TRAD INC SUPPING WITH +LEO'S DEVIL

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Please note that anti-Catholic rants will not be posted on this page.   

 

... And celebrate Mass at the Jesuit Church of the Gesù 

 Conservative Catholics the world over are in denial of the reality of the pontificate of Leo XIV. It's an advanced state of cognitive dissonance or wishful thinking that he really is going to restore the Traditional Latin Mass, he didn't have anything to do with processing a rainbow cross into an LGBTQ Mass at St Peter's Basilica in Rome for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church, he just let the sodomites do their thing because he's nice to everyone.

No. Leo expressly approved this blasphemous insult to Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. Informed of plans for a Mass for LGBTQ 'Catholics', the pontiff told the celebrant, Bishop Francesco Savino (President of the Italian Bishops' Conference) “Go, celebrate the Mass with them.”

But Trad Inc are keeping their powder very dry. They're staying shtum, not wanting to offend the Holy Father lest he be mean enough to let even more Modernist non-Catholic bishops do the dirty work for him by imposing further strictures on the Mass of Ages, the TLM. And see? their strategy must be working because Cardinal Raymond Burke (who never speaks out of turn) has been promised a Mass at St Peter's in October.

Somehow it doesn't seem quite right that the TLM should take its place at St Peter's on equal terms with the LGBTQ Novus Ordo Mass at the Jesuit church of the Gesu, celebrating the sin which cries to heaven for vengeance. Read on and let Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano explain why it's all wrong.

But first, Chris Jackson at Hiraeth in Exile lets rip: 

 

Yes, Leo XIV is a “transitional pope” — he is transitioning the Church from Catholicism to permanent Bergoglianism.

I have never encountered such delusion in all my years. Fr. Claude Barthe and Dr Peter Kwasniewski now insist Leo XIV is a “transitional pope,” a bridge from Francis’ chaos to doctrinal restoration. Trad Inc has embraced this narrative like a dogma, repeating it despite every shred of evidence to the contrary.

But let’s grant them the point. Leo is indeed transitional, but only as the pope who turns Francis’s chaos into permanence. He is smoothing the rough edges of the revolution, making sure sacrilege and synodality are no longer novelties but the settled order of things.

 

To claim otherwise is as absurd as saying Kamala Harris would have “transitioned” America away from Biden.

 

The Bedtime Story of a “Transitional Stage”

 Barthe tells Catholics:

“We can hope for the adoption of a kind of realistically transitional stage, by virtue of which whatever remains of vital forces within the Church would be allowed to thrive.”

 

But Leo’s record already smashes this dream. At his very first papal Mass, he normalized desacralization: women lectors, lay ministers in the sanctuary, communion in the hand at the high altar. That was not transition.

 

From the outset, Leo XIV has carried forward the very horrors Barthe pretends he is softening.

 

Unity Without Doctrine Is Fraud

 

Barthe reassures his readers:

“A restoring of unity is called for by the new pope, who is a man of reflection, prayer and attentive listening…”

 

But Leo’s “unity” is the same counterfeit Francis promoted: unity without truth, without doctrine, without repentance. His opening homilies repeated peace ten times like a nervous tic, promising “bridges of dialogue and encounter.”

 

At Corpus Christi, he stripped Christ’s miracle of its supernatural meaning, reducing it to a moral about “sharing bread.” The healing of the deaf-mute became a metaphor for communication. Even the Good Samaritan was preached as a bland parable of social compassion. This is the NGO gospel; unity purchased at the price of doctrine.

 

The Myth of Liturgical Breathing Room

 

Barthe fantasizes:

“That the traditional liturgy should be given some breathing space is all the more plausible…”

 

 But the only “breathing space” Leo tolerates is suffocation in slow motion. In Charlotte, Bishop Robert Martin has ordered all parish Latin Masses suppressed, confining the faithful to a single ghetto chapel. Detroit has tightened restrictions. Louisville went so far as to discourage kneeling for Communion, insisting “standing is the norm.”

 

Leo has lifted not a finger. He has confirmed Traditionis Custodes’ poisoned premise that the Novus Ordo is the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite. Any reprieve he might grant will be calculated containment, never restoration.

 

The Bergoglian Legacy Intact

 

Barthe even admits the reality:

“Leo’s words strongly imply that he intends to continue in Pope Francis’s path of building a synodal Church… This legacy… can be summed up in three texts: Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and Traditionis Custodes.”

 

 And Leo has already proven it. He praised Amoris Laetitia as a pastoral guide, endorsing its poison that adulterers may remain in grace. He has left Fiducia Supplicans untouched while priests now bless homosexual couples with Vatican approval. He has upheld Traditionis Custodes and placed its enforcers in power.

 

His appointments confirm the trajectory. Shane Mackinlay, on record supporting women’s ordination, now governs Brisbane. Meanwhile, bishops in Charlotte, Detroit, and Oklahoma City silence the old Mass. The program of Francis is not being undone, but institutionalized.

 

The Pipe Dream of a Future Pius XIII

 

Barthe concludes with wistful speculation:

“The obligation, if fulfilled by Leo XIV, to arbitrate on this Bergoglian legacy would provide an opportunity to return to a magisterium of full authority…”

 

But Leo has already revealed his direction. He sat silently as a nun proclaimed at the Vatican Jubilee that “Christ has a womb.” He welcomed James Martin as an honored guest, while rainbow groups processed through the Holy Door as official pilgrims. He has advanced synodal feminism by placing nuns in charge of entire dicasteries.

 

This is acceleration. To imagine Leo as a bridge to a future Pius XIII is to inhabit a fantasy world where evidence does not matter.

 

Exhibit A: The Fantasy in Plain Sight

 

Here is a perfect example of the fairy-tale thinking now gripping Trad Inc.:

“It was always unreasonable to expect a radical reversal from Francis. There will be a transitional figure who will bring calm, help us to refocus on the Person of Jesus, and then, we pray, a Pope who will bring about a restoration.”

 

 

 

This is delusion dressed up as prudence. Leo XIV has not brought “calm” but sacrilege in St. Peter’s, feminist governance in the Curia, rainbow pilgrimages through the Holy Door, and episcopal appointments that accelerate suppression of the old Mass.

 

To call that “refocusing on the Person of Jesus” is to look at desecration and insist it is devotion. It is watching the demolition crew swing the wrecking ball and claiming the building is being restored. This is denial; the kind that props up the very revolution destroying the Church.

 

 

The Transitional Pope as Charlie Brown

 

The “transitional pope” narrative is Trad Inc charging to kick the Restoration football, while the Vatican yanks it away every single time. Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, Leo XIV… the setup never changes, and yet Trad Inc keeps sprinting forward, insisting this time they won’t be fooled.

 

But they always are. And the revolution always advances.

 

Conclusion: The Only Transition Leo Offers

 

Barthe and Kwasniewski call Leo XIV a “transitional pope.” And they are right; just not in the way they imagine. Leo is transitioning the Church from Catholicism to permanent Bergoglianism, from temporary abuses into permanent structures of sacrilege, from ambiguity into institutionalized error.

 

Far from a bridge to restoration, this is the bridge by which Catholicism is led into captivity.

 

Trad Inc. no longer lives in reality. They live in a fairy tale where every horror is reinterpreted as hope. Catholics must wake up: the only transition Leo XIV is offering is the burial of the Church’s faith, liturgy, and identity beneath the cement of the revolution.

Chris Jackson from Hiraeth In Exile <bigmodernism@substack.com>

 

Bishop Francesco Savino, personally encouraged by Pope Leo to say the LGBTQ Mass at the Jesuit church of the Gesu in Rome  

 

For readers with staying power, the goods from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, also from Abbé Claude Barthe but to very different effect - on supping with the devil (the Synodal Sect):

:

Argumentum ex concessis

Notes in the Margin of an Article by Abbé Claude Barthe

Si enim secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini:
si autem spiritu facta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis.

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die;
but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.

Rom 8: 13

 

The essay by Abbé Claude Barthe, recently published in an Italian translation at Aldo Maria Valli’s blog Duc in altum [1], deserves some attention. What is most interesting in it is not so much his assessment of the newly elected Leo XIV, nor the pragmatic realism with which he recognizes Prevost’s continuity with his predecessor or calls for a loosening of restrictions on the traditional liturgy.

 

Abbé Barthe writes:

There is a paradox, even a risk, for those who invoke freedom for the traditional liturgy and catechism: that of being granted a sort of “authorization” for liturgical and doctrinal Catholicism.

 

We have already cited as an example the paradoxical situation that arose in the 19th-century French political system, when the most staunch supporters of the monarchical Restoration, enemies in principle of the modern freedoms introduced by the Revolution, continually fought to be granted a space for life and expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of teaching. All things being equal, in the ecclesiastical system of the 21st century, at least in the immediate future, a relaxation of the ideological despotism of the Reformation could be beneficial. But while it may be advantageous in the short and medium term, it could ultimately prove radically unsatisfactory.

 

What I believe should be highlighted is the not-so-veiled warning that Abbé Barthe addresses to those who resort to the adversary’s arguments to gain legitimacy in the ecclesial world, applying the argumentum ex concessis [2]. In this case, “those who invoke freedom for the traditional liturgy and catechism” – and who condemn Bergoglian synodality – appeal to that same synodality so that the “Summorum Pontificum communities” may be recognized as one among the many expressions of the composite ecclesial polyhedron.

 

Abbé Barthe’s denunciation reveals not a paradox, but the paradox, the contradiction that fundamentally undermines any claim to orthodoxy on the part of self-styled conservatives: the acceptance of the revolutionary principles of the so-called “synodal church” as the (incomplete, moreover) counterpart to being tolerated by it.

 

In reality, this exchange is far from equal. The “synodal church” merely applies to conservatives the same legitimacy of existence it grants to any other “movement” or “charisma” present in the multifaceted ecclesial fabric, but it carefully avoids acknowledging that their demands might go beyond a mere aesthetic and ceremonial concession.

 

The unwritten contract between conservatives and the post-Bergoglian Hierarchy stipulates that the “liturgical preferences” of a group of clerics and faithful can be tolerated if and only if they refrain from highlighting the heterogeneity, incompatibility, and alienation between the ecclesiology and the entire doctrinal framework underlying the Vetus Ordo and those expressed in the reformed Montinian rite.

 

 

+David Zubik is a 'Catholic' bishop of good standing in the Church
  

 

Abbé Barthe does not ignore the critical issues: referring to Leo XIV’s Electors, he calls them “all of the conciliar menagerie,” demonstrating a certain courage, especially considering his public role and his dependence on those Prelates. Nor does he ignore the deception embraced by those who exploit religious liberty to invoke for themselves a tolerance that is not denied even to the worshippers of Amazonian idols.

 

The deception is twofold: not only because of the paradox that Abbé Barthe has rightly highlighted; but also and above all because of a much worse trap, consisting of accepting at least implicitly the forced, unnatural, and impossible separation between the ceremonial form of the rite and its doctrinal substance.

 

This is an operation of de-signification of the Liturgy, which consists in being recognized with the right to celebrate in the Tridentine Rite on the condition that the celebrant does not also accept the doctrinal and moral implications of that rite.

 

But if that “Summorum priest” accepts this principle, he must also accept its inverse application. Indeed, the moment one admits that the Liturgy can be celebrated without regard for the traditional doctrine it expresses – a doctrine the “synodal church” does not recognize and considers to be other than itself – one ends up accepting that even the reformed liturgy can ignore the errors and heresies it insinuates, errors which no Catholic worthy of the name can absolutely ratify.

 

In doing so, however, one plays into the hands of the adversary, under the illusion of being more cunning than the devil. It all comes down to a question of dress and choreography, of aesthetics and sentiment that satisfies or does not satisfy personal taste, as Cardinal Burke’s recent words confirmed: “You don’t take something so rich in beauty and begin to strip away the beautiful elements without having a negative effect.” [3]

 

Nothing could be more alien to the mindset of the Roman Liturgy, according to which the beauty of ceremonies is such because it is a necessary expression of the Truth it teaches and the Good it practises.

 

 

For the first time in history, a rainbow cross and 100s of LGBTQ in St Peter's Basilica 

 

The “synodal church” includes conservatives in its coveted pantheon not only because it gives them what they want – solemn pontifical liturgies celebrated by influential prelates, without doctrinal implications – but also because none of the Holy See’s interlocutors has the slightest intention of demanding more; and even if someone were to dare ask for more, the gatekeeper on duty – literally, the ostiarius –would promptly intervene, calling for “prudence” and “moderation,” more concerned with preserving his own prestige than with the fate of the Catholic resistance.

 

This is accompanied by the “Zip it” [4] policy advocated by Trad Inc [5], according to which the possible concessions the moderates hope to obtain from Leo suggest they should not criticize him openly so as not to alienate him.

 

The path of being persecuted, ostracized, and excommunicated does not seem to be among the options for my brothers: it seems they are already resigned to a fate of tolerance, in which they can neither be truly Catholic nor fully synodal; neither friends of those who fight the enemy infiltrated into the Church, nor of those who seek to replace her with a human surrogate of Masonic inspiration.

 

The Lord will hold these lukewarm priests accountable with greater severity than He will many poor parish priests who have other, more pressing pastoral priorities. Let us hope that Abbé Barthe’s warning does not fall on deaf ears, for the hour of battle approaches, and to be found defenseless and unprepared, in these circumstances, would be irresponsible.

 

And it is precisely in times of persecution that we must rediscover the relevance and validity of the words of Saint Vincent of Lérins:

In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum. [6] (“In this same Catholic Church, we must take the greatest care to maintain what has always been believed, everywhere and by all; this is in fact truly and properly Catholic.”)

If anything does not meet these three criteria – semper, ubique, et ab omnibus – it must be rejected as heretical. This norm protects us from the errors spread by false pastors, in the serene certainty of acting in accordance with Tradition and thus being able to compensate, due to the present state of emergency, for the absence of ecclesiastical authority. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

3 September MMXXV
S.cti Pii X Papæ, Conf.

 

 

---

FOOTNOTES

1 – Abbé Claude Barthe, Leone, il pompiere nella Chiesa divorata dal fuoco della divisione. Ma quale unità ricerca?, published at Duc in Altum on August 9, 2025 – https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2025/08/09/analisi-leone-il-pompiere-nella-chiesa-divorata-dal-fuoco-della-divisione-ma-quale-unita-ricerca/ – English translation: https://www.resnovae.fr/the-pontificate-of-leo-xiv-a-transitional-stage/

2 – Argumentum ex concessis is a rhetorical and logical technique in which an interlocutor uses the premises, arguments, or claims accepted by an opponent to construct their own argument, often to refute them or demonstrate the inconsistency of their position. This strategy is based on the idea of temporarily accepting the opponent’s claims (the “concessions”) and using them to draw conclusions that either challenge them or support their own thesis.

3 – Cfr. https://x.com/mljhaynes/status/1954919906492747838

4 – Cfr. https://www.radiospada.org/2025/09/leone-xiv-lipotesi-zip-e-la-contropartita-per-i-conservatori-una-strategia-gia-tentata-e-che-lascia-perplessi-in-7-punti/

5 – “Trad Inc.” is the American expression which refers to conservative believers and blogs organized like companies, which operate according to market logic and are dependent on their shareholders.

6 – Commonitorium, 2. “In this same Catholic Church, we must take the greatest care to maintain what has always been believed, everywhere and by all; this is in fact truly and properly Catholic.”

 

‘Madonna in the Church’ by Jan Van Eyck