Tradition is a whole, because Faith is a whole. And in the current situation more than ever, the need for an absolutely free profession of Faith is e… - Davide Pagliarani

The life of the Church and of redeemed souls is one, of the very unity of the cross, of redemption. There is only one Christ, one cross through which we can worship God and be sanctified. And it is therefore this same unity that we find in the Mass, in this application of redemption to the life of the Church, to the life of souls. Since there is only one redemption, and since it is perfect, there is only one way to perpetuate this redemption, to actualise it in time in order to apply it to souls: there is only one Catholic Mass. There are not two.

So what do we want? What does the Society of Saint Pius X want? We want the cross. We want the cross of Our Lord. We want to celebrate this cross, and we want to enter into the mystery of this cross. We want to make this cross our own. There are not two possible crosses, and there are not two possible redemptions or two possible Masses. [...] In this sense, the Mass is truly our flag, our banner. And in a battle, the banner is the last thing to be abandoned. There is one last thing that the Society must obtain. And it is crucial. We do not want this Mass solely for ourselves, but we want it for the universal Church. We do not want a side altar. We do not want the right to enter with our banner into an amphitheatre where everything is permitted. No! We want this Mass for ourselves and for everyone. We do not want a privilege. It is a right for us and for all souls, without distinction. It is through this that the Society of Saint Pius X continues and will continue to be a work of the Church. Because it has in view the good of the Church; it does not seek any particular privilege. God will choose the moment, the manner, the gradualness, the circumstances. But as far as it depends on us, we want this Mass now, without conditions and for everyone.

Pope Francis has a very precise overall vision of contemporary society, of the Church today and, ultimately, of all history. He seems to me to be affected by a kind of hyperrealism that claims to be “pastoral”. According to him, the Church must surrender to the evidence: it is impossible for her to continue preaching a moral doctrine such as the one she has preached until now. It must decide to capitulate to the demands of modern man and, as a result, rethink its motherhood. Of course, the Church must always be a mother, but instead of being so by transmitting life and educating its children, it will be so to the extent that it knows how to accept them as they are, listen to them, understand them and accompany them...These concerns, which are not bad in themselves, must be understood here in a new and very particular sense: the Church can no longer impose itself, and consequently must no longer do so. It is passive and adapts. Ecclesial life, as it can be lived today, conditions and determines the very mission of the Church, even its raison d'être. For example, since it can no longer demand the same conditions as in the past for access to the Holy Eucharist, given that modern man sees this as intolerable intolerance, the only realistic and authentically Christian reaction, in this logic, is to adapt to this situation and redefine its own requirements. Thus, inevitably, morality changes: eternal laws are subjected to an evolution made necessary by historical circumstances and by the imperatives of a false and misunderstood charity.