OPEN LETTER TO THE CONSERVATIVE CLERGY
+ Ave Maria!Dear Fathers in Faith,
In the Year of Our Lord 1570 (Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum Tempore), His Holiness Pius V affirmed that it is supremely fitting that there be only one rite for celebrating Mass. Only one!
Therefore, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI (2007) is supremely inappropriate, having violated this principle, which has been in force unchanged and immutable for over four centuries. And forever. And why, has it been in force forever? Because it was not born by chance, in 1570, with the almost apodictic words of that Holy Pope. Rather, it is the fulfillment and culmination of a centuries-long journey that spans various Christian eras and extends from the first councils to the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The teaching Church has gradually understood that the Roman Rite, not the only Catholic rite, but certainly the most prevalent, must be one. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council knew this well. And so, following the 1965 reform, they had no choice but to replace the Latin Mass with the New Mass. Because everyone knows that these are two rites and that only one must be the rite of the Church! Therefore, in 2007, Pope Ratzinger, while verbally upholding the Council's outcome, substantially undermined its spirit. Technically, this is called fraud. Indeed, he allowed the Latin Mass in all parishes around the world, creating a division in the Roman Rite. A sort of liturgical schism, against the history of the Church, brought about simply with a motu proprio! He unilaterally opposed various councils and various canonized Popes, not just Pius V. This, dearest ones, is what you celebrate every year at the end of October. Congratulations! Truly! Ratzinger even hoped for a future reunification of what he himself divided! To justify his mistake, the greatest theologian of the 20th century claimed that the Latin Mass and the Council Mass are not two rites. But forms of the single Roman Rite! Everyone knows, however, that the two rites—yes, two rites—are so different that one is almost a liturgical break from the other. To understand that the flaw exists, and is indeed a serious one, it is enough to note that Summorum Pontificum cites the 1988 letter (motu proprio) Ecclesia Dei by Saint John Paul II. This is not at all an opening to the Latin Mass, as some clumsily pretend. Indeed, Ecclesia Dei recalls the directives of the 1984 letter Quattuor Abhinc Annos, to which it devoutly submits! And they have remained in force for over 20 years! Over 20 years, just think! The 1984 letter (unavox.it/doc03.htm) represents the post-conciliar Church's response to the "Latin Mass" question. The response of a Saint. And it should be definitive, forever and ever. Saint John Paul II did not promote the Latin Mass; he merely tolerated it, albeit respectfully, granting an indult. And he was so far from your sensibilities that he even ended up making a mistake, later generalizing Communion in the hand. Furthermore, the 1984 letter speaks of the Latin Mass and those who still celebrate it as a "problem"! You were and are a problem. This was the true opinion of the Polish Pope, who, almost adamant, wisely excluded the celebration of the vetus ordo in the 500,000 parish churches on the planet, allowing it elsewhere, but under certain restrictive conditions. And why shouldn't there be Latin Masses in parishes? What's the harm in that!? After all, in many of them there's only one weekday Mass, and some might say there could be a space for it every now and then. However, John Paul II, of a completely different opinion, wanted people to avoid confusion and for one thing to be clear to everyone: there's no going back! This continued for the rest of his pontificate. And instead with Ratzinger: backtrack! A betrayal. A Copernican regression. But God has shown that He doesn't agree. And He doesn't agree with your agitated activism. The Marian apparitions themselves don't say that the Mass should be redone in Latin. But they point out that the most serious thing is Communion in the hand. Rite and worship are linked. But it's clear that you're focusing primarily on the former. Instead, Heaven, through Mary, makes us understand that our problem is more cultic than ritual. Rite is, yes, the means par excellence, divinely inspired, to reach God. But it is still a means and not an end. What matters is reaching God. And in fact, I spoke to you about God (the Eucharist). No one in the world had warned you about the 10 Eucharistic miracles recognized in the post-conciliar period, all and only in the new rite. They not only justify and bless the intention to reform the Mass (1962), but confirm that the liturgical unity of the Roman rite is a cornerstone, a systemic cornerstone of our religion! It's not a dogma, but unofficially it's as if it were. It's as relevant as priestly celibacy. Two things that can't be touched without causing harm! Furthermore, these Eucharistic miracles remind us that the Second Vatican Council, even though some of its conclusions, including liturgical ones, remain unresolved, is an ecclesial event that concerns all believers and belongs to God. Woe to anyone who openly or surreptitiously tries to erase it from the calendar of our spiritual history. The expression "Mass of All Time," for example, originated precisely among you. And it's a misleading statement. The Mass you celebrate in Latin is certainly not the one the first Christians celebrated. So it's not true that it's from All Time, because it came later. And now there's another. And it's always been this way. Furthermore, despite the fact that for almost 14 of the last 60 years, Masses could be celebrated in Latin in every parish (practically every day!), no visible Eucharistic miracle has occurred at these Masses. This argument is invincible! Invincible for everyone! Nearly twenty years after Summorum Pontificum, Ratzinger's goal of reconciling the Church's liturgy with it has failed. Indeed, it is the most controversial document of his pontificate to date. And I find it quite astonishing that it is, in light of what I have described above. The ruling clergy rightly opposes it and has tried to downplay it. For years. But they seem to be playing the villain. Why? Because it is unpopular to have to explain that Benedict XVI was wrong. And that he was uncomfortable in his role. And then because those who command the Church are in awe of you. Deservedly so. For in these years, only you have defended the morality of all time (this is an authentic expression, the morality of all time), while they have not. However, perhaps you have taken advantage of this healthy battle in defense of the Decalogue to obtain something undue. When an inappropriate act is committed, it is always wrong. And the right action that should have been taken in its place is neglected. At this moment, a great obstacle to a necessary and balanced restoration of Tradition in the Catholic liturgy is your very attitude. We've wasted time. We need to correct the Council Mass. You too will be happier! Because it will be more like the ancient one. And finally, you will have two feet in the Church. Not one inside and one slightly outside. You and your supporters. Who have made the somewhat Manichean mistake of thinking that on one side there are the bad guys, on the other there are the good guys. Instead, it's not all black and white. And Heaven seems to be using me precisely to help in this sense. A sign of contradiction for both. And this happens to me in the Church, as in society. I must also say, however, that the legitimate yearning for a deeper spirituality of some people, and there are some among your supporters, is the best part of us. You have exploited them a little. A little betrayed them. Because you know the history of the Church and what I have written here. And much more. Don't disappoint them! Even God is displeased. Shortly before the Second Vatican Council ended, Heaven let us know that certain things were unwelcome. But the apparition in Amsterdam was quickly silenced. And you too, now, having lost sight of the universal dimension of the Church, are concerned only with your "union" demands. And no one asks for the Fifth Marian Dogma anymore! To get what you want, you're willing to leverage this unfortunate and problematic 2007 motu proprio. This position demonstrates once again the injustice of your liturgical demands. If someone is right, he doesn't use every means to achieve his goal. A believer, as a rule, doesn't do evil to obtain good. I believe in the good faith of Benedict XVI. I also believe he's a saint, and if it were up to me, who am a pushover, he should be canonized by this evening. We must thank him for his entire life and beyond. Because he did something for us that cost him dearly and that he never wanted to do. And do you know what? The Pope! By virtue of his Yes in 2005, for our benefit and out of love for the Church, he prevented evil from becoming greater than it is. Because it would have started sooner. And in any case, it's not over. And perhaps He is that extension of mercy that some contemporary Marian apparitions inform us of, referring to the famous 100 years mentioned in Leo XIII's vision in 1884. Nonetheless, we must look with discernment at His Pontificate. I love Him so much. And when I see him speak on video, I'm spellbound! Sometimes I even get a snot-in-the-mouth feeling, like a little child! I feel particularly close to him, in his discomfort. I resemble him in this. Only in this. When I was 17, a classmate of mine wanted to be school president. He made a list, and I was among his: the dead weight. But since I'm shameless and a moralist, I always spoke up in front of the high school students. And then the irreparable happened. My world fell apart! They elected me school president (along with three others). Me, the very one who was afraid even of my own shadow. So, an idealist, yes, but without responsibility. I was absent because I was a coward... (and I am). I said I was (and I am...). And that's fine, I was and I am. And I always will be! Returning to Ratzinger. A clearer proof of your discomfort with the Petrine chair is this: in the twentieth century, one of the greatest contributions to the Church's Magisterium on non-negotiable principles was John Paul II's Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, a milestone! And here we certainly also find the precious contribution of Cardinal Ratzinger. Yet he is the same person who, as Pope, later opened the door to condoms for prostitutes. Here the contradiction is not only blatant. It is total! Total! Consider even more that he gave in on this point in 2009, when AIDS was already chronic almost everywhere. Years earlier, on the contrary, while 20 million Africans were dying and it was more difficult to be intransigent, the Polish Pope, our lightning rod, had the entire world against him, because he remained upright and firm in his opposition to condoms. And he was right, because moral absolutes always hold true. Now, having long spoken casually of the highest systems, I dare say that even saintly Popes have made mistakes. I am at peace, because the Gospel tells us that even Peter, a canonized Pope, was rightly criticized by Paul. And this even happened after the resurrection of Jesus. A remarkable detail. This excursus serves to show everyone the evident discomfort that Pope Ratzinger experienced as Head of Catholicism. So much so that his resignation, however explained, retains an irreducible negative value even in his opinion. Didn't he actually tell us: pray that I don't run away!? And it was the first day. So, if he wasn't serene, it's only natural that his most ambiguous document is not only legitimately questionable, but also reasonably dismissible. In its entirety. I hope Leo XIV has this courage for the good of all. And of Benedict XVI himself, who deserves to be remembered and revered for his incomparable human and theological qualities, while this misstep should be forgotten. Or simply ignored. As is done with papal documents inconsistent with the history of the Church. This summer I wrote that you have a political project in the Church. I hadn't read it anywhere. No one agreed with me. My closest friends looked at me with astonishment and suspicion. Recently, in an interview, another person said the same thing. And he did me justice. Do you know this person's name? Leo XIV! He is so dear to me! May God help him! For some, the Latin Mass is a political tool, he said. Rightfully so. He told the truth. And he was frank with you. And why aren't you frank with him? It's true that there have been some laudable acts of reparation for certain sacrileges, such as the nonexistent Gay Jubilee. But beyond that, you're praising Him. Yet, even if more politely, it's in continuity with Francis. And the problematic and perhaps heretical documents of the past are all there. You're wrong. Be honest! The Mass of the Council has two strengths that the Latin Mass lacks. It is simpler and more comprehensible. Perhaps you don't like this. I've seen photos of you celebrating with 10-meter-long cloaks. And yet, I must admit, they suit you. You are beautiful! I love you so much! And I wanted to remind you that our heavenly Mother speaks to us throughout the world of an era of Peace. She says we will resemble the first Christians. And what was the Mass of the first Christians like? Simpler than yours. Simpler. We will be simpler, in the name of Mary Co-Redemptrix. So... it's true that the wicked have entered the Church and have distorted various aspects of the liturgy that the world celebrates today. But those two virtues that you lack, I dare say, namely, "simpler" and "more comprehensible," are mysteriously and mystically present in the liturgical reform of the last council and conform to God's inscrutable plan for the near future of the world. Everything is in His hands. And then, you who know so much... Even the Council of Trent, in its time, simplified the liturgy. Or not!? At the time, to oppose external enemies (to stop the Protestant contagion). At the Second Vatican Council, on the other hand, to seize an internal opportunity. The twentieth century is the century in which the audience of God's people expanded exponentially and unprecedentedly, especially in Africa and Asia. Continents familiar, but not so profound. And the Church expanded its ethnic boundaries, from the usual Latin, Anglo-Saxon, Slavic... to embrace populous human groups that lacked Judeo-Christian culture. And so it is also thanks to the 1965 Mass that it was possible to more quickly overcome the natural and inevitable mistrust that could exist among those populations toward the new religion. Within a few years, the fruits are great. The baptized come primarily from there. The consecrated are primarily from the Third World. Yes, the Third World! And the martyrs too: in Nigeria, Congo, Pakistan... (they are the saints of tomorrow, but they are already saints today). Let us look at them. I am reminded of the woman in the Gospel who says to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts that nursed You." Jesus gives her an answer that seems like a censure. “Blessed rather are those who hear the Word of God and keep it”. But that woman was not wrong, and even Mary, in the Magnificat itself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says of herself: “all nations will call me blessed”! And so, an ordinary woman from the Third World 2,000 years ago becomes, in my crazy mind, one of the first theologians of the Church. The Mariological implications, even dogmatic ones, that we understand today, make me fantasize that that ordinary woman almost intuited great things about the Woman par excellence. But Jesus seems to respond to her: be less of a theologian and more of a believer! And this concerns everyone, especially me, who am always disturbing the world. Sorry! But meditate! Have a happy day! Most Holy Mary of Splendor, Queen Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate, pray for us!