WINSTON-SALEM 4 August 2021 (NRom)95 Theses against Traditionis Custode
Archbishop William Jones
In the Name of the Crucified and Risen Lord, Amen.
The issuance of the Document
Traditionis Custodes has caused undue hardship and persecution within the catholic world. As an ecumenical observer of the circus that the Bishop of Rome has created in this machination, we have taken it upon ourselves to issue this correction of errors in Traditionis Custodes; and to call the Bishop of Rome to amendment of his attitudes against the most sacred traditions and history of the Christian faith.
1. In order to guard tradition, one must work with tradition, and not against it.
2. The bishop of Rome has the power to facilitate the liturgy of the church, but not to outlaw or otherwise ban the celebrations thereof.
3. True paternal concern for the souls under one’s care is best expressed by consulting them on such major decisions, rather than forcing them to submit as though they were slaves like the children of Israel under Pharoah.
4. The liturgical books promulgated by Pope Paul VI may express the Lex Orandi of the modern church, however Pope Francis’ welcoming of a pagan deity known as Pachamama into the sacred precincts of St. Peter’s clearly demonstrates the Lex Credindi of the same.
5. The demand of the Roman pontiff for all people to acknowledge his authority and magisterium before they may pray to God as did their ancestors, is repugnant to the spirit of Christ and the Holy Gospels.
6. The denial of permission for those attached to the Tridentine rite to worship in the same spaces as those who are attached to the post-conciliar liturgy is an abuse of authority, and presents a greater threat to the unity of the Catholic faith than the Latin Liturgy ever has.
7. There exists no precedent in church history for the bishops of the local diocese to be granted authority to deny the faithful access to the liturgy in an approved rite of the church.
8. Priests who currently administer the sacraments according to the pre-conciliar liturgy do not require the permission of the local ordinary in order so to do; as they are granted the authority and right so to do by the church’s own history and law.
9. The bishop of Rome does not hold the authority nor power to abrogate those customs and norms which he may find inconsistent with his own personal agenda; that power alone lies with the councils of the church.
10. The Bishop of Rome does not hold the authority nor the power to overturn the privileges and rites of the church and her ministers, especially those granted by the ecumenical and dogmatic councils; including Trent.
11. The claim that those clergy who celebrate the traditional liturgy are less pastoral than those who do not is based not on fact or evidences; but on personal conjecture of the Bishop of Rome and those who seek to enable the liberal agenda he espouses in his writings.
12. The establishment of groups dedicated to prayer is an abominable abuse of the supposed power of the Bishop of Rome; given that he holds no such right to do so.
13. Demanding that priests who hold the right to celebrate the liturgy of the church obtain permission so they can continue to “enjoy this faculty” is less an encouragement of conformity; and more a damnable, draconian threat against the sacraments of the Church.
14. If the Bishop of Rome alone can impose or suppress the traditions of the church at whim, then neither the church nor its traditions are held sacred by the one who does so.
15. The wishes of the episcopate in regards to tradition may be important; but their importance is nothing compared to the faith of the people of God and the dignity of the Christian people as a whole.
16. The abuse of the conciliar documents to insinuate that the traditions of the church either began with the council or must be subject to the council is not only against the spirit of the conciliar documents themselves; but a flagrant violation of the sacred tradition of the church.
17. Denying the apostolic mandates and promulgated documents of the Bishop of Rome’s
sainted predecessors not only shows a clear and definite break with the traditions of the
church; but expresses a sense of devilish and selfish pride in the current occupant of Saint
Peter’s chair.
18. The Bishop Rome has demonstrated through this document that he is not only happy to
cast aside the works of previous councils and sainted pontiffs; but even to issue such a
public rebuke and correction of his own predecessor, who is still living.
19. The traditions of the church are not a plaything of the popes, and as such are meant to be
guarded lest the incumbent of the office decide he wishes to reform the church in his own
personal image and tastes.
20. It is not pre-conciliar traditions that are the greatest threat to the church in the modern
era; it is the spirit of post-conciliar pride which believes it alone is superior to all that has
passed, including councils and the apostles themselves.
21. The ‘desire for ecclesial communion’ expressed in Traditionis Custodes is a slap in the
face to those who observe the rites of the church in their traditional form; telling them
they must conform to the new because the bishop of Rome says they have to.
22. The Bishop of Rome has demonstrated that his pastoral concern is only for those who
think like himself, and/ or those who are outside the catholic faith and have no intention
of becoming catholic.
23. The restriction of the tridentine liturgy to strict scheduling and locations expresses less a
pastoral concern for the faithful; and more a prideful statement of believing that the
Bishop of Rome knows what is best for each individual’s spiritual care.
24. The concern of the Bishop of Rome that traditionalists challenge and deny his authority
is a flagrant falsehood; considering true, public, and direct challenges to that same
authority have streamed from the church in Germany for years on end.
25. If there is one church body within the Roman Communion who will cause schism in the
church over the presence of any sense of tradition, it is those who believe that the council
and only the council should be followed.
26. The granting of power to oversee the groups who desire traditional liturgy to the local
ordinaries has already garnered negative and anti-communal fruits; as bishops who claim
union with the successor of Peter kick out priests and communities who desire traditional
worship from their dioceses and churches.
27. The Bishop of Rome does not hold the authority to deny access to the approved liturgies
of Catholic Tradition.
28. The Bishop of Rome does not hold the right to deny the faithful from assembling and
building houses of worship for themselves and their spiritual care.
29. The Bishops of the Church do not hold the authority to deny priests the right to offer
sacraments in the approved rites of the church.
30. The Bishop of Rome demands absolute conformity to his prerogatives and personal
tastes; yet permits those who actively dissent to do as they please, so long as they use the
post-conciliar liturgy.
31. The bestowal of the power to dispose of parishes at whim to the local ordinaries is an
abuse of Papal authority, and repugnant to the word of God; both the written and Living.
32. The office of Bishop exists to further the work of Christ, and to provide for the faithful
entrusted to them; not to deny them the sacraments because it’s not what the bishop likes.
33. The command that the Motu Proprio must be observed regardless of pre-existing
permissions, dispensations, and rights- is an act of despotism, showing unity with the evil
one rather than the spirit of Christ.
34. The command that priests must obtain permission to offer the sacraments in their
traditional form is an abuse of the right of priests to minister to the people of God; in that
it denies the priest the very essence of what his ministry is- to bring the sacraments to
Christ’s own.
35. This Motu Proprio is not in accordance with the spirit of Christ in the Gospels, nor in
accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
36. This Motu Proprio is based out of personal distaste for the pre-conciliar traditions of the
church; and is a public declaration of the Bishop of Rome’s own hatred rather than
paternal or pastoral care.
37. Traditionis Custodes is not in line with the initiatives of Benedict XVI; but rather a
public rebuke of the work done by him through Summorum Pontificum.
38. Traditionis Custodes expresses great concern for the wishes of the Bishops and
Congregation for the doctrine of the faith; yet holds no concern or interest in the wishes
of the Christian faithful.
39. Traditionis Custodes demonstrates the Bishop of Rome’s lack of concern for the wishes
and desires of the Christian people.
40. The Bishop of Rome holds no right to sit as judge of sacred tradition, only as its assistant.
41. To claim that the Bishop of Rome may judge “the experience” of tradition and decide to
suppress it is a direct violation of the Christian faith, and an offense against the councils
of the church.
42. The expressed desire to “search for ecclesial communion” is laughable, given the
expressed intent of denying the access of people to the sacraments of the church just
because it is in a traditional, approved rite.
43. If the Bishop of Rome may suppress approved liturgies of the church at whim, why does
he only obsess over the Latin Rite; and ignore entirely the other rites within the church
and also those constantly being innovated and changed within the post-conciliar rites?
44. The obsession of the Bishop of Rome with conformity to his machinations demonstrates
the same diabolical mindset which prompted the beginnings of schism and separation
within the church in 1054.
45. It is not the Bishops of the Church which are the visible expression of her unity, but their
common faith and prayer through Christ.
46. The absence of the name of Christ from Traditionis Custodes indicates not only a lack of
inspiration from the same; but a denial of His place in the life of his church.
47. If the Bishop of Rome feels need to admonish the clergy who observe the traditional
liturgy to be “more pastoral” than concerned with “correct celebration of the liturgy”,
then why does he not express the same concern to the papal household or the Cardinalate;
who leech off the people of God’s tithes and give nothing of value in return?
48. The statement “I have considered it appropriate” indicates that the motu proprio is
personally decreed, and given out of a personal distaste for tradition rather than genuine
pastoral concern for souls.
49. Given the reaction of the episcopate across multiple nations and continents to the
issuance of this document; it is clear and apparent to all that the bishops who were
consulted for its drafting were only those who already agreed beforehand with the Bishop
of Rome, and not those who represented any sliver of disagreement with the spirit of the
same.
50. The effects of the motu proprio are deeper and more troublesome than only the exterior
trappings of Latin vs. the vernacular.
51. Traditionis Custodes was issued without concern or regard for those who will be
economically affected by it.
52. Under Traditionis Custodes, bishops now have the right to close down the only parish in
poor communities, especially if they celebrate the traditional liturgy; thus depriving the
people not only of the right to worship, but of the sacraments of Holy Church.
53. This provision to allow the denial of sacraments at Episcopal Whim is an abuse of
authority of the office of Bishop, and a damnable offense against the dignity of the
Christian people and the Faith.
54. There are furthermore apostolates and family-owned businesses who provide vestments,
candles, and other sacred supplies for use in these parishes; who will be negatively
impacted by the absurdity of these provisions.
55. The lack of concern for those who give not only of their time, but of their finances and
other gifts to parishes where the Tridentine liturgy is offered; is an offensive denial of the
validity of the gifts offered by the people of God.
56. The Bishop of Rome expresses a desire that traditional communities be subjected to
Inquisition, to ensure they are in line with the “magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs”; yet
the current occupant of Saint Peter’s chair expresses by this document that he himself is
not in line with the magisterium of the church or his predecessors.
57. The demand that congregations and religious orders who observe tradition to be subject
to the commands of the Motu Proprio are a violation of the agreements and apostolic
mandates for their erection; which the occupant of Saint Peter’s chair has no authority to
overturn of his own accord.
58. The Bishop of Rome expresses a desire for Unity, but issues a document which divides
the people of God rather than uniting them.
59. The Bishop of Rome expresses a desire for conformity, yet undermines the unity of the
church by attacking those entrusted to his care.
60. The tone of Traditionis Custodes is less one of paternal care, and more that of sarcasm
and hatred that one sees in the political sphere.
61. The Bishop of Rome does not have the power or authority to abrogate Sacred Tradition.
62. The Bishop of Rome does not have the authority to deny the Catholic Faithful access to
the sacraments in their traditional form.
63. The 1986 commission of 9 Cardinals ordered by Pope John Paul II issued report of
findings that Bishops do not have the authority to impose restrictions on the celebration
of the Tridentine Rite, in public or in private.
64. Declaring the current Motu Proprio to be in the ‘spirit’ of Trent and Pius V is not only an
offense to their memory, but diametrically opposed to the intentions and purposes of both
the Dogmatic Council of Trent and Pope Pius V.
65. There is no comparison between the actions of previous pontiffs and this current Motu
Proprio; which is not a pastoral document, but a papal decree against the traditions of the
church.
66. There is no comparison between Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes,
despite the bishop of Rome claiming they are both in line with the same spirit.
67. The spirit of Summorum Pontificum was one of pastoral concern and reconciliation;
whereas the spirit of Traditionis Custodes is one of immense pride and hatred.
68. The presentation of the Current Bishop of Rome’s machinations as being in accordance
with Sacred Scripture and the traditions of the church is blasphemous; and a greater
heresy than the fathers of the Reformation could ever have come up with.
69. The current occupant of Saint Peter’s chair makes it clear in this decree that he is not
concerned with growth or preservation of souls, but with conformity to his own will.
70. The Bishop of Rome seems perfectly content with issuing condemnations and decrees on
the traditional liturgy as being bad for the church; yet gladly welcomes in those who
bring forth pagan idols and anti-Christian theologies.
71. It is a supreme irony that the Bishop of Rome should claim traditionalists represent a
threat to papal supremacy, while the Amazonian Synod denied his authority to his face in
Saint Peter’s basilica.
72. The work of the church is the preservation and salvation of men’s souls; not mere
conformity with the wishes of bishops.
73. Demanding conformity of all Christians to one form of worship flies in the face of the
unique story of every man’s faith journey; as though their lives are seen as non-important
to the Bishop of Rome who claims to care for them.
74. The Council of Trent may have codified and canonized the Tridentine mass; but even
they granted dispensation and infallible permission for the celebration of other, equally
ancient and traditional rites within the church’s liturgy.
75. The unity that the Bishop of Rome seeks does not exist in the liturgy itself, but in the
faith of the people who worship the Risen Christ.
76. The denial of the faithful’s God-given right to prayer and worship in His holy name
simply because the Roman Pontiff does not like it, is not the act of a shepherd of the
flock of Christ; but an act of Anti-Christ.
77. The restricting of traditional parishes and religious orders within the Roman communion
because the Roman Pontiff does not care for their liturgy; demonstrates a shallow, and
ideologically selfish view of the Petrine Ministry.
78. Traditionis Custodes implies to the faithful who are attached to the Tridentine liturgy,
that their prayers are neither acceptable nor desirable; and that the only way to be
Catholic is to follow the momentary, fleeting opinions of the current Bishop of Rome.
79. The Bishop of Rome claims he is handing over the authority on this to the bishops, yet
Traditionis Custodes even states that the bishops must make their decisions only after
consulting the Holy See.
80. By this condition, the Bishop of Rome sets himself up as the sole arbiter of who may or
may not worship in the traditional rites of the church; an act repugnant to the sacred
scriptures, and the traditions and doctrines of the church.
81. It is apparent from the tone of Traditionis Custodes regarding parishes and religious
communities dedicated to the Tridentine Rite, that the concern of the Bishop of Rome is
more with their money than their souls.
82. It is apparent from the tone of Traditionis Custodes regarding individual priests
celebrating the pre-conciliar liturgies, that the concern of the Bishop of Rome is with
blind compliance; rather than whether they be genuine doctors of souls.
83. It is apparent from the tone of Traditionis Custodes regarding the liturgy, that the Bishop
of Rome believes that only the post-conciliar liturgy is an acceptable expression of
Catholic faith and Identity; and all others must be relegated to the past.
84. It is apparent from the tone of the introduction to Traditionis Custodes, that the Bishop of
Rome feels that his decisions are perfectly acceptable and in line with Catholic teachings;
simply because he is who he is, and not by consulting the church on the matter.
85. It is clear from Traditionis Custodes that the Bishop of Rome and his flatterers who
encouraged and proudly promulgate this document did not bother to consult any of the
clergy or parishes which they intend to suppress by this act.
86. It is clear that the current Bishop of Rome is issuing decrees that are based on personal
vendettas and machinations; reverting the church back to renaissance-era corruption
which prompted the Protestant reformation.
87. The imposing of biased restrictions on communities who seek to preserve the ancient
traditions of the church are counter-productive, and at worst inspired by the spirit of
Anti-Christ.
88. It is clear that by the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes, the Bishop of Rome sets
himself up as a judge of men’s souls; an act repugnant to the nature of the Crucified and
Risen Lord.
89. It is clear by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, that the Bishop of Rome is
attempting to hack away at the branches of the church which he personally dislikes,
regardless of the lasting impact or consequences of his actions.
90. It is painfully obvious by the publication and implementation of this document, that the
Bishop of Rome has set himself up as a contrary authority to Christ himself.
91. It is clear by the attitude of the Bishop of Rome, in issuing this Motu Proprio only days
after he was preserved from harm through a dangerous operation; that the Bishop of
Rome believes his own opinions are semi-divine in nature.
92. It is clear that the intent of the current Bishop of Rome’s design is no less than the
destruction of the Christian faith, inherited by the church over 20 centuries of struggle
and life.
93. It is clear through this motu proprio that the Bishop of Rome has handed over the keys to
the kingdom to those who seek to convert it into a pagan temple to mankind’s selfish
ambitions.
94. The motu proprio is issued in defiance of the Catholic faith and history; and is clearly
targeted at bringing both to naught.
95. It has become painfully obvious that the current attitudes of the authorities in Rome is not
of Christ; but of Anti-Christ.
_FXD.jpg)
