SPLENDID PAPAL MASS FOR THE SOLEMNITY OF OUR LORD, JESUS CHRIST, KING OF THE UNIVERSE

 

Holy Father! Let me offer a critique of “themed Masses”! Why in the name of God and all that is holy, is an added theme given to this great and wondrous Solemnity—the Jubilee of Choirs???

Holy Father, this homily, almost in its entirety is about choirs not Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe!!!! What the!!!!

And it’s pablum. 

But I will give you a break given that today, the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe,  you issued your Apostolic Letter on the 1,700th Anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. And in that letter, you glorify and honor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe! 

JUBILEE OF CHOIRS

HOLY MASS

HOMILY OF POPE LEO XIV

St Peter's Square
Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe
Sunday, 23 November 2025

[Multimedia]

_______________________________________

Dear sisters and brothers,

In the responsorial Psalm, we have sung, “Let us go rejoicing to the house of the Lord” (cf. Ps 122). Today’s liturgy invites us, therefore, to walk together in praise and joy towards the encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, gentle and humble Sovereign, the One who is the beginning and end of all things. His power is love, his throne the Cross, and through the Cross his Kingdom shines forth upon the world.  “From the wood he reigns” (cf. Hymn Vexilla Regis) as Prince of Peace and King of Justice who, in his Passion, reveals to the world the immense mercy of God’s heart. This love is also the inspiration and motive for your singing.

Dear choristers and musicians, today you celebrate your jubilee and you show thanks to the Lord for granting you the gift and grace to serve him by offering your voices and talents for his glory and for the spiritual edification of your brothers and sisters (cf. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 120).  Your task is to draw others into the praise of God and to help them to participate more fully in the liturgy through song.  Today, you fully express your “iubilum,” your exultation, which flows from hearts overflowing with the joy of grace.

Great civilizations have given us the gift of music in order to express what we carry deep in our hearts and what words cannot always convey.  Music can give expression to the whole range of feelings and emotions that arise within us from a living relationship with reality.  Singing, in particular, constitutes a natural and refined expression of the human being: mind, feelings, body and soul come together to communicate the great events of life.  As Saint Augustine reminded us: “Cantare amantis est” (cf. Sermo 336,1), that is, “singing belongs to those who love.”  Those who sing give expression to love, but also to the pain, tenderness and desire that dwell in their hearts, while at the same time, loving those to whom they address their song (cf. Enarrationes in Psalmos, 72,1).

For the people of God, song expresses invocation and praise. It is the “new song” that the Risen Christ raises to the Father, in which all the baptized participate as one body animated by the new life of the Spirit. In Christ, we become singers of grace, children of the Church who discover in the Risen One the cause of our praise. Liturgical music thus becomes a precious instrument through which we carry out our service of praise to God and express the joy of new life in Christ.

Saint Augustine exhorts us, again, to sing while we walk, like weary travelers who find in song a foretaste of the joy they will experience when they reach their destination. “Sing, but continue your journey […] progress in virtue” (Sermon 256, 3). Being part of a choir means advancing together, therefore, taking our brothers and sisters by the hand and helping them to walk with us. It means singing the praises of God together, consoling our brothers and sisters in their suffering, exhorting them when they seem to give in to fatigue and encouraging them when difficulties seem to prevail. Singing reminds us that we are a Church on a journey, an authentic synodal reality capable of sharing with everyone the vocation to praise and joy on this pilgrimage of love and hope.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch also employs moving words to express the relationship between the song of the choir and the unity of the Church: “From your unity and harmonious love, sing to Jesus Christ. And let each one become a choir, so that being harmonious of your arrangement and taking up the song of God in unison, you may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, that he may both hear you and recognize you for your good works” (Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Ephesios, IV). In fact, the different voices of a choir harmonize with each other, giving rise to a single hymn of praise, a luminous symbol of the Church, which unites everyone in love in a single pleasing melody.

You belong to choirs that carry out their ministry primarily in liturgical settings. Yours is a true ministry that requires preparation, commitment, mutual understanding and, above all, a deep spiritual life, so that when you sing, you both pray and help everyone else to pray. This ministry requires discipline and a spirit of service, especially when preparing for a solemn liturgy or an important event in your communities. The choir is a small family of individuals united by their love of music and the service they offer. However, remember that the community is your larger family.  You are not on stage, but rather a part of that community, endeavoring to help it grow in unity by inspiring and engaging its members. As in all families, tensions or minor misunderstandings can arise. These things are normal when working together and striving to achieve a goal. We can say to some extent that the choir symbolizes of the Church, which, striving toward its goal, walks through history praising God. Even when this journey is beset by difficulties and trials and joyful moments give way to more challenging ones, singing makes the journey lighter, providing relief and consolation.

Strive, therefore, to make your choirs ever harmonious and beautiful, and a brighter image of the Church praising her Lord. Study the Magisterium carefully. The conciliar documents set out the norms for carrying out your service in the best possible way. Above all, dedicate yourselves to facilitating the participation of the people of God, without giving in to the temptation of ostentation, which prevents the entire liturgical assembly from actively participating in the singing. In this, be an eloquent sign of the Church’s prayer, expressing its love for God through the beauty of music. Take care that your spiritual life is always worthy of the service you perform, so that your ministry may authentically express the grace of the liturgy.

I place all of you under the protection of Saint Cecilia, the virgin and martyr who raised the most beautiful song of love through her life here in Rome, giving herself entirely to Christ and offering the Church a shining example of faith and love. Let us continue singing and once again make our own the invitation of today’s responsorial psalm: “Let us go rejoicing to the house of the Lord.”

POPE LEO ISSUES AN APOSTOLIC LETTER ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA AND A MUST READ IT IS—CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND WITH MEANING FOR TODAY’S MAJOR HERETICAL/HETERODOX CONTROVERSIES IN THE CHURCH

Press title for Pope Leo's Apostolic Letter:

 LEO XIV

APOSTOLIC LETTER

IN UNITATE FIDEI

ON THE 1700th ANNIVERSARY OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

My comments: I could see myself giving a class or two on Pope Leo’s Apostolic letter. It has everything, history, theology and a way forward for today—orthodoxy.

It has an examination of conscience and calls us to a Christ-centered life! It’s about soteriology!

I would add too, that Pope Leo recognizes the need for the Church, especially in a Council, like, let’s say, Nicaea, to condemn heterodoxy and heresy, not include, coddle or embrace it in a self-defeating dialogue. 

Arius was a heretic and he needed to be condemned! And yes, Nicaea condemned him and his heresies in no uncertain terms! 

Here are a couple of money bytes that are important. Thank God we now have a pope who is clear, unambiguous and is leading the way to orthodoxy:

However, in the wake of external threats, disputes and conflicts soon arose within the Church.

Arius, a priest from Alexandria in Egypt, taught that Jesus was not truly the Son of God. Though more than a mere creature, he was believed to be an intermediate being between the inaccessible God and humanity. Moreover, there would have been a time when the Son “did not exist.” This view was in line with the prevailing mindset of the time and therefore seemed plausible.

However, God does not abandon his Church. He always raises up courageous men and women who bear witness to the faith, as well as shepherds who guide his people and show them the way of the Gospel. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria realized that Arius’ teachings were not at all consistent with Sacred Scripture. Since Arius was not conciliatory, Alexander summoned the bishops of Egypt and Libya to a Synod, which condemned Arius’ teachings. He then sent a letter to the other bishops of the East providing a detailed report. In the West, it was Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, Spain, who took action. He had already proven himself a fervent confessor of the faith during the persecution of Emperor Maximian and enjoyed the trust of the Bishop of Rome, Pope Sylvester.

However, Arius’ followers also rallied together. This led to one of the greatest crises in the Church’s first millennium. The reason for the dispute was not a minor detail. It concerned the essence of the Christian faith, namely the answer to the decisive question that Jesus had asked his disciples at Caesarea Philippi: “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:15)…

….As we have already said, Nicaea clearly rejected the teachings of Arius. However, Arius and his followers did not give up. The Emperor Constantine himself and his successors increasingly sided with the Arians. The term homooúsios became a bone of contention between the Nicene and anti-Nicene factions, thus triggering other serious conflicts. Saint Basil of Caesarea eloquently described the ensuing confusion by likening it to a nighttime naval battle in a violent storm. [8] Saint Hilary, on the other hand, testified to the orthodoxy of the laity in contrast to the Arianism of many bishops, acknowledging that “the ears of the people are holier than the hearts of the priests.” [9]

Saint Athanasius became the firm foundation of the Nicene Creed through his unyielding and steadfast faith. Although he was deposed and expelled from the Episcopal See of Alexandria five times, he returned each time as bishop. Even while in exile, he continued to guide the People of God through his writings and letters…

…The profession of faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and God is the center of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This is the heart of our Christian life. For this reason, we commit to follow Jesus as our master, companion, brother and friend. But the Nicene Creed asks for more: it reminds us not to forget that Jesus Christ is the Lord (Kyrios), the Son of the living God who “for our salvation came down from heaven” and died “for our sake” on the cross, opening the way to new life for us through his resurrection and ascension.

Naturally, following Jesus Christ is not a wide and comfortable path. However, this often demanding or even painful path always leads to life and salvation (cf. Mt 7:13-14). The book of the Acts of the Apostles recounts the new way (cf. Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4, 14-15, 22) that is Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 14:6). Following the Lord necessarily entails following the way of the cross, which, through repentance, leads us to sanctification and divinization. [14]

If God loves us with all his being, then we too must love one another. We cannot love God whom we do not see without loving our brother and sister whom we do see (cf. 1 Jn 4:20). Love for God without love for neighbor is hypocrisy; radical love for our neighbor, especially love for our enemies, without love for God, requires a “heroism” that would overwhelm and oppress us. In following Jesus, the ascent to God passes through descent and dedication to our brothers and sisters, especially the least, the poorest, the abandoned and the marginalized. What we have done to the least of these, we have done to Christ (cf. Mt 25:31-46). In the face of disasters, wars and misery, we bear witness to God’s mercy to those who doubt him only when they experience his mercy through us. [15]

A GREAT POLITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POPE LEO AND THE USCCB AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM, FOR SO MANY CATHOLICS, BISHOPS, CLERGY, RELIGIOUS AND LAITY, THE CHURCH IS VIEWED THROUGH A POLITICAL LENSE AND LEAVES CHRIST AND HIS SALVATION OUT OF THE DISCUSSION!

Don’t get me wrong, the article I link by pressing its title is a great political analysis. But please, tell me where you read anything about the Most Holy Trinity and the exclusive way God redeems the world through Jesus Christ. Where is there anything about Mariology, Sacraments, Morality, Spirituality, devotions and the like?

This is linked from Rorate Caeli:

Leo and the American Bishops - the USCCB Election and Fake News Pushed by American Liberals
by Serre Verweij

My final comments: Pope Leo is Christo-Centric. He speaks always about salvation in Christ (soteriology) and the new pope speaks constantly about following Christ more closely through the Church. This was particularly true of his scripted answers (nothing off-the-cuff, thanks be to God) when speaking to American youth and the entire world on recently. 

His Holiness also warned about speaking about the Church using political categories or making the Church into a political party or aligned with any political party, like some commenters here do. 

In that regard, I have tried successfully and unsuccessfully not to use the terms progressives/liberals or conservatives/traditionalists to describe Catholics.

I think it is better to use the terms heterodox/heretical or orthodox/Truth pursuing and living, although these terms can be clunky. 

If we use political terms, we could say, heterodox progressive/liberal; heterodox conservative or neo-traditionalists. I can’t say I know of any orthodox progressive/liberals, they all tend to be heterodox. 

When it comes to actively forbidding elements of orthodox Catholicism that are not heterodox, such as the TLM and ancillary liturgies, and in the modern Mass, ad orientem, kneeling for Holy Communion—these things are just plain mean and mean-spirited. These are sins and I would classify them as mortal sins against orthodoxy and charity.

Maybe we should classify people’s attitudes and actions in the Church and in the USCCB as sinful or not, venial or mortal. No other labels would be needed and certainly not political labels. 

KNEELING, SITTING, STANDING, DURING MASS, EITHER THE MODERN OR ANCIENT: WHAT IS YOUR CUSTOM OR PREFERENCE?

THE BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO IS GOING AGAINST THE TIDE OF MOST WESTERN BISHOPS IN THE USA WITH THIS NEW DICTATE CONCERNING THE MASS:

American Catholicism likes rules and following the rules. Italians like rules, but don’t follow them. It’s a cultural thing. 

Even in pre-Vatican II times, things at Mass in Italy were far more chaotic than in the USA in pre-Vatican II times, more free-wheeling, as is the case with Italians.

The rubrics for the laity’s postures during Mass vary from region to region in the USA and differ greatly from what occurs to our 51st state to the north, Canada. 

In terms of the Communion Rite in the USA, there are two clearly different sets of rules in some dioceses. 

For the majority of dioceses in the USA the rule at Communion time is as follows:

1. After the Angus Dei, the laity kneel for the “Behold the Lamb of God”. 

2. From a kneeling position, people stand in an orderly way to process to Communion, standing, and then when they return to their pew they kneel in adoration and personal prayer. 

3. They remain kneeling until after Holy Communion and sit only after the left-over Hosts are placed in the tabernacle. If the ablutions then take place at the altar, the laity normally sit for this. 

In some dioceses in the USA, usually west of the Mississippi River, the following is required by bishops:

1. After the Agnus Dei, the laity remain standing for the “Behold the Lamb of God.”

2. From a standing position, they process to receive Holy Communion, standing.

3. They return to their pew and remain standing until the last person has received Holy Communion. 

(I am a bit unclear what the custom is when the laity then sit down. Maybe someone who knows can inform me. Do they sit or kneel after the last person has received or after the left over “Blessed Sacrament” is reposed in the tabernacle and the tabernacle closed. Or do they remain standing until the ablutions are completed and the “Prayer after Holy Communion” is prayed?)

WHAT IS YOUR CUSTOM? 

Some “traditionalists” are complaining about the micromanagement of the laity’s postures during the Mass. But this has always been the case in the USA and even with the TLM. The USA postures for the TLM even during pre-Vatican II times were very clear and were followed by most if not all churches in the USA at the time. There were differences only for the Low Mass and the Sung (High) Mass. But in the USA, improvisation by the laity wasn’t tolerated in the USA. 

I’ve always thought and taught that if the priest was expected to follow the rubrics of the Mass, so should the laity. There!

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND: A FORETASTE OF HEAVEN ON EARTH: A SACRAMENTAL…

 

MY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NEXT POPE..

 When you, future Holy Father, take possession of your Cathedral Church, The Basilica of Saint John Lateran, this is how to do it!

Watch the Facebook video HERE, narrated in Italian but the video says it all!

AT NO POINT DURING HIS HOLINESS’ QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH AMERICN YOUTH AT A YOUTH RALLY, DID POPE LEO POINT TO SYNODALITY AS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THEIR CATHOLICISM,, NOT ONCE—HIS HOLINESS POINTED TO JESUS CHRIST!

 I was blessed and most fortunate to be able to watch live the question and answer session Pope Leo had with American Youth and I provide the video of that below.

As my title says, Pope Leo never referred to synodality, thanks be to God!

He was great in his answers. While seemingly off-the-cuff, he knew what the questions were ahead of time and had prepared answers. He may or may not have read his answers from a teleprompter. But his answers were natural.

As with all things Pope Leo, all his answers were Christi-centric, that is, he put Christ first. He spoke of prayer, in particular, the Holy Rosary. He spoke about Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament. He spoke of intimacy with Christ through prayer and the sacraments, to include the Sacrament of Reconciliation. 

He spoke of a personal relationship with Christ, by God’s grace, putting Christ at the center of one’s life, and being led by Christ to lead a holy life as Christ teaches us!

He spoke of Catholic identity.

He spoke about listening to the call to the priesthood and religious life. 

He spoke of a lot and it was all good! No scratching of one’s head or what did he mean or was it this that he meant or that, that he meant?

He did not talk about going out and making a mess, but to allow Christ and His grace to help you clean up the mess of sin, evil, and a world detached from God!

Thanks be to God—we are emerging from the fog!

Listen and watch for yourself! 

WHEN “LIVING AND VIBRANT COLORS” HURT YOUR EYES!

 There was a news story about all the scaffoldings that were taken down from our Savannah Cathedral. These have been up for about two years to reconstruct or fortify what keeps our Cathedral spires from collapsing onto the street or into the Cathedral. 

But am I the only one whose retinas are damaged by the second photo?????

POPE LEO IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS SHOWING HIS HOLINESS’ CARDS ON HIS PAPACY SIX MONTHS INTO HIS PAPACY BEING THE PAPACY, NOT THE POPE FRANCIS’ PAPACY…

 

Some deriding or praising Pope Leo call His Holiness’ papacy, Pope Francis 2.0!

However, as I have been pointing out over and over and over again, Pope Leo is Pope Leo XIV and His Holiness has made clear since his election that he will be in continuity with all previous popes and praise them all.

He will be a clarifying pope and when he corrects his predecessor, it will be in a nice way—he’ll never cancel any of his predecessors. 

But in a talk to the bishops’ conference of Italy on Thursday, he makes clear his papacy will focus on Christ first and the salvation He offers the world and all else flow from our worship of Christ and His gift of eternal life in heaven through His One Sacrifice on the Cross. 

We worship Christ, not synodality, not processes, not change and certainly not a new church. We worship Christ and we give thanks that He founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Synodal is not in our Credo. Although we can certainly use the words synodal and collegial to describe how the Church should function, but never denying Divine Law. 

Here’s the talk the Pope Leo gave the Italian Bishops. I highlight in red His Holiness’ Christo-Centric foundation:

MEETING WITH THE ITALIAN BISHOPS AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE 81st GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ITALIAN BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE
[17-20 November 2025]

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE LEO XIV

Basilica of Saint Mary of the Angels in Assisi
Thursday, 20 November 2025

[Multimedia]

_______________________________

Dear brothers in the episcopate, good morning!

I warmly thank the Cardinal President for the words of greeting he addressed to me, and for the invitation to be with you to conclude the 81st General Assembly. I am happy to make my first stop, albeit a very brief one, in Assisi, a place of great significance for the message of faith, fraternity and peace that it conveys, which the world urgently needs.

Here Saint Francis received from the Lord the revelation of having to “live according to the Holy Gospel” (2 Test 14: FS 116). Indeed, Christ, “being rich above all, willed, nevertheless, with His most Blessed Mother, to choose poverty” (2Lf 5: FS 182).

The first thing we too are called upon to do is to look at Jesus. The reason for our being here, in fact, is faith in Him, crucified and risen. As I said to you in June, at this time there is a need, more than ever before, for “placing Jesus Christ at the centre and, following the path indicated by Evangelii gaudium, helping people to live out a personal relationship with Him, to discover the joy of the Gospel. In a time of great fragmentation, it is necessary to return to the foundation of our faith, to the kerygma” (Address to Bishops of the Italian Episcopal Conference, 17 June 2025). And this applies first of all to us: to start afresh from the act of faith that makes us recognize Christ as the Saviour and which is expressed in all areas of daily life.

Keeping our gaze fixed on the face of Jesus enables us to look at the faces of our brothers and sisters. It is his love that draws us to them (cf. 2 Cor 5:14). And faith in Him, our peace (cf. Eph 2:14), requires us to offer everyone the gift of his peace. We live in a time marked by divisions, both nationally and internationally: messages and language of hostility and violence are often spread; the race for efficiency leaves the most fragile behind; technological omnipotence compresses freedom; loneliness consumes hope, while numerous uncertainties weigh heavily on our future. Yet the Word and the Spirit still urge us to be artisans of friendship, fraternity, authentic relationships in our communities, where, without reticence and fear, we must listen to and harmonize tensions, developing a culture of encounter and thus becoming prophets of peace for the world. When the Risen One appears to the disciples, his first words are “Peace be with you” (Jn 20:19,21). And He immediately sends them forth, as the Father had sent Him (v. 21): the paschal gift is for them, but so that it might be for all!

Dear friends, in our previous meeting I indicated some guidelines for being a Church that embodies the Gospel and is a sign of the Kingdom of God: proclaiming the Message of salvation, building peace, promoting human dignity, cultivating a culture of dialogue, and fostering a Christian anthropological vision. Today I would like to emphasize that these guidelines correspond to the perspectives that emerged during the synodal journey of the Church in Italy. It is now up to you, Bishops, to outline the pastoral guidelines for the coming years, so I would like to offer you some reflections so that a truly synodal spirit may grow and mature in the Churches and among the Churches of our country.

First of all, let us not forget that synodality implies “the walking together of Christians with Christ and towards God’s Kingdom, in union with all humanity” (Final Document of the Second Session of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 28). From the Lord we receive the grace of communion which inspires and shapes our human and ecclesial relationships.

I would like everyone to commit themselves to the challenge of effective communion, so that the face of a collegial Church, which shares common steps and choices, may take shape. In this sense, the challenges of evangelization and the changes of recent decades, which affect the demographic, cultural and ecclesial spheres, ask us not to withdraw on the issue of diocesan mergers, especially where the demands of Christian proclamation invite us to overcome certain territorial boundaries and make our religious and ecclesial identities more open, learning to work together and rethink pastoral action by joining forces. At the same time, looking at the features of the Church in Italy, embodied in the various territories, and considering the effort and at times the disorientation that such choices may cause, I hope that the Bishops of every Region will discern carefully and, perhaps, be able to suggest realistic proposals for some of the small dioceses that have scant human resources, to evaluate whether and how they could continue to offer their service.

What counts is that, in this synodal style, we learn to work together, and that in the particular Churches we all make an effort to build open, hospitable and welcoming Christian communities in which relationships are translated into mutual responsibility for the proclamation of the Gospel.

Synodality, which implies an effective exercise of collegiality, requires not only communion among yourselves and with me, but also attentive listening and serious discernment of the requests that come from the people of God. In this regard, coordination between the Dicastery for Bishops and the Apostolic Nunciature, for the purposes of shared responsibility, must be able to promote greater participation of people in the consultation for the appointment of new bishops, in addition to listening to the Ordinaries in charge of the local Churches and those who are preparing to end their service.

Also regarding this latter aspect, I would like to offer you some guidance. A synodal Church, which walks the path traced by history while confronting the emerging challenges of evangelization, needs to renew herself continually. We must avoid allowing inertia, even when motivated by good intentions, to slow down the necessary changes. In this regard, we must all cultivate the inner attitude that Pope Francis has defined as “learning to say goodbye”, a valuable attitude when preparing to leave one’s position. It is good to respect the rule of 75 years for the conclusion of the service of Ordinaries in dioceses and, only in the case of Cardinals, may a continuation of ministry be considered, possibly for another two years.

Dear brothers, returning to the perspective of the Church’s mission in Italy, I urge you to remember the path travelled since the Second Vatican Council, marked by national ecclesial conferences. I urge you to ensure that your diocesan and parish communities do not lose their memory, but keep it alive, because this is essential in the Church: to remember the journey that the Lord leads us on through time in the desert (cf. Dt 8).

From this perspective, the Church in Italy can and must continue to promote an integral humanism, which helps and supports the existential journeys of individuals and society; a sense of humanity that exalts the value of life and care for every creature, that intervenes prophetically in public debate to spread a culture of legality and solidarity.

In this context, the challenge posed to us by the digital universe must not be forgotten. Pastoral care cannot limit itself to “using” the media, but must educate and dwell the digital world in a human way, without losing sight of the truth behind the multiplication of connections, so that the internet can truly be a space of freedom, responsibility and fraternity.

Walking together, walking with everyone, also means being a Church that lives among the people, welcomes their questions, soothes their sufferings and shares their hopes. Continue to be close to families, young people, the elderly and those who live in solitude. Continue to devote yourselves to the care of the poor: Christian communities rooted throughout the territory, the many pastoral workers and volunteers, and the diocesan and parish Caritas organizations are already doing a great job in this regard, and I am grateful to you.

In this same line of care, I would also like to recommend attention to the smallest and most vulnerable, so that a culture of prevention of all forms of abuse may also develop. Welcoming and listening to victims is the authentic trait of a Church who, in communal conversion, knows how to recognize wounds and is committed to healing them, because “where pain is deep, the hope that comes from communion must be even stronger” (Vigil of the Jubilee of Consolation, 15 September 2025). I thank you for what you have already done and encourage you to continue your commitment to the protection of minors and vulnerable adults.

Dear brothers, in this place Saint Francis and the first friars fully lived what we would call today a “synodal style”. Together, in fact, they shared the different stages of their journey; together they went to Pope Innocent III; together, year after year, they perfected and enriched the initial text that had been presented to the Pontiff, composed, according to Thomas of Celano, “mainly of expressions from the Gospel” (1Cel 32: FS 372), until it became what we know today as the first Rule. This conscious choice of fraternity, which is at the heart of the Franciscan charism together with minority, was inspired by an intrepid and persistent faith.

May the example of Saint Francis give you too the strength to make choices inspired by an authentic faith and to be, as a Church, a sign and witness of the Kingdom of God in the world. Thank you!

________________________________________

POPE LEO’S SOBER AND THOUGHTFUL WAY OF MAKING CLEAR WHAT POPE FRANCIS OBFUSCATED AND TWICE IN ONE DAY!

Twice in one day, Pope Leo has clarified Pope Francis. The first was in a very formal way with a Motu Proprio which I describe in the post below.

The second is the talk I reproduce about annulments of marriages.

One can see in this talk given by Pope Leo that His Holiness’ forte is Canon Law. And Canon Lawyers desire clarity in law but also in Church teachings, on justice and mercy and on doctrine and the Church’s hierarchical nature.

Here’s his talk and I highlight in red what is so sorely needed and clarified by Pope Leo:

Audience with participants in the formation course of the Roman Rota, 21.11.2025

This morning, in the Vatican Apostolic Palace, the Holy Father Leo XIV received in audience the participants in the juridical-pastoral formation course of the Roman Rota.

The following is the Pope’s address to those present:

 

Address of the Holy Father

In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you!

 

Good morning, buenos días, buongiorno! Welcome to you all!

I warmly greet every one of you. I thank the Dean of the Roman Rota and those who have collaborated for these days of study and reflection, which are intended to promote a sound legal culture in the Church. I rejoice at your numerous and distinguished presence, as a generous response to the call that every good practitioner of Church law feels for the good of souls.

The theme that guides us today is the tenth anniversary of the reform of the process of matrimonial nullity, carried out by Pope Francis. In his last Address to the Rota, on 31 January, he spoke of the intentions and main innovations of this reform. Referring to the words of my beloved predecessor, on this occasion I would like to offer you some reflections inspired by the title of your course: “Ten years after the reform of the canonical matrimonial process. Ecclesiological, juridical and pastoral dimensions”.

It seems useful to consider the relationship between these three approaches. This relationship is often forgotten, since it tends to conceive of theology, law and pastoral care as separate compartments. Indeed, it is quite common for them to be implicitly contrasted with one another, as if the more theological or pastoral approach were less legal, and vice versa, as if the more legal approach were to the detriment of the other two profiles. The harmony that emerges when the three dimensions are considered as parts of the same reality is thus obscured.

The poor perception of this interconnection comes mainly from a consideration of the legal reality of processes of matrimonial annulment as a purely technical field, which would be of interest only to specialists, or as a means aimed solely at obtaining the free status of persons. This is a superficial view, which disregards both the ecclesiological presuppositions of those processes and their pastoral relevance.

Among those ecclesiological presuppositions, I would particularly like to mention two: the first concerning the sacred power exercised in ecclesial judicial processes in the service of truth, and the second regarding the object of the process for the declaration of marriage nullity, namely the mystery of the conjugal covenant.

The judicial function, as a means of exercising governmental or jurisdictional power, is an integral part of the overall reality of the sacred power of pastors in the Church. This reality is conceived by the Second Vatican Council as a service. Lumen gentium states: “That duty, which the Lord committed to the shepherds of His people, is a true service, which in sacred literature is significantly called ‘diakonia’ or ministry (cf. Acts 2:17,25; 21:19; Rom 11:13; 1Tm 1:12)” (no. 24). A fundamental aspect of pastoral service operates in judicial authority: the diaconia of truth. Every faithful person, every family, every community needs truth about their ecclesial situation in order to walk well the path of faith and charity. The truth about personal and community rights is situated in this context: the juridical truth declared in ecclesiastical processes is an aspect of existential truth within the Church.

The sacred authority is participation in the authority of Christ, and its service to truth is a way of knowing and embracing the ultimate Truth, which is Christ Himself (cf. Jn 14:6). It is not a coincidence that the first words of the two Motu proprio with which the reform was initiated relate to Jesus, Judge and Pastor: “Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, Pastor animarum nostrarum” in the Latin one, and “Mitis et Misericors Iesus, Pastor et Iudex animarum nostrarum” in the Eastern one.

We might ask ourselves why Jesus as Judge has been presented in these documents as meek and merciful. Such a consideration might appear at first sign to be contrary to the binding requirements of justice, which cannot be waived on the basis of a misunderstood compassion. It is true that in God’s judgment on salvation, His forgiveness of the repentant sinner is always at work, but human judgment on the nullity of marriage cannot however be manipulated by false mercy. Any activity contrary to the service of the process of truth must certainly be deemed unjust. However, it is precisely in the proper exercise of judicial authority that true mercy must be practised. We can recall a passage from Saint Augustine in De civitate Dei: “What is compassion but a fellow-feeling for another’s misery, which prompts us to help him if we can? And this emotion is obedient to reason, when compassion is shown without violating right, as when the poor are relieved, or the penitent forgiven”.[1] In this light, the process of marriage annulment can be seen as a contribution by legal practitioners to satisfy the need for justice that is so deeply rooted in the conscience of the faithful, and thus to accomplish a just work motivated by true mercy. The aim of the reform, which is to make the process more accessible and expeditious, but never at the expense of truth, thus appears as a manifestation of justice and mercy.

Another theological premise, specific to the process of marriage annulment, is marriage itself, as founded by the Creator (cf. Gaudium et spes, 48). During the Jubilee for Families, I recalled that “marriage is not an ideal but the measure of true love between a man and a woman: a love that is total, faithful and fruitful”.[2] As Pope Francis emphasized, marriage is “a reality with its own precise consistency”, it is “a gift of God to the spouses”.[3] In the Preamble to Mitis iudex, the “doctrine of the indissolubility of the sacred bond of marriage” is reaffirmed.[4] In dealing with cases of nullity, this realism is decisive: the awareness of working in the service of the truth of a concrete union, discerning before the Lord whether the mystery of una caro, one flesh, is present in it, which subsists forever in the earthly life of the spouses, despite any relational failure. Dear friends, what a great responsibility awaits you! In fact, as Pope Benedict XVI reminded us, “the canonical proceedings for the nullity of marriage are essentially a means of ascertaining the truth about the conjugal bond. Thus, their constitutive aim is … to render a service to the truth”.[5]

Therefore, Pope Francis, in the Preface to the Motu proprio, clarifying the meaning of the reform, also wished to reaffirm the great advantage of resorting to judicial proceedings in cases of nullity: “We have done this following in the footsteps of our predecessors who wished cases of nullity to be handled in a judicial rather than an administrative way, not because the nature of the matter demands it, but rather due to the unparalleled need to safeguard the truth of the sacred bond: something ensured by the judicial order”.[6]

The institution of the judicial process must be valued, viewing it not as a cumbersome accumulation of procedural requirements, but as an instrument of justice. In fact, setting up a case in such a way as to ensure that the parties, including the defender of the bond, can present evidence and arguments in support of their position, and can know and evaluate the same elements brought by the other party, in a trial conducted and concluded by an impartial judge, constitutes a great benefit for all concerned and for the Church herself. It is true that especially in the Church, as indeed in civil society, efforts must be made to find agreements that, while guaranteeing justice, resolve disputes through mediation and conciliation. In this regard, efforts to promote reconciliation between spouses are very important, including, where possible, through the validation of the marriage. However, there are cases in which it is necessary to resort to litigation because the matter is not available to the parties. This is what happens in the declaration of marriage nullity, which involves a public ecclesial good. It is an expression of the service of the pastors’ authority to the truth of the indissoluble marital bond, the foundation of the family, which is the domestic Church. Behind the procedural technicalities, with the faithful application of the current legislation, the ecclesiological presuppositions of the matrimonial process are therefore at stake: the search for truth and the salus animarum itself. Forensic ethics, centred on the truth of what is right, must inspire all legal practitioners, each in their own role, to participate in that work of justice and true peace to which the process is directed.

The ecclesiological and juridical dimensions, if truly lived, reveal the pastoral dimension. Firstly, there has been a growing awareness in recent times of the inclusion of the Church’s judicial activity in the field of marriage within the overall pastoral care of the family. This pastoral care cannot ignore or underestimate the work of ecclesiastical tribunals, and the latter must not forget that their specific contribution to justice is a piece in the task of promoting the good of families, with particular reference to those in difficulty. This task pertains to everyone in the Church, both pastors and other faithful, and in a special way to those involved in the administration of justice. The synergy between pastoral attention to critical situations and the judicial sphere has found significant expression in the implementation of preliminary investigations aimed at ascertaining the existence of grounds for initiating a case of nullity.

On the other hand, the procedure itself has pastoral value. Saint John Paul II expressed it in these terms: “Juridical-canonical activity is pastoral by its very nature. It constitutes a special participation in the mission of Christ, the shepherd (pastore), and consists in bringing into reality the order of intra-ecclesial justice willed by Christ Himself. Pastoral work, in its turn, while extending far beyond juridical aspects alone, always includes a dimension of justice. In fact, it would be impossible to lead souls toward the kingdom of heaven without that minimum of love and prudence that is found in the commitment to seeing to it that the law and the rights of all in the Church are observed faithfully”.[7]

Ultimately, the three dimensions just mentioned lead us to reaffirm the salus animarum as the supreme law and purpose of matrimonial cases in the Church. In this way, your service as ministers of justice in the Church, which I myself shared a few years ago, reveals its great ecclesiological, juridical and pastoral significance.

In expressing my hope that the truth of justice will shine ever more brightly in the Church and in your lives, I cordially impart my Blessing to you all.

____________________________

 

[1] IX, 5: PL, 41, 261.

[2] Homily for the Jubilee of Families, Children, Grandparents and the Elderly, 1 June 2025.

[3] Francis, Address to the Roman Rota, 27 January 2023.

[4] Francis, Motu Proprio Mitis Iudex, Preamble.

[5] Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Rota, 28 January 2006, AAS 98 (2006), p. 136.

[6] Francis, Motu proprio Mitis Iudex, Preamble.

[7] Saint John Paul II, Address to the Roman Rota, 18 January 1990, no. 4.

A NEW MOTU PROPRIO FROM POPE LEO XIV CORRECTS POPE FRANCIS BY CANON LAW RATHER THAN WHIM; CAN WE EXPECT A CORRECTION OF TC AND ITS WHIMS?

Silire non possum’s commentary on Pope Leo’s new motu proprio with its text HERE. 

My comment first: This shows that Pope Leo, a canon lawyer, wants to make sure any decision made by the Supreme Pontiff is carefully in tune with Canon Law and if Canon Law must be adjusted, that must be done prior to any actual on-the-ground changes. 

It is a wonderful and marvelous thing that Pope Leo feels free to correct the canonical errors of Pope Francis or his modus operandi. Thanks be to God from Whom all blessings flow!

"Remedial" Motu Proprio: Leo XIV exposes the irregularity in the Petrini nomination and officially denies the Press Office

Vatican City - This morning, the Holy See made public a motu proprio signed by Leo XIV on November 19, 2025, by which the new Pontiff amends the Fundamental Law of the Vatican City State of May 13, 2023, directly affecting the composition of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State. The provision published today repeals Article 8, No. 1, and replaces it with a text that allows the presidency of members appointed by the Pope who are not necessarily cardinals.

Technically, this is a legislative adjustment; essentially, it confirms what Silere non possum had been denouncing since last January: the appointment of Sister Raffaella Petrini as President of the Governorate was not compatible with current law. Today, it emerges that Francis's amendment, announced by the Press Office on February 25 while the Argentine pontiff was entering and leaving the Gemelli Hospital, did not exist.

Petrini's Appointment on February 15: An Act Incompatible with Current Law

On February 15, 2025, a month after Bergoglio announced the appointment live on television at Che Tempo che fa, it was announced that Francis had appointed Sister Raffaella Petrini as President of the Pontifical Commission and the Governorate. However, Article 8 of the Fundamental Law stipulated that the President be a cardinal. Appointing a nun was legally unthinkable.

Silere non possum, in total solitude, documented that this was a violation of the rule of law, yet another institutional breach by a monarch acting like a despot. There was general silence, especially from the newspaper vendors employed at Santa Marta, the same ones Bergoglio received to sign books, secure exclusive interviews, and perform other media courtesies. The Secretariat of State reacted hastily, crafting a February 25 statement in an attempt to "cover up" the act. That statement—it can now be said without hesitation—was false.

The February 25 statement: an announcement without legal text

On February 25, 2025, the Press Office declared that Francis had amended the Fundamental Law of 2023 and Law no. CCLXXIV of 2018 and appointed Msgr. Emilio Nappa and Attorney Giuseppe Puglisi-Alibrandi as General Secretaries of the Governorate, granting Sister Raffaella Petrini—designated as the new President—the power to distribute responsibilities.

The February 25 statement was clear in its language, but lacked the essential: the law. The Press Office, in fact, spoke of a legislative change that was never promulgated, never published in the Cortile San Damaso, never published in L’Osservatore Romano, never included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Silere non possum said it that very day: without publication, the law does not exist.

No one else wanted to address the issue so as not to disturb the powerful of the day. Moreover, what happened in the last few hours is indicative. Some para-Vatican figures—like Franca Giansoldati, who, poor thing, suffers from cystitis because of those who highlight her lack of professional accuracy—during the previous pontificate climbed up to the third floor of the Fabbrica di San Pietro to praise Cardinal Mauro Gambetti, producing articles tailored to his needs. Today, however, those same environments have suddenly become uncomfortable, and those who once praised them are now distancing themselves, as if nothing had happened. It is the fate of journalism that bows to the powerful of the day: when the powerful changes, the dog turns around and bites you. Let's at least hope that Giansoldati gets better soon and finds greater professional clarity. 

Today's motu proprio: Leo XIV forced to correct an irregularity

The motu proprio signed by Leo XIV on November 19, and published only today, addresses Article 8.

The previous text read: "1. The Pontifical Commission is composed of Cardinals, including the President, and other members, appointed by the Supreme Pontiff for a five-year term.

2. In the absence or impediment of the President, the Pontifical Commission is presided over by the oldest Cardinal Member." Today, paragraph one has been replaced: "The Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State is composed of Cardinals and other members, including the President, appointed by the Supreme Pontiff for a five-year term."

This sentence alone solves the problem: the previous law did not allow a President who was not a cardinal.

If the law needs to be changed today, it means that until now the appointment was legally irregular. And here the political-ecclesiastical crux emerges: in recent months, Leo XIV has been forced to intervene several times because the regulatory inconsistencies left behind are numerous. Some are made public, others are discreetly corrected to avoid further media upheaval. The new Pontiff's sober style is one that journalists criticize only because it offers them no opportunities for profit and visibility. We will return to this in the coming hours.

The official confirmation of the complaint: the law did not exist

People close to the dying Pope had already told Silere non possum that neither the signature nor the law existed. This detail sheds a disturbing light on Francis's entire pontificate, characterized by motu proprio signed and then hidden, and by informal accesses to Santa Marta capable of having anything approved without any checks.

It is in this context that Stefano De Santis finds himself involved not only in compiling dossiers on priests and bishops on behalf of the Pope, but also in circulating documents for signature that would allow the Gendarmerie and the Promoter of Justice to act without limits.

The same pattern was repeated with Renato Tarantelli, who brought documents for Bergoglio's signature, and the Pope, without reading them, signed them. From one day to the next, assignments were cancelled, administrative structures were restructured, bank transfers and suitcases of cash were sent out. Structural disorder reigned at Santa Marta, fueled by improvisation, opacity, and the lack of real oversight. Today, with the motu proprio of Leo XIV, the confirmation becomes public. On February 25, the Holy See Press Office declared a false statement in an official document. This is a very serious matter: not a material error, but an attempt to present a nonexistent law as valid to justify a despotic act by the Pontiff.

The Rubble to Pick Up

Leo XIV, a canonist and a man of judgment and discernment, finds himself inheriting an institutional system that in recent years has operated according to anything but legalistic logic. And those protesting today against the return to normalcy—carefully prepared texts, thoughtful words, sober meetings, moments of prayer, limited media exposure, and the absence of theatrical communication—are precisely those who benefited from the previous climate of opacity: an environment in which corruption, manipulation, and pressure managed to sway the Pope, to the point of jeopardizing the very structure of the Holy See and the Catholic Church, which were repeatedly affected by the Pope's impromptu decisions and public statements.

The motu proprio is not merely a legislative intervention: it represents one of the major steps in the cleanup work begun by Leo XIV. And the fact that the Pope signed it "out of necessity," solely to correct an inherited error, is also evident from the choice not to repeal paragraph 2.

Leo XIV was perfectly clear about the distinction between ordained ministry, baptism, and religious life; he knew the hierarchical structure of the Church, respected it, and had no intention of overturning it.

Leo XIV began to put the pieces together. But the picture that emerged—between false communiqués, failed acts, and press coverage—is that of a government that has chosen arbitrariness over transparency. And Prevost is aware that if this is the system that accompanied Bergoglio, it's time to change it. As soon as possible.

d.E.P.

Silence is not possible