Both liturgical forms celebrate and express the same faith. The exact same faith.

Just as the Holy water has been blessed to the older books, everyone is still using the Pentecost Water we blessed at the pre-1955 vigil. This year our Paschal candle was prepared at the pre-1955 Liturgy, and because of the Covid restrictions no further ceremonies took place for the N.O. Vigil later

the Novus Ordo is not the express will of the Council, it is but the outcome of a hurried deliberation of a group of warring committees, and to assert otherwise is contrary to the documentary history of the time, including the writings of Bugnini himself.

I agree with you at least in general. Peter [Kwasniewski] has every right to post here on this forum on matters musical, but his liturgical and ecclesiological manifestoes are annoying to the faithful. In them he operates outside of his academic level of competence, and I regret that his association with CMAA, as a writer, associates me with his theories in some remote way. The CMAA’s beautiful purpose, which has survived even darker times than these, is "the advancement of musica sacra in keeping with the norms established by competent ecclesiastical authority." Disobedience is not what I signed up for, if anything it is what I signed up against.

The limits of the Pope's authority are prescribed by the Holy Spirit who keeps the Church one, holy, catholic, apostolic, indefectible, infallible, spotless and adorned, the Bride of Christ. We will see what happens with the Traditional Latin Mass. I do hope nothing changes for me in my world, and I hope my friends are not scandalized and remain in full communion with me, but if I don't get my way, whom should I follow? The one who stands iuxta crucem, or the one who stands hier...kann nicht anders?

Radio Spada: As we know, going beyond the moral theme, it is impossible not to identify in the doctrinal collapse the very hinge of the present crisis in the Church. In regard to this, on a number of occasions, you have expressed sharp criticism of Vatican II. On this point, we would ask you for a further specification. Speaking with [veteran Italian Vaticanist] Sandro Magister, you said: “The beautiful fable of hermeneutics – albeit authoritative for its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to give the dignity of a Council to a real ambush against the Church.” May we, therefore, clarify that the problem is not identifiable only since Vatican II but in Vatican II? In other words: did the revolutionary process have a turning point in the “Council” and not only after the “Council”? So to place under accusation not simply with the postconciliar “Spirit of Vatican II,” but also the letter of the Council documents themselves?

Archbishop Viganò: I don’t see how one can maintain that there is a presumed orthodox Vatican II that no one has talked about for years, betrayed by a spirit of the Council that everyone also praised. The spirit of the Council is what animates it, what determines its nature, particularity, characteristics. And if the spirit is heterodox while the conciliar texts do not seem to be doctrinally heretical, this is to be attributed to a shrewd move by the conspirators, to the naiveté of the Council Fathers, and to the complicity of those who preferred to look elsewhere, from the beginning, rather than take a stand with a clear condemnation of doctrinal, moral and liturgical deviations.

The first to be perfectly well aware of the importance of putting their hand to the conciliar texts in order to be able to use them for their own purposes were progressive cardinals and bishops, particularly the Germans and the Dutch, with their experts [periti]. It was no coincidence that they managed to reject the Preparatory Schemas prepared by the Holy Office and ignored the desiderata [the requests] of the world’s bishops, including the condemnation of modern errors, especially of atheistic communism; they also succeeded in preventing the proclamation of a Marian dogma, seeing in it an “obstacle” to ecumenical dialogue. The new leadership of Vatican II was possible thanks to a real coup d’état, the pre-eminent role of the Jesuit (Augustin) Bea [1881-1968], and the support of Roncalli [Pope John XXIII, Pope from 1959 to 1963]. If the Schemas had been kept [as the basis for the Council’s documents; but they were put aside just after the Council began, in the fall of 1962, and not kept] nothing that came out of the Commissions [which were set up in the fall of 1962 to draft the Council’s documents, once the Council decided to set aside the prepared Schemas] would have been possible, because the Schemas were constructed on an Aristotelian-Thomistic model that did not permit equivocal formulations.

The letter itself of the Council [i.e., the text of the Council documents] must therefore be placed under accusation [the Italian is “messo sotto accusa”], because it is from this that the revolution started. On the other hand: could you give me a case in the history of the Church in which an Ecumenical Council was deliberately formulated in an equivocal way to ensure that what it taught in its official acts was then subverted and contradicted in practice? Look: this alone [i.e., the fact that ambiguity and equivocation were deliberately woven into certain passages in the conciliar texts] is enough to catalogue Vatican II as a unique case, an hapax [hapax is a Greek word meaning once, one time, a unique case] on which scholars can try their hand, but which will have to find a solution through the Supreme Authority of the Church.

Radio Spada: How did you become aware of this crisis? A gradual process? A sudden insight developed only recently?

Archbishop Viganò: My awareness was progressive, and it started relatively early. But understanding, or beginning to suspect, that what was presented to us as the fruit of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was actually suggested by the inimicus homo [“the enemy of man,” i.e., the devil] was not enough to collapse that sense of dutiful obedience to the Hierarchy, even in the presence of multiple proofs of the bad faith and the malice of some of its members. As I have already had occasion to declare, what we saw then materialize – I speak, for example, of some novelties like episcopal collegiality or ecumenism or the Novus Ordo Missae – could appear as attempts to meet the common desire for renewal, in the wake of post-war reconstruction. Faced with the economic boom and major political events, the Church seemed to have to somehow rejuvenate herself, or so everyone was telling us, starting with the Holy Father. Those accustomed to pre-conciliar discipline, to the respect for Authority, to the veneration of the Roman Pontiff, did not even dare to think that what was surreptitiously shown to us as a means to spread the Faith and convert many souls to the Catholic Church was actually a vehicle, a deception behind which was hidden, in the minds of some, the intention to progressively cancel the Faith and leave souls in error and sin. Those “novelties” pleased almost no one, least of all the lay people, but they were presented to us as a sort of penance to accept, having in exchange a greater spread of the Gospel, and the moral and spiritual rebirth of a West prostrate due to the Second World War and threatened by materialism.

Radical changes began with Paul VI, with the liturgical reform and the drastic prohibition of the Tridentine Mass. I felt personally wounded and helpless when, as a young secretary to the then Apostolic Delegation of London [in the 1970s], the Holy See forbid the Una Voce Association to celebrate even one Mass according to the Ancient Rite in the crypt of Westminster Cathedral. (continued below)

During the pontificate of John Paul II, some of the more extreme trends of the Council found a propulsive push in the pantheon of Assisi [1986], in the encounters in mosques and synagogues, in the requests for forgiveness for the Crusades and Inquisition, in the so-called “purification of memory.” The possibly subversive power of Dignitatis humanae and of Nostra aetate were evident in those years.

Then came Benedict XVI and his liberalization of the traditional liturgy, up until then ostentatiously opposed, despite the papal concessions following the Episcopal consecrations of Ecône [in 1988]. Unfortunately, the ecumenical exaggerations did not cease even with Ratzinger, and with them the conciliar ideology that justified them. The resignation of Benedict and the coming of Bergoglio continue to open the eyes of many people, especially of lay faithful.

Disobedience is a sin (unless it is done out of obedience to rightful authority)

Every heretic in history has made a similar claim.

And of course, the heretic has the right to decide what the gospel and tradition require.

The fact that heretics have abused a truth does not make it an untruth. Was it not St. Robert Bellarmine who said that one has a duty to oppose a pope in error?

Aquinas, along with many of the theologians quoted below, makes clear that any such public resistance is directed toward a prelate’s exercise of authority, as Paul did to Peter if there is a danger to the faith. As licit resistance, it does not constitute “judging” the Pope.

Concerning this resistance, Thomas Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), a leading theologian of his time, concurs:

Therefore, you must resist, to his face, a pope who is openly tearing the Church apart, for example, by refusing to confer ecclesiastical benefices except for money, or in exchange for services … a case of simony, even committed by a pope, must be denounced.

But what if this “resistance” is not simply rebuking a pope in an improper exercise of authority? Is disobedience ever allowed? Do theologians ever discuss “disobedience” to the “pope” specifically?

In fact, they do.

Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) of the School of Salamanca, a Jesuit priest and theologian, considered by many to be one of the greatest Scholastics after St. Thomas Aquinas himself, wrote:

If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.

Sylvester Prieras (1456–1523), a Dominican theologian, appointed master of the Sacred Palace by Pope Leo X and known for his detailed rebuttal to Luther’s 95 Theses, wrote:

In answer to the question, “What should be done in cases where the Pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?”: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension[.] … [H]e does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law[.] … As Cajetan observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that someone could have competence to judge the Pope or have authority over him, but meaning that it is licit to defend oneself. Indeed, anyone has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to prevent it and to defend himself.”

Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546), his Dominican counterpart, founder of the School of Salamanca, wrote:

If the Pope by his orders and his acts destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), Jesuit theologian, Doctor of the Church, one of the greatest defenders of Catholic theology during the Counter-Reformation, wrote:

As it is lawful to resist the pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter and John de Torquemada.

liturgical and ecclesiological manifestoes are annoying to the faithful

the sense of the translation must be understood according to the mind of the Church expressed by the original Latin text. -Instauratio liturgica

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”

which means there will be more EF Masses than OF Masses.

which means there will be more EF Masses than OF Masses