Of Matthew Castagna

Per traditionalist part, now reduced to those (clergy and lay people) who do not recognize the “conciliar hierarchy” as legitimate, there is a certain reluctance to the loud objection of Bergoglio, compared to its predecessors, because it might seem that the crisis and problems arise with him, almost getting the result of “absolve” everyone else, as a consequence.
I believe that it is not wrong to consider it limited to attack only the Argentine chemical expert for his bizarre or heretical expressions, because whoever wants (and must) having an overall vision must begin the overview of what happened at an ecclesial level and therefore, harshly criticize documents and people, at least since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Announced by Roncalli, continued and finished by Montini, this meeting laid the foundations for a genetic mutation, on the human level, of the official Church. Not being able to, but, It transforms but is handed down, as the Mystical Body of Christ is only in continuity with Its Founder, we are forced to believe that the Vatican 2 was not a Council of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, as much as a Council of the “Counter-Church”, composed of fallen clerics, infiltrated by liberal and social-communist ideology, theologically modernists (“modernism is the synthesis of all heresies” – Saint Pius X). Prepared for some time in the lodges, found fertile ground in Roncalli, While His Holiness Pius XII he refused to call it, since he had grasped the seditious will of the so-called innovators. All of Pope Pacelli's predecessors had, moreover, energetically rejected the embrace of modernity, understood as the adaptation to sins against God and against others, always condemned, but passed off as mercy and charity (sic!).
The courageous battle of the International Group of Fathers, that is, that small group that during the stormy years of the Council realized and denounced the errors that were being committed under the dome of St. Peter's. The role of Mons. Lefebvre, who founded a seminary to continue “do as it has always been done” e, at some point, “saved” the Mass as always by Montini's devastating enthusiasm. Even more, the role of those who must be recognized, although less famous but more determined, already in the 70s they publicly denounced the vacancy of the Apostolic See for manifest deviation from 2000 years of Catholicism, reaching the only logically possible and canonically justifiable conclusion. A tribute must be given to Munich Declaration of 1982, written by a child (of stature) but big (in courage) bishop, such as Vietnamese Mons. Thuc, certainly controversial in some respects, but equally certainly aroused by Providence, so long as today we owe him a good part of the integrally Catholic apostolic continuity. The small flock that remained faithful perseveres and, although often contentious (Perhaps the first Christians were not, in a still adverse world? Isn't this perhaps a rather understandable consequence in a deliberately hierarchical structure, but sadly headless?) does not fail to make his voice of testimony heard, of Faith and presence.
Numerically marginal, traditional Catholicism, that is to say Sedevacantism (because everything else belongs, in various capacities, to the conservative galaxy, as it directly or in a Gallican and fallibilist form recognizes the legitimacy of modernist authority, he desires to be in communion with it and therefore is attributable to it, albeit with different and various distinctions, at the “Conciliar Church” or official) And, on the topic level, huge.
Today, given the dimensions of the protest against Bergoglio, And, in fact, Sedevacantist even those who don't know it. The multitude of consecrated and ordained “new order” (who, being neither true bishops nor true priests, leave millions of people in illusion and without the Sacraments for decades!) and their faithful who increasingly say or write that “this cannot be the Pope”, they come only sentimentally, with logic or observation of evidence to what we (and many more authoritative than us, since the time of the Council) we support on a magisterial basis, rectory, theological. Unfortunately, they remain, too often, however entangled in the meshes of “Counter-Church” reconcile by habit, hesitations of obedience, human respect or other interests. When il Lord will return, he will still find faith on earth?” – writes Saint Luke (18, 1-8). It was predicted that one will remain faithful “small flock”.
As he rightly points out Mauro Mazza, Today “the opposition (to the Argentine, n.d.r.) expresses itself with varied tones and with different motivations. It arises from environments that are not completely attributable to the conservative front”. Bergoglio “he is accused of having created confusion in doctrine and the sacraments – with two synods of bishops and with an apostolic exhortation – regarding communion for divorced and remarried people. They attribute to him the responsibility for having caused a serious disturbance with his rhetorical question “who am I to judge?” on the subject of homosexuality”.
“E’ accused of migrationism, a sort of ideology that encourages mass migration by underestimating it (ignorantly or with full awareness) that a tomorrow is not yet to come, immigration that has become an invasion could erase the identity of the peoples of Europe and the once Christian civilization. They accuse him of having raised the bid, practically out of time, the liberation theology, in the Seventies disavowed and now considered obsolete even in Latin America which had held it in its lap in the post-conciliar period. They blame him for not having been able to carry out any of the announced reforms, of having made a series of mistakes by entrusting great responsibilities to undeserving people, promptly proved to be inadequate, incapable, e, sometimes, corrupt. They also accuse Bergoglio of having entrusted massive doses of power, in the Vatican, to ambitious exponents of the Curia, intolerant and vindictive who have established a climate of fear, suspicious, slander. The list could continue”. (“Bergoglio and prejudice”, by Mauro Mazza, ed. Pages, 2018)
The misunderstanding and the conflict for the right cannot be missed disconcerting but enthusiastic participation in the celebrations for the 500 years of the schism of the heresiarch Martin Luther.
In this context, even more incredible appears the drift of Fraternity of Saint Pius, who in terms of concessions obtained a lot from both the Argentine and the modernist emeritus; perhaps more so from the progressive Argentinian, if we think about the jurisdiction for the Sacraments. This eagerness for recognition on the part of established modernists is incomprehensible, which create disturbance even for certain Neocatechumenals (!), as it appears, at least for the moment, It is somewhat unjustified to attribute discontinuity with the line of the past to the new top trio of the General Chapter, which would only mean Sedevacantism. After all, a “Fraternity 2.0” who maintains a fallibilist position, but officially non-ecumenical with the modernist authorities has already been created years ago Mons. Williamson, That, around you, he has already consecrated other bishops. A duplicate would be grotesque, although nothing can be ruled out, since who knows this environment, over the years he has seen everything and the opposite of everything.
“The Society of Saint Pius. Or the agreement with the modernists (already largely implemented, in the wake of those who accepted the entire Council, like the Fraternity of San Pietro or Gricigliano, not to mention the biritualist clergy of the motu proprio, greetings to Linarolo and Formigine), or harden on the anti-Roman position heir to the old Gallicanism (supported by people who also attend the ultra-accordist "mass" of the motu proprio!)”. So he warned, about twenty years ago, rightly so, a priest, peak time, of the same Lefebvrian congregation – as he recalled 12/07/2018, on his Facebook profile, Don Ugo Carandino, that in 2001 left the Fraternity, in disagreement with the line of priestly society, founded by Mons. Lefebvre.
Resist and persevere over time, with everyone against, it's not easy. Being in the world, but not of the world, pure. E’ a courage that Jesus Christ asks of us. It is not a rebellious spirit, but consistent with the Gospel, which in these times we the faithful ask of “our” priests. Otherwise, we would all go to the parish! The same one fighting spirit, which shaped my Faith and which I also learned from some, individual Lefebvrian priests, which then profoundly disappointed me, for their flattening in a congregation whose doctrinal assumptions they did not share.
The loaf, before the profession of Truth? Never! – they told me, perhaps to exorcise, in their conscience, a convenient choice. Nevertheless, the facts are there, before everyone's eyes, to demonstrate where the heart and mind are (confused, at best) than that which, personally, I consider it the first shame of tradition, considering, in my little one, than from that “mens normalized” the others descend, of a contaminated body or bodies, full of doctrinal and therefore pastoral metastases. Hoping, anyway and always, in a flash of lightning on the road to Damascus that brings full healing.