Pope Shows True Colors Over TLM and Top Jesuit Insider Spells Out the Truth Which Catholics Refuse to Face

When are the faithful going to awake from their deathly slumber?

The words of Pope Leo XIV regarding the Latin Mass, during his interview with Crux correspondent Elise Ann Allen, shows that the writing is on the wall and that if you don’t see it, you are choosing blissful blindness.

During his interview the Pope said the following: “There is another issue, which is also another hot-button issue, which I have already received a number of requests and letters [about]: The question about, people always say ‘the Latin Mass.’ Well, you can say Mass in Latin right now. If it’s the Vatican II rite there’s no problem. Obviously, between the Tridentine Mass and the Vatican II Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, I’m not sure where that’s going to go. It’s obviously very complicated.

I do know that part of that issue, unfortunately, has become – again, part of a process of polarization – people have used the liturgy as an excuse for advancing other topics. It’s become a political tool, and that’s very unfortunate. I think sometimes the, say, ‘abuse’ of the liturgy from what we call the Vatican II Mass, was not helpful for people who were looking for a deeper experience of prayer, of contact with the mystery of faith that they seemed to find in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Again, we’ve become polarized, so that instead of being able to say, well, if we celebrate the Vatican II liturgy in a proper way, do you really find that much difference between this experience and that experience?

I have not had the chance to really sit down with a group of people who are advocating for the Tridentine rite. There’s an opportunity coming up soon, and I’m sure there will be occasions for that. But that is an issue that I think also, maybe with synodality, we have to sit down and talk about. It’s become the kind of issue that’s so polarized that people aren’t willing to listen to one another, oftentimes. I’ve heard bishops talk to me, they’ve talked to me about that, where they say, ‘we invited them to this and that and they just won’t even hear it’. They don’t even want to talk about it. That’s a problem in itself. It means we’re into ideology now, we’re no longer into the experience of church communion. That’s one of the issues on the agenda.”

To suggest that “between the Tridentine Mass and the Vatican II Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, I’m not sure where that’s going to go” and that the matter is “very complicated” and must perhaps be “sat down and talked about” in a synodal context, is not merely an unfortunate turn of phrase. It reveals a spirit of hesitation, indecision, and a troubling relativism about the very heart of Catholic worship. For Catholics attached to Tradition, this kind of equivocation is intolerable. The Mass is not “complicated.” It is the supreme act of the Church, the sacrifice of Calvary made present in an unbloody manner. It is the lex orandi that safeguards the lex credendi. To suggest uncertainty about its future is to plant seeds of doubt where certainty and continuity ought to reign.

The implication that the question of the liturgy is somehow open-ended ignores the authoritative truth that the Tridentine Mass — codified by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent, but far older in its essence — was never abrogated. Pope Benedict XVI affirmed as much in Summorum Pontificum. The faithful were told clearly that what was sacred and great for past generations remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot suddenly be prohibited or deemed harmful. That is the Magisterium speaking, not a matter of personal taste or ecclesial experimentation. To now call the issue “very complicated” is to wilfully retreat back into the fog. Spitefully so, I’d say.

The appeal to synodality is likewise highly alarming. The liturgy is not subject to the majority vote of bishops, nor to the shifting fashions of cultural consensus. The Church hands on what she has received from the Apostles, not what she crafts through committee. To invoke synodality in the same breath as the fate of the Mass is to suggest that the ancient worship of the Roman Church is subject to negotiation, revision, or compromise. This is ecclesial relativism on full display. Or is this the hook he will use to get traditionalists to accept the so-called “synodal way”?

Furthermore, the pastoral harm caused by such vague statements is immense. Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass have already endured decades of marginalization and suppression, particularly under Traditionis Custodes, which sought to curtail the flourishing communities that arose under Summorum Pontificum. These communities have produced vocations, fostered large families, nourished reverence, and rekindled a sense of the sacred in a world increasingly indifferent to God. And yet they are treated as though their devotion is provisional, tolerated only at the whim of the local bishop, perhaps allowed for now, but never safe. When the Pope himself says he does not know “where that’s going to go,” he confirms the fears of these faithful: that their spiritual home could be taken from them at any moment, not because of doctrinal error or disobedience, but because of political maneuvering and shifting ecclesiastical fashions.

The irony is that the Tridentine Mass, for centuries, was the great unifying force of the Catholic world. Across cultures and nations, the same rite was offered, the same prayers prayed, the same gestures performed. It carried saints to heaven, shaped Catholic civilization, inspired art and architecture, and gave the Church its highest expression of worship. To speak of it now as though it were one option among many, waiting for synodal discernment, is an insult to the faith of our forefathers. St. Pius V, in Quo Primum, declared that the Roman Missal was to be used in perpetuity, that no priest could ever be forced to abandon it, and that this decree carried the weight of apostolic authority. Has that apostolic authority suddenly become void because it no longer suits the ecclesiastical fashions of the day?

The Church teaches that liturgy is a vehicle of doctrine, that how we pray shapes what we believe. The stripping away of the old rite has coincided with a collapse of belief in the Real Presence, a decline in priestly vocations, and a loss of Catholic identity. The Mass of the Ages formed saints because it safeguarded doctrine, emphasizing the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, the transcendence of God, the need for reverence, silence, and humility. The Novus Ordo was constructed in a climate of rupture, with Protestant observers present, and has borne ambiguous fruits. To speak as though both rites are equally acceptable and merely waiting for further “conversation” is to deny what experience, history, and doctrine have already revealed.

Traditionalists are not asking for a debate. They are asking for justice. Justice for the liturgy that was never abrogated, justice for the communities that have flourished under it, justice for the saints and martyrs who worshiped in its rhythms, justice for the faithful today who have been cast aside. Enough of “talk.” Enough of calling the issue “complicated.” Enough of appealing to synodal processes that only function as smokescreens for predetermined outcomes. The faithful deserve a Pope who will say, without hesitation: “This Mass is your inheritance. It belongs to you. No one may take it away.”

Pope Leo’s words fall far short of that standard. They perpetuate the ambiguity and insecurity that has plagued the Church since Traditionis Custodes. They reveal a failure to recognize that the liturgy is not a pastoral experiment but the beating heart of Catholic life. They suggest that the most sacred treasure of the Church is subject to endless review and debate, rather than preserved with paternal firmness. What the Church needs now is not more conversations but a restoration of what was unjustly suppressed. What was sacred yesterday remains sacred today and will be sacred tomorrow.

But if the sleeping faithful is still not convinced, let us move on to what a top Vatican insider had to say about Pope Leo XIV.

The Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, ever the mouthpiece of Vatican progressivism, has stepped forward to assure the faithful that nothing has changed with the death of Francis and the election of Leo XIV.

And Spadaro is a man who should know. Once “considered a close confidant of Francis” and now Undersecretary in the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education, he is basically saying out loud what most well-meaning Catholics, and especially Trad Inc., refuse to acknowledge.

In an interview with katholisch.de, he insisted with a straight face: “Leo continues the path of Francis, but with his own voice… The thread between the two does not break.”

There you have it. Continuity, yes—but continuity not with Catholic tradition, not with the perennial magisterium, but with Francis’ wreckage. Spadaro even celebrates this as a kind of spiritual baton-passing: “The transition from Francis to Leo XIV was above all a spiritual passing of the baton… The key word between Francis and Leo is restlessness.” This “restlessness,” he claims, springs from Augustine. This is total dishonesty. Augustine’s restlessness was the longing of the soul for God, finally stilled in the peace of divine truth. The “restlessness” of Francis and Leo, by contrast, is the refusal to rest in doctrine, the refusal to guard the faith as received, the restless itch of Modernism that never stops reinventing itself.

In the interview Spadaro assures us again and again: “The thread between the two does not break… Francis left behind a method, not a recipe; Leo took it up and continued it with his Augustinian roots.” But what exactly is this method? It is the method of ambiguity, of endless dialogue without definition, of blurring the lines between truth and error. It is the method by which Francis applauded the German Synodal Path’s heresies while refusing to condemn them. Now Leo, according to Spadaro, will continue this approach: gentler in tone, perhaps, but equally complicit.

Spadaro’s phrase “an extroverted Church” deserves special scrutiny. He tells us: “An extroverted Church is not just a community that goes out to meet the world: it is a community that keeps nothing to itself, that does not guard the truth as a possession, but passes it on as a gift.” Here the mask slips. The Church is explicitly told not to guard the truth. But Christ entrusted His Bride precisely with the duty to guard the deposit of faith, untainted, undefiled, until the end of time. For Spadaro, truth is no longer something objective to be safeguarded; it is a “gift” to be reshaped and given away according to the spirit of the age.

Very telling is his praise for Leo’s approach to synodality: “Leo proposes decisions that arise from exchange and consensus, not from power relations, power…” In plain speech, this means the Pope and bishops will no longer exercise their God-given authority to teach and govern, but will act as moderators of endless assemblies, where “consensus” decides doctrine. This is nothing less than the democratization of the Church, condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi and by Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum.

And of course, Spadaro cannot resist reassuring the Germans: “Rome under Leo will not look at the German Synodal Path with prejudiced suspicion, but as part of a broader ecclesial process that must be held together with patience and discernment.” In other words: Rome will continue to tolerate and even encourage the most flagrant disobedience and heresy, baptizing it under the name of “dialogue.”

What Spadaro celebrates as an “unbroken thread” is in fact a chain binding the Church to the errors of the last decade. It is not the golden continuity of Peter confirming his brethren in the faith; it is the dreary persistence of Modernist slogans dressed up as theology. If Leo XIV truly “continues the path of Francis,” then the faithful can expect more of the same: more dialogue without doctrine, more tolerance for error, more betrayal of the Church’s supernatural mission in favor of worldly fashions. Spadaro’s words should not console Catholics—they should alarm them. For what he hails as continuity is nothing less than the prolongation of crisis.

I am running out of ways to say it charitably.

How can it be brought across any clearer?

How much more proverbial ink must be spilled before the sleeping faithful wake up?

How much more “wait and see” do you want to do?

Christus vincit!

Christus regnat!

Christus imperat!

Also Read:

The Pope’s Confusion Over Whose Church It Is

Thank You Big Trad, but I’ll Take My Cue from St. Catherine

What You Need to Understand About Charlie Kirk’s Murder

Another Blow in the Francis-Leo Project of Church Destruction

Cupich Spouts More Sewage

A Layman’s Guide to Catholic Counter-Revolution