Monday, February 9, 2026
Priests are Like Cathedrals --Pope Leo XIV
LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER LEO XIV
TO THE PRESBYTERATE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MADRID
ON THE OCCASION OF THE "CONVIVIUM" PRESBYTERAL GATHERING
Dear Sons:
I am pleased to address you with this letter on the occasion of your Presbyteral Gathering, and I do so with a sincere desire for fraternity and unity. I thank your Archbishop and, from the bottom of my heart, each one of you for your willingness to meet as a presbyterate, not only to discuss common matters, but also to support one another in the mission you share.
I value the commitment with which you live and exercise your priesthood in parishes, ministries, and diverse realities. I know that this ministry often unfolds amidst weariness, complex situations, and a silent dedication witnessed only by God. Precisely for this reason, I hope these words reach you as a gesture of closeness and encouragement, and that this encounter fosters an atmosphere of sincere listening, true communion, and trusting openness to the action of the Holy Spirit, who never ceases to work in your lives and mission.
The times the Church is living through invite us to pause together for serene and honest reflection. Not so much to dwell on immediate diagnoses or emergency measures, but to learn to deeply understand the moment we are living in, recognizing, in the light of faith, both the challenges and the possibilities the Lord opens before us. On this path, it becomes increasingly necessary to cultivate our vision and practice discernment, so that we may perceive more clearly what God is already working, often silently and discreetly, in our midst and in our communities.
This reading of the present cannot disregard the cultural and social framework in which faith is lived and expressed today. In many circles, we observe advanced processes of secularization, a growing polarization in public discourse, and a tendency to reduce the complexity of the human person, interpreting it through ideologies or partial and insufficient categories. Within this framework, faith risks being instrumentalized, banalized, or relegated to the realm of the irrelevant, while forms of coexistence that dispense with any transcendent reference become entrenched.
Added to this is a profound cultural shift that cannot be ignored: the progressive disappearance of shared points of reference. For a long time, the Christian seed found largely fertile ground, because the moral language, the great questions about the meaning of life, and certain fundamental notions were, at least in part, shared. Today, that common ground has weakened considerably. Many of the conceptual assumptions that for centuries facilitated the transmission of the Christian message are no longer evident and, in many cases, even comprehensible. The Gospel encounters not only indifference, but also a different cultural landscape, in which words no longer carry the same meaning and where the initial proclamation can no longer be taken for granted.
However, this description does not fully capture what is really happening. I am convinced—and I know that many of you perceive this in the daily exercise of your ministry—that a new disquiet is stirring in the hearts of many people, especially young people. The absolute pursuit of well-being has not brought the expected happiness; freedom divorced from truth has not generated the promised fulfillment; and material progress alone has not managed to satisfy the deepest longing of the human heart.
Indeed, the dominant proposals, along with certain hermeneutical and philosophical interpretations of humanity's destiny, far from offering a sufficient answer, have often left a greater sense of weariness and emptiness. Precisely for this reason, we observe that many people are beginning to open themselves to a more honest and authentic search, a search that, accompanied by patience and respect, is leading them back to an encounter with Christ. This reminds us that for the priest, this is not a time for withdrawal or resignation, but for faithful presence and generous availability. All of this stems from the recognition that the initiative always belongs to the Lord, who is already at work and precedes us with his grace.
This is how it is becoming clearer what kind of priests Madrid —and the entire Church— needs at this time. Certainly not men defined by a multitude of tasks or the pressure of results, but men configured to Christ, capable of sustaining their ministry through a living relationship with Him, nourished by the Eucharist and expressed in a pastoral charity marked by the sincere gift of self. It is not a matter of inventing new models or redefining the identity we have received, but of proposing anew, with renewed intensity, the priesthood in its most authentic core—being alter Christus —allowing Him to shape our lives, unify our hearts, and give form to a ministry lived from intimacy with God, faithful dedication to the Church, and concrete service to the people entrusted to us.
My dear children, allow me to speak to you today about the priesthood using an image you know well: your Cathedral. Not to describe a building, but to learn from it. For cathedrals—like any sacred place—exist, like the priesthood, to lead us to an encounter with God and reconciliation with our brothers and sisters, and their elements hold a lesson for our life and ministry.
By simply looking at its facade, we learn something essential. It is the first thing we see, and yet it doesn't say everything: it indicates, suggests, invites. Likewise, the priest does not live to show off, but neither does he live to hide. His life is called to be visible, coherent, and recognizable, even if it is not always understood. The facade does not exist for itself: it leads inward. Similarly, the priest is never an end in himself. His entire life is called to point to God and accompany the journey toward the Mystery, without usurping God's place.
Upon reaching the threshold, we understand that it is not fitting for everything to enter, for it is a sacred space. The threshold marks a passage, a necessary separation. Before entering, something remains outside. The priesthood, too, is lived in this way: being in the world, but not of the world (cf. Jn 17:14). At this crossroads lie celibacy, poverty, and obedience; not as a denial of life, but as the concrete means by which the priest can belong entirely to God while still walking among men.
The cathedral is also a common home, where everyone has a place. This is how the Church is called to be, especially toward her priests: a home that welcomes, protects, and never abandons. And this is how priestly fraternity must be lived: as the concrete experience of knowing oneself to be at home, responsible for one another, attentive to the lives of our brothers and sisters, and ready to support each other. My sons, no one should feel exposed or alone in the exercise of the ministry: resist together the individualism that impoverishes the heart and weakens the mission!
As we walk through the temple, we notice that everything rests on the columns that support the whole. The Church has seen in them the image of the Apostles (cf. Eph 2:20). Likewise, the priestly life does not stand on its own, but rather on the apostolic witness received and transmitted in the living Tradition of the Church, and safeguarded by the Magisterium (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13-14). When the priest remains anchored on this foundation, he avoids building on the sand of partial interpretations or circumstantial emphases, and instead rests on the firm rock that precedes and surpasses him (cf. Mt 7:24-27).
Before reaching the sanctuary, the cathedral reveals to us discreet yet fundamental places: at the baptismal font, the People of God are born; in the confessional, they are continually renewed. In the sacraments, grace is revealed as the most real and effective force of the priestly ministry. Therefore, dear children, celebrate the sacraments with dignity and faith, being aware that what is produced in them is the true power that builds up the Church and that they are the ultimate end to which all our ministry is ordered. But do not forget that you are not the source, but the channel, and that you too need to drink from that water. Therefore, do not neglect confession, always returning to the mercy you proclaim.
Several chapels open up around the central space. Each has its own history and dedication. Although different in style and composition, they all share the same orientation; none is turned inward, none disrupts the harmony of the whole. This is also true in the Church with the various charisms and spiritualities through which the Lord enriches and sustains your vocation. Each one receives a particular way of expressing faith and nurturing inner life, but all remain oriented toward the same center.
Let us look to the heart of it all, my children: here is revealed what gives meaning to what you do each day and from where your ministry springs. On the altar, through your hands, the sacrifice of Christ is made present in the highest action entrusted to human hands; in the tabernacle, He whom you have offered remains, entrusted anew to your care. Be adorers, people of deep prayer, and teach your people to do the same.
At the end of this reflection, to be the priests the Church needs today, I leave you with the same advice of your holy compatriot, Saint John of Ávila: “Be all his” ( Sermon 57). Be holy! I entrust you to Our Lady of Almudena and, with a heart full of gratitude, I impart to you the Apostolic Blessing, which I extend to all those entrusted to your pastoral care.
Vatican City, January 28, 2026. Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, priest and doctor of the Church.
Bad Bunny, Bad Image for Young Latinos!
Bad Bunny's performance at last night's Supper Bowl was weird. His singing, exclusively in Spanish, was not singing at all but a recitation, a telling of his supposed sexual exploits, with musical accompaniment. He did it in a beautiful white suit though he groped his crotch throughout, while humping the air with his hips. And there were dozens of what appeared to be all-female dancers, scantily dressed (cheerleader-like attire), also with quite indecent gesticulations throughout, emphasizing their butts and the crotches. That was the first half of the half-time performance.
In the second half of the performance the crowd of dancing performers was now in very nice traditional tropical attire. Lady Gaga came out singing and gesticulating, waving the tattooed arm in the air. Again, the dancing movements were, as throughout the entire performance, excessively abrupt, violent! The dancing consisted of continual jerking back and forth, giving the overall impression of great uneasiness and discomfort. Very little of harmonious and continuous flow which should be typical of graceful dancing.
All of this is a testament to the confusion of generation Z. It is largely of Latin American descent but is trying to find itself in America.
The fact that Bad Bunny's entire performance was is Spanish can be taken in two ways. The first is that this was obviously intended to be a great affront to the American viewing public, which is notoriously xenologophobic! Americans notoriously, though quite unreasonably, hate people to speak languages other than English in America. This was predictably very offensive and provocative to many. The second is the undeniable demographical fact that the majority of generation Z and generation Alpha have some Latin American descent. Furthermore, the Spanish language is historically more a part of America than any other language. Spanish has been continually spoken in this part of the world from 1492 to the present. And now it is the language of many millions of the young people today, and of their Spanish forebears. And, much more importantly, their heritage is Catholic! They mainly identify with the Catholic faith! It is because of this high concentration of hispanidad in the youth of America that they identify more as Catholic than as Protestant.
What I have to say, therefore, about that woeful performance of the Bad Bunny disgrace last night is that at least he's of Spanish descent. He is a bad representative of a very good and burgeoning population of young Latinos.
Here is what President Trump had to say about the performance.
“The Super Bowl Halftime Show is absolutely terrible, one of the worst, EVER! It makes no sense, is an affront to the Greatness of America, and doesn’t represent our standards of Success, Creativity, or Excellence,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social, calling the event a “slap in the face.” “Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting, especially for young children that are watching from throughout the U.S.A., and all over the World.”
In a rare instance of Super Bowl counter-programming, Turning Point USA aired its own halftime show. Turning Point’s lineup featured Kid Rock and a handful of lesser-known country music stars: Lee Brice, Brantley Gilbert and Gabby Barrett.
The alternative performance was streamed on YouTube, garnering more than five million viewers online.
Sunday, February 8, 2026
Jewish Supremacy in Epstein Files: The Jewish Mafia!
Jewish Supremacy in the Epstein File?
—— Recently released emails, documents, and testimony contained in the Epstein files point to more than a network of abuse, revealing what appears to be an insular worldview grounded in hierarchy, entitlement, and contempt for outsiders. In private communications attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and associates, non-Jews are repeatedly referenced with mocking or derogatory language, reflecting what critics describe as a supremacist mindset operating alongside the abuse itself. Several of the released emails show Epstein using the term “goyim,” meaning non-Jews, in a dismissive and contemptuous manner. In one exchange with AI theorist Roger Schank, Epstein refers to profits from shipping futures by writing about “how the Jew makes money,” adding, “let the goyim deal in the real world.” Other communications show similar language used casually, suggesting that this worldview was normalized within Epstein’s private circles. In another email exchange, Hollywood publicist Peggy Siegal asked Epstein whether an event would be “100% Jew night,” to which Epstein replied: “No, goyim in abundance — JPMorgan execs, brilliant WASPs.” In a separate message, Epstein accused a recipient of behaving “just like the GOYIM you do not respect,” language that further underscores the recurring pattern of contempt reflected in the files. An older testimony from Epstein survivor Maria Farmer adds further context. In a 2020 interview, Farmer said her abusers were motivated by an ideology of Jewish supremacy, citing a 1996 conversation with Ghislaine Maxwell in which she was told she would not be served food at an exclusively Jewish country club. Farmer stated that exclusionary attitudes toward non-Jews were a consistent theme among Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates. Maxwell has long been widely believed to have acted as Epstein’s handler or overseer within his broader operation. Taken together, the material suggests that the Epstein files document not only systemic sexual exploitation, but also a closed ideological environment in which power, identity, and hierarchy were intertwined, and in which contempt for non-Jews was expressed openly and without apparent concern.
"[M]any of the chief men also believed in him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." John 12:42-43
Saturday, February 7, 2026
"Adoption is An Option" Super Bowl LX Commercial
Here is a video scheduled to air during tomorrow's Super Bowl!
Here is the "Adoption is an Option" website.
Thursday, February 5, 2026
Pope Leo XIV's Message to USA Annual March for Life
Thomas Aquinas College, Northfield, MA at the March for Life, DC 2026
Released this evening by the Vatican, the Holy Father’s Message reads:
To the Participants in the 2026 March for Life
I send warm greetings to those of you participating in the 2026 March for Life. I likewise express heartfelt appreciation, and assure you of my spiritual closeness as you gather for this eloquent public witness to affirm that “the protection of the right to life constitutes the indispensable foundation of every other human right” (Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 9 January 2026).
Indeed, “a society is healthy and truly progresses only when it safeguards the sanctity of human life and works actively to promote it” (ibid.). In this regard, I would encourage you, especially the young people, to continue striving to ensure that life is respected in all of its stages through appropriate efforts at every level of society, including dialogue with civil and political leaders.
May Jesus, who promised to be with us always (cf. Mt 28:20), accompany you today as you courageously and peacefully march on behalf of unborn children. By advocating for them, please know that you are fulfilling the Lord’s command to serve him in the least of our brothers and sisters (cf. Mt 25:31-46).
With these sentiments I entrust all of you, as well as those who support you with their prayers and sacrifices, to the intercession of Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States of America, and I gladly impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of abundant heavenly graces.
From the Vatican, 17 January 2026
LEO PP. XIV
Source: Diane Montagna, June 22, 2026
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Imminent Vatican Meeting with SSPX
The international media outlet The Pillar —in my opinion, one of the most serious publications on religious topics— has just announced that Cardinal Victor Fernandez, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, will receive Father Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the SSPX, next week.
A first thought is that a little pressure has been good to get the Vatican to move.
Of course, the best thing we can do, as those of us who see the issue from the outside, is to pray, and pray a lot for that meeting.
And a second, more important point. Despite appearances, I believe this is good news . Everyone on this blog knows my opinion of Cardinal Fernández. However, to be fair, I must say that he was not, nor do I believe he ever will be, hostile to the Traditional Latin Mass. Moreover, as Archbishop of La Plata, he established a personal parish for the faithful of the Traditional Latin Mass, which, as far as I know, is the only one of its kind in Argentina.
On the other hand, the cardinal was a favorite disciple of Bergoglio, who professed sympathies for the SSPX.
Let us agree, then, that with this background, it is much better that the one who receives Father Pagliarani is Fernández and not Parolin or Roche.
Of course, the best thing we can do, as those of us who see the issue from the outside, is to pray, and pray a lot for that meeting.
elwanderer.com (Spanish)
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
SSPX 1 July 2026 Episcopal Consecrations
International Una Voce Federation (FIUV) on Future SSPX Consecrations
Our ardent wish, shared by many Catholics of good will, is for the canonical regularisation of the SSPX, which would enable its many good works to bear the greatest possible fruit. This announcement is an indication that this outcome is a more distant prospect than it has seemed for many years.We share the SSPX’s goal, that the Church’s ancient liturgy be made available as widely as possible for the good of souls. We do not share the SSPX’s analysis of the crisis of the Church in all its details. In particular we know many Catholics able to attend the Traditional Mass with all the necessary permissions from the Church’s hierarchy, such that it is not necessary for them to seek it in any irregular context.
We also know, however, that for others, attending the Traditional Mass has been made very difficult: in some places, this is despite the desire of qualified priests to celebrate it for the faithful, and even the willingness of the local bishop to allow this. This creates an environment in which the SSPX argument of a ‘state of emergency’ gains sympathy.
We urge our bishops, and above all His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, to be mindful of these pastoral realities, which are at this moment precipitating a crisis whose consequences no one can foresee.
What Catholics attached to the ‘former Missal’ desire is not some harmful or novel liturgical form. Pope St John Paul II called our desire for this Missal a ‘rightful aspiration’ (Ecclesia Dei, 1988), and later Pope Benedict XVI described it as a source of ‘riches’ (Letter to Bishops, 2007).
The time to act is now.
Joseph Shaw
President, Una Voce International, and Chairman, Latin Mass Society
Monika Rheinschmitt
Vice President and Treasurer, Una Voce International
Andris Amolins
Secretary, Una Voce International
(FIUV is the largest international association of diocesan Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass.)
__
SSPX Announces Future Consecrations for July 1st, 2026
—-
Communiqué
Communiqué
On this February 2, 2026, the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, during the ceremony of imposition of the cassocks which he presided over at the International Seminary of St. Curé d'Ars in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain, France, publicly announced his decision to entrust the bishops of the Fraternity with the task of proceeding with new episcopal consecrations on July 1.
Last August, he requested an audience with the Holy Father, informing him of his desire to filialy explain the current situation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. In a second letter, he explicitly addressed the Fraternity's particular need to ensure the continuation of the ministry of its bishops, who have been traveling the world for nearly forty years to respond to the many faithful attached to the Tradition of the Church and desirous that the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation be conferred for the good of their souls.
After much prayerful reflection, and having received a letter from the Holy See in recent days that in no way responds to our requests, Father Pagliarani, supported by the unanimous opinion of his Council, believes that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls find themselves requires such a decision.
The words he wrote on November 21, 2024, for the fiftieth anniversary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's historic declaration, reflect his thoughts and intentions more than ever:
"It is only in the Church of all time and in her constant Tradition that we find the guarantee of being in the Truth, of continuing to preach and serve it. [...]
"The Society [of St. Pius X] does not seek first and foremost its own survival: it seeks primarily the good of the universal Church and, for this reason, it is par excellence a work of the Church, which with unique freedom and strength, responds adequately to the specific needs of an unprecedented tragic era.
"This single goal is still ours today, just as it was fifty years ago: “That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we continue our work of priestly formation under the star of the Magisterium of all time, convinced that we cannot render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Supreme Pontiff, and to future generations (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of November 21, 1974).””
In the coming days, the Superior General will provide further explanations on the present situation and on his decision.
“Nos cum Prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.
May the Virgin Mary bless us, together with her divine Son.”
Menzingen, February 2, 2026 [source]
Sunday, February 1, 2026
The Six American Cardinals Named by Francis
Here is the short list of the American Cardinals made by Pope Francis. Most, if not all, were very much McCarrick favorites. Therefore, we could very safely say that the American Cardinals made by Francis were also very much made by McCarrick. That cloud over the Church is very concerning. The cloud of faggotry, a McCarrick legacy, hangs heavy over the Church right now.
The morale of the Church hierarchy is at an all time low. And Pope Prevosto seems sound asleep, "a good listener," in this present confusion. Perhaps a McCarrick pick himself! He needs to prove to the Church that the McCarrick heritage is over and that he has nothing to do with the lavender mafia which has been manipulating the Vatican my entire lifetime. The confused liturgy and the disfunction of the Church's pastoral activity are symptoms of an evil hand: La Mano Nera! "An Italian gentleman, very influential in Rome, told me to push for Bergoglio...In five years he could re-make the Church." --McCarrick on the 2013 pre-conclave.
Half of the Cardinals made by Francis were made while Cardinal McCarrick was still in good standing, having been wrongly fully rehabilitated by Pope Francis after he had been told to lay low by Pope Benedict. By this list is seems obvious that McCarrick was closely advising Pope Francis on his American appointments. Cupich (2016-present) and Tobin (2021-[present?]) were on the Dicastery for Bishops under the Prefect of that Dicastery Robert Prevosto (2023-2025). This is very worrisome!
Half of the Cardinals made by Francis were made while Cardinal McCarrick was still in good standing, having been wrongly fully rehabilitated by Pope Francis after he had been told to lay low by Pope Benedict. By this list is seems obvious that McCarrick was closely advising Pope Francis on his American appointments. Cupich (2016-present) and Tobin (2021-[present?]) were on the Dicastery for Bishops under the Prefect of that Dicastery Robert Prevosto (2023-2025). This is very worrisome!
Also, Cupich and Farrell, since 1 June 2022, are members of the Dicastery of Divine Worship.
Cupich, born 19 March 1949 is 76 years old, soon to be 77! Why has he not been resigned?
3. Joseph William Tobin, C.Ss.R. (b. 1952)
28 November 2020
4. Wilton Daniel Gregory (b. 1947)
27 August 2022
5. Robert Walter McElroy (b. 1954)30 September 2023
6. Robert Francis Prevost O.S.A. (b. 1955)N.B. There are three modern idols: Jewry (the transhistorical international anti-Christ/anti-Catholic/anti-God movement), Usury and Faggotry: the devil, the world and the flesh. The solution is the evangelical counsels: Obedience, Poverty and Chastity. The solution, as always, is Christ, in His Church, boldly and generously following Him and His Gospel of life and love in the Communion of the Saints and of the Sacraments.
Saturday, January 31, 2026
The McCarrick Boast Revisited, Wake-Up Call to Leo
I probably posted the above video back when I watched it first.
You can tell a man by his friends.
The fact that the Church's College of Cardinals is presently manipulated by Pope Francis appointed McCarrick favorites, is a fact that cannot be lost on Pope Leo XIV. But The Lion seems to be sound asleep!
When the foxes are in the henhouse someone has to chase the foxes away! It is the chief job of the shepherd to ward off the abusers of the flock, the abusers in every respect. The present day ubiquitous liturgical bullying is akin to the widespread moral effeminacy among the pastors of the Church, and to it's twin, weakness in sound leadership.
Consider the "wolf in sheep's clothing" of the Regensburg Bishop's Garden, "The Goose-Sermon Fountain!" It is in the center of the Cathedral courtyard beside the medieval cathedral of Regensburg, Ratzinger's Regensburg!
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." --Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:15)
P.S. McCarrick and Bergoglio were created cardinals at the same consistory, 21 February 2001.
Here is the oath made by each cardinal at inserting his ballot at a conclave: "Testor Christum Dominum, qui me iudicaturus est, me eum eligere, quem secundum Deum iudico eligi debere."
"He's a good theologian, he's an excellent philosopher!" McCarrick on Francis' teaching.
One great irony is that McCarrick's only conclave elected Joseph Ratzinger Pope! I sense some regret for that in this speech.
McCarrick died on 3 April, Bergoglio on 21 April 2025.
N. B. "On the other hand, maybe the devil did not have your accommodations ready." Pope Francis to McCarrick on the key to the latter's longevity.
Requiscant in pace!
Friday, January 30, 2026
SSPX SEMINARY USA
https://www.youtube.com/@SSPX-STAS
This YouTube channel is very impressive! The schismatics are beating us at our own game.
Pope Leo XIV, please take notice!
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
The Rite Itself is Towards the Lord
Canon of Shaftesbury
We find ourselves in the early days of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate, and there are reasons for cautious optimism. Several signs suggest that the Holy Father wishes to address some of the more pressing challenges inherited from his predecessor. Among these is the thorny question of access to the Traditional Latin Mass (what was once called the Extraordinary Form or Tridentine Mass) and the restrictions imposed by Traditiones Custodes.
I approach this question with the disposition we ought to have toward any successor of Peter: giving the benefit of the doubt, assuming good faith, and trusting in his pastoral intentions. Thus far, I do not detect in Pope Leo XIV any ill will toward those attached to the Traditional Mass. Yet good intentions alone do not guarantee wise policy, and two proposals currently being discussed as potential ‘solutions’ to the current impasse give me serious pause. Both, I would argue, fail to address the underlying problems and may even compound them.The Ordinariate Proposal: A Gilded Cage
The first proposal involves creating some form of personal ordinariate to oversee communities attached to the Traditional Mass. This has a certain administrative logic to it: provide a dedicated structure, remove these communities from the direct oversight of potentially hostile diocesan bishops, and create a stable canonical framework for their existence.
But this apparent solution conceals a fundamental problem: it would create a liturgical ghetto. The genius of Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum was precisely that it refused this ghettoization. Pope Benedict recognized the Traditional Mass not as some exotic rite requiring special permissions and separate hierarchical structures, but as part of the Roman Rite itself: never abrogated, always legitimate, and available as a right to the faithful and to priests. The ordinary-extraordinary form distinction was meant to emphasize continuity, not division. It acknowledged that the Church prays in two forms of the same rite, both equally Roman, both equally Catholic.
An ordinariate structure, by contrast, would effectively declare: ‘This Mass is so problematic, so divisive, so other, that it cannot exist within normal diocesan structures.’ It would enshrine in canon law the very separation that Pope Benedict sought to overcome. Worse still, it would do nothing to address the problem of hostile bishops. In fact, it might embolden them. A bishop who has shown himself ungenerous—or outright antagonistic—toward the faithful attached to the Traditional Mass would simply have his prejudices validated: ‘See, these people and their liturgy are so different they need their own separate structure. They don’t really belong here.’
The faithful would be protected, perhaps, but at the cost of being formally marginalized. This is not a solution; it is an institutionalized retreat.
The “Reform of the Reform”: Necessary but Insufficient
The second proposal focuses on improving celebrations of the Novus Ordo; what is often called the ‘reform of the reform.’ Proponents argue that if the Ordinary Form were celebrated with greater reverence, solemnity, and attention to the sacred, many of the concerns driving people toward the Traditional Mass would dissipate.
This is not entirely wrong. Much of what ails Catholic liturgy today stems not from the Novus Ordo itself in its official form, but from the liberties, innovations, and abuses that have become routine in its celebration. A more reverent Novus Ordo: celebrated ad orientem, with Gregorian chant, in Latin where appropriate, with careful attention to rubrics, etc. This would undoubtedly be a vast improvement over what many Catholics experience on a typical Sunday.
But this approach, while laudable, does not go far enough. It treats the problem as primarily one of implementation when there are also questions of structure and theology embedded in the rite itself.
The Novus Ordo was not the product of organic liturgical development but of committee design. This is not a polemical claim but a historical fact. The post-Vatican II liturgical reform, whatever its intentions, created a rite that was substantially different from what preceded it; not through the gradual, Spirit-guided evolution that characterized liturgical development for centuries, but through deliberate committee construction in a remarkably short period of time.
Pope Benedict XVI himself was deeply aware of this problem. In his writings both as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope, he expressed concerns about the rupture in liturgical continuity and the dangers of treating the liturgy as something we construct rather than something we receive. His whole project in Summorum Pontificum was, in part, to restore that sense of organic continuity.
More troubling still is the way the Novus Ordo, in its typical celebration, places the priest at the center of the liturgical action. The structure of the rite, particularly when celebrated versus populum, tends to make the priest’s personality, choices, and even charisma central to the experience. The priest becomes, whether he wishes it or not, a kind of performer. The liturgy becomes, to a troubling degree, his creation.
This is not to say that priests celebrating the Novus Ordo are acting in bad faith or that Christ cannot be encountered there; of course He can and is. But the structure of the rite makes the centrality of Christ dependent on the priest’s willingness and ability to efface himself, to suppress his own personality, to resist the temptation to innovate or ‘personalize’ the liturgy.
In the Traditional Mass, by contrast, the priest’s personality is structurally suppressed. Facing the same direction as the people, following a more fixed and detailed rubrical structure, praying large portions of the Mass quietly, the priest becomes almost anonymous; a mediator rather than a protagonist. Christ is at the center not because the priest is particularly holy or particularly skilled, but because the structure of the rite itself directs all attention away from the priest and toward the altar, toward the sacrifice, toward the Lord.
It is no accident that so many churches built or renovated in the Novus Ordo era look like stadiums or auditoriums rather than sacred spaces. If the liturgy is fundamentally about what the priest does, about the community’s celebration, about active participation understood primarily as external activity, then the architectural logic follows: create a space where everyone can see the action, where the priest is visible and audible to all, where the focus is on the human gathering rather than on the divine presence.
A more reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo can mitigate some of these problems, but it cannot fully overcome them without structural changes so substantial that we would be, in effect, creating a different rite.
The Pastoral Ends
The real solution is not complicated, though it requires courage and perhaps a willingness to disappoint certain constituencies who have grown attached to the restrictions of Traditiones Custodes. The solution is to return to the dispensation of Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio was wise precisely because it addressed all the problems that the current proposals fail to solve:
1. It dealt with hostile bishops. By establishing that priests have a right to celebrate the Traditional Mass without needing episcopal permission, and that faithful have a right to request it, Pope Benedict removed the question from the realm of episcopal whim and placed it on firmer canonical ground. A bishop could not simply forbid what the universal law of the Church permitted.
2. It refused ghettoization. By insisting on the ordinary-extraordinary form distinction, Pope Benedict kept the Traditional Mass within the normal life of dioceses and parishes. It was not an exotic import requiring special structures, but part of the Church’s living tradition.
3. It respected the freedom of the faithful. Pope Benedict understood that the faithful have a right (not merely a privilege) to access the Church’s liturgical heritage. The liturgy is not the property of bishops or popes to manipulate at will, but a sacred trust handed down through generations.
4. It created space for mutual enrichment. Pope Benedict hoped that the two forms of the Roman Rite would enrich each other: that the reverence and sacral character of the old would influence the new, while the new rite would encourage Catholics to engage actively with the liturgy, to better understand the texts, and to participate vocally in their appointed parts. These devotional habits, once cultivated, naturally enhance one’s experience of the traditional rite as well. But for this enrichment to work, it requires proximity, not separation.
Conclusion
Pope Leo XIV faces a difficult situation, and I do not envy him the task of navigating these troubled liturgical waters. But the path forward should not require novel structures or half-measures. Pope Benedict XVI, in his wisdom, already showed us the way. Summorum Pontificum was not perfect (no merely human legislation ever is) but it was fundamentally sound in its principles and generous in its pastoral vision.
What is needed now is not innovation but restoration: restoration of the freedom Pope Benedict granted, restoration of trust in the faithful, restoration of confidence that the Church is big enough to hold both forms of her Roman liturgical tradition without one threatening the other.
The Traditional Mass is not a problem to be managed or a crisis to be solved. It is a gift to be received, a treasure to be preserved, and a heritage to be passed on. The sooner we return to treating it as such, the sooner we can move past these exhausting controversies and return to the real work of the Church: the sanctification of souls and the worship of Almighty God.
Monday, January 26, 2026
The Man Behind Traditiones Custodes
Cardinal Roche Is Sad and Worried
January 19, 2026 — by elwanderer
Those who move through the Dicastery for Divine Worship say that in recent days Cardinal Roche has been seen with his head down; they find him sad and worried. And with good reason. His career as a bishop—now close to fading into the shadows of age—will have been a trail of failures. His episcopate in Leeds was disastrous, in many respects, including financially. That is why—and this is no secret—the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales asked Pope Benedict in 2012 to find him another post where he could do no harm to souls or to bank accounts. And good old Ratzinger could think of nothing better than to place him as Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, thereby making him the natural successor to Cardinal Robert Sarah. (Moral: to be a good ruler, it is not enough to be wise and pious.)
Roche’s failures as prefect were spectacular. The first of them was precisely Traditionis custodes. He was the one responsible for convincing Pope Francis to publish that ill-fated document, on a subject that did not interest the Argentine pontiff and that plunged him into one of the most significant avoidable and self-inflicted crises of his pontificate. Not only did it gain nothing, it plunged the Church into a permanent state of division, conflict, and sadness. The pax liturgica achieved with Summorum pontificum was inexplicably shattered by an unnecessary and mendacious document, since—documents in hand, as Nicola Bux and Saverio Gaeta have shown in their book La liturgia non è uno spettacolo: Il questionario ai vescovi sul rito antico: arma di distruzione di Messa?—the statistical reasons used to justify TC were grossly manipulated.
Worse still, by late 2022 it was known with certainty that Roche, Archbishop Viola (the dicastery’s secretary), and some adviser from Sant’Anselmo (Andrea Grillo?) were preparing a new document which, in the form of an apostolic constitution, would brutally restrict the traditional liturgy, taking particular aim at the so-called “Ecclesia Dei institutes.” Pope Francis, at the audience he granted Roche on February 20, 2023—as we reported here—not only did not sign any apostolic constitution but sent the cardinal packing, giving him only a rescript that scarcely altered the existing situation.
And now, with the change of leadership in Rome, and with the liturgical question once again in play under a Pope who wants to give it a definitive solution, who is not opposed to the traditional liturgy, and who wishes to return to that pax liturgica that would close a significant wound in the Church, Roche comes out with a document riddled with more holes than a Gruyère cheese. We will not repeat here the gross errors in the document signed by the cardinal—errors for which he now wanders like a lost soul through the silent corridors of his dicastery. They have been thoroughly dissected by theologians and experts whose opinions can be easily found on the usual websites. Curiously, as far as I know, it was defended by no progressive. Not even Andrea Grillo raised his voice this time.
On the tactical side as well, the blunder was colossal. Roche handed that very weak text to the cardinals before the topics to be addressed at the Consistory had even been decided. In other words, he showed his hand before the play that will ultimately take place next June. The cardinals will be fully informed of the unbearable lightness of Roche’s arguments, and in the coming months their inboxes will receive—respectfully and reverently—the opinions of their faithful on the matter, along with refutations of the arguments put forward by the prefect.
Finally, I add one striking aspect. These figures, so open to new ideas and diverse theologies, when it comes to the traditional liturgy become more orthodox than the most recalcitrant reactionary, invoking like geese the worn-out theological principle lex orandi, lex credendi. They invoke it and interpret it to suit themselves, deceiving in many cases those who lack the historical perspective to interpret it—that is, the majority of bishops and cardinals.
No one doubts the importance of unity in the faith. It is a fundamental principle of the Catholic Church that distinguishes it from other Christian denominations. Nor does anyone doubt that this unity is expressed in worship. But the deceptive argument lies in assuming that unity of faith is necessarily tied to unity of worship. To assume that is absurd. The Church has 24 rites, completely different from one another, and no one would think that a Chaldean from Iraq, a Copt from Egypt, or a Byzantine from Romania has a faith different from that of a Roman from Madrid or Bogotá. All share the one faith in Jesus Christ, and yet their worship—or lex orandi—is different.
Even if we focus on the West, Roche’s argument collapses under its own weight. If any Catholic of faith attends a Mass celebrated with the reformed Missal of Paul VI in Buenos Aires, he will find it quite different from the one he attends while on vacation in Mar del Plata, or Mendoza, or Paris, or New York. More still, if he goes to another church in his own city, the Mass will very likely change—and quite a bit—because we know that the novus ordo encourages improvisation and creativity on the part of celebrating priests. What unity in the lex orandi, then, is Cardinal Roche talking about?
More than that: it would be hard to find two historical periods in the Church in which unity of faith was pursued more vigorously than the 13th and 16th centuries. And yet any Catholic living in a European city of the time—say Lyon or Milan—if he attended Mass at his parish, it would be celebrated in the Lyonese or Ambrosian rite; if he went to the Franciscan convent twenty meters away, it would be celebrated in the Roman rite; if he walked two blocks to the Dominicans, he would find a Mass in the Dominican rite; a few steps further on, the Carmelites (of the Ancient Observance) would celebrate it in the Carmelite rite; and if he decided to make a retreat and went to a Carthusian monastery, the monks there would celebrate in the Carthusian rite. That is, within a radius of just a few kilometers, he would encounter five different forms of lex orandi without any harm to the lex credendi. And this situation endured well into the twentieth century.
As I said in a previous post, we cannot suppose that the cardinal prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship is unaware of these historical circumstances. My doubt is whether we can suppose that he wishes to deceive the faithful and his brother cardinals. And if that were the case, I would advise His Eminence to put more effort into his tricks and lies.
Sunday, January 25, 2026
Vice President Vance at the March for Life, Again!
"What I Want Most in America is More Families and More Babies!" -Vance
"Be joyful in your advocacy."
Theme: Life is a Gift!
"Dobbs was the most important Supreme Court decision of my lifetime."
"There have been five decades of bad policy on the question of life."
"Throwing priests and grandmothers in prison for praying outside of a clinic. That is over. We stopped it."
"We are returning accountability to our foreign policy... Under Joe Biden, it was the policy of the United States to export abortion and radical gender ideology all around the world. That is what they did with your tax money. They would relentlessly bully developing countries into parodying the left wing views. But...we believe that every country in the world has the duty to protect life. And it is not our job to promote gender ideology. It is our job to promote families and human flourishing... We've turned off the tap from NGO's whose sole purpose is to dissuade people from having kids."
"And today, our administration is proud to announce a historic expansion of the Mexico City Policy. We’re going to start blocking every international NGO that performs or promotes abortion abroad from receiving a dollar of U.S. money."
Thursday, January 22, 2026
The Weakening of the Faith in Latin America
This is a trend that has been going on for decades.
Pope Francis did not curb the trend.
The obvious exception in the downward trend was Mexico which saw a 2% increase from 1995 to 2013! going from 77 to 79%. Now it is in sync with the rest at -14%!
Sunday, January 18, 2026
Roche's "Healthy" Tradition: What a Splurge!
To the pessimists who insist on spreading the falsehood that the recent Consistory served only to let the cardinals experience “real” synodality—right there in the synodal hall, at the same tables and in the same format as the Synod on Synodality; to the dour souls who have failed to see how vital it has been for the Church that the cardinals at the round tables could share smiles without tears—it must be said that where smiles and debates have not reached, papers from on high have arrived.
Indeed, the hopes that part of the Church had placed in the Consistory—whose program included the long-awaited liturgical peace—have not been disappointed, even though this topic was ruled out from the very beginning for lack of time. The solution to the problem was entrusted to the cardinal to whom Pope Leo XIV has assigned the guardianship of tradition. A cardinal who is developing grand epistemological principles.
To begin with, Cardinal Roche seems to have discovered that worship has nothing to do with culture; that the decline of worship does not entail the weakening of culture. What a discovery, right? He has also discovered, in the exercise of his office as custodian of tradition (Traditionis custos), that one must discern (oh, holy discernment!) between “healthy” tradition and pathological tradition: the kind that is driven by the itch of a “pathological search for novelties” (he is referring, of course, to “traditionalist novelties” that the sickly lovers of tradition keep discovering in order to feed their pathology). Upon these two imposing pillars, His Eminence has constructed the edifice of the persecution of the obsessive reformers of the reform—an edifice he considers complete with Traditionis custodes, which, as he himself declares in his Consistory papers, issued from his own illustrious pen.
Roche has failed to notice that there is nothing more traditional than worship. That is why the first thing every new master sets about doing in his conquests is the destruction of worship and traditions: because tradition leads us to nostalgia for the past and distances us from the future. If tradition is not destroyed, there is no way to impose new ideas.
The fact is that, since there was no time to put the issue on the table, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship made up for that lack of time with his creative papers. However much one of the major aims of the Consistory was to train their Eminences in the practice of “listening,” Cardinal Roche brilliantly replaced that triviality with his carefully crafted documents.
Cardinal Roche states in his surreptitiously slipped-in text to the Consistory that “the reform of the liturgy ‘desired by the Second Vatican Council’ (not promulgated by the Council) is not only fully in tune with ‘the truest sense of tradition’ (so there exists a ‘less true’ sense of tradition: that of the traditionalists), but also constitutes an elevated form (the traditionalists’ is coarse and base) of placing oneself at the service of tradition.” He then goes on to explain this notion of pathological tradition opposed to “healthy tradition,” and that of “legitimate progress.” Indeed, the defenders of crusty, reactionary tradition do not know how to discern between “legitimate” and illegitimate progress—something the Consistory supposedly should have clarified. But that is no longer necessary, since the cardinal defender of “healthy tradition” has discerned it all by himself. The only thing this “healthy tradition” lacks, Roche says, is the appropriate formation in seminaries.
Pope Leo XIV is no stranger to these approaches; on the contrary, he is aligned with the document slipped in by the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship. Indeed, in his address on January 8, he stated that “the Second Vatican Council rediscovered (if it ‘rediscovered’ it, that must be because something was lacking in its initial ‘discovery’) the face of God as Father, looked upon the Church in the light of Christ (it must have been looking at it with some other light before), and initiated an important liturgical reform by placing at the center the mystery of salvation and the active and conscious participation of the People of God.” It is clear that a wheel cannot function with two axles: the old one (that of the mystery of salvation) and the new one, that of the active and conscious participation of the People of God. Evidently, the new center of the liturgy (the participation of the People) has displaced the former center: that of the “mystery of salvation.”
It seems evident that Cardinal Roche’s report must be interpreted in the light of Leo XIV’s words spoken on January 8 (in the midst of the Consistory). The pope’s words on the matter have every appearance of attempting to shore up not only the aforementioned report, but also its author. In any case, it is an explicit papal stance very much in line with the document that seeks to make up for the removal of the liturgical topic from the Consistory’s program.
It is obvious that the underlying issue is the Second Vatican Council, which the Church has still not been able to bring to a close. The current liturgy was forged outside the Council and, in not a few respects, in direct opposition to it. But it is not only the liturgy that was so falsely “closed,” since after sixty years we are still grappling with the problem. We continue dragging along the only dogma proclaimed urbi et orbi by the Second Vatican Council: aggiornamento—a deceptive principle, impossible to close. Because the days keep passing, there is no way to finish the Church’s “updating.” And since in sixty years the world has turned upside down, we have found ourselves compelled to “open ourselves to the world and to welcome the changes and challenges of the modern age” (again, the pope’s words).
Yes, of course, the great dogma of aggiornamento has brought us to the centrality of the great issues that trouble the Church today—especially in the West. Evidently, Christ is no longer the center of interest of episcopal conferences, the Vatican, or the various synodal maneuvers. The bishops’ obsession is to attune themselves to the world, which is no longer the world of the Second Vatican Council. Today the obsession is to establish in the Church a synodality that grants full legitimacy to different inculturations—not only Amazonian and indigenist ones, but also those of the very latest Western culture, so firmly propped up by Fiducia supplicans. “For the moment.” There you have the new postmodern theological discovery: provisionality as the supreme norm. Since the world never stops turning, what seems perfect today is useless tomorrow. And the Church, so ready to open herself to the world and to welcome changes (yes, of course, changes and more changes) and the challenges of the modern age, has no choice but to dance to the rhythm set by the world. Thus aggiornamenti neither are nor can be forever. From the “updatings” (to the world) of the Second Vatican Council onward, there are no longer things that are definitive and for all time in the Church. From that point on, everything is “for the moment.” And if moments change, why shouldn’t principles change as well?
Source (Spanish): https://germinansgerminabit.blogspot.com
"Consultation" Control!
The Greatest Figures of the Romantic Age
After reading the excellent 1966 book The Mind of the European Romantics by H.D. Schenk, on the key role of Christianity and especially Catholicism in the life and achievement of the greatest figures of the 19th century Romantic movement in literature and the arts I was left with the question, who were the greatest figures of that movement which can be held up as models to be studied and imitated today?
The answer, of course, as in any age, is, the Saints!, the canonized Saints and declared Doctors of the Church from that period and within that movement of human culture.
Here is my spontaneous short-list, on which I might enlarge in the future.
Saint John Henry Newman, Doctor of the Church, particularly for his thought on the historical development of Christian/Catholic doctrine.
Saint Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church.
Saint Bernadette Soubirous, visionary of Our Lady of Lourdes
Blessed Pope Pius IX
And, I would also add another great Pontiff of that age: Pope Leo XIII Giovanni Maria Battista Pietro Pellegrino Isidoro Mastai-Ferrett
The great Catalan poet, Father Jacinto Verdaguer
And, of course, the great, also Catalan architect Antoni Gaudi
Here is a list (Wikipedia) of all of the Saints and Blesseds of the 19th Century, the age of romanticism, a tremendous age of holiness!
Alphabetical List
A
B
- Madeleine Sophie Barat
- Clelia Barbieri
- Basil of Pavlovsky Posad
- Marguerite Bays
- Siméon-François Berneux
- Gaspare Bertoni
- André Bessette
- Francis Xavier Bianchi
- Joan Elizabeth Bichier des Âges
- Józef Bilczewski
- Julie Billiart
- Amelia Bloomer
- Jean-Louis Bonnard
- Catherine Booth
- William Booth
- Pierre Dumoulin-Borie
- John Bosco
- James Lloyd Breck
- Phillips Brooks
C
- Joseph Cafasso
- Benedetta Cambiagio Frassinello
- Bartolomea Capitanio
- Peter William Cassey
- Gaetano Catanoso
- Paola Elisabetta Cerioli
- Peter Chanel
- Auguste Chapdelaine
- Charles of Mount Argus
- Philander Chase
- Chinese Martyrs
- Albert Chmielowski
- Paul Chong Hasang
- Anthony Mary Claret
- Conrad of Parzham
- Hannah Grier Coome
- Marianne Cope
- Jean-Charles Cornay
- Giuseppe Benedetto Cottolengo
- Alberic Crescitelli
- Pope Cyril IV of Alexandria
D
E
F
G
H
K
L
M
- Charles Mackenzie (bishop)
- Mary MacKillop
- Magdalene of Canossa
- Master Malati
- Leopold Mandić
- Josep Manyanet i Vives
- Joseph Marchand
- Joseph Marello
- Marie-Adolphine
- Marie of Saint Just
- Marie of Saint Natalie
- Marie-Eugénie de Jésus
- Marie-Hermine of Jesus
- Henry Martyn
- Martyrs of Damascus
- The Massabki Brothers
- Maria Domenica Mazzarello
- Robert Whitaker McAll
- Metrophanes, Chi Sung
- Stephen Min Kuk-ka
- Bernard Mizeki
- William Augustus Muhlenberg
- Joseph Mukasa Balikuddembe
- Matiya Mulumba
- Leonardo Murialdo
P
R
S
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)
