Since the reign of Pope Leo XIII, Modernism, or a particularly wide liberal view of the interpretation of our founding dogma, liturgy and faith and moral, started to be taught at our seminaries. Wider interpretations on the basic tenets of our faith as handed down through our Fathers and Doctors of the church and encyclicals issued by previous popes which were composed in the light of the various ecumenical councils such as the Council of Trent and the first Vatican Council, and subsequently encapsulated encyclicals were then written into  dogma by pope Pius V and other popes presiding over the many other councils and popes before and after Trent have always been the way of the church guiding its way through the centuries keeping the steady and strict practising of Catholicism on the true path defined by the earliest fathers. Since the Council of Constantinople in AD 325, councils were often convened to resolve disputes in the meanings of dogma where alternative practices needed clarification for the church as a whole. And thus it had been so until Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X started seeing the overly progressive and modern interpretations of our deposits of faith which were not consistent with the proper dogma as already established. Both of these two popes presided over " modernists " and despite their best efforts to keep control of the proper formation of priests, poor teaching led to poorer priests being ordained and their subsequent teachings from the pulpit and guidance of the sacraments and the decalogue started to get out of control. A simple example: a McDonald's beefburger was exactly the same whether you bought it from ten different places, whereas one priest's view on for example the elements of penance or indulgences, and the strict way in which the Catechism sought to educate the lay faithful started changing from church to church.

Naturally, as popes ensuing popes sore this trend, they did their best to correct the situation but the tide of change was stronger than their ability to control it. Angelo Roncalli was one such seminarian. He received a poor formation from a very progressive professor and other teachers that his mind became polluted with liberalism which he then started to teach when he himself became a teacher in charge of the formation in his seminary in northern Italy. So wide was his viewpoint that it came to the attention of Pope St Pius X himself. Pius X wrote many encyclicals trying to correct the situation, rising to a crisis point where he tried to eliminate such poor formators from the seminaries but as in in the abuse scandal of today, bishops started to cover up for their priests, denials were often issued but the darkest century of the church was showing it' ugly face around the 1880s and, in thus, it was possible for Fr Roncalli, who was since elevated to the position of a bishop was single-handed able to promote modernism through his own church career, that in 1958 he was eventually invested as Pope John XXIII, and no sooner than three months after the death of Pope Pius XII, a strict anti-modernist had died, he announced the convening of the most significant council since the Council  of Trent some 500 years earlier, the Second Vatican Council.

And so, the damage started in his formations in northern Italy in the 1930s would reign supreme over the church. He described it as throwing open the windows on dusty old Catholicism to let in the light of mass in the vernacular throughout, alters changed to face the congregation and so turning the priests back to the main altarpiece, communion rails were hurled out to the scrap yard up until now where have " extra-ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist and the Precious Blood " a hitherto unheard of practice of dispensing the chalice to the congregation, and many more lay inclusive practice which resulted in a " novo ordus ", or new mass, being hardly recognizable to the traditional mass. In short, a bastardization of what once the ultimate offering to God that we could make to our Lord Jesus Christ. And what makes it worse is that there never were any instruction for the layout of the sanctuaries to change or lay ministers to being involved, but Pope John XXIII's instructions were as simple as this. " Make the mass more like a Protestant Service. And so, a cleric and Freemason, Archbishop Bugignini, together with six protestant priests got on to devising a new mass, which when first shown to the Cardinals, was most poorly received, but he seems to have carried on regardless, relatively unsupervised and his mass almost by accident became the new norm and since 1963, we, as a congregation and fraternity dedicated to the existing mass, which needed no fixing in   the first place, was usurped by a cheap 25 minute set of few prayers, guitars and pop music, which is all that is primarily available by way of Catholic worship.

 A classic example in point is the following: The traditional mass starts with the priest reciting the confiteor twice as follows

P I confess to all-mighty God,

To the Blessed Virgin Mary,

Blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist,

the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you, brothers,

that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed,

through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault,

and I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary,

Blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist,

the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you, brothers,

to pray to the Lord our God, for me.

S. May almighty-God be merciful to me, forgive me my sins,

and lead us to everlasting life. Amen.

Whereas now we say the Confiteor only once at Friday and Sundays masses, or more depending upon the priest:

I confess to all-mighty God,

to you my brothers and sisters,

That I have greatly sinned.

In my thoughts and in my words,

In what I have done and have failed to do,

through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault,

and I ask the Blessed Virgin,

All the Angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters,

to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Pretty rubbish liturgy yes? And now, our progressive Church is now seeking:

"Communion for all" ( including practising Gay and LGBTQ people ) 

"Support same-sex marriage"

"Same-sex adoption"

"Abortion on-demand"
"End discrimination of LGBTQ"
"Ordaining married men to be priests"
"Welcome back priests who have left to marry"
"End celibacy, allow priests to be married"
"Ordination of women"
"Women deacons"
"Modernize Church teachings"
"Mass to be appealing to youth and children"
"Radical change a new order inverted pyramid" [sic]
"Focus on ecumenism","Lay-led parishes","Lay-led liturgies and Masses"

"Cultural Masses","Become a Vatican II church","Greater inclusion of all people"

and the "Church should adapt to multicultural reality".

This is Protestantism at it's worst state, and as those who seek the return of the tradition, unwatered-down liturgy, it is intolerable to us. So we much rally together and do whatever we can by supporting the small numbers of traditional masses that available to only some people, and fight for the restoration of the One True Church and a complete repeal of the disastrous consequences of the Second Vatican Council.

There is really little more than can be said. May the Almighty and ever-living God bless our cause through action, prayer, hope and faith.


Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God.