In his final catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium, Leo XIV not only offered a defense of the wicked liturgical reform that followed the Council, but also made a bizarre claim or two.
He seemed to make veiled remarks meant for the ears of Traditional Catholics when he claimed that liturgical reform did not begin suddenly with Vatican II, but had been developing for decades.
To justify this claim, he pointed to the liturgical movement and to reforms undertaken by Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, and John XXIII, and said the Council merely acted within the Church’s “living tradition” when it called for a “general reform” of the liturgy.
Prevost furthermore used the occasion to make the same old, tired arguments about how the Council sought to make the liturgy more accessible, particularly by making its texts and prayers more “comprehensible” and by “simplifying the arrangement of the rites.”
He cited Sacrosanctum Concilium §21, which called for a “careful general reform” so that the rites might express more clearly the holy things they signify and enable the faithful to participate more fully.
“The liturgical reform promoted by the Second Vatican Council is therefore in line with the living tradition of the Church,” said the leader of the Synodal Church before acknowledging that abuses occurred after the Council and sometimes continue today. Such abuses, he suggested, resulted from “absolutizing or misunderstanding” principles that were themselves sound.
While it is true that Pius X reformed the Breviary and encouraged Gregorian chant, Pius XII reformed the rites of Holy Week, and the usurper John XXIII simplified certain rubrics in 1960, this hardly proves what Leo so badly wants us to believe.
It does not automatically follow that, just because earlier reforms existed, the reform following Vatican II was another instance of the same organic process.
Leo’s dishonesty is evident in his refusal to acknowledge the difference in degree, method, and principle that separates preconciliar reform from postconciliar reform. There is an enormous difference between reforming particular elements of an inherited rite and constructing a completely new liturgical system representing a new false religion.
The Usurper in Chief’s attempt to elevate the Novus Ordo to the position of an inevitable culmination of developments that preceded it, shows that he has no plans to have a serious discussion about the Traditional Latin Mass. And rightly so. After all, the TLM represents Catholicism, while the New “Mass” represents the new false religion of which he is the current head: Synodality.
His appeals to “active participation” likewise show just how wide the chasm is.
While there is no argument that the laity should “actively” participate, there is a huge difference between the traditional and modernist understanding of this little word.
Because the New Religion and its New Liturgy are all about the worship of the Self, or rather Man, participation is all about speaking, responding, singing, processing, reading, performing liturgical functions, and other “activities” that diminish the vertical worship element and destroy the reverence of the liturgy.
For Traditional Catholics, “active” participation is about kneeling in silence, contemplating the Passion of Our Lord, and uniting one’s own sufferings to Christ’s Sacrifice.
Do yourself a favor and stand at the back of a Sunday morning “Mass” at a Novus Ordo parish. Hardly anyone is kneeling in prayer before the Mass starts. A cacophony of chatting and bad music makes it impossible to contemplate Christ, and we all know what a circus of distraction most Novus Ordo liturgies have turned into beyond that.
For the synodal modernist, the Mass is therefore a spectator event from which the poor faithful must be rescued by ever-increasing clownish and visible involvement. They will not rest until every fool in every congregation is assigned a role to offend God.
Another problem with Prevost’s little attempt to drag Pius XI and Pius XII into justifying his filthy synodal religion’s liturgy is that their pontificates belonged to an era in which the Church’s traditional liturgical theology was firmly rooted in the sacrificial character of the Mass.
On this point, Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei is particularly important, as it spoke positively of active participation but did not equate participation with external activity. Instead, the encyclical emphasized the interior participation of the faithful in the Sacrifice of Christ.
Leo XIV concluded that a liturgy marked by “noble simplicity,” faithful adherence to the norms, and authentic participation will become “a fundamental vehicle of evangelization.”
Again, this shows how poorly formed these men are, or at least how poorly formed they want you to be.
While the liturgy certainly evangelizes, it is not principally an evangelization program, but exists first for the worship of Almighty God and the sanctification of souls.
Contrary to what the Synodalists want us to believe, its center is not the congregation’s experience but the Sacrifice of Christ.
The Catholic Church’s liturgy is not a laboratory for pastoral theories, nor is it an endlessly adaptable mechanism whose forms should be redesigned whenever contemporary Catholics are bored and feel like something different.
But then again, in all fairness, Leo is not a Catholic pope, nor is his little satanic synodal project the Catholic Church. Don’t like this statement? Read on.
On the same day as said “catechesis,” Prevost met with the Lutheran Federation of Norway. After all, no day in the Synodal Harlot would be complete without some kind of spiritual whoring with one or another real schismatic or heretical group.
The papal claimant spoke warmly of reconciliation, fraternity, and overcoming hostility toward those with whom we disagree. Like Traditional Catholics, Mr. Prevost?
He urged Christians to resist “an attitude of hostility” and encouraged a “concerted effort” to seek reconciliation. Like Traditional Catholics, Mr. Prevost?
As he has done in the past with other Protestant sects, he once again appealed to their “common baptism and shared mission” and expressed the hope that they might “grow together” in service to peace and justice.
Lutherans are literally the sect whose founder is responsible for arguably one of the greatest and most demonic revolutions in Church history. Yet, for Prevost and his merry band of heretics, even they are more worthy of communion than actual Catholics.
That being said, I for one do not seek a seat at their Banquet of Filthy Iniquity, and neither should you, if you love Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.
Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…
Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…
Viva Christo Rey!
ALSO READ:
You Were Warned, and Will Have No Excuse
Video Shows Nuns “Concelebrate” Mass with Priest Who Changes Eucharistic Prayer
Synodal “Church” in Peru Prepares for Leo’s Visit with an offering to “Mother Earth”
Synodal Church Starts Eating Its Own (And Other Tales from the Postconciliar Revolt)
One wonders why he is even trying to keep up the pretense at this point. Perhaps it is because he may be worried about a sudden increase in the number of sedevacantists, enough to catch the notice of the world at large - that would not look good for his claimed authority. The appearance of being a legitimate pope is how this Babylon synodal church is being constructed.
What a great essay. As usual, I might add. The modernists occupying Rome will never understand us. They all belong to a new religion. Prevost is a clown who thinks he is fooling everyone. We've read and heard this slop since they've taken control. Only the ignorant buy into it. Long live the TLM and the Faith of Our Fathers.