Hatred of the Latin

The glories of ancient Rome, its culture, its law, its arts, its territorial and administrative organization, its ability to unite and pacify peoples in the practice of virtues – even if not yet enlightened and vivified by Grace – were destined to find their fulfillment in adherence to the Catholic Faith, prepared by Providence also in the Martyrdom of these pillars of the Church, which in the Creed we profess as Una, Sancta, Catholica et Apostolica. Belonging to that Church makes each of us, as the Supreme Poet (Dante) sings, cive di quella Roma onde Cristo è romano [a citizen of that Rome where Christ is Roman] (Purgatorio XXXII, 102).

Hatred of the Latin language is innate in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome: they see in it the bond of Catholics in the universe, the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit, the most powerful weapon of the Papacy. The spirit of revolt, which induces them to entrust universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has moreover produced its fruits.

Latin language shall be preserved.

We should ask ourselves with what wretched thoughtlessness the Council Fathers – and today’s continuators of the so-called conciliar “reform” – allowed a handful of anti-Roman heretics to carry out within the Church, and with the force of the Church’s own authority, that attack on Romanitas that four centuries earlier was at the origin of the Lutheran schism; and how illusory is it to believe that article 36 of the conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium – Linguæ latinæ usus in Ritibus latinis servetur – The use of the Latin language shall be preserved in the Latin rites – could have been sufficient to prevent the demolition of the Latin Liturgy – when it was obvious that the first and fundamental purpose of the reform was precisely that of abandoning the Roman language in favor of the vernacular idiom.

Today we ought to and want to hope that the multiplication of appeals from the ecclesial body for a return to Tradition will induce Leo to abandon Bergoglian “synodality” – an evolution of the conciliar “collegiality” of Lumen Gentium – and to exercise the Papacy without adulterating its authority with contaminations of an antichristic matrix that deny the Universal Lordship of Christ in the spiritual and temporal sphere. And Christ’s mandate to Peter – Pasce oves meas, pasce agnos meos (Jn 21:17) – must once again be exercised in the guarding of the Depositum Fidei and in the faithful transmission of immutable Catholic doctrine, without yielding to the spirit of the world that Peter, at the Council of Jerusalem, had already believed he could legitimize in the name of inclusion – as we would say today – of the Jews who wanted to maintain the rites of the Old Testament.