miror quaenam sis tam bella...latinitate! et cum latine ipse loquar demiror derideoque eum qui mendum eius gestabili (gestabile?) velociter scribentis denuntiet sibique parcat minutias quae ad rem non pertinent congerenti. Si reapse Romana donatus es civitate, recognosce sacra quae ipsa urbs tibi dederat atque ad lateransem pristinum cultum te recipe.
Secundo, agnosce, O Christiane, dignitatem liberioris ablativi desinentiae, quippe quae ad verborum lusum (ex JudaeIs) conferat. Romam Via Appia adhuc progredere
“The use of liturgical books that the Council sought to reform [i.e., replace] was, from St. John Paul II to Francis, a concession that in no way envisaged their promotion.”
Call this mendacity if you like; but is that really fair? What did JPII or B16 (or P6) envisage, if not a concession? If they envisaged promotion, wouldn't they have personally enacted promotion (like publicly celebrating the TLM, for example)? Roche quotes Quo primum: "there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the mass": a mendacious translation, to be sure, but perhaps the issue thereby raised is one that JPII and B16 signally failed to address, thus paving the way for Bergoglio. Perhaps 'mutual enrichment' is indeed 'false irenicism.'
I'm not saying they did a lot to promote it. They didn't. But what they set in place couldn't help but promote it. When you start to let the TLM be the main Mass for communities of not only laity but priests and religious, you effectively set the conditions for its growth. And, as Gregory DiPippo shows, this was understood and welcomed, at least by some in high positions:
The use of terms of vermin in reference to a Cardinal of the Roman Church cannot but confirm that, sadly, Pope Francis was right about certain segments of the Tradtionalist movement who are advocating the hermeneutic of rupture.
Isn't the question then whether the 'verminous' characterization fits the cardinal in question (you don't deny, I suppose, that it might?), and whether the hermeneutic of rupture isn't simply necessary, if one wishes to truthfully characterize the historical facts?
This is always the same majeutic mayonnaise. The ontological problem with the hermeneutics of rupture is that it will always be based solely on toxic and defensive arguments and offences (such as insuating vermin references to Cardinal).
There is, in fact, an infestation of bad will and false arguments at the highest levels of the Church. It is like a plague or an invasion. Anyone who has studied the history of the Church over the past 60 years can see that this is true. Why should be sugar-coat it and tip-toe around it? The truth sets us free to pursue what is actually for the benefit of the Church and of our souls.
Verbal harassment and offences against the princes of the Catholic Church do not bode well for 'Sentire cum Ecclesiam'. Sadly, Pope Francis was right in the end. "Fede viva dei morti o Fede morta dei viventi?"
With regard to your first point, if the boot fits, wear it. "The hermeneutic of rupture" is fully owned by the revolutionaries who broke with nearly two millenia of tradition to force a new religion upon unsuspecting Catholics. The fruits of that revolution have been catastrophic. So many souls lost...
This pairs really well with the last chapter of the Screwtape Letters.
miror quaenam sis tam bella...latinitate! et cum latine ipse loquar demiror derideoque eum qui mendum eius gestabili (gestabile?) velociter scribentis denuntiet sibique parcat minutias quae ad rem non pertinent congerenti. Si reapse Romana donatus es civitate, recognosce sacra quae ipsa urbs tibi dederat atque ad lateransem pristinum cultum te recipe.
Secundo, agnosce, O Christiane, dignitatem liberioris ablativi desinentiae, quippe quae ad verborum lusum (ex JudaeIs) conferat. Romam Via Appia adhuc progredere
❤️🩹⛪🌐🗝️🎣⏰ Lord, have mercy.....
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/ef3be0c5-5f2a-4f11-838b-c07db676aa46
“The use of liturgical books that the Council sought to reform [i.e., replace] was, from St. John Paul II to Francis, a concession that in no way envisaged their promotion.”
Call this mendacity if you like; but is that really fair? What did JPII or B16 (or P6) envisage, if not a concession? If they envisaged promotion, wouldn't they have personally enacted promotion (like publicly celebrating the TLM, for example)? Roche quotes Quo primum: "there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the mass": a mendacious translation, to be sure, but perhaps the issue thereby raised is one that JPII and B16 signally failed to address, thus paving the way for Bergoglio. Perhaps 'mutual enrichment' is indeed 'false irenicism.'
I'm not saying they did a lot to promote it. They didn't. But what they set in place couldn't help but promote it. When you start to let the TLM be the main Mass for communities of not only laity but priests and religious, you effectively set the conditions for its growth. And, as Gregory DiPippo shows, this was understood and welcomed, at least by some in high positions:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2026/01/cardinal-roche-is-very-very-worried.html
The use of terms of vermin in reference to a Cardinal of the Roman Church cannot but confirm that, sadly, Pope Francis was right about certain segments of the Tradtionalist movement who are advocating the hermeneutic of rupture.
Isn't the question then whether the 'verminous' characterization fits the cardinal in question (you don't deny, I suppose, that it might?), and whether the hermeneutic of rupture isn't simply necessary, if one wishes to truthfully characterize the historical facts?
This is always the same majeutic mayonnaise. The ontological problem with the hermeneutics of rupture is that it will always be based solely on toxic and defensive arguments and offences (such as insuating vermin references to Cardinal).
There is, in fact, an infestation of bad will and false arguments at the highest levels of the Church. It is like a plague or an invasion. Anyone who has studied the history of the Church over the past 60 years can see that this is true. Why should be sugar-coat it and tip-toe around it? The truth sets us free to pursue what is actually for the benefit of the Church and of our souls.
Verbal harassment and offences against the princes of the Catholic Church do not bode well for 'Sentire cum Ecclesiam'. Sadly, Pope Francis was right in the end. "Fede viva dei morti o Fede morta dei viventi?"
Ah, I see where you're coming from. Peace to you, and I hope you rediscover the Catholic Faith that comes to us from our forefathers.
Likewise Dr Kwasniewski, I suspect that Salvation will not come from Wyoming nor from Astana though. Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia. In Corde Regis.
With regard to your first point, if the boot fits, wear it. "The hermeneutic of rupture" is fully owned by the revolutionaries who broke with nearly two millenia of tradition to force a new religion upon unsuspecting Catholics. The fruits of that revolution have been catastrophic. So many souls lost...