A Bad Look for the Vatican --Bishop Marian Eleganti, OSB

A Bad Look for the Vatican - On the Blocking of Saint Peter’s to Traditional Pilgrims - by Bishop Marian Eleganti, OSB

Auxiliary Emeritus of Chur, Switzerland

This year's ban on the traditionally minded "Ad Petri Sedem" pilgrims entering Saint Peter's Basilica on October 24, 2026 borders on hostility toward Catholics who are loyal to the Pope and orthodox in their faith. It has nothing to do with concern for unity in the Church or with operational difficulties in organizing liturgical celebrations in Saint Peter's.

The rites that exist in the Catholic Church, in their peaceful coexistence with the Novus Ordo, demonstrate that it can be done. The united Eastern Churches are even self-governing (sui iuris) particular Churches within the universal Catholic Church. No one regards them as a threat to the unity of the Church. No one would deny them an altar or refuse them entry to a Catholic church. No one, that is, except the Vatican, which refuses entry to conservative Catholics who are, moreover, loyal to the Pope. Synodal hypocrisy (inclusivity) has thereby revealed itself for what it is. The "Ad Petri Sedem" pilgrims are not the SSPX. But we have known for a long time that certain people are inclusive only as long as it serves their own goals. Any other way of thinking, any other approach in pastoral care and spirituality, they exclude ruthlessly and in cold blood. That has been my consistent experience. We recognize the same pattern in politics.

So-called synodality has thus shown its true face. It chooses whom and what it includes. "Todos, todos, todos" does not, in fact, mean everyone, but certain people.

We have known the efforts and demands of so-called reform Catholicism since the 1970s. Its protagonists have relieved one another in relays and have often changed their clothes without ever abandoning their unchanging goals. The result is the synodality of today, which is not the synodality of yesterday, that is, of Tradition. It is becoming apparent that, in the end, it is a belated, Protestantizing structural reform, together with the scrapping of Familiaris Consortio (1981) and Veritatis Splendor (1993). Converts from the Anglican Church will find it all very familiar.

I am a missionary Benedictine, and I have known "intercultural learning and listening" as key concepts since the early 1990s. They have paralyzed our missionary dynamism for decades. The declaration Dominus Iesus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued on August 6, 2000, was already a response to this, but it was not received, which is why we are now suffering the synodal overkill of words and processes. And yet the truth is so simple: DOMINUS JESUS!

The SPIRIT therefore called on us more than twenty-five years ago to present (once again) JESUS CHRIST to the nations as the exclusive, absolute truth, as the only door to the FATHER, as the universal and ever-valid teacher, and as the sole Redeemer of the world. Instead, we sit in circles and on chairs in order to listen. To whom? But nothing comes of it. I would say: nothing new, merely the step-by-step implementation of yesterday's demands of reform Catholicism (democracy and co-determination; control of power; laypeople in leadership positions; women in ecclesial offices; revision of sexual morality; normalization of divorce and remarriage; recognition of homosexual lifestyles and partnerships; transgenderism; preservation of creation, that is, the climate; socialist-inspired universalism: open migration and universal brotherhood; interreligious coexistence instead of mission). The elephant in the room, the correlation between abuse and homosexuality in the Catholic clergy (Dariusz Oko; Paul Sullins), continues to be ignored.

The roundtable discussions are steered. The commissions deliver heterodox proposals. From Rome come no valid answers to the problems in the Church triggered by liberal progressivism. An honest, objective evaluation of the liturgical renewal, without any wish to return to the time before 1965, fails to materialize. The turn of young people toward conservative attitudes, also within the Church, is not being objectively considered as a sign of the times.

Meanwhile, on the streets of Europe's cities we see Islamo-leftist, migrant, and chaotic forces at work, symptomatically showing what it looks like when the traditional Christian order disintegrates and the value-neutral secular state fails. Its leading politicians possess neither credibility nor values or virtues; in a post-Christian age, they simply have nothing to offer. It is incomprehensible that only recently a pope exhorted the young to stir up chaos. Chaos has never been a category of the SPIRIT, but rather of demonic, revolutionary forces. The SPIRIT is, as we know, the One who brought order to chaos in the beginning. Where chaos gains the upper hand, the devil reigns.

Signs of disintegration in the society and Church of our latitudes are unmistakable. In my opinion, the former (society) has no chance of surviving without Christianity; the latter (the Church) is indeed upheld by God, yet she neglects to proclaim the exclusivity (in the double sense!) of JESUS CHRIST (the Way, the Truth, and the Life). He serves only as a stepping stone for humanness, which is gladly paraphrased with the term "openness." The category of sin is replaced by that of fragility. It is all about closeness. Heresy and error are not named. Dialogue, on the other hand, flourishes. For years the Church has resembled an endless workshop of circles of chairs and roundtables, delivering no sustainable results except those that undermine her doctrine, her proclamation, and her hierarchical-sacramental structure, in deed and in truth, but also semantically.

In Closing, the Joyful Part

We are heading toward 2033. After 2000 years, it will be a special year. JESUS CHRIST is the same yesterday and today. HE remains the FATHER's answer to all our problems and the atonement for our sins. It is above all the latter that we must remember. Where HE enters a heart, everything becomes new! HE is the pearl that the Church has to offer to the nations. Whoever has recognized its value wants nothing else. Nor can he place JESUS CHRIST in a series alongside others. The joy of having found HIM outshines everything. The God who became man is, after all, a singular event without equal! And For all!

(Original in German, from www.marian-eleganti.ch)

The Upheaval of the Breviary by Vatican II

18 years old, the French poet, dramatist and diplomat Paul Claudel was moved to conversion when he heard the Magnificat sung during Solemn Vespers on Christmas Eve 1886 at the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris:

"In an instant, my heart was touched and I believed. I believed with such force, with such relief of all my being, a conviction so powerful, so certain and without any room for doubt, that ever since, all the books, all the arguments, all the hazards of my agitated life have never shaken my faith, nor to tell the truth have they even touched it." (Paul Claudel, Ma conversion in Contacts et circonstances, Gallimard, 1940, p. 11ss.)

When Plinthos was 18 he went for a retreat to The Abbey of Our Lady of Mepkin, Monks Corner, South Carolina, Advent 1984, and was also moved to personally embrace the faith of his upbringing, which, until that time, he was decidedly not following. The traditional singing of the psalms seven times a day with the monks, albeit in the vernacular, changed his life. He then prayed the Christian Prayer (one volume breviary) book then the Liturgy of the Hours (4-volumes) for a decade as a seminarian. Then he prayed the Liturgia Horarum typical Latin edition of that same novus ordo breviary for another decade. In 2007, with the publication of Summorum Pontificum, he began to pray the 1960 Breviarum Romanum (2 vol.) as published by Pope Saint John XXIII.

That breviary, which I have now been saying for almost twenty years, is most satisfying, and very fitting for the daily prayer of the parish priest.

It is a huge irony that just after the death of Pope John XXIII Sacrosanctum Concilium (Chapter IV: The Divine Office nos. 83-101) entirely overhauled the Roman Breviary which had only three years previous been reinstated by Pope John, he having wisely reverted to the Jerome Psalter and abrogated the Pian Psalter. Notwithstanding, that same Vatican II instruction still urged clerics, where possible to chant the breviary together, in Latin. Along with the irony of lay participation in the liturgy (which is typically outstanding in the TLM communities: hosts of men involved in every aspect of preparation, execution and following every liturgical celebration!) is that the only place where this is happening is the Ecclesia Dei communities: priests actually singing the breviary in Latin!

By the way, traditional groups should organize and promote Sunday vespers everywhere. No permission needed for that. You can go into most cathedrals (which are often empty) in the middle of the afternoon and just do it. Sing to God which in treasures of our faith.

Below is the SC relevant text in full. Note especially the requirement to preserve the Latin! Alas! 101.1 "In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office."

CHAPTER IV

THE DIVINE OFFICE

83. Christ Jesus, high priest of the new and eternal covenant, taking human nature, introduced into this earthly exile that hymn which is sung throughout all ages in the halls of heaven. He joins the entire community of mankind to Himself, associating it with His own singing of this canticle of divine praise.

For he continues His priestly work through the agency of His Church, which is ceaselessly engaged in praising the Lord and interceding for the salvation of the whole world. She does this, not only by celebrating the eucharist, but also in other ways, especially by praying the divine office.

84. By tradition going back to early Christian times, the divine office is devised so that the whole course of the day and night is made holy by the praises of God. Therefore, when this wonderful song of praise is rightly performed by priests and others who are deputed for this purpose by the Church's ordinance, or by the faithful praying together with the priest in the approved form, then it is truly the voice of the bride addressed to her bridegroom; It is the very prayer which Christ Himself, together with His body, addresses to the Father.

85. Hence all who render this service are not only fulfilling a duty of the Church, but also are sharing in the greatest honor of Christ's spouse, for by offering these praises to God they are standing before God's throne in the name of the Church their Mother.

86. Priests who are engaged in the sacred pastoral ministry will offer the praises of the hours with greater fervor the more vividly they realize that they must heed St. Paul's exhortation: "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:11). For the work in which they labor will effect nothing and bring forth no fruit except by the power of the Lord who said: "Without me you can do nothing" (John 15: 5). That is why the apostles, instituting deacons, said: "We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4).

81. In order that the divine office may be better and more perfectly prayed in existing circumstances, whether by priests or by other members of the Church, the sacred Council, carrying further the restoration already so happily begun by the Apostolic See, has seen fit to decree as follows concerning the office of the Roman rite.

88. Because the purpose of the office is to sanctify the day, the traditional sequence of the hours is to be restored so that once again they may be genuinely related to the time of the day when they are prayed, as far as this may be possible. Moreover, it will be necessary to take into account the modern conditions in which daily life has to be lived, especially by those who are called to labor in apostolic works.

89. Therefore, when the office is revised, these norms are to be observed:

a) By the venerable tradition of the universal Church, Lauds as morning prayer and Vespers as evening prayer are the two hinges on which the daily office turns; hence they are to be considered as the chief hours and are to be celebrated as such.

b) Compline is to be drawn up so that it will be a suitable prayer for the end of the day.

c) The hour known as Matins, although it should retain the character of nocturnal praise when celebrated in choir, shall be adapted so that it may be recited at any hour of the day; it shall be made up of fewer psalms and longer readings.

d) The hour of Prime is to be suppressed.

e) In choir the hours of Terce, Sext, and None are to be observed. But outside choir it will be lawful to select any one of these three, according to the respective time of the day.

90. The divine office, because it is the public prayer of the Church, is a source of piety, and nourishment for personal prayer. And therefore priests and all others who take part in the divine office are earnestly exhorted in the Lord to attune their minds to their voices when praying it. The better to achieve this, let them take steps to improve their understanding of the liturgy and of the bible, especially of the psalms.

In revising the Roman office, its ancient and venerable treasures are to be so adapted that all those to whom they are handed on may more extensively and easily draw profit from them.

91. So that it may really be possible in practice to observe the course of the hours proposed in Art. 89, the psalms are no longer to be distributed throughout one week, but through some longer period of time.

The work of revising the psalter, already happily begun, is to be finished as soon as possible, and is to take into account the style of Christian Latin, the liturgical use of psalms, also when sung, and the entire tradition of the Latin Church.

92. As regards the readings, the following shall be observed: a) Readings from sacred scripture shall be arranged so that the riches of God's word may be easily accessible in more abundant measure.

b) Readings excerpted from the works of the fathers, doctors, and ecclesiastical writers shall be better selected.

c) The accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints are to accord with the facts of history.

93. To whatever extent may seem desirable, the hymns are to be restored to their original form, and whatever smacks of mythology or ill accords with Christian piety is to be removed or changed. Also, as occasion may arise, let other selections from the treasury of hymns be incorporated.

94. That the day may be truly sanctified, and that the hours themselves may be recited with spiritual advantage, it is best that each of them be prayed at a time which most closely corresponds with its true canonical time.

95. Communities obliged to choral office are bound to celebrate the office in choir every day in addition to the conventual Mass. In particular:

a) Orders of canons, of monks and of nuns, and of other regulars bound by law or constitutions to choral office must celebrate the entire office.

b) Cathedral or collegiate chapters are bound to recite those parts of the office imposed on them by general or particular law.

c) All members of the above communities who are in major orders or who are solemnly professed, except for lay brothers, are bound to recite individually those canonical hours which they do not pray in choir.

96. Clerics not bound to office in choir, if they are in major orders, are bound to pray the entire office every day, either in common or individually, as laid down in Art. 89.

97. Appropriate instances are to be defined by the rubrics in which a liturgical service may be substituted for the divine office.

In particular cases, and for a just reason, ordinaries can dispense their subjects wholly or in part from the obligation of reciting the divine office, or may commute the obligation.

98. Members of any institute dedicated to acquiring perfection who, according to their constitutions, are to recite any parts of the divine office are thereby performing the public prayer of the Church.

They too perform the public prayer of the Church who, in virtue of their constitutions, recite any short office, provided this is drawn up after the pattern of the divine office and is duly approved.

99. Since the divine office is the voice of the Church, that is of the whole mystical body publicly praising God, those clerics who are not obliged to office in choir, especially priests who live together or who assemble for any purpose, are urged to pray at least some part of the divine office in common.

All who pray the divine office, whether in choir or in common, should fulfill the task entrusted to them as perfectly as possible: this refers not only to the internal devotion of their minds but also to their external manner of celebration.

It is, moreover, fitting that the office, both in choir and in common, be sung when possible.

100. Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually.

101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.

2. The competent superior has the power to grant the use of the vernacular in the celebration of the divine office, even in choir, to nuns and to members of institutes dedicated to acquiring perfection, both men who are not clerics and women. The version, however, must be one that is approved.

3. Any cleric bound to the divine office fulfills his obligation if he prays the office in the vernacular together with a group of the faithful or with those mentioned in 52 above provided that the text of the translation is approved.

Critical Praise of The Tridentine Breviary, Blessed John Henry Newman

The Vatican II Overhaul of the Breviary

"The Faith Must Become Culture!" --Pope Leo XIV

Why do people love the Traditional Latin Mass? Because in it the faith has become culture! That is good! Here is a citation from the blog of Bishop Rob Mutsaerts who defends the Traditional Latin Mass on the grounds of legitimate cultural sensibilities which must be respected and promoted, if we are to be consistent.

"The Traditional Latin Mass exerts an attraction not only upon those who grew up before the Council. Young Catholics too [and non-Catholics] feel drawn to it. When young people consciously choose silence, Gregorian chant, ritual precision, and a liturgy that makes virtually no concession to the contemporary preference for spontaneity and immediate comprehensibility, that says something. It suggests that modernization is not always the best path to evangelization. Perhaps modern man sometimes longs precisely for what is not modern. Perhaps he is not seeking a liturgy that resembles as closely as possible the world in which he lives daily and has nothing new to offer him, but a liturgy that helps him to rise above that world. This is not an argument against the new Mass. It is an argument against the assumption that liturgical renewal necessarily coincides with adaptation to the spirit of the age...

"The Catholic et-et — the celebrated Catholic principle of both-and — could be a fruitful starting point here as well. Tradition and legitimate development. Unity and diversity. Fidelity to the Council and reverence for the centuries that preceded it. The new Mass and room for the transmitted Roman liturgy, within the communion of the Church.

"...[T]he Church need not forbid its past to secure its future. A Church that truly trusts in the living Tradition can afford to love its own history. A Church that receives with joy a Byzantine, Maronite, and Armenian liturgy in its midst need not feel too threatened by a Roman Mass that was so dear to it for so many centuries. The Traditional Latin Mass is, after all, no foreign intruder in the Catholic Church; it comes from her own house. And a mother Church ought not to treat her own children as strangers because they prefer to pray in the language of their grandparents."

† Rob Mutsaerts

This love for the Traditional Roman Liturgy, which is the finest cultural expression of Western Catholicism for two thousand years, and arguably the most beautiful cultural achievement of humanity, especially in the musical and architectural elements thereof, is good, noble and true! That type of cultural nobility and rootedness was lauded and encouraged by Pope Leo XIV even today in His Holiness' Wednesday audience, which I quoted in the title. Here is the relevant passage from his reflection on Gaudium et Spes today.

"The relationship between faith and culture finds its primary foundation in the Incarnation: if the divine Word became flesh and came to dwell among us (cf. Jn 1:14), then faith too is an incarnate reality, interwoven with the culture in which it is immersed. It is also required to become culture, that is, to reach the person in their living environment, made up of human words, traditions, religious meaning, art and poetry, thought and science. As Saint John Paul II loved to repeat, “a faith that does not become culture is a faith not fully accepted, not entirely thought out, not faithfully lived”. (St. John Paul II, Address to participants in the Congress of the Ecclesial Movement of Cultural Commitment (MEIC), 16 January 1982.)"

In the Traditional Latin Mass "the faith [has become] an incarnate reality, interwoven with the culture in which it [was and continues to be] immersed. It [became culture, as it was bound to do,] reaching the person in his living environment, made up of human words, traditions, religious meaning, art and poetry, thought and science."

Plinthos Response to Excommunicated Archbishop Viganò

Here is my quick response to my last post, my translation of Excommunicated Archbishop Viganò's indictment of traditional Catholics.

The excommunicated Archbishop is ironically suffering from his excessive Ultramontanism. Because he neglects to distinguish the Office of Peter from the historical holder of the Office, and, because he neglects to distinguish Papal Primacy/Supremacy from Papal Magisterial Infallibility (with all of the attendant distinctions and conditions thereof).

To accept and uphold and revel under Papal Jurisdiction is essential to Catholic identity. That is a juridical fact. All those who are officially excommunicated from the Catholic Church are not Catholic. On the other hand, all those who are baptized in the Catholic Church and are not excommunicated are Catholic. Poor Viganò, himself purportedly excommunicated, claims that all Catholics are unfaithful and excommunicated by the way they are treated and because of the errors of their leaders. There are so many errors in logic here that they are too many to enumerate. But let me try.

1. The first error is that mistreatment = de facto excommunication. False.

2. Second error is that silence = formal consent. False. The response to this error is that silence is often the normal way when a superior falls into error. An inferior does not have an inherent right to correct a superior. It is not typically the place of an inferior to correct his inferior. In rare instances an inferior might rightly correct a superior, but only when necessary, and then, only with the utmost deference. Each man should typically stay in his lane!

3. To obey an erring superior is to share in his error and therefore in the culpability of the error. False. Because of point 2 above, this is also false.

4. The faithful must disobey and reject leaders who are in error. False. They must obey in everything except sin. Witness Christ Himself. Christ obeyed sinners, religious and civil, to death, death on a Cross, and He never sinned. There are many instances of this throughout our history of Saints: e.g. Saint Pio of Pietrelcina.

5. Because of his doctrinal zeal (in his erroneous ultramontanism) Viganò sets himself as the judge of the Papal Authority. His doctrinal stance makes him confuse his obligation to obedience. He rejects the Pope's rightful jurisdiction because he disagrees with the Papal doctrinal teachings. That does not follow. The Pope is still the Supreme, Immediate, Universal authority on the earth, even when he is wrong. His jurisdiction is not infallible, but it remains Supreme and Universal, and must be obeyed, (not without just and sometimes necessary criticism) in all things but sin. 

6. The fundamental problem with the Viganò position is that it condemns the entire Catholic Church. The excommunicate declares all Catholics excommunicated! Making himself the Supreme Judge in the Church, he logically dissolves the Church. He makes himself Pope, and condemns the whole world. This traditionalist error is the typical Protestant error, of not accepting the priestly/episcopal/papal, God-given hierarchical authority in the Church. The fundamental problem is that of authority and obedience.

As G.K. Chesterton said, the problem with the Protestant is not that he has no Pope, the problem is that everyman thereby makes himself Pope. If the Pope is not the Supreme earthly authority, who is? Viganò? SSPX? The Sedevacantes? The Orthodox? The Lutherans? The Anglicans? The Calvanists? The Evangelicals? The Mormons? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The Christian Scientists? The Jews? The Muslims? The secular humanists? The atheists?

Cf. Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk.

P.S. There is an appeal process for excommunication, and as long as that process proceeds, the excommunication is without effect. Dear excommunicated Archbishop Viganò, you should try to work out of your excommunication. Obedience is the solution! Never consent to error, but, by all means, obey rightful authority, without sinning yourself, to death, even death on the cross!

New Scathing Viganò Indictment Must be Heard!

I, as an "excommunicated" person, address you, since that is what you consider me to be. I believe that the condition attributed to me can shed light on the one in which you yourselves actually find yourselves today.

You have not been excommunicated, and you do everything not to be, like those who wish to escape punishment. Yet you are treated as excommunicated. It must be said, not without irony, that after having denied you the Vatican Basilica for the Pontifical Mass, you are now even denied entry for the profession of faith and for devotion to the See of the Most Blessed Peter. And while your access to the Vatican Basilica was blocked by barriers and at Santa Maria Maggiore you were only granted a low Mass in place of the solemn Pontifical Mass, a few months ago LGBTQ+ groups were welcomed, with their rainbow flags and blasphemous slogans, and a homosexual abortionist disguised as an archbishop.

As Ecclesia Dei communities, as Ratzinger priests and bishops, followers of Summorum Pontificum, the Mass of all time is granted to you as an exception to be justified. You are increasingly excluded from parishes; the bishop's authorization is required to celebrate what our fathers celebrated without permission. Your institutions are subjected to visits and inspections, your seminarians are viewed with suspicion, and your rite is tolerated as long as it does not disturb.

What is this, if not excommunication without trial, or worse still, the Roman authorities' desire to subjugate your conscience? An exclusion that dare name it. To avoid the sentence, you suffer it in practice. To avoid appearing "outside the Church," you live on its margins, with contortions and inconsistencies that are now plain for all to see. You dare to say there is no state of necessity, you harshly criticize the Society of Saint Pius X, you consider me a pariah... It follows that your silence does not protect you from punishment: it only takes away your right to call it unjust.

It must be acknowledged, for the sake of truth, that Leo and the modernist-synodalist elite occupying the Vatican are acting consistently. Leo firmly believes in the Second Vatican Council and is an enthusiastic promoter of its synodal version: he cannot consistently uphold the Rite of all time, which is its living denial. Summorum Pontificum has always been a chimera: the dismemberment of the one venerable Rite into two antithetical forms, a permission that depends on who grants it and is withdrawn when it is no longer useful. You cannot therefore be criticized for your trust, but for the pretense of wanting to base what is yours by divine right on the coexistence of two irreconcilable rites and on an indult that declares you barely tolerated.

Nor does it help you to appeal to religious freedom or freedom of worship, or to synodal inclusiveness, to secure a seat in the Pantheon: those who demand, on a par with everyone else, the right to practice their own religion have already admitted that the Apostolic Mass is one religious experience among others, and the Truth is one opinion among opinions. These false freedoms do not protect Tradition: they are the instrument by which Truth—the only Religion—is excluded not only from public life, but even from the Sacred Precinct.

It is not enough to reject the Council for what contradicts the Magisterium, as you are wont to repeat. Vatican II was a revolutionary event and is a permanent revolution: it must be repudiated as such, not amended with a list of corrections, because no one can remedy with a benevolent exegesis what began as a deliberate rupture.

To Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider, I dare say that their authority is now all superficial: they are a caricature of themselves, with their precious miters and capes, their defense of the Council and their concelebrations.

Rome is not merely silent; it does not simply "tolerate" you by confining you to increasingly cramped Indian reservations: it wants to re-educate you, and it tells you so, demanding that you—who enjoy a significant following in conservative circles—become "His Majesty's opposition," acting as gatekeepers—as they say today—and thus containing the hemorrhage of Catholics increasingly disoriented by your acquiescence to the Vatican's most scandalous blunders. And it is now evident that a controlled opposition, far from achieving any success for the cause of Roman Catholicism, is instead complicit in the destruction of the Church.

Here then is Cardinal Burke's reassuring statement: "Certainly the current situation does not constitute a state of necessity." But if a state of necessity does not exist today, after what umpteenth scandal and what unheard-of heresy will you find the courage to rise up? How many more toads are you willing to force into the mouths of those who look to you as a moral and doctrinal point of reference? After Amoris Laetitia, Pachamama, the Abu Dhabi Declaration, Traditionis Custodes, Fiducia Supplicans, Mater Populi Fidelis... and after being prevented from professing your Faith at the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles?

As I wrote in The Capital Schism: "As long as a part of Catholics (the so-called conservatives) persists in refusing to recognize the bipolarism of the 'conciliar and synodal papacy,' they will find themselves in the terrible situation of giving deliberate assent to error; in the terrible position of those who, with that complacency in servile obedience, create the premises for the 'desertio,' the abandonment of God, the withdrawal of Grace. It is precisely that recognition of error that institutionalizes it, that makes it irreversible, that disarms all resistance and that, ultimately, criminalizes those who heroically resist."

With your polite consent and by remaining silent so as not to lose what has been granted to you, you in fact lend yourselves to the operation of deception (2 Thess 2:11).

I bless you and pray for all of you.

In Christo Rege,
✠ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Viterbo, October 24, 2026
St. Raphaëlis Archangelli

"We Need a New Liturgical Consciousness" --Ratzinger

"We need a new liturgical consciousness, to be rid of [the] spirit of arbitrary fabrication... For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is...important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church's whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don't understand why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliation within the Church."

Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, San Francisco: Ignatius, 2002, 415-416.

Traditionalists are Treated Like Lepers --Ratzinger

The Lepers: Letter from the Secretariat of State blocking entry of Traditional Pilgrims to Saint Peter’s Basilica

The present day Catholic hierarchy's disposition toward traditional Catholicism looks very much like the approach of the enemies of Catholicism and of, on the worldly political front, the new colonialism of the world since, at least, the French Revolution: destroy and plunder. "Destroy the glories of Christendom because they are not ours. Whatever is not ours should be destroyed, sacked and plundered." That has been the prevailing attitude of the anti-Catholic worldly spirit and it has infected also our present ecclesiastical leaders my whole lifetime, and I am no longer young! That spirit is dictating the repressive actions of the Church today!

What the world has done to Christendom--divide, destroy and plunder--it has done to the Church, and practically the last cultural remnant to stand is The Traditional Latin Mass, with her most prized gem, her liturgical-music patrimony, the greatest achievement of humanity!

Recall that when the English began destroying the Irish and Scottish cultures it began by forbidding their languages and smashing their instruments. Demolish the great cultural achievements, because they are not our own! That is the playbook of the anti-Catholic revolution since the Protestant Reformation. Divide, destroy, disgrace and plunder all things Catholic. That anti-Catholic spirit is prevalent among our hierarchy, many of whom are entirely unaware of the anti-Catholicism therein.

__
Cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium - Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
Excerpts from Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) -- Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - Second Vatican Council
Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI On December 4, 1963

CHAPTER VI - Sacred Music

112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn Liturgy

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites.

…[T]he purpose of sacred music…is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful…

114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs...

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action…

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority…This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

121. Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures. Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music…The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.

Bishop Schneider on the Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage in Rome, Etc.

The TLM Mass was canonized by Pope Pius V as the most sure form in doctrine, in piety and in liturgy.

Not allowed in the house of the father they go to the house of the mother to complain and find solace and shelter in the one household of the faith.

Pope Francis is also in Mary Major! for his soul!

The traditional Latin Mass is the mass of the saints, of the ages!

Below is the Vigil with the Youth of France in Paris with Pope Leo XIV, a great display of traditional Catholicism. 50:00 to 109:00 minute.

By their fruits you shall know them!

In the post-conciliar Church of affirming the world, what we are left with is silence: a Church leadership that is, by and large, failing to teach and preach the fullness of the faith.

Our age is full of smiling clerics who speak warmly of welcome and unity and fail to teach, defend or hand-on the faith entrusted to them. And yet, teaching necessarily involves judgment. It requires distinguishing truth from falsehood, fidelity from betrayal, and Christ from the world and its spirit. It means identifying the enemies of the soul. Ever since the Fall--the first rebellion--full unity will never again be possible, not even in the end times, when those cast into Hell will remain chained there forever. This mighty and ancient battle is on-going, and, so, picking a side is part of being a faithful Christian. Faithful, that is, to the party of the only truth faith, to Christ Himself.

Charity without truth is not charity and peace bought by silence is not peace.

On Excise Taxes: Inordinately Burdening the Poor!

Excise taxes are inherently regressive, meaning lower-income households spend a larger share of their income on them than wealthier households. Because low-income families consume a greater percentage of their earnings on everyday and taxed goods (such as tobacco, fuel, utilities and tolls on roads), the financial burden hits them disproportionately.

Cf. taxfoundation.org

Here are two excise taxes on necessary items, a tax which inordinately affects the poor. These taxes are a much greater proportion of a poor man's money than that of a middle-class or rich man. The rich man is not affected in the least, and the middle-class man only minimally. For the poor man, it is a significant percentage of his meagre means.

Another consideration is the use of wine at Mass. To tax wine is to inordinately tax Catholic churches which use wine in divine worship. It is a tax which punishes Catholic worship, taxing a product bought by the donations of the faithful.

I'm just sayin!

N.B. Plinthos said it, and it needs to be noted! For starters, these hidden taxes should be clearly spelled out for the consumer at the moment of purchase! That disclosure should be required! Every man has a right to know who is taking his money, how and when!

Below is the breakdown State by State for liquor (beer and wine are different but similar rates, reflecting relative alcohol content) and gas.

Liquor Excise Tax per liter (40% alcohol)

Federal Excise tax is typically $2.85. Add that to the State figures below.

State
1	New Hampshire	$0.00
1	Wyoming	$0.00
3	Missouri	$0.53
4	Colorado	$0.60
5	Texas	$0.63
6	Kansas	$0.66
7	Indiana	$0.71
8	Arizona	$0.79
9	Louisiana	$0.80
10	Wisconsin	$0.86
11	California	$0.87
12	Nevada	$0.95
13	Nebraska	$0.99
14	Georgia	$1.00
15	Massachusetts	$1.07
16	Tennessee	$1.18
17	Delaware	$1.19
18	North Dakota	$1.30
18	South Dakota	$1.30
20	Rhode Island	$1.43
20	South Carolina	$1.43
22	Maryland	$1.44
23	New Jersey	$1.45
24	Oklahoma	$1.47
25	Connecticut	$1.57
26	Hawaii	$1.58
27	New Mexico	$1.60
28	New York	$1.70
29	Florida	$1.72
30	Pennsylvania	$1.98
31	Illinois	$2.26
32	Minnesota	$2.31
33	West Virginia	$2.37
34	Vermont	$2.39
35	Mississippi	$2.48
36	Kentucky	$2.53
37	Arkansas	$2.58
38	Montana	$2.79
39	Maine	$3.15
40	Ohio	$3.26
41	Alaska	$3.38
42	Idaho	$3.42
43	Michigan	$3.86
44	Iowa	$4.00
45	Utah	$4.25
46	North Carolina	$4.82
47	Alabama	$6.04
48	Virginia	$6.20
49	Oregon	$6.27
50	Washington	$9.69

So, in New Jersey, 1 Liter of whiskey will be 2.85 + 1.45 = $3.35 (excise tax). This tax is included in the retail price of the bottle. Sales tax is extra, and is charged on this tax too. That is tax upon tax!

Gas Excise Taxes per Gallon

Federal Tax: 18.40¢. Add that to the State figures below.

	State Tax
1	Alaska	8.95¢
2	Hawaii	18.50¢
3	New Mexico	18.88¢
4	Arizona	19.00¢
5	Oklahoma	20.00¢
6	Texas	20.00¢
7	Louisiana	20.93¢
8	Delaware	23.00¢
9	North Dakota	23.03¢
10	New Hampshire	23.75¢
11	Wyoming	24.00¢
12	New York	24.18¢
13	Mississippi	24.40¢
14	Nevada	24.81¢
15	Arkansas	25.00¢
16	Connecticut	25.00¢
17	Kansas	25.03¢
18	Kentucky	26.40¢
19	Tennessee	27.40¢
20	Massachusetts	27.56¢
21	South Carolina	28.75¢
22	Missouri	29.99¢
23	Iowa	30.00¢
24	South Dakota	30.00¢
25	Colorado	30.18¢
26	Alabama	31.00¢
27	Maine	31.45¢
28	Utah	32.55¢
29	Minnesota	32.70¢
30	Nebraska	32.70¢
31	Wisconsin	32.90¢
32	Idaho	33.00¢
33	Montana	33.75¢
34	Georgia	34.05¢
35	Vermont	34.88¢
36	West Virginia	35.70¢
37	Ohio	38.50¢
38	Oregon	40.00¢
39	Florida	40.10¢
40	Rhode Island	41.12¢
41	North Carolina	41.25¢
42	Virginia	42.40¢
43	Maryland	46.81¢
44	New Jersey	49.15¢
45	Michigan	53.40¢
46	Pennsylvania	58.70¢
47	Washington	60.17¢
48	Indiana	63.10¢
49	Illinois	70.40¢
50	California	73.64¢

So, in New Jersey, the total tax per gallon of gas in 18.4 + 49.15 = 67.19¢ (excise tax). Again, the poorer the man the more inordinate this essential tax burden!

Summorum Pontificum Brought More Unity to the Church: Archbishop Cordileone

 

The Full Interview

Will the Sleeping Lion Ever Awaken?

Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia still need to be overturned to eliminate the present scandal to the Church faithful and to the world, and to stop the countless sacrileges which are tacitly permitted thereby, by the Holy See.

The world is wrongly led to believe by these erroneous Vatican instructions, which still stand, that homosexual activity is OK and that receiving communion in the state of mortal sin is OK too. And there are countless parishes and numerous bishops who are promoting those sacrileges with the resultant scandal to all.

And, of course, Tucho Fernandez, the author of those errors, has to go,...yesterday!

Since faggotry is thus condoned by the Church, it is no wonder that the TLM is trashed by the same error promoting leadership! Lex credendi, lex orandi! Ambiguous teaching begets ambiguous worship!

When will Pope Leo finally wake up, alas!

__

This post was precipitated by the remarks at a TLM retreat where Plinthos gave the key address, of a prominent neo-con New Jersey priest presenter who claimed that Fiducia Supplicans is no problem! In his Q&A response to a Nigerian layman who asked the question about the harm to the faith due to the institutionized scandal of that Vatican decree, he claimed, to the chagrin of his TLM audience, that it was a lex desuata: that no couples are actually approaching parishes for those sacrilegious blessings and that, indeed, no clerics are giving them! I quickly responded that I could readily name half a dozen parishes in the Archdiocese of Newark notoriously offering every manner of blessing and encouragement to active sodomite "couples," with not so much as a hint of condemnation of the sin and scandal thereof. Those couples might even find a bishop or two in Newark to "bless" their sodomy. The Newark bishop who was made the new ordinary of Metuchen himself, a Newark priest, is notoriously the founder of one such "ministry" in a parish where he was pastor in the Archdiocese of Newark. Fiducia Supplicans is a terrible scandal to all! The scandalous McCarrick legacy continues in the Archdiocese of Newark, to the dismay of all faithful Catholics! The priests who aren't fags have to act like fags or at least not publicly condemn faggotry. They have to tacitly accept it! That's the Newark Archdiocese status quo! Exactly McCarrick! That faggotry, sanctioned by Fiducia Supplicans, is a heinous crime which wails to heaven for vengeance! And the reigning Pontiff is apparently oblivious to the calamitous cry!

Scandal is the Sin of Leading Others to Sin

 

Saint John Henry Newman: Honored by the Church

Saint John Henry Newman, who's feast day is today, the day of his 1845 conversion to the Catholic faith, is honored by the Church in perpetuity, and eternally!

Created Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII 12 May, 1879

Beatified by Pope Benedict XVI 19 September, 2010

Canonized by Pope Francis 13 October 2019

Declared Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo XIV 1 November 2025

Here is a confessor of the Catholic faith, priest, celibate priest, who gave testimony to the Catholicity of the Catholic Faith in the universal truth of Her dogmas and the Catholicity (universality) of that same dogmatic Catholic religion throughout history.

Newman, ever the unifier! brings the last three Roman Pontiffs together in their homage of him, our newest Doctor of the Church. Co-Patron (with Saint Thomas Aquinas) of Catholic Education!

Newman, Doctor, Co-Patron of Catholic Education with Aquinas

Renew Your Supernatural Motive, Constantly: Live Deliberately! --Don Bosco

"Always try to act on some principal of faith; never at random or for purely human motives. Always give great importance to whatever you do."

- St. John Bosco

"Miracle of the Monk and Roses": Medieval Origin of the Rosary

There is an ancient Medieval account of the origin of the The Most Holy Rosary of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary as given directly to a monk by Our Blessed Mother Mary called "The Miracle of the Monk and Roses."

Bystanders — actually robbers! — saw a young monk, stopping to rest in his journey, kneel down in the road and begin reciting “Ave, Maria...” As each prayer dropped from the monk’s lips, it turned into a rose, which was gathered up by the Virgin Mary standing nearby (the monk evidently didn’t see her, but the robbers did). The Virgin showed her pleasure at the gift of prayers by weaving the roses into a garland for her head. The robbers immediately repented and hastened to a priest to confess their sins, became monks, and, after a long and joyful lives in the monastic life died holy deaths!

The Miracle of the Monk and Roses: Bohun Hours, fol. 20r

The manuscript is the Bohun Hours, Royal Library, Copenhagen, MS Thott 547 4°, made in England around 1370–1387. On fol. 20r, in the lower border, is a three-part illumination explicitly identified by the manuscript catalogue as “The Miracle of the Monk and Roses.”

And, importantly, the Royal Library itself has the folio online:

Royal Library — Thott 547 4°, folio 20 recto

The catalogue gives the three scenes:

1. Left: A young monk kneels before an image of the Virgin and places a wreath of flowers on her head.
2. Center: The monk has become distressed because the season of roses has passed and he can no longer make his customary rose wreaths.
3. Right: This is the scene you are looking for. The monk kneels before the crowned Virgin, who holds a wreath; two or three robbers are shown in the adjacent grove, pointing toward the miraculous scene. Two horses and additional figures are also present.

The remarkable thing is that this isn't merely an image that happens to resemble the story. The scholarly catalogue calls the sequence “The Miracle of the Monk and Roses” and explicitly identifies the figures at the right as robbers.

But there is an interesting difference from your wording

The illumination does not seem to show the individual roses visibly coming out of the monk's mouth. Instead, the artist has compressed the miracle into the final scene: the monk is kneeling before Mary with the completed wreath, while the robbers stand off to the side witnessing it.

That may actually tell us something about medieval iconography: the artist apparently assumed that the viewer already knew the narrative and represented the result of the miracle, rather than laboriously depicting every Ave Maria becoming a rose.

There is also strong scholarly evidence that this particular story was indeed transmitted in versions involving a monk and robbers. A study of the medieval tradition specifically says that the robbers “perceive the Virgin gathering roses from the brother’s mouth and weaving them into garlands”, and cites the 1454 Mainz manuscript Unser Frauwen Rosengertlin as an early witness.

And there is an earlier textual witness

The Oxford database identifies the story as “Aves Seen as Roses,” from Jean Mielot's Miracles de Nostre Dame, with the rubric:

Dun jeusne religieulx qui par deuocion faisoit tous les jours des roses vng chappeau de roses...

“A young religious who out of devotion made every day a chaplet of roses...”

So we've now got a pretty solid chain:

medieval text → monk → Ave Marias → roses → Virgin → rose garland → robbers witness the miracle → medieval manuscript illumination actually depicting the monk, Virgin, garland, and robbers.

(Image and explanation of image: ChatGPT)

Leo, Francis's Bonaparte?

The Story (Google auto-translate from the original Spanish)

In recent months, a hypothesis has been frequently mentioned: Leo XIV is, or would be, Francis's Bonaparte. In other words, his mission would be to Bonapartize the reforms introduced by the Argentinian pontiff . This is likely to be the case; it may be entirely, or only partially. In any case, I believe it is still too early to determine. But the mere possibility warrants further consideration.

First, let's clarify the term. I'm not referring here to Bonapartism as Karl Marx understood it, but as liberal historians have understood it. They see Napoleon as the man who consolidated and disseminated the gains of the Revolution by neutralizing its violence. They argue that the Coup of 18 Brumaire was not a betrayal of the Revolution but its stabilization: Napoleon supposedly took the revolutionary principles and ideals of 1789 and institutionalized them permanently, while bringing the cycle of violence to a close (the Reign of Terror, the internal civil war, the instability of the Directory). In other words, with Bonaparte, "the Revolution ends" precisely because it is institutionalized and exported without the need for a guillotine.

Let's apply this hermeneutic to the case at hand: after the brutality of Francis's pontificate, with its arbitrary actions, rudeness, and various heresies, Leo would play the role of Napoleon: he would stabilize all those measures with a red mozzetta and good manners. This is, as I said, a hypothesis that we may finally be able to verify, to our horror, in a few years. We cannot know for sure now. But following the master Marcus Tullius Cicero, who asserts that "history is the teacher of life," let's see how history has behaved in similar cases.

Napoleon and Bonapartism

Napoleon Bonaparte exported revolutionary ideals with a gentle touch—beyond the wars. All of Europe and the new American nations that emerged during those years adopted the ideals proclaimed in the French Revolution, imposed in France through the Reign of Terror, and disseminated throughout Europe under Napoleon's aura of civilization.

It is true that the Congress of Vienna (September 1814–June 1815) was a deliberate and largely successful halt to this expansion, but structurally it was only temporary. This was because it could not dismantle Napoleon's legal and administrative framework. Furthermore, although it was able to suppress symptoms, it could not suppress causes, since constitutional liberalism and nationalism, the underlying forces, continued to operate in lodges, the underground press, universities, and secret societies throughout the Restoration. In short, in 1848, the "Springtime of the Peoples" confirmed that the reactionary order of 1815 could no longer contain the liberal and national forces it sought to stifle. If "Bonapartism" was the administrative dissemination of revolutionary principles without the Terror, the Viennese Restoration was the attempt—partially successful, but not definitive—to politically neutralize that dissemination without being able to undo its already established legal effects . If we outline what happened in those slightly more than fifty years (from 1789 to 1848), we have a revolutionary explosion imposed by terror; an expansion and stabilization with good manners; a reaction that manages to partially return to the Old Regime and a final triumph of the revolutionary ideals.

Bonapartism in the Church

Let us return to the hermeneutical exercise: Did a similar process occur in the Church? It would be too easy to think that it all began with Vatican II, but that was not the case; it began much earlier. Let us recall the figure of Cardinal Ercole Consalvi (1757-1824), Secretary of State to Pius VII. It was he who, accepting the revolutionary government of France and betraying the priests and bishops who had remained faithful to the Holy See and to traditional principles, “made a deal” with Napoleon; that is, he made a pact with the revolutionary ideals. With the Concordat of 1801 signed with Napoleon, Consalvi managed to wrest official recognition of Catholicism from the post-revolutionary French regime, even forcing the mass resignation of the entire previous French episcopate (both constitutional and non-constitutional) in order to reorganize the Church in France from scratch under papal authority, but according to the dictates of the new Emperor. This is where Vatican realpolitik is born : pure pragmatism when dealing with governments. At the commemorative congress for Consalvi held in the Vatican Museums in January 2024, Cardinal Parolin himself defined this policy as an approach that “defends and promotes the demands of the Gospel and knows how to adapt intelligently to the times,” providing answers “without romanticism” but through “continuous, discreet, and laborious work .” He further clarified: ecclesiastical realpolitik seeks “all possible solutions for the survival of local Catholicisms and, if necessary, for their development”—that is, contingent responses to contingent problems , without doctrinal preconceptions that would prevent negotiation with the current government, whatever its political leanings. Ultimately, this amounts to the practical acceptance of liberalism's triumph. Without declaring war against it, negotiations take place, seeking to obtain as many advantages as possible, even at the cost of abandoning certain principles. This is the policy applied to the countries of the communist bloc during the pontificate of Paul VI—we need only recall the suffering endured by Cardinals Mindszenty in Hungary, Slipij in Ukraine, and Stepinac in Croatia. And it is the policy currently being implemented in China : an arrangement with the communist regime, the practical acceptance of its principles in exchange for potential benefits for the Church and, of course, the betrayal of the Catholics who remained faithful.

Consalvism also had its Congress of Vienna: it was checked by two reactionary papacies, that of Gregory XVI (1831-1846) and that of Pius IX (1846-1878), a pope who turned out to be a coot, since, despite being a staunch liberal, he switched sides a couple of years after his election. With Leo XIII (1878-1903) things changed again, as foreign policy was handled by Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, a Consalvist. One need only recall the sad episode of the Ralliement , which responded to the dilemma: pragmatically accommodate the regime that emerged from the Revolution to preserve what was essential, or reject it outright as illegitimate? By 1890, France had been under the Third Republic for two decades, and the majority of French Catholics remained Legitimists or Orleanists at heart, hostile to the republican regime on principle and not only because of its anticlerical policies. In this situation, Leo XIII entrusted Cardinal Charles Lavigerie, Archbishop of Algiers and Carthage, with the mission of giving a public indication of the Holy See's intentions. Lavigerie did so on November 12, 1890, in the famous "Toast of Algiers," declaring that "when the will of a people has been clearly expressed... it becomes necessary to accept the existing form of government." The impact was enormous, and Leo XIII confirmed the new direction on February 16, 1892, with the encyclical Au milieu des sollicitudes. French Catholics, the Pope stated, could and should accept the Third Republic as a legitimate form of government, without this implying acceptance of its secularist laws, which remained entirely open to challenge. The underlying, explicit political objective was to form a large conservative party uniting Catholics and moderate republicans, isolating both anticlerical radicalism and intransigent monarchism. That's how it went for the Consalvistas and the rallies .

This liberal policy suffered another setback with the election of Saint Pius X. Rampolla was removed as Secretary of State and replaced by Rafael Merry del Val. Some say he was also from the Consalvi school of thought, that is, liberal, but I'm not so sure. What is certain is that the interregnum was short-lived, because with Benedict XV, a direct disciple of Rampolla, and his Secretary, Cardinal Gasparri, Consalvi's policies were consolidated, as Gasparri would also become Secretary of State under Pius XI. Two resounding and compelling historical events confirm the stabilization of Consalvi's policies within the Church . The first of these is the agreement reached by Gasparri with the Masonic government of Mexico, which ended the Cristero War by condemning all the Catholics who had risen up and given their lives in defense of and fidelity to Catholic doctrine. The second is the Lateran Pacts, also signed by Gasparri with Mussolini, by which the Church relinquished the sovereignty it had held for 1300 years. In both cases—and there are surely several more—it was a matter of pure pragmatism and a partial renunciation of many principles.

We can say, then, that Consalvism stabilized under the pontificate of Pius XI and was consolidated under that of Pius XII. This is a topic that can be debated, but I believe it was so. Eugenio Pacelli was Gasparri's right-hand man, and his pontificate, although it evokes nostalgia in many, was an example of Bonapartism, and I am referring to the discreet and slow, but relentless, permissiveness of the liberals' rise to power. It is no coincidence that Giovanni Battista Montini always held very high positions. If Pius XII had not been the Bonaparte of Consalvism, not only in the realm of the Church's foreign policy but also in theology, the catastrophe of Vatican II would have been impossible. All the bishops who participated were chosen by one of the last two Piuses.Two similar schemes

Here we see a scheme more or less similar to the previous one: a revolutionary explosion by the historical standards of the Church; a reaction that manages to partially return to the old Catholic regime and a final triumph of the ideals of liberalism.

Let's look at what has happened in recent decades, when political liberalism definitively permeated theology and internal politics of the Church. The Second Vatican Council and its subsequent spirit were a French Revolution without the guillotine, but cruel and ruthless nonetheless, which succeeded in imposing a new regime and even a new Creed . Everything was done quickly, brutally, and without regard for the consequences during the pontificate of Paul VI. John Paul II was Napoleon, for with good manners, overwhelming leadership, and firmness on certain moral issues, he Bonapartized the spirit of the Council, or, if you prefer, allowed its Bonapartization . I wrote a post on this subject in 2012, which I refer readers to so as not to repeat myself. The pontificate of Benedict XVI attempted to act as a brake, with its timid and hesitant style, almost like a Schubert impromptu. Then came Francis; They expected a hurricane that would turn the Church upside down, but it ended up being a blizzard that only served to disrupt everything and cover it in dust, with no benefit for anyone other than their own lusts.
Advertisement

Will Leo be Francisco's Napoleon?

Note 1: It is not my intention to make a moral judgment of the Vatican realpolitik inaugurated by Cardinal Consalvi. That is another discussion; here I have simply narrated the historical facts. It would be very easy to say simply that it was a capitulation of the principles upheld by the Church. The issue is much more complex.

Note 2: I have been struck by the fact that some good friends have been viciously criticizing Pope Leo XIV for mentioning in France the revolutionary motto of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". But as I discussed with one of them in X, such a gesture is not a novelty but the repetition of a two-hundred-year-old pattern: just as Pius VII, after the Terror, negotiated the Concordat of 1801 with Napoleon—heir of the Revolution—without thereby endorsing its ideological origin, and just as Leo XIII, in Au milieu des sollicitudes (1892), asked French Catholics for the ralliement to the Third Republic, distinguishing the form of government from the obedience due to the constituted power (Rom 13:1), Leo XIV, in the Élysée Palace, did not challenge "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" as hostile vocabulary, but rather renamed it, affirming that its true foundation lies in the Gospel—the same patristic logic of "the plundering of the Egyptians" applied to political language.

Joe Schmid & Noah McKay, Princeton PhD Candidates Convert

Joe Schmid

I’m a Philosophy PhD candidate at Princeton University. I graduated with a B.A. in philosophy from Purdue University in 2022. On the scholarly level, I’ve published articles in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of time. I’ve also authored the books Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs (Springer, 2023, with Daniel Linford) and The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy (Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020). On the popular level, I create lecture videos and host discussions on my YouTube channel, Majesty of Reason. I also run a blog by the same name.

My primary research is in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of mind. I focus in particular on persistence, infinity and infinitary paradoxes, modality, arguments for and against God’s existence, and psychophysical laws.

When I’m not doing philosophy, I’m probably either running, playing soccer, biking, or cuddling with my dog.



Noah McCay

I’m a PhD student in philosophy at Princeton University. I received my master’s degree in philosophy from the University of Edinburgh in 2023.

I’m interested in epistemology, metaethics, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. I’ve published papers on some of these topics in journals such as Analysis, Synthese, Episteme, and Faith and Philosophy. For more information about my research, check out my CV and PhilPapers page.

Lately, I’ve wondered about whether insights into the evolution of human cognition should lead us to reconsider our moral and religious perspectives on the world. I’ve also wondered about what kinds of objects human minds are (material? immaterial? simple? composite? enduring? instantaneous?).

Joe Schmid's Curriculum Vitae

Joseph C. Schmid

Princeton University | js9105@princeton.edu | www.josephschmid.com

Updated Sep 27th, 2026

AREAS OF SPECIALTY

Metaphysics

Philosophy of Religion

AREAS OF COMPETENCE

Philosophy of Mind

Logic

EDUCATION

BA in Philosophy with highest distinction, Purdue University (Aug 2019–May 2022)

PhD in Philosophy, Princeton University (Aug 2023–Present) [in progress]

RESEARCH

Book

1. Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs (2023, with Daniel Linford), Springer.

Articles

19. “The Problem of Psychonomic Harmony” (Forthcoming), Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

18. “Room for Improvement: Why Finitist Arguments Don’t Check Out” (Forthcoming), Analytic Philosophy (with Troy Dana).

17. “Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles: Severing the Case for Finitism” (2026), The Journal of Philosophy 123: 137–163 (with Troy Dana).

16. “Symmetry Lost: A Modal Ontological Argument for Atheism?” (2026), Noûs 60: 313–327 (with Peter Fritz and Tien-Chun Lo).

15. “Benardete Paradoxes, Causal Finitism, and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis” (2025), Mind 134: 397–421 (with Alex Malpass).

14. “The End is Near: Grim Reapers and Endless Futures” (2024), Mind 133: 1057–1077.

13. “Ontological Arguments” (2024), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, eds. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (with Graham Oppy and Joshua Rasmussen).

12. “Benardete paradoxes, patchwork principles, and the infinite past” (2024), Synthese 203: 51.

11. “Symmetry’s revenge” (2023), Analysis 83: 723–731.

10. “Branching Actualism and Cosmological Arguments” (2023), Philosophical Studies 180: 1951–1973 (with Alex Malpass).

9. “A Step-by-step Argument for Causal Finitism” (2023), Erkenntnis 88: 2097–2122.

8. “Naturalism, classical theism, and first causes” (2023), Religious Studies 59: 63–77.

7. “From Modal Collapse to Providential Collapse” (2022), Philosophia 50: 1413–1435.

6. “The fruitful death of modal collapse arguments” (2022), International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 91: 3–22.

5. “The aloneness argument against classical theism” (2022), Religious Studies 58: 401–419 (with R.T. Mullins).

4. “Classical Theism, Arbitrary Creation, and Reason-Based Action” (2022), Sophia 61: 565–579.

3. “Existential inertia and the Aristotelian proof” (2021), International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 89: 201–220.

2. “Simply Unsuccessful: The Neo-Platonic Proof of God’s Existence” (2021), European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 13: 129–156.

1. “Stage One of the Aristotelian Proof: A Critical Appraisal” (2021), Sophia 60: 781–796.

Presentations and contest papers

10. “Against Causal Finitism”, Princeton Metaphysics Reading Group (April 8, 2026).

9. “Psychonomic Harmony: A New Puzzle”, Christopher Newport University Philosophy of Religion Workshop (Oct 16–18, 2025) and Princeton Metaphysics Reading Group (October 8, 2025).

8. “Symmetry Lost: Anselm, Adams, and Atheism”, 2025 Eastern Conference of the Society of Christian Philosophers: The Philosophical Legacy of Robert Merrihew Adams (October 3, 2025).

7. “Symmetry breakers for the modal ontological argument”, Princeton Project in Philosophy & Religion Reading Group (April 23, 2025).

6. “The Grim Reaper Paradox and Causal Finitism”, panel speaker at the 2025 Pacific APA (April 18, 2025).

5. “Fellow travelers and plenitudinous ontologies”, Princeton Metaphysics Reading Group (February 26, 2025).

4. “Symmetry lost”, Virginia Commonwealth University Philosophy of Religion Workshop (Oct 17–19, 2024) and Princeton Metaphysics Reading Group (October 8, 2024).

3. “An unsatisfactory way of being an ontological pluralist”, Princeton Metaphysics Reading Group (April 23, 2024).

2. “Consciousness, Causation, and Explanation: A Construction Argument”, The Society of Christian Philosophers Conference (April 5–6, 2019), College of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. Conference paper accepted via blind review.

1. “The Indeterminacy of the Physical and the Principle of Sufficient Reason” (July 2019), The Conscious Machine, Azusa Pacific University. Contest paper won via blind review.

AWARDS

1. Nov, 2025. Winner of Emergent Ventures grant ($25,000) to complete a co-authored book on new arguments in philosophy of religion.

2. May, 2022. Graduated Purdue University with highest distinction (B.A., Philosophy).

3. Feb, 2022. Purdue University College of Liberal Arts Outstanding Senior Award.

4. Feb, 2021. Eric L. Clitheroe Memorial Scholarship (first place).

5. Feb, 2021. William L. Rowe Scholarship in Philosophy (Purdue University).

6. Feb, 2021. Purdue Department of Philosophy Outstanding Sophomore Award.

7. Jul, 2019. Azusa Pacific University’s The Conscious Machine call for arguments essay prize.

8. Jan, 2019. Purdue University presidential scholarship.

TEACHING

1. Fall 2026. Teaching Assistant for Introductory Logic (PHI 201).

2. Spring 2025. Teaching Assistant for Lara Buchak’s Philosophy, Religion, and Existential Commitments (PHI 211).

3. Spring 2025. Guest lectured about the ethics of charitable giving for Lara Buchak’s Philosophy, Religion, and Existential Commitments (PHI 211).

4. Fall 2024. Teaching Assistant for Kimberly Brewer’s Philosophy and the Modern Mind (PHI 200).

5. Fall 2023. Guest lectured about epistemic partiality in friendship for Elizabeth Harman’s The Ethics of Love and Sex (PHI 390).

SERVICE

Served as anonymous reviewer for Mind (3x), Noûs (2x), Australasian Journal of Philosophy (5x), Analysis (1x), The Philosophical Quarterly (1x), Ergo (1x), Routledge (1x), American Philosophical Quarterly (1x), Erkenntnis (1x), Synthese (3x), Inquiry (1x), Philosophy (1x), Philosophia (1x), Acta Analytica (1x), Dialectica (1x), The Review of Metaphysics (1x), Faith and Philosophy (3x), Religious Studies (5x), Sophia (6x), American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly (1x), Agatheos: European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (1x), TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology (2x).

Served on Princeton’s Prospective Visit Committee (Spring 2024).

Organiser for Princeton’s Workshop in Normative Philosophy (AY 2024-25).

Organiser for Princeton’s MAP (Minorities and Philosophy) series (AY 2025-26).

Organiser for Princeton’s Compass workshop (AY 2025-26).

Served on the organizing committee for The 2025 Eastern Conference of the Society of Christian Philosophers: The Philosophical Legacy of Robert Merrihew Adams.

PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY

1. I create lecture videos and host discussions with philosophers on my YouTube channel Majesty of Reason. My videos have over 2 million views in total and have been used in undergraduate courses such as Paul Draper’s Philosophy and Probability (PHIL 350) at Purdue University.

2. I self-published The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy (2020, 222 pages), a book aimed to help people cultivate critical thinking and philosophical reasoning skills.

3. I tutored students and interested lay people in philosophy during Fall 2021, Summer/Fall/Winter 2022, Spring/Summer 2023.

4. I am the Head of Instruction for the Reason & Rationality summer program, which teaches philosophy to high school students.

REFERENCES

Joshua L. Rasmussen, Baylor University (josh_rasmussen@baylor.edu)

Graham Oppy, Monash University (graham.oppy@monash.edu)

Paul Draper, Purdue University (pdraper@purdue.edu)

Jan Cover, Purdue University (jacover@purd