Infovaticana portal reports that Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Vatican, has acknowledged the persistence of a profound division within the conciliar sect regarding the traditional Latin Mass, warning that “the liturgy must not become a source of conflict and division among us.” These statements, made to The Catholic Herald following Leo XIV’s message to the bishops of France, reveal not a change of heart but a tactical recalibration by the architects of liturgical revolution—men who spent years waging war against the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and now seek to manage the fallout of their own destructive policies. The fact that the very men who imposed the iniquitous Traditionis Custodes now speak of “legitimate needs” and “balance” is not repentance; it is the cold pragmatism of bureaucrats confronting the failure of their own modernist experiment.
The Liturgy as “Battlefield”: A Revealing Metaphor
Parolin’s choice of words is extraordinarily revealing. He warns that the liturgy must not become a “campo de batalla”—a battlefield. Let us reflect on what this metaphor truly signifies. For the conciliar sect, the idea that the sacred liturgy—the unbloody renewal of Calvary’s sacrifice—could be a matter of absolute, non-negotiable truth is itself the problem. In the modernist mentality, any doctrine or practice that generates “conflict” must be softened, relativized, or managed into submission. This is the very logic condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici gregis: the modernist who, “imbued with the principles of a false philosophy, refuses to admit in the liturgy anything that does not accord with his own ideas” and treats sacred tradition as a negotiable commodity.
The battlefield metaphor exposes the fundamental inversion at work. The true battle is not between those who worship God according to the Church’s perennial liturgy and those who do not. No—in the conciliar framework, the battle is between the “reform” and those who resist it. The Vetus Ordo is treated not as the Church’s own liturgy, handed down through centuries by the authority of the Holy Ghost, but as a problem, a source of tension, a wound—to use Leo XIV’s own language. This is the language of crisis management, not of faith. It is the language of men who have lost the sense of the sacred and now administer a bureaucracy in the name of a “Church” that has ceased to be the Kingdom of Christ on earth.
Parolin’s Role in the Persecution: From Architect to Mediator
Infovaticana rightly recalls that Parolin played a central role in the process leading to Traditionis Custodes, the motu proprio by which Bergoglio sought to annihilate the traditional Roman Rite. According to the College of Cardinals Report, Parolin supported the need for more restrictive measures against the traditional liturgy, aligning himself with the concerns of various Curial officials who viewed the growth of traditional communities—especially among young people—as a threat. In meetings held in 2020 at the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Parolin expressed reservations about institutes attached to the old form of the rite, pointing to their alleged difficulty in accepting the liturgical “reform” and their reluctance to concelebrate.
Let us be precise about what this means. The men who conceived and executed the persecution of the traditional Mass did so not out of pastoral concern but out of ideological hostility. The “reform” they defend—the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI (Montini)—is itself the product of a collaboration with Protestant observers, a rupture with the theology of the propitiatory sacrifice as defined by the Council of Trent, and a liturgical revolution that every pope before 1958 would have recognized as heretical. That Parolin now speaks of “finding a formula” to accommodate “legitimate needs” is not a concession to truth; it is an attempt to defuse a crisis of legitimacy that the conciliar sect itself created.
The question that was debated in those 2020 meetings is itself telling: Why is the Vetus Ordo attracting new generations? The answer is obvious to anyone who retains the Catholic faith: because the traditional Mass is the true worship of God, the liturgy in which the reality of the sacrifice, the Real Presence, the transcendence of God, and the reality of sin and judgment are unmistakably present. The Novus Ordo, by contrast, is a “meal of assembly”—a horizontal gathering that obscures the sacrificial nature of the Mass and reduces the priest to a “presider” and the Eucharist to a “bread of fellowship.” That young people flee from this desolation toward the ancient liturgy is not a problem to be managed; it is a judgment upon the conciliar revolution.
“Legitimate Needs” and the Theology of Accommodation
Parolin speaks of responding to “legitimate needs” and finding “a formula” of accommodation. This language is deeply modernist. It treats the liturgy—which is the worship owed to God by natural and divine law—as a matter of human needs to be balanced against institutional concerns. But the liturgy does not exist to satisfy the subjective desires of the faithful; it exists to render to God the worship that is due to Him, ad maiorem Dei gloriam. The traditional Roman Rite is not one “form” among many; it is the Church’s own liturgy, developed under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, codified by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum (1570), and confirmed by centuries of magisterial authority.
The very notion that the Church must “accommodate” those who wish to worship God according to her own perennial tradition is an absurdity that inverts the proper order. It is not the faithful who must be accommodated; it is the innovators who must repent. Pope St. Pius V did not issue Quo Primum as a concession to “legitimate needs”; he issued it as a binding obligation, declaring that “it shall be lawful for all and singular priests, whether secular or regular, of whatever order or dignity, to use this Missal and to celebrate Mass according to its rite, forever.” The innovators who imposed the Novus Ordo acted against this perpetual law, and every restriction placed upon the old Mass is an act of injustice against the rights of God and of the faithful.
The “Wound” That Will Not Heal: A Conciliar Self-Indictment
Leo XIV himself has described the liturgical question as “a painful wound” in the Church. This is perhaps the most honest statement to emerge from the Vatican in years—though not in the sense intended. The wound is real, but it is not caused by those who cling to the traditional Mass. The wound was inflicted by the conciliar revolution itself: by the imposition of a fabricated liturgy, by the persecution of priests and faithful who refused to accept it, by the systematic destruction of sacred art, architecture, music, and devotion that accompanied the “reform.” The wound is the wound of apostasy, and no amount of managerial rhetoric from Parolin or Leo XIV can heal it.
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), taught that the reign of Christ the King extends over all of human society, including the liturgy: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The liturgy is not a matter of private preference or communal identity; it is an act of the social reign of Christ the King. To treat it as a negotiable element of “Church life” is to deny Christ’s kingship—precisely the error condemned by Pius XI as the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism.”
The Deeper Apostasy: Silence on the Nature of the Mass
What is most striking about Parolin’s statements—and about the entire conciliar approach to the liturgical question—is the complete silence on the theological nature of the Mass. Nowhere in these declarations is the Mass identified as a propitiatory sacrifice, as the unbloody renewal of Calvary, as the act by which the Church offers to God the Victim for the sins of the living and the dead. Nowhere is the Real Presence affirmed with the clarity of the Council of Trent. Nowhere is the traditional doctrine of the priesthood—the priest as alter Christus, acting in persona Christi at the altar—defended against the conciliar reduction of the priest to a “presider” or “facilitator.”
This silence is not accidental. It is the silence of men who have abandoned the faith. The Novus Ordo Missae was designed, as the Protestant observer Max Thurins himself admitted, to be a liturgy that Protestants could recognize as their own. It is a liturgy that obscures the sacrificial nature of the Mass, emphasizes the “community” over the priest, replaces adoration with horizontal fellowship, and transforms the Most Holy Sacrament into a “meal.” That Parolin and Leo XIV can speak of the liturgical question without once affirming the Catholic doctrine of the Mass is proof positive that they are not Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word.
The Council of Trent, in Session XXII, Chapter 2, defined under anathema: “If anyone says that by the words ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’ Christ did not institute the Apostles as priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema.” The Novus Ordo, by obscuring this institution and replacing the sacrificial language of the Roman Rite with the language of “memorial” and “meal,” places its defenders under this very anathema.
Conclusion: No Formula Can Heal Apostasy
Parolin’s change of tone is not a change of substance. It is the maneuvering of a bureaucratic apparatus that has failed to achieve its objective—the eradication of the traditional Mass—and now seeks to manage the consequences of that failure. The “formula” he envisions will not restore the rights of God or the liberties of the Church. It will be another act of containment, another mechanism of control, another concession to the spirit of the world that has consumed the conciliar sect.
The faithful who cling to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass do so not because they have “legitimate needs” to be accommodated, but because they worship God as He has commanded, through the liturgy He has given, in the Church He founded. No formula of accommodation can substitute for the repentance that is owed—repentance for the destruction of the Roman Rite, for the persecution of the faithful, for the imposition of a heretical liturgy, and for the systematic apostasy that has transformed the Vatican into the seat of the abomination of desolation.
As Pope Pius IX declared in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), condemning the very spirit that animates the conciliar sect: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization”—this is error number 80, condemned. Parolin’s search for a “formula” of reconciliation with the modernist establishment is precisely this condemned error in action. The faithful must reject it utterly and hold fast to the unchanging Tradition of the Church, which is the faith once delivered to the saints, the liturgy once codified by the Church’s authority, and the Mass once offered on Calvary and renewed daily on our altars until the end of time.
Source:
Parolin: cambio de tono, no de fondo, sobre el Vetus Ordo (infovaticana.com)
Date: 26.03.2026