A new tradservative hero is born

By now, many readers have encountered the accolades that have been piling up for Bishop Rob Mutsaerts (above), an Auxiliary Bishop in the Netherlands who wrote a scathing critique of Francis and his Motu Proprio, Traditionis Cojones. [NOTE: The translation cited in this post comes to us courtesy of Rorate Caeli.]

Mutsaerts does deserve high marks for pointing out, in the opening paragraph of his statement no less, what few others seem to have recognized:

Pope Francis promotes synodality: everyone should be able to talk, everyone should be heard. This was hardly the case with his recently published motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, an ukase [imperial edict] that must put an immediate termination on the traditional Latin Mass. 

“Immediate termination” is deliberately hyperbolic, but clearly he understands that Francis fully intends to see the ancient Roman Rite abrogated (from his church) in due time. The only question is how long episcopal disobedience will be tolerated.

Bishop Mutsaerts muses:

The fact that Francis here uses the word of power without any consultation indicates that he is losing authority. 

I disagree entirely. Bergoglio is a dictator. Period. What he allows, he wills to allow.

In this case, Francis is playing a long game, relatively speaking, allowing for the Mass of Ages to be phased out gradually according to the guidelines that he established. Over the course of this period, those who aren’t on board with his agenda (which, let’s be clear, is the Council’s agenda, but more on that later) will be forced into the light of day, even to the point of adding their names to a clerical hit list. 

Surely, Francis realizes that it’s unrealistic to think that his goal of seeing the true Mass excised from the conciliar church entirely isn’t going to happen in his lifetime.

Evidently, he feels comfortable with this arrangement, which tells me that the next iteration of the St. Galen Mafia is not only active, but very likely has already anointed his successor, a man that all concerned are certain will hold fast to the Bergoglian line moving forward.

Bishop Mutsaerts insisted, “Every pope since Paul VI has always left openings for the old Mass.”

It can hardly be said that Paul VI left an opening for the ancient rite. What he did authorize is an indult limited to England and Wales, not for the use of the 1962 Missal, however, but rather for a truncated version. [See HERE

Does Bishop Mutsaerts know this? Perhaps not, but what he does know is that he dare not throw shade at a conciliar “saint,” not if he wishes to maintain his lifestyle.

The statement contines:

By the way, the Church has never abolished liturgies. Not even Trent [did so]. Francis breaks completely with this tradition. 

Once again, the reality of what is taking place is misunderstood.

If one truly believes (as Bishop Mutsaerts evidently does) that Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, and that Jorge Bergoglio and his conciliar predecessors are true Roman Pontiffs, then it must be admitted that the 1962 Missal isn’t being “abolished.” Francis (and Paul VI, JPII, and BXVI) insist that it has merely been revised, and the result of that revision is the Novus Ordo

Don’t like it? I don’t blame you, but since when is it a Catholic attitude to piss and moan about the rulings of four successive popes (five if we include the one who stopped by just long enough for a tainted espresso)?  

Bishop Mutsaerts went on to pay his respects to the Almighty Council, the price of admission for “full communion” status within the counterfeit church: 

In the conciliar document Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II asked for liturgical reforms. All things considered, this was a conservative document. Latin was maintained, Gregorian chants retained their legitimate place in the liturgy. However, the developments that followed Vatican II are far removed from the council documents. The infamous “spirit of the council” is nowhere to be found in the council texts themselves. 

Nowhere to be found? Evidently, he isn’t looking very closely.

– The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II promotes the revision of the 1962 Missal as part of an ecumenical outreach operation that is ultimately ordered toward intercommunion with heretics. (See HERE)

– It calls for inculturation whereby “in some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed.” (SC 40) Needed! 

– It calls for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be dumbed down, effectively stripped of sacred mystery so as to be “understood with ease” (cf SC 21), the reformed rite being “within the people’s powers of comprehension.” (SC 34) Think about it, this ineffable mystery of our salvation for dummies!

– It calls for “active participation” defined as the laity doing things via “actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes.” (SC 30)

You get the point.

Elsewhere, Bishop Mutsaerts seems to contradict himself, stating critically: “It is either Vatican II—including its implementation, with all its aberrations—or nothing!”

Pay close attention: He’s not saying that the Council has deviated from the true faith, he’s blaming that trusty old tradservative scapegoat, poor implementation. Obviously, in matters liturgical, he believes the “aberrations” are those that deviate from the “conservative” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It is to laugh!

In spite of any truths found in Bishop Mutsaerts’ statement, there’s more than a little leaven. By pointing to the Council for relief from Traditionis Cojones, he’s fooling himself and, evidently, many other tradservatives, who cannot applaud the man loudly enough. 

The only realistic way to understand the Motu Proprio and its impact is by stepping back from the conciliar counterfeit church so as to gain a Catholic perspective on the matter. Traditionis Cojones  is a gift from God inasmuch as it urges the faithful to do just that, and upon doing so, what is really happening comes into undeniably sharp focus: A false pope is implementing a fake council in service to an imposter church.

If only more were willing to view this situation through a Catholic lens, and that includes the priestly society established by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.