What a glorious day it will be, and soon, when the usurpers are forced to recognize the true unique expression of the Roman Rite

Spoiler Post: The ONLY Mass of the Roman Rite That Will Survive is the Traditional Latin Mass

Posted by 

The cabal wants to deliver a “kill shot” to the TLM? Right.

The very hubris of it makes me laugh. Not that they may not try, not that it may not get ugly in the short term, but really.

If in the inscrutable plan of Divine Providence we, the faithful Church, are given a period of 100 years (a counterpoise to the 100 years allowed to satan in the vision of Pope Leo XIII), you will not see any celebration of the novus ordo in the Church.

And it probably won’t take that long.

The law of prayer is the law of belief. The liturgy of the Church expresses and protects the faith of the Church. It must be so. Indeed, the Bergoglians admit this much when they claim the Mass is outdated, no longer expressing the faith of their Church. Of course, they cannot fail to be duplicitous even when giving an explanation like that, pointing to more than one liturgical book defining that “unique” expression.

Well, the abomination of TC has been well refuted by others, so I will leave it there. But it is an evident falsehood to claim the N.O. is the unique expression of the Roman rite unless we mean “unique” to be “peculiar”.

To the point: no matter what they do, no matter what unjust and invalid penalties they try to enforce, the Mass will survive.


Very few who have, through the grace of God, found the ancient Mass will want to give it up again. This is not the era of Vatican II, when after long years of holy and effective leadership the faithful instinctively trusted in the goodwill, Catholicity, and effectiveness of the hierarchy. No sir, there is palpable distrust and even disgust of our “leadership”…

Read the rest: https://stlouiscatholic.wordpress.com/2024/06/21/spoiler-post-the-only-mass-of-the-roman-rite-that-will-survive-is-the-traditional-latin-mass/

8 thoughts on “What a glorious day it will be, and soon, when the usurpers are forced to recognize the true unique expression of the Roman Rite”

  1. In the coming days many will be tempted to make a move that SEEMS correct on the surface, and, IMO, is calculated to be part of the plan to damn as many as possible. That is to say, the Freemasons probably are instigating this desired reaction as much as possible.

    Benedict could not have been the pope if he promoted heresy knowingly. So if he was the pope, it must follow that what he promoted was not heresy.

    1. Well, he DID tell his Lutheran secretary she didn’t need to convert to Christ’s Church because she could be saved in her heretical Lutheran sect, and he did publicly say that the Protestant founder of Taize that did not convert was in heaven. Seeing as he was ordained a priest prior to Vatican II, it is safe to say he knew that, as per the solemn and infallible definition of Florence, heretics and schismatics, being outside the Church, cannot be saved in their religions.

      1. My question to you is if Pope Pius IX is a heretic too? In one paragraph he says that non-Catholics of good will can be saved, and in the next that outside the Church there is no salvation. When thinking about it, we must wonder about the meaning of his words. If the non-Catholics of good will are ALREADY baptized, how can baptism of desire be applied? Is he then saying that there are non-Catholic members of the Catholic Church? Or is he saying that outside the Church there is salvation? Or is he saying that they are imperfectly united with the Church in partial communion? Is he a heretic or is he not?

        1. I have been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I don’t think it’s productive to go down this particular rabbit hole.

          For the sake of argument. If there is not a path to salvation outside the *visible* Catholic Church, or “baptism of desire” is nonexistent or virtually impossible – if the damnable Feenyites were always right, and the “very small number of the saved” – naturally including them – was ONLY made up of “REAL” members of the “REAL” Catholic Church – by their standards… well, there’s nothing we can do about it but pray that we and our loved ones may be counted among that number, and prostletyse as widely as possible. Literally nothing else we can do.

          On the gripping hand. IF, as the most liberal would have it, nearly all are saved, and one does not have to be a part of the *visible* Catholic Church in order to attain salvation, that even the most mild and feeble intentions will suffice for “baptism of desire” – Why hasn’t God revealed that, if the Holy Ghost is really directing the Church? Well, the only possible reason I could see would be *tactical*. For some reason, more good is done, maybe even more souls are saved, by the uncertainty and doubt, by the knowledge of sin and fear of damnation – than if the Truth were revealed. And, even in this case, we are STILL responsible for praying and prostletysing.

          “Lord, are they few that are saved?”

          “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.”

          That’s the response – Our Lord did not provide a definitive answer then, I see no reason why He should now. And in the deliberate absence of a definitive answer, speculation can only be harmful – it’s our job to buckle down and obey. No matter the situation, the solution is the same. Fast. Pray. Do penance. And preach the faith; if necessary, use words.

          1. For me, it’s evidence that partial communion is not a heresy. It’s the only way his words make sense to me. If he refers to a group as non-Catholics as non-Catholics, he means they are not members of Catholic Church. But he also said that there is no salvation outside the Church. If they can be saved at all they must be partially incorporated in the Church, but imperfectly.

            Otherwise 1958 sedevacantists have to go back in time and accept that a heretic wrote the Syllabus of Errors.

          2. Agreed in the abstract. This is what I meant though by “speculation can only be harmful”. We know how “partial communion” has been used as a crowbar to promote “ecumenism”. I suspect it’s exactly this danger – and the natural human tendency for excuse-making and postponing or closing our eyes to hard decisions – that has this topic off limits in the first place.

            So, we don’t know, and we ought to admit we don’t know but also say that we don’t HAVE to know. Only accept, whatever the meaning is in God’s eyes.

  2. Precisely. The novus ordo has no future and if you don’t believe me, drop by a few and compare not the attendance but the ages of the people inside to the TLMs. The best way to fight back against antipope bergoglio is to completely ignore him and carry on, saying (priests) and assisting (lay folk) at the Mass of the Saints. Antipope bergoglio can huff and puff all he wants but he’ll never blow down the Church. Anyone still stressing out about him needs to re-read the Gospels where Our Lord appointed St. Peter pope and said the gates of hell would never prevail.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.