[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express [ 30 → 36] I saw the need to underscore his declaration by invoking his supposed magisterial authority. [ 36 → 39] Here is what he said verbatim, quote, [ 39 → 48] We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible, unquote. [ 48 → 53] Now, of course, this is pretty funny considering that the Novus Ordo liturgical revolution itself [ 53 → 59] basically overturned well over a thousand years of the Roman liturgy, at least, [ 59 → 60] and [ 60 → 62] it didn't even pretend otherwise. [ 63 → 70] No, we were supposedly returning to liturgical antiquity, and of course that's a good thing, right? [ 70 → 76] So much for the irreversibility of liturgical development, even from a Novus Ordo perspective. [ 77 → 86] Actually, if anything is irreversible here, it's the true Roman liturgy the way it was before the modernists took a sledgehammer to it. [ 86 → 89] In his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, [ 90 → 90] Pope Pilate, [ 90 → 92] Pope Pius XII declared, quote, [ 92 → 102] Clearly, no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church [ 102 → 108] under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, [ 108 → 111] because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. [ 112 → 118] No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church [ 118 → 120] to revert to prescriptions, [ 120 → 123] based on the earliest sources of canon law. [ 124 → 129] Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who, in matters liturgical, [ 129 → 133] would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, [ 133 → 137] discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine providence [ 137 → 143] to meet the changes of circumstances and situation, unquote. [ 143 → 148] So, if Francis wants to talk about irreversible liturgy, we can. [ 149 → 150] Make sense? [ 150 → 152] Make sure you don't miss our two blog posts on this topic, [ 153 → 156] published on August 25th and 27th, respectively, [ 156 → 158] at our blog at [ 158 → 167] Oh, by the way, just as I was preparing for this little podcast here, [ 167 → 171] I noticed that Christopher Ferreira of The Remnant and the Fatima Center [ 171 → 176] had just published his thoughts on Francis' irreversible comment. [ 176 → 179] In addition to making some of the very arguments that, [ 179 → 183] in our blog post of August 25th, we predicted he would make, [ 183 → 185] which, granted, wasn't very difficult, [ 186 → 189] he made the astonishing claim that in 1969, quote, [ 189 → 194] the new Mass was merely introduced alongside the traditional Mass, [ 194 → 198] which, as Benedict XVI affirmed in Summorum Pontificum, [ 198 → 202] was never abrogated, abolished, by Paul VI, [ 202 → 205] and, in principle, was always permitted, [ 205 → 208] contrary to the false impression so carefully cultivated, [ 209 → 212] by the bureaucratic promoters of the pseudo-magisterium [ 212 → 214] that has afflicted the Church since the Council, [ 215 → 221] until Benedict XVI finally exposed the fraud in 2007, unquote. [ 222 → 226] Now, this is nothing but bovine manure, [ 226 → 230] both on the part of Benedict XVI and of Christopher Ferreira. [ 231 → 235] The new Mass was never introduced as an alternate rite of Mass [ 235 → 238] alongside the traditional Roman Catholic Mass. [ 238 → 239] It's simply ludicrous. [ 239 → 240] It's ludicrous to claim that. [ 241 → 244] The traditional Roman rite was never abolished by Paul VI? [ 245 → 248] Whom is Benedict or Ferreira kidding? [ 249 → 254] Why do you think that for decades you needed to have a special indulge to celebrate it? [ 255 → 258] Now, let's look at what Paul VI actually said [ 258 → 266] in his official promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae on April 3rd, 1969, quote, [ 266 → 269] The Roman Missal promulgated, [ 269 → 273] in 1570, by our predecessor, St. Pius V, [ 273 → 275] by decree of the Council of Trent, [ 276 → 280] has been received by all as one of the numerous and admirable fruits [ 280 → 284] which the Holy Council has spread throughout the entire Church of Christ. [ 285 → 289] The formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. [ 289 → 293] The beginning of this renewal was the work of our predecessor, [ 293 → 294] the St. Pius XII, [ 295 → 298] in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite, [ 298 → 299] which, [ 299 → 305] formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality, unquote. [ 305 → 310] That's from paragraphs 1 and 2 in the supposed Apostolic Constitution, [ 310 → 311] Missale Romanum. [ 312 → 317] So, here Paul VI is indicating that what he is about to institute is not, [ 317 → 319] at least so goes his claim, [ 319 → 321] a new, separate rite of mass, [ 321 → 327] but rather an updating or revision of the Roman Missal of St. Pius V. [ 327 → 329] There is no indication, [ 329 → 329] here, [ 329 → 331] that he is creating a new rite, [ 332 → 335] which is simply to be used alongside the old one, [ 335 → 339] which would then allow one to claim that the old rite had never been repealed or replaced, [ 340 → 344] which is what Benedict XVI and Chris Ferreira maintain today. [ 345 → 345] Moreover, [ 346 → 351] consider Ratzinger's contention about the traditional rite never having been abrogated [ 351 → 356] in light of what Paul VI says concerning Pope Pius XII's reforms. [ 357 → 358] Are we then to understand, [ 358 → 361] according to Ferreira and Benedict XVI, [ 362 → 367] that likewise Pius XII also never abrogated the previous Holy Week rites? [ 368 → 369] The idea is laughable. [ 370 → 374] It is clear that when Pius XII made the changes to the Holy Week rites, [ 375 → 379] the rites in use before then were considered superseded. [ 379 → 380] They were abrogated. [ 381 → 388] Lastly, we can simply take a look at the words of the modernist Unholy See itself. [ 388 → 395] On the issue of whether or not the new Mass was obligatory and the old Mass forbidden. [ 396 → 396] For example, [ 397 → 399] on October 20th, 1969, [ 399 → 402] the so-called Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship [ 402 → 404] issued an instruction entitled [ 404 → 406] Constituzione Apostolica, [ 407 → 408] in which it legislated, [ 408 → 408] quote, [ 409 → 412] the individual conferences of bishops are to appoint a date [ 412 → 417] on which use of the new order of Mass will become obligatory. [ 417 → 418] That date is called the New Order of Mass. [ 418 → 422] That date is not to be later than November 28th, 1971. [ 423 → 423] Unquote. [ 425 → 428] Then, on June 14th, 1971, [ 428 → 431] the same congregation issued the notification [ 431 → 433] Instruzione de Constituzione, [ 433 → 435] in which it stated, quote, [ 435 → 439] From the date on which the translated texts become obligatory [ 439 → 441] for celebrations in the vernacular, [ 442 → 444] only the revised form of the Mass [ 444 → 446] and the liturgy of the hours will be allowed, [ 446 → 448] even for those [ 448 → 449] who continue to use Latin. [ 450 → 453] Continued use in whole or in part [ 453 → 457] of the Roman Missal in the 1962 typical edition [ 457 → 461] is allowed with the consent of the ordinary, [ 462 → 463] that's the local bishop, [ 463 → 467] and only in celebrations without a congregation, [ 468 → 470] for all those who, [ 470 → 473] because of their advanced years or illness, [ 473 → 478] find serious difficulties in using the new order of Mass, [ 478 → 479] in the Roman Missal. [ 479 → 480] Unquote. [ 481 → 482] And finally, [ 483 → 486] in his consistorial address of May 24th, 1976, [ 487 → 490] Paul VI himself said, quote, [ 490 → 493] Use of the new order of Mass [ 493 → 497] is in no way left up to the choice of priests or people. [ 497 → 500] The instruction of June 14th, 1971 [ 500 → 503] provided that celebration of Mass, [ 503 → 505] according to the former rite, [ 505 → 508] would be permitted by faculty from the ordination, [ 508 → 511] only for aged or sick priests [ 511 → 513] offering the sacrifice without a congregation. [ 515 → 517] The new order of Mass was promulgated, [ 517 → 518] get this, [ 518 → 521] in place of the old, [ 521 → 523] after careful deliberation [ 523 → 527] and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council too. [ 528 → 528] Unquote. [ 529 → 530] That is what Paul VI, [ 531 → 532] then his modernist henchman, [ 532 → 534] legislated and decreed. [ 535 → 536] And when Chris Ferreira claims [ 536 → 538] that the new Mass was never allowed, [ 538 → 539] never obligatory, [ 539 → 540] and that it was instituted [ 540 → 543] alongside the traditional Roman rite, [ 543 → 546] he is simply misleading his readers. [ 547 → 548] What I've just quoted [ 548 → 551] all appeared in the Acts of the Apostolic See, [ 551 → 553] the Acta Apostolici Sedis. [ 553 → 555] And you can find English translations, [ 556 → 558] the ones I just quoted from, [ 558 → 560] in the book Documents on the Liturgy, [ 560 → 563] 1963-1979, [ 563 → 566] published by the Liturgical Press in 1982. [ 566 → 568] So, folks, [ 568 → 571] it's time to stop reading this propaganda [ 571 → 573] from Ferreira and company. [ 573 → 575] Because that's all it is, propaganda. [ 576 → 579] Ferreira has the tail wagging the dog. [ 579 → 581] He starts with a desired conclusion [ 581 → 584] and then cobbles together the necessary premises [ 584 → 587] that he thinks lead to this conclusion. [ 587 → 589] The problem is that the only way [ 589 → 591] he can get those premises together [ 591 → 593] is by being selective and misleading [ 593 → 596] in the presentation of the relevant data [ 596 → 596] and we've seen that in the book Documents on the Liturgy. [ 596 → 597] We've just seen that here. [ 598 → 600] And you can see it at greater length [ 600 → 603] in the 2015 revised edition of his book [ 603 → 605] The Great Facade, [ 605 → 607] where he uses a number of phony arguments, [ 608 → 610] including the anecdote on page 311 [ 610 → 613] that Paul VI privately told [ 613 → 615] Father Jean-Marie Charles Roux [ 615 → 618] that he never forbade the traditional mass [ 618 → 620] and offered the new mass only as an alternative. [ 621 → 624] And there you can see the baloney [ 624 → 626] you get from spin doctor Ferreira. [ 626 → 628] Official Vatican documents [ 628 → 631] published in the Acts of the Apostolic See [ 631 → 634] and a public address by the Pope himself [ 634 → 636] that say that the new mass is obligatory [ 636 → 637] and has replaced the old [ 637 → 639] must be ignored [ 639 → 641] because they are not sufficiently authoritative. [ 642 → 643] But when a simple priest [ 643 → 645] publishes a story [ 645 → 647] not independently verified by anyone, [ 647 → 648] by the way, [ 648 → 650] that the Pope told him [ 650 → 652] that he had never forbidden the old mass, [ 652 → 655] then that is binding on everybody's conscience [ 655 → 656] and proves that the new mass is not authoritative. [ 656 → 658] And that proves Mr. Ferreira's case. [ 658 → 662] Folks, this is simply disgraceful. [ 662 → 665] This is a very silly double standard. [ 666 → 668] And you've got to always remember [ 668 → 671] that what we're talking about here, [ 671 → 672] this is very serious business. [ 673 → 674] We're dealing with things [ 674 → 676] that affect people's souls [ 676 → 678] and therefore their eternal salvation. [ 679 → 681] And so the last thing we need [ 681 → 683] is some intellectual shyster [ 683 → 686] making phony arguments. [ 686 → 688] So, I'm sorry, [ 688 → 690] I really don't have patience [ 690 → 693] for this garbage anymore. [ 694 → 695] In other news, [ 695 → 697] I'm going to have to be quick here [ 697 → 699] because otherwise this will no longer qualify [ 699 → 702] as an express podcast, right? [ 703 → 704] In other news, [ 704 → 707] Louis Varecchio has some critical words [ 707 → 709] for the post-Gruner Fatima Center. [ 710 → 711] In his post, [ 711 → 713] meet the Cardinal Prince [ 713 → 714] of the new Fatima Center [ 714 → 716] at akacatholic.com. [ 716 → 718] Varecchio writes today, [ 718 → 718] quote, [ 718 → 721] In spite of any good intentions [ 721 → 723] on the part of individual people, [ 723 → 726] the Fatima Center has lost its way. [ 726 → 728] Rather than remaining steadfast [ 728 → 729] in the mission of defending [ 729 → 730] the message of Fatima [ 730 → 731] from compromise and corruption, [ 732 → 733] the new Fatima Center [ 733 → 736] has chosen to engage in spin, [ 736 → 738] accentuating what may seem [ 738 → 740] to be the positive or true [ 740 → 742] while deliberately overlooking [ 742 → 744] that which is clearly negative [ 744 → 746] or false, unquote. [ 746 → 747] In particular, [ 748 → 750] Varecchio cites two examples. [ 750 → 752] The painting of former U.S. President [ 752 → 754] Ronald Reagan as a disciple of Fatima [ 754 → 756] and the uncritical praise [ 756 → 758] being heaped upon Cardinal [ 758 → 760] Raymond Burke, [ 760 → 761] both of which, by the way, [ 762 → 764] was recently done for the Fatima Center [ 764 → 767] by Christopher Ferreira. [ 767 → 769] Is a pattern emerging yet? [ 770 → 771] And lastly, [ 772 → 774] today at stumblingblock.org, [ 774 → 776] Frank Walker of Canon 212, [ 776 → 778] asks what religion [ 778 → 781] are these Francis bishops? [ 782 → 783] Well, Mr. Walker, [ 784 → 784] what do you think? [ 786 → 787] Here, I'll give you a hint. [ 788 → 790] They're the same religion as Francis. [ 792 → 792] Okay? [ 792 → 795] And I'd say we'll just leave it at that. [ 796 → 797] Tradcast Express is a production [ 797 → 798] of Novos Ordo Watch. [ 799 → 801] Check us out at tradcast.org. [ 801 → 802] And if you like what we're doing, [ 802 → 803] please consider making [ 803 → 805] a tax-deductible contribution [ 805 → 806] at Novos Ordo Watch. [ 806 → 807] NovosOrdoWatch.org [ 807 → 808] slash donate.