For funsies I typed liturgiae causa into Google and came across this traditionalist forum, where my small blog is described as a ''creepy pseudo-Trad blog.'' Quite a lot is made of my tendency to demonize Pius XII, and I think the ''creepy'' part refers to my previous post about homosexuality in art. I'm rather confused by some of the comments there - one seems to confuse Pius X with Pius XII, another seems to confuse the 1962 Missal with the Missal of Pius V, and I can't quite work out what is meant by ''pseudo-Trad.'' Does this refer to my preference for Tradition, perhaps, to Papal innovation (viz last Sunday)? Or something else? I don't know. I would like to know how someone could possibly conceive of themselves as more traditional than me if they accept the liturgical books of 1962. I have been at variance with the Church for at least six years because of liturgical reform. I used to think it was all the fault of liberal modernists subverting the Church, but then I realised it was actually the Popes themselves who were responsible. Traditionalists are at variance with the Church themselves, although they might not care to admit this. As for homosexuality, perhaps people who accept '62 and admire Pius XII (the day this man is canonized is the day I leave the Church for good) might like to get off their high horses before they judge me. A number of my friends are homosexual, and if sodomy is a sin then so is using the liturgical books of 1962.
The wicked shall be turned into hell (Psalm 9:18).