On the Last Sunday after Pentecost, the Gospel reading offered a golden opportunity for priests to preach on the wretched state of affairs in Modernist Rome. In fact, it practically demanded as much.
At the Mass that I heard (offered by a priest of the FSSP), however, the rotund Argentinian heretic in the room – the one with a scowl on his face and a Pachamama tucked under his arm – was left “standing in the holy place” unaddressed.
Oh, well. I suspect that the situation was much the same in most other Ecclesia Dei parishes that day, and this even though they are administered by the best and the brightest that the “full communion” cult has to offer.
Was I disappointed? Somewhat. Surprised? Not in the least.
Even before Traditionis Cojones (the balls on that guy!) placed them under a microscope, Ecclesia Dei priests were compelled to sermonize with caution, carefully avoiding direct contact with the plethora of conciliar landmines – many specifically Bergoglian – that litter the path they’ve chosen to walk. In our day, it seems, the situation is even more pronounced.
In September, the Superior Generals of the Ecclesia Dei communities published a Communique in response to Bergoglio’s effort to convince Catholics that the Mass of Ages is on the clock, with the countdown to its official abrogation swiftly approaching triple zeroes.
The opening paragraph of the jointly signed letter says it all:
The signatory Institutes want, above all, to reiterate their love for the Church and their fidelity to the Holy Father. This filial love is tinged with great suffering today. We feel suspected, marginalized, banished. However, we do not recognize ourselves in the description given in the accompanying letter of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes, of July 16, 2021.
In other words, the Communities themselves are – even if not every individual parish they serve, much less every individual priest among them – in full blown, out in the open, denial-of-reality mode and worse.
Fidelity to the Holy Father…
Setting aside legitimate questions concerning Jorge Bergoglio’s status with regard to membership in the Catholic Church, consider well what it means to express “fidelity.”
The Latin root of this word is fide, that is, faith. Surely, the men and women who signed the Communique know this, after all, their commitment to the language of the Church is an integral part of their charism.
So, how many among them would be willing to stand before Christ the King today and declare that they are one in faith with Jorge Bergoglio?
How many readers of this space would do the same? (Before you answer, bear in mind that fidelity to the Holy Father, who is the proximate source of unity for the Church on earth, is not optional for those who wish to be, and remain, members of Christ’s Mystical Body.)
I suspect that the answer is zero (or very close to it), and yet the Superior Generals of the Ecclesia Dei communities have signed a public pledge to precisely that effect. I’ll leave it to others to speculate as to the reasons why they have done so, but whatever their motives, the reality of the matter is plain:
The best-case scenario is that their “yes” does not mean “yes.” Their words, therefore, are “of evil” (Mt. 5:37). The worst-case scenario, perhaps the more likely of the two, is that they really are one in faith with Jorge Bergoglio.
We do not recognize ourselves in the description given in the accompanying letter of the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes…
Specifically, the Superior Generals are insisting that they do not believe that “Vatican Council II itself … betrayed the Tradition.”
They went on to stress their conciliar credentials:
We reaffirm our adherence to the magisterium (including that of Vatican II and what follows), according to the Catholic doctrine of the assent due to it (cf. in particular Lumen Gentium, n ° 25, and Catechism of the Catholic Church, n ° 891 and 892), as evidenced by the numerous studies and doctoral theses carried out by several of us over the past 33 years.
Among the aforementioned “studies and doctoral theses” are those that were cited in 2017 by Fr. Bernhard Gerstle, then District Superior of the FSSP in Germany:
The Fraternity of St. Peter agreed to undertake an impartial study of the documents of the Council and has come to believe that there is no break with earlier magisterial teaching.
As for the Ecclesia Dei communities’ adherence to the post-conciliar magisterium, this would include such masterpieces as Laudato Si’, Amoris Laetitita, and Ut Unum Sint. As such, one can hardly be surprised that the Superior Generals proceeded to “beg for a humane, personal, trusting dialogue” with the heretic Bergoglio.
This is what the Vatican II cult does, it dialogues with the Devil.
Think about what the Superior Generals have done: They have issued a Credo that affirms their acceptance of such grievous errors as:
– Christ uses the heretical and schismatic communities as “means of salvation” (UR 3)
– The Jews of our time, who reject Christ, are one with Christians in the Cross (NA 4)
– The Church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic Church (LG 8)
– Muslims “along with us adore the one God” (LG 16)
– The Church “moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth” (DV 8)
We could go on, but presumably you get the point. The Superior Generals have publicly declared that the religion to which they belong, the one that their Institutes believe and presumably teach in their seminaries, holds that the errors listed above (and others) are part and parcel of sacred Tradition.
In other words, they are plainly saying to those with ears to hear (or the wherewithal to notice, more appropriately):
We, as Superior Generals, speaking on behalf of ourselves and our Communities, are not to be numbered among those belonging to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Harsh? Don’t blame me.
The requirements of membership in the Mystical Body of Christ have been plainly taught by the sacred Magisterium for centuries on end, and among them is that it “must be made externally manifest through the profession of the same faith,” and “only those who profess the true faith are to be included as members of the Church” (cf Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis).
As such, one can readily identify who is, and who is not, a member of the Catholic Church simply by considering the faith that a person, or group of persons, proclaims and makes manifest. Sure, sometimes it may be necessary, in certain individual cases, to drill down a bit to discover if gray areas exist out of ignorance or confusion, but not in this case.
If the Superior Generals haven’t been clear enough concerning the Credo that they are pleased to profess, consider the next tenet expressed in their collective denial of the faith that comes to us from the Apostles:
We do not see ourselves as the “true Church” in any way.
Not in any way? Really? Not even as a part of the whole? This strikes me as more of a confession, inadvertent though it may be, than anything else.
The Communique even makes an appeal to the text of the aforementioned Amoris Laetitia, perhaps the most blatantly blasphemous proclamation ever to stain fake papal letterhead.
As noted, the Communique details the public infidelity of the Superior Generals who signed it. It also tells us something about the institutes they represent as well. It cannot be said, however, that it speaks for their individual seminarians, religious, or priests.
My personal experiences with Ecclesia Dei priests (FSSP and ICK specifically) give every indication that they are perfectly sincere in desiring to form the faithful in their charge, as true fathers, according to authentic Catholic tradition. Maybe their intent is to act as infiltrators, invading enemy headquarters. The Lord will sort that out.
That said, all of the good intentions in the world cannot change the picture painted above, an image of Superior Generals and Communities that are not to be numbered among those belonging to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
If that observation is a bit too black-and-white for your comfort, take it up with Him who said, “He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” (Luke 11:23)
Can any so-called “traditionalist” (aka Catholic) deny that those who insist that Vatican Council II did not betray sacred Tradition are scatterers who do not gather with Christ?
In the case of the Ecclesia Dei Institutes, when it comes to Traditionis Cojones, they are getting exactly what they deserve.
You see, in standing up for the Council – as if it really does come from, and belong to, the Holy Roman Catholic Church – they are resigning themselves to its will, specifically, for “the liturgical books to be revised as soon as possible” (SC 25), including, of course, the Roman Missal as it existed in 1962.
There is no indication whatsoever that the Council Fathers willed that the ancient rite should carry on just as it was alongside whatever the revision, or “reform,” happened to produce.
Arguments about whether or not the revision that actually took place met with the Council fathers’ expectations are irrelevant.
What matters (in conciliar circles, at any rate) is that the same “Saint” Paul the Pathetic who approved the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium also happened to approve the rite that resulted from it, and not one of his successors have ever challenged that approval. This includes Jorge Bergoglio whom the Ecclesia Dei communities and their Superiors are pleased to call “Holy Father.”
Bottom line: If you happen to be among those who insist, as the Ecclesia Dei Communities do, that Vatican Council II is a valid act of the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and that “Francis” is the Holy Roman Pontiff, you can take your claims of liturgical hardship elsewhere.
You signed up for it. So, enjoy your just deserts.
