The Pre-1955 Holy Week

Annibale Bugnini

As our people know, we reject the use of the new Holy Week rites which were designed by the freemason and archmodernist Annibale Bugnini, and, sadly, approved for use by Pope Pius XII.

We receive a good deal of heat for rejecting rites which were approved by a real pope. The reasons, however, are obvious. The Modernists planned the New Mass from the time of Benedict XV. They worked very gradually and quietly, step by step, spoon-feeding the hierarchy, clergy, and lay people with the implementation of minor but very significant changes.

Continue reading

Opinionism


The Vacancy of the Apostolic See, the non-papacy of Francis, and for that matter of Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and even of John XXIII, is an issue which has divided traditionalists perhaps more than any other over the past forty years.

Of those who have taken the path of resistance to the reforms of Vatican II, the majority profess to be sedeplenists, that is, they hold that Francis is a true Roman Pontiff. They do so usually under the direction of the Society of Saint Pius X. Others, a minority but not an insignificant one, are sedevacantists, that is, they say that Francis is not a true Roman Pontiff, nor are his Vatican II predecessors.

Continue reading

Disappointment With Viganò

Here and here, I spoke about the statements of Novus Ordo Archbishop Viganò. These were cerebral and succinct condemnations of the Second Vatican Council and of the effluent from that dreadful meeting.

In a recent statement to the Remnant, however, which is a recognize-and resist publication, the Archbishop took the position of what I would call recognize and ignore. He says, essentially, that Vatican II can just be ignored. Its false teachings do not matter since there were no definitions of dogma, and therefore are fallible statements.

Continue reading

Viganò on Vatican II

In a second letter dated June 14, 2020, that is, merely five days after his “bombshell” letter about Vatican II and its reforms, the Novus Ordo Archbishop made a startling statement regarding the Council. As he put it, “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten.” He also pointed out that Vatican II is to be blamed as an event that caused enormous problems in the Church. This is one of the reasons why he thinks it should be “forgotten.”

He quotes favorably a Professor Pasqualucci who considers Vatican II to be a conciliabulum, the classic term for a fake council: “If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”

The Archbishop also says: “There is an urgent need to restore the Bride of Christ to her two-thousand-year Tradition and to recover the treasures that have been plundered and scattered, thus permitting the disoriented flock to be fully nourished by them.”

While the idea of annulling Vatican II is, of course, a wonderful idea, I am surprised that Abp. Viganò does not see the obvious problem: Unlike the other fake councils in the Church’s history, this one was promulgated in full by the “authority” of Paul VI. In short, you cannot annul Vatican II without also annulling the authority of him who promulgated it. Otherwise you end up with a Church which is capable of leading souls to hell. Indeed, has that not been the effect of this Council, if we contemplate the devastating loss of faith on the part of billions of souls? Is it not right and true to say: “An enemy hath done this?”

Archbishop Viganò’s recent comments are, of course, encouraging, but nothing will come of his intervention unless the problem of Paul VI and the Vatican II “popes” is addressed. Indeed, we must also include John XXIII in this group, since Vatican II represented not only a council which pronounced heresies, but, what is worse, created a mentality of revolution in the Church that has brought it to its ruin. It unleashed a spirit of heresy, a lust for rupture with the past, a maniacal detestation of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The Antifa hordes in our streets are to our country what John XXIII and Paul VI sparked in the Church. Since John XXIII was the originator of this revolution, he too, as I see it, must be included in the enemy which has done this.

A Breath of Fresh Air


Bishop Schneider’s statement. On the feast of Pentecost Bishop Schneider issued a lengthy statement in which he rightly criticized Vatican II for having errors, concentrating particularly on Dignitatis Humanæ, which proclaims the moral right to embrace false religions. In this he was correct, of course. However, his solution was very seriously erroneous, namely that the Church’s councils can err, and are in need of correction occasionally. He then went on to point out “errors” in past councils.

Continue reading

The Great Western Schism

Pope Urban VI (1378 – 1389)

There are many traditional Catholics who, in an effort to find a precedent to our current problem in the Church, look to the Great Western Schism as this precedent. The Great Western Schism was a split among Catholics which took place from 1378 to 1417. It was caused by the election of two different popes simultaneously.

Continue reading

Indefectibility and Una Cum

A response to Father Ludger Grün. In my last newsletter [blog post version here], I reviewed the motives and reasons why we must avoid the una cum Mass. In most cases this applies to the traditional Masses offered by the SSPX, both mainstream and “resistance.” A Father Grün of the SSPX made a response to my newsletter, and consequently here I would like to make more clear just what our position is.

Continue reading

The ‘Una Cum’ Mass

[Taken from the January issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

I am sure that most are familiar with our strict stance on attendance at the una cum Mass. We, the clergy of the Roman Catholic Institute, hold that it is objectively sacrilegious to actively participate in a Mass in which Bergoglio (or the local N.O. bishop) is mentioned in the canon.

Continue reading