Filial devotion to the Blessed Mother is very difficult to eradicate among the Christian people: even after the Protestant pseudo-reform and after the Anglican schism, devotion to the Virgin survived, to the point of requiring particular efforts to erase it: it is difficult to rip out love for the heavenly Mother from the hearts of the simple when it is so spontaneous, natural, and comforting.
I think of the cases of heretics who returned to the womb of the Church thanks to devotion to Mary Most Holy, even if only because of one Hail Mary that their mother had taught them to say as little children. And this devotion is simple, humble, sweet, confident, and most pure; it does not decrease in those who are ignorant of the lofty peaks of theological doctrine, because it sees us as children and Her as Mother, beyond everything else, recognizing Her as the Savioress [Salvatrice], the Merciful One, the Advocate, to whom we always have recourse, despite all of our faults, even when it frightens us to raise our gaze towards Her Divine Son whom we have offended. “Behold Your Mother” (Jn 19:26-27).
This is why Satan hates “the Lady,” as he calls Her during exorcisms: he knows all too well that the power of Jesus Christ not only is not in the least obscured by His Mother but rather it is exalted by Her, because while Satan’s pride has sunk Him into Hell, Her humility has exalted Her above all creatures, allowing Her to carry in Her womb the Son of God whose Incarnation, in which he assumed a human body, Lucifer could not tolerate.
The decline of Marian devotion after the Council is only the latest expression, and I would say the most aberrant and scandalous, of the aversion of Satan towards the Queen of Heaven. It is one of the signs that that assembly did not come from God,just as those who dare even to question the titles and merits of the Most Holy Virgin do not come from God. On the other hand, what son would allow his own mother to be put down in order to please his father’s enemies? And how much more serious is this abject complicity with heretics and pagans when the honor of the Mother of God and our Mother is at stake? The Beloved of the Trinity, She has been chosen by God the Father as His Daughter, by God the Son as His Mother, and by God the Holy Spirit as His Spouse.
I believe that the gift of my “conversion” – of my becoming aware of the conciliar deception and the present apostasy – became possible thanks to my constant devotion towards the Blessed Mother, which I have never ceased to have. I carry the vivid memory of the recitation of the Holy Rosary ever since I was a child, when during the Allied bombardment – in April 1944 – my mother carried me into the air-raid shelter under our house in Varese and held me close to her as she invoked the protection of the Madonna, whose image was illuminated by a small lamp. The blessed “Crown” of Our Lady [the Rosary] has always animated my prayer.
It will be the Holy Virgin, with Her heel, who will crush the infernal idols that infest and profane the Church of Her Son; She is the one who will restore the regal Crown to Her Son, ousted by His own Ministers; She is the one who supports and protects the Good in this hour of darkness; She is the one who implores the graces of conversion and repentance for sinners.