Ah, the Greater Good.

It’s a little like the Golden Rule (Those who have the Gold Make the Rules) except that in this case, those who think they are greater get to decide what is good.

For when traditional Catholic commentators were told to “zip it” rather than criticise the current papal aberrations, the “good ” involved was not the good of the Church nor was it the salvation of souls. Rather, the apparent “good”, decided by the “greater” ones, was their attempt to secure for themselves their Latin Masses. This, it seems, would be in return for a very small fee: keeping quiet about Leo and his papacy’s remarkable similarity to that of Bergoglio.

The Greater Good must be contrasted with the Common Good, which is actually the Catholic position.

Whereas the Common Good must take the needs of everyone into account, the Greater Good always involves the sacrifice of some for the sake of the whole. This principle is never more consequential than in the matter of salvation, where every individual’s soul needs to be considered.

For to remain silent when Pope Leo unashamedly continues the agenda of Bergoglio and his conciliar and post-conciliar predecessors does put souls at risk – of despair, of error and of deception.

One is reminded of the words of Our Lady of Buen Suceso of the Purification at Quito, Ecuador, where she said several times that ” that one who should speak will fall silent”.

If “the one”, presumably the Pope, falls silent then it is not surprising that other Catholics who should speak out would also follow suit. That is, those traditional Catholic commentators who were so quick to point out Bergoglio’s errors and who did so much good in alerting the faithful during his reign, fell silent when it came to Prevost.

Thankfully, it does appear that the ‘zip it” crowd already have egg on their faces and that some, at least, have begun to rethink their ill-fated strategy.

One commentator, notorious for his self-promotion, has already backtracked somewhat. This is the same man who made a video prior to the conclave in which he said that the election of Prevost would be the worst possible scenario for the Church. After the conclave, he scrubbed that video and refused to call our Pope Leo’s errors. (Thanks to Novus Ordo Watch, the original video can be found here.)

It should be mentioned that this backtracking coincided with the release of his latest book which he unashamedly promoted during his first foray into criticism of the new Pope. Perhaps he realised that the book’s target audience included those Catholics who are feeling dazed and confused by the traditionalists’ Zip-It policy.

Another Zip-it proponent has also begun to loosen his lips to allow some initial criticism of the shameful desecration of St. Peter’s during the James Martin crowd’s pilgrimage. Yet another has put out a strident blogpost, explaining that this LGBT pilgrimage crossed his bright line, allowing criticism to spring forth from his keyboard. We are assured that his wait-and-see policy was born, ever so ‘umbly, out of charity alone.

Don’t forget, these are the men who until now, gave Leo a pass when the red flags first began flying. They remained quiet when footage emerged of a talk he gave, praising the evil Cardinal Bernadin. Likewise, when Leo de facto canonised Bergoglio, the most prominent traditionalist commentators had nothing to say. The pagan Mass for Creation? Silence. Scandalous appointments? Crickets.

If the Great Unzipping really has taken place, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for the likes of Chris Jackson, Steven Kokx and The Catholic Esquire. They have done the heavy lifting during this wait-and-see phase of the new papacy, unflinchingly calling it as they have seen it, rather than kowtowing to the compromise directive issued, as has become all too clear, from the doyen of Trad-dom, Cardinal Burke.

For it is difficult to draw any other conclusion than this: that Burke was the middle-man in a mutually beneficial transaction between wealthy traditionalists and Modernist Rome.

Consider: a group of rich, traditionalist Catholics pulled their purse-strings closed under Bergoglio, thereby making a significant impact on the Vatican’s bottom line. Remember, Rome is in a quite desperate financial situation these days.

Those same wealthy Catholics had been suffering under Bergoglio. His outrageous behaviour caused them a loss of prestige and influence as they were no longer ‘in’ with the papacy, in the same way they had been under John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

In order to restore their reputations as the Catholic elite, it would be necessary to find a new Pope who matched their sensibilities – of aesthetics, anyway. Doctrine doesn’t matter when one has a private chapel with any number of cancelled priests willing to provide bespoke Latin Masses.

And so a deal was struck: in return for the flow of money to Rome, the mild-mannered Prevost would have to be elected. He looked the part and fluently spoke the correct languages: English and Latin. It would fall to Cardinal Burke to do the lobbying prior to the conclave.

If all this seems a bit far-fetched, it should be remembered that Steve Bannon said from the beginning that the conclave was “rigged”.

Additionally, some months ago, Anthony Stine, on Return to Tradition, cited an article from a big legacy media outlet in the US, which revealed that a secret meeting took place in Rome prior to the conclave. It was apparently attended by wealthy Italian and American Catholics who promised to send money to the Vatican if an American was elected Pope.

Remember also that the Italian news outlet, Corriere della Sera, confidently reported that Prevost was seen entering Cardinal Burke’s apartment on April 30 for ‘a top-secret summit’, even though this was strenuously denied by reliable reporters like Diane Montagna and Ed Pentin.

From whom is it likely that Montagna and Pentin receive their Vatican-insider information? Could it be from Cardinal Burke himself? Is it possible that the journalists were set up – no doubt for the Greater Good?

From where did Montagna receive the results of the bishops survey that shows Bergoglio had lied about the Latin Mass being unpopular with the hierarchy? Could those documents not have been leaked by Cardinal Burke himself?

Why did they not come out during Bergoglio’s reign? It was certainly possible to have arranged it.

Was it because such a revelation would have only hardened Bergoglio’s heart against the traditional Mass? Leaked under Prevost, however, the latter would potentially have the opportunity to play the Good Guy and rescind Traditiones Custodes, or at least, not bother to see it enforced.

Where does the so-called Trad Inc. fit into the picture? Well, if they want their Masses secured, and hopefully Traditiones Custodes rescinded, they would have to toe the line. No more criticism of Rome, no more bad press for the Pope. The rest of Christendom would then have to take its chances with the mish-mash of heresy, sodo-liturgies and Modernism going on outside the small enclaves of tradition. This would appease the Catholic elite by making the papacy look reasonable once more and start the coffers flowing to Rome.

Rome would have its income restored; the wealthy Catholics would have their prestige restored; Trad Inc. would have its Masses restored. At least, that was the plan, with Cardinal Burke as the lynch-pin. He was to be truly cardinalis. (Latin for ‘pivotal’).

There were two sticking points in this plot – other than whatever small murmurings came from the consciences of those involved. One is the yearning for truth that exists in the soul of every person of good will; the other is the fact that silence in the face of outrage has a limit.

Many traditional Catholics knew that this silence was unnatural and so sought their news from the few honest reporters, like those mentioned above. And this website, although very small, should be included among those who has tried to expose Pope Leo’s agenda from Day 1. (eg here.)

Now that Trad Inc’s floodgates of histrionics appear ready to open, releasing a barrage of complaints against Pope Leo onto the faithful, we should all be cautious as we begin again to consume their commentary. For they abandoned faithful Catholics in a time of need, no less than the shepherds whom they like to so roundly denounce as having abandoned the faithful.

The public’s trust in Trad. Inc. has been severely eroded and without a clear apology, the damage may be irreparable.

Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.