NO ONE SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO POPE LEO’S CATECHESIS ON VATICAN II—BUT HOLY FATHER, DON’T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THAT VATICAN II DISCOVERED AND TAUGHT WHAT WAS NOT KNOWN UNTIL VATICAN II SAID IT!

HELLO VATICAN NEWS! WAS VATICAN II THE ONLY ECUMENICAL COUNCIL EVER TO CALL US TO FRIENDSHIP WITH CHRIST? IS THIS SOMETHING NEW, NEVER BEFORE HEARD OF BY CATHOLICS? WOULD CATHOLICS NOT KNOW THIS IF NOT FOR “DEI VERBUM”? 

THAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH TEACHING VATICAN II—THE CHURCH WAS NOT BORN WITH VATICAN II UNLESS ONE WANTS AN ENTIRELY NEW CHURCH. THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY HOLY MOTHER CHURCH EVER SINCE JESUS CHRIST TAUGHT IT!

Pope at Audience: Vatican II calls us to friendship with Christ

During his weekly General Audience, Pope Leo XIV continues his catechesis series on the Second Vatican Council, looking more closely at "one of the most beautiful and important of the Council," namely the Dogmatic Constitution 'Dei Verbum,' on Divine Revelation.

By Deborah Castellano Lubov

“No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends."

Pope Leo XIV recalled Jesus' words in the Gospel passage according to St. John during his Wednesday General Audience on January 14, as he continued his new catechesis series, which is dedicated to the Second Vatican Council and a rereading of its Documents.

READ POPE LEO'S FULL CATECHESIS HERE

Focusing on the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, on Divine Revelation, the Pope called it one of the most beautiful and important Documents of the Council.

The Holy Father noted that the text recalls Jesus' invitation for us to be His friends.

"This is a fundamental point of Christian faith, which Dei Verbum reminds us of: Jesus Christ radically transforms man’s relationship with God, which is henceforth a relationship of friendship. Therefore, the only condition of the new covenant is love."

God makes us sons and daughters

He acknowledged that we are not equal to God, and the relationship between God and humanity always remains asymmetrical, as we are only creatures of the Creator.

In spite of this, the Holy Father said, with the coming of the Son in human flesh, God's Covenant opens up to His final purpose.

"In Jesus," he said, "God makes us sons and daughters, and calls us to become like Him, albeit in our fragile humanity."

With this in mind, Pope Leo reminded us of our need to listen, "so that the Divine Word may penetrate our minds and our hearts," and also "to speak with God," "not to communicate to Him what He already knows, but to reveal ourselves to ourselves."

Must make time for prayer each day

This, he explained, is why prayer is so important for us to live and to cultivate friendship with the Lord. We do so first of all, he said, in liturgical and community prayer, "in which we do not decide what to hear from the Word of God, but it is He Himself who speaks to us through the Church." 

This liturgical prayer, he continued, is "achieved in personal prayer, which takes place in the interiority of the heart and mind."

For these reasons, the Holy Father insisted, "time dedicated to prayer, meditation, and reflection cannot be lacking in the Christian’s day and week."

Finally, Pope Leo XIV pointed out that we know from experience how friendships easily end through a 'rupture' or neglect.

"Jesus calls us to be friends," he said. "Let us not leave this call unheeded." By welcoming and caring for this relationship, the Holy Father insisted, "we will discover that friendship with God is our salvation."

DEATH BY A THOUSANDS CUTS—CAN THE MAGISTERIUM JUST STOP IT?!?

As everyone who reads what I write on this blog knows, what I think is the greatest crisis in the liturgy isn’t so much Bugnini’s Mass if done by the book, but all the liturgical abuses surrounding it. It is used and abused in a way that the books prior to the reform never were. The question that no one is asking is why?

I was not an advocate for the return of the TLM and opposed its first iteration by St.Pope John Paul II. 

What I did advocate back then with my then bishop, Bishop Raymond Lessard, was allowance for the Bugnini Mass to be celebrated ad orientem and in Latin and kneeling for Holy Communion.

But once Pope Benedict liberated the TLM for most priests who desired to celebrate it, to celebrate it, I saw the beneficial nature of celebrating this Mass and the graces that flow from it in a way that I never experienced in the Bugnini Mass. And yes, there was cross-fertilization for me as the TLM influenced my attitude and style of celebrating the Bugnini Mass. 

Never did I think that after so many years of Summorum Pontificum that a future pope would revoke it and make all those who embraced Summorum Pontificum promulgated by a previous pope but still primarily celebrating the Bugnini Mass, would be treated as poorly in the way we were and are and so derided, humiliated and marginalized with many false accusations. And yet liturgical abuse of the Bugnini Mass is given a pass and no attempts to correct it from the top now!

But once the first cut of the knife came, and others followed, I felt that like the sexual abuse of Catholics by bishops and clergy that went unchecked, that the on-going spiritual abuse of Catholics must not follow the same path-it had and has to end. 

God bless Pope Leo. I hope His Holiness follows the common sense of Pope Benedict as it concerns the TLM. But if His Holiness chooses not to do so and is overly influenced by those who are opposed to the TLM based upon their reading of Vatican II, a pastoral, not a dogmatic, Council, then at least deal with the liturgical abuses of the Bugnini Mass as aggressively as killing the celebration of the TLM Mass. 

But I still pray that Pope Leo acknowledges Pope Benedict’s common sense:

DUH! CARDINAL ROCHE IS OPPOSED TO THE TLM AND WRITES A PAPER FOR THE CONSISTORY, NOT READ OR DISCUSSED, BUT GIVEN TO THE CARDINALS IN A WRITTEN FORM

The paper on the TLM was written by a Cardinal who once supported the premise of Summorum Pontificum as written by Pope Benedict XVI that there are two forms of the one Roman Rite, the normal or ordinary, the the other with special qualifications and thus called extraordinary, the 1962 Roman Missal.

Under Pope Francis, Cardinal Roche changed his tune and his colors. He now rejects what he once supported. And His Eminence goes so far as to micro manage bishops and their parishes saying that the 1962 Missal cannot be advertised in parish bulletins, truly Orwellian as Pope Leo would describe such nonsense.

Press the title for the discussions at the recently concluded and very brief Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals. 

The last part is Cardinal Roche’s written document, not read or discussed at the consistory but handed out to them to read:

Attack on the Traditional Mass and on Orthodoxy in the consistory - Roche and Tucho Fernandez

WOW! SAINT POPE PAUL VI’S LAST MASS AND FINAL BLESSING AND HIS HOLINESS FINAL USE OF THE SEDIA GESTATORIA AT THE END OF THAT MASS

After this Mass, His Holiness, Pope Paul VI departed by way of the Sedia Gestatoria. The next day His Holiness was taken to Castel Gondolfo where he would die.

YOU CAN VIEW THE BRIEF FACEBOOK VIDEO OF THE HOLY FATHER’S FINAL BLESSING AT MASS HERE. 

DID IT TAKE A POPE FROM ILLINOIS TO GET ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN, RIP, OUT OF LIMBO?

Credible reports indicate that the Vatican will soon announce the date of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s beatification. Does this indicate that through the intercession and intervention of the Illinois’ pope, Pope Leo XVI of Chicago, Illinois, that His Illinois Holiness got Archbishop Fulton Sheen out of limbo? 

Common sense coherence seems to say so!

A little bit of historical background how Archbishop Fulton Sheen got cast into limbo as described by AI:

The feud between New York and Illinois over Archbishop Fulton Sheen's body was a legal and ecclesiastical battle delaying his sainthood cause, with Illinois' Peoria Diocese wanting his remains for burial in his home state (where he was ordained), while the Archdiocese of New York, where he lived and died, initially resisted, citing his wishes to be buried in Manhattan and disputes over alleged promises by past New York archbishops. The fight centered on Sheen's desire for a full burial in Peoria for beatification versus his stated wish to remain in New York, ultimately resolved in 2019 when New York's courts sided with Peoria, allowing the transfer after years of appeals and legal challenges from New York. 

Key Players & Their Stances:

• Peoria Diocese (Illinois): Advocated for Sheen's body to be moved to Peoria for his beatification, claiming a promise from New York's former Archbishop Egan and citing his Illinois origins.
• Archdiocese of New York: Initially resisted, arguing Sheen's will stated he wanted to be buried in New York and that no formal agreement to transfer his body existed.
• Sheen's Family (specifically his niece): Supported the move to Peoria, aligning with the Illinois diocese's efforts for his sainthood. 

Timeline & Key Events:

1. 2002: Peoria opens Sheen's cause for sainthood; claims agreement for body transfer.
2. 2014: Bishop Jenky (Peoria) suspends cause, citing NY's refusal to return body; Cardinal Dolan (NY) disputes promise.
3. 2016: Family sues to move body; NY courts involved.
4. 2019: NY courts rule for Peoria, denying further appeal; NY concedes, allowing transfer. 

Why the Fight?

• Canonization Requirements: For beatification and sainthood, the blessed person's relics (often a body part or the entire body) are typically needed in the diocese where the cause is being promoted.
• Conflicting Wishes: Sheen's expressed desire to be buried in New York conflicted with the canonical requirements for his Illinois-based sainthood cause.
• "Tourist Attraction": Battles over saints' bodies are historically common, as they draw pilgrims and business. 

Resolution:
After extensive legal battles, the New York Archdiocese dropped its opposition in 2019, allowing for the respectful transfer of Archbishop Sheen's remains to St. Mary's Cathedral in Peoria, where he was later interred, paving the way for his beatification

COMMON SENSE LITURGICAL PLURALITY AND LIBERALITY ALWAYS COMES FROM THE ORTHODOX IN THE CHURCH, NOT THE HETERODOX, BE THEY TRADITIONAL OR OPPOSED TO TRADITION

Pope Leo’s expressed desire is that the Church be unified in faith, hope and love and carrying out the Corporal Works of Mercy, as well as, the Spiritual Works of Mercy. This unity is to be found in a variety of liturgical diversities or plurality, yet all the liturgical rites of the east and west are in full communion with the Successor of Saint Peter, the pope:

Those of us who are liberal, know that the Catholic Church is quite liberal when it comes to the various liturgical rites of the Church both in the west and the east. 

An example of the coherence of this kind of liberality, which your most humble blogger embraces too, is Cardinal Pizzaballa, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. This is what he says about the TLM and his most liberal approach to it:

Cardinal Pizzaballa told The Catholic Herald: “These are typical problems of Western countries. We in general [the Church in the East] are so used to different rites that we don’t see any problem [with the TLM].” 

Those who rigidly oppose the TLM as well as rigidly opposing our Latin Rite’s own tradition of ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion even in the Mass of Bugnini and Paul VI, often betray their own rigidity and incoherence by doing so. 

For example, the Ordinariate’s “Divine Worship, The Missal” which is another expression of the one Roman Rite, that also has other expressions other than the TLM and the Bugnini Mass, sees as a norm in their own General Instructions that communicants will kneel for Holy Communion either at an altar railing or kneeler. That is their norm, as well as, while kneeling for Holy Communion receiving on the tongue or the hand. 

And keep in mind that it was Pope Francis, of all popes, who promulgated the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship, the Missal and His Holiness, the late pope, has his name in that missal as promulgating it. 

And then on top of that, Pope Benedict XVI made explicit that in the Bugnini Mass, kneeling for Holy Communion is allowed and he modeled it at every papal Mass he celebrated and a kneeler was provided for communicants to kneel as Pope Benedict offered them Holy Communion.

And Pope Benedict often modeled ad orientem Bugnini Masses showing that it is perfectly acceptable as is the Bugnini Masses facing the nave. 

Pope Benedict XVI was truly a flexible, liberal pope on so many levels and such a role model for those who rigidly oppose tradition, be it the TLM, kneeling for Holy Communion and ad orientem!

For bishops or even the pope to make it difficult for communicants who want to kneel, to kneel, is just plain Orwellian, as Pope Leo would describe such nonsense. 

ARE CATHOLICS WHO LOVE AND PROTECT ORTHODOXY THE LATE POPE FRANCIS HATERS?

I have never hated Pope Francis, RIP, but I joined many clergy and laity who did not like His Holiness’ modus operandi and His Holiness’ penchant to return the Church of the last 12 years to a polarization not seen since the papacy of St. Pope Paul VI. 

There were many moderate academic theologians sounding the alarm bell about Pope Francis confusion and incoherence. And then there were many cardinals and bishops doing the same thing, in particular four: Cardinals Zen, Pell, Burke and Sarah, but many others too. 

To give Pope Paul a break, he too was derided by heterodox hippie clergy and laity of the 60’s and 70’s too, especially beginning in 1968 with Humanae Vitae and then subsequent to that, the various liturgy wars as clergy and laity implemented a heterodox implementation of Vatican II, especially by saying that what they were doing is what Vatican II asked, when after actually reading the documents of Vatican II, one on their own could see that clearly Vatican II did not teach that. Truth was sacrificed in an Orwellian way as Pope Leo would describe it.

After the election of Pope Francis, it became quite clear that His Holiness longed for the progressive’s implementation of Vatican II as was being done prior to Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Francis clearly preferred the trajectory of the “synodal” underground, progressive Church of the 1960’s and 70’s and longed for a return to that trajectory, a trajectory that most of us felt had been put to rest and under two great popes, one a saint and the other a “should be” saint, John Paul II and Benedict, had brought more peace and calm to the Church and less polarization, although the heterodox right and left still existed then as they do now, but now on steroids thanks to Pope Francis.

For me, Cardinal Zen, no Francis hater, but a lover of Divine Truth and the Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church and thus a lover of the Risen Lord, the Head of the Church and a lover of the Church, which is His body, made clear exactly what I’ve been feeling about Pope Francis’ papacy, that it suffered from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, the deadly sin of pride. 

Let’s review Cardinal Zen’s marvelous, brief elocution to Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals at the recent consistory. It is a road map out the heterodoxy of the left that has magnified in the last 12 years.

This is an AI summary of Cardinal Zen’s critique of Pope Francis’ papacy. A critique is not hatred, although the heterodox for ideological purposes would call it that to bait and switch orthodoxy for heterodoxy:

At the January 7-8, 2026, extraordinary consistory, Cardinal Joseph Zen 

sharply criticized the Synod on Synodality, calling it an "ironclad manipulation" and an "insult to the dignity of the bishops," questioning the Holy Spirit's role in its outcomes and warning it could fracture the Church. The 93-year-old cardinal stated that invoking the Holy Spirit for surprises that contradict 2,000 years of tradition was "ridiculous and almost blasphemous," challenging the idea that lay participants truly represented the entire People of God. 

Key Points of Cardinal Zen's Remarks:

• Manipulation: He described the synodal process as a form of "ironclad manipulation" of bishops.
• Blasphemy/Ridiculousness: He found the repeated claims of the Holy Spirit guiding the synod to unexpected conclusions to be "ridiculous and almost blasphemous".
• Dignity of Bishops: Zen felt the process insulted the inherent dignity of bishops by sidelining their traditional role.
• Divisions: He warned that differing interpretations, especially regarding contextual adaptations, could lead to schism, similar to the Anglican Communion.
• Questioned Representation: He doubted whether any pope could truly "listen to the entire People of God" through the synodal process or if the lay delegates accurately represented everyone.
• Pope Leo XIV's Synodality: He contrasted "Bergoglian synodality" with the traditional role of the Synod of Bishops, suggesting Pope Francis had made the institution disappear by incorporating non-bishops. 

Context:

• These comments were made during the first major meeting of Pope Leo XIV with 170 cardinals, a closed-door session where cardinals were asked to maintain confidentiality, leading to a lack of official Vatican comments on Zen's strong criticisms. 

BAPTISM OF THE LORD AT THE SISTINE CHAPEL: NOVEL BAPTISMAL FONT, NO AD ORIENTEM BUT BEAUTIFUL AND CANONICAL NONETHELESS

The video that I post at the bottom clearly makes the “Baptism of the Lord” a part of the Christmastide and not in Ordinary Time due to the Christmas 🎅 🎄 Carols that are sung! 

It is nice to see the traditional Sistine Chapel papal throne being used by Pope Leo at this “Baptism of the Lord” Mass, with baptisms of children. 

Please note that in the ancient order of the sanctuary, that the papal throne while elevated and to the “Gospel side” of the sanctuary is never as high as the altar is. Look at the papal throne’s elevation and the traditional altar’s elevation. 

But then look at the disordered placement of the disordered “faux” altar. It is lower than the papal throne!

What’s up with that!

 I have to say that it took me a long time to figure out where in the heck the baptismal font was when in fact it was in plain view but disguised as a plant decoration! UGH!

Of course it was Pope Francis who chose to stop distributing Holy Communion to a select number of communicants at papal Masses, Pope Leo has continued that tradition. I’m not sure when popes at papal Masses began to distribute Holy Communion to select lay communicants. I might be wrong, and I seek clarification, but I don’t think popes distributed Holy Communion to some of the laity in the pre-Vatican II papal Mass?

But, what I would say is Orwellian, the Holy Father distributes papal gifts to the baptism families after Mass but where Communion is distributed. Seems to me a disconnect in terms of what is the more important Gift, Holy Communion, not a papal gift after Mass, no?

IN THIS PHOTO, DO YOU SEE THE GREATEST PROBLEM WITH THE FABRICATED LITURGY NOT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE FATHERS BUT RATHER FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE MEDIA AS POPE BENEDICT DESCRIBED FAKE INTERPRETATIONS OF VATICAN II?

 The Mass celebrated at the “pre-Vatican II Council of the Media” shows the splendor of externals of the Mass prior heretical and heterodox Catholics interpreting Vatican II and even Bugnini’s Mass. 

But look at the box covered in a “wizard” sort of covering. If you asked a non-Catholic to compare that box to the altar where the ancient Mass is taking place, what would they say about it? What would Catholics think, immediately following Vatican II, to see that box replacing the glorious altar behind it?

What does that do to the Catholic psyche in terms of which is more important, more reverent, more splendid and more important?

Keep in mind, that if the Bugnini Mass were mandated to be celebrated in the way that the Ancient Mass was celebrated, that the Mass in the photo above could well be a Bugnini Mass and the box below that glorious altar would not be there. 

 

CARDINAL MÜLLER: POPE LEO WILL DO THE RIGHT THING FOR EVERYONE AS IT CONCERNS THE LITURGY WARS THAT POPE FRANCIS REIGNITED…

 But at a short meeting, the Cardinals in the Consistory wanted to focus on Church governance and getting back to the basics of evangelization. The time for correcting the path of  the liturgy will come soon. 

This interview on Friday, January 9th with Cardinal Muller is well worth the listen and lasts 20 minutes or so:

THE PROPHETIC CARDINAL PELL, AKA, DEMOS, HAS PROVEN TO BE PROPHETIC EVEN FROM HIS ETERNAL REWARD..

Crux: Cardinal Pell is three years dead, but ‘Demos’ lives

Me: Santo Subito: Santo Demos!

Crux has a very good retrospect concerning Cardinal Pell and his once secret identity, “Demos”, as it now regards the Conclave that elected Pope Leo and now Pope Leo’s reversing of some of Pope Francis’ less than auspicious decisions and policies. 

At the time, I was fully in accord with what “Demos” had written, although I had no idea that it was Cardinal Pell. Once we discovered it was Pell, it had even more importance. Cardinal Pell was a Catholic Cardinal, orthodox and fought to protect Catholicism from heterodox leanings, left or right, that could weaken and destroy the Church (although the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church). Individual believers, though, are another consideration and yes they can be led to hell despite the graces God and His splendor of truth give us. 

Here are some money bytes from the Crux commentary, which you can read in full HERE:

After his death at the age of 81, it was revealed  (that the orthodox Cardinal Pell) was the man behind the pen-name “Demos,” under which he had authored a memo the year before, condemning the papacy of Pope Francis as a “catastrophe.”

The statement complained about issues such as the appointment of officials it considered heretical, the “Pachamama” statue, and the softening attitude towards homosexuals.

Pell died before the election of Pope Leo XIV, but it is interesting to look at what the cardinal wrote regarding “The Next Conclave” – the one that would elect Francis’s successor – which happened to choose Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as Pope Leo XIV.

(Because Pope Francis did not meet with the cardinals they were) unknown to one another, adding a new dimension of unpredictability to the next conclave (which proved to be a correct assumption after the election of the American-Peruvian Prevost.)

Many cardinals read the “Demos” document, especially after it became known that Pell, who was not only a leading figure in the “(ORTHODOX)” wing of the worldwide Catholic Church but also one of their number, had authored it.

It gives one to wonder: Did “Demos” have any influence on the cardinals’ thinking – if not directly on their choice – in the May 2025 conclave?

“After Vatican II,” wrote Pell (as Demos), “Catholic authorities often underestimated the hostile power of secularization, the world, flesh, and the devil, especially in the Western world, and overestimated the influence and strength of the Catholic Church.”

The cardinal said the pope does not need to be the world’s best evangelist, nor a political force.

“The new pope must understand that the secret of Christian and Catholic vitality comes from fidelity to the teachings of Christ and Catholic practices. It does not come from adapting to the world or from money,” he wrote.

Looking at the first months of Pope Leo’s tenure, we see this approach to evangelism is central.

“Since we live in a confusing society of noise,” Pope Leo XIV said on Dec. 12, “today more than ever we need servants and disciples who announce the absolute primacy of Christ and who keep His voice clearly in their ears and hearts.”

This is something the Demos document emphasized.

“The first tasks of the new pope will be to restore normality, restore doctrinal clarity in faith and morals, restore a proper respect for the law and ensure that the first criterion for the nomination of bishops is acceptance of the apostolic tradition. Theological expertise and learning are an advantage, not a hinderance for all bishops and especially archbishops,” Pell said in the Demos document.

He also complained of the seemingly endless synodal gatherings around the world, saying they “will consume much time and money, probably distracting energy from evangelization and service rather than deepening these essential activities.”

In his letter, Pell also complained about the Synodal Way of Germany, which he said promoted homosexuality, women priests, communion for the divorced.

“If there was no Roman correction of such heresy, the Church would be reduced to a loose federation of local Churches, holding different views, probably closer to an Anglican or Protestant model, than an Orthodox model,” the Australian cardinal wrote.

“An early priority for the next pope must be to remove and prevent such a threatening development, by requiring unity in essentials and not permitting unacceptable doctrinal differences. The morality of homosexual activity will be one such flash point,” Pell said.

The Demos document also noted that younger clergy and seminarians are almost completely orthodox, and even sometimes quite conservatively so – and most data certainly confirms this – but said the next pope “will need to be aware of the substantial changes effected on the Church’s leadership since 2013, perhaps especially in South and Central America,” adding that there is “a new spring in the step of the Protestant liberals in the Catholic Church.”

Pell admitted schism is not likely to occur from the Left, “who often sit lightly to doctrinal issues.”

“Schism is more likely to come from the right and is always possible when liturgical tensions are inflamed and not dampened,” the cardinal wrote.

In these opening months of his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV has certainly emphasized the unity of the Catholic Church.

He has also indicated his intention to work toward resolving conflicts that have been simmering – and occasionally boiling over – since the conciliar and post-conciliar era in 1960s.

On Wednesday, at the opening of his extraordinary consistory of the college of cardinals, the pontiff placed Pope Paul VI with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI with Pope Francis – pairing popes together, even though they were seen as polar opposites in the media.

Leo also tied all of the post-Vatican II popes together as deeply holding to the last ecumenical council.

BOMBSHELL: POPE LEO ALLOWS CARDINAL ZEN TO SPEAK AT THE EXTRAORDINARY CONSISTORY AND HIS EMINENCE GAVE POPE LEO AND THE CARDINALS AN EARFUL ABOUT POPE FRANCIS FINAL “MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENT ON THE SYNOD ON SYNODALITY!” OUCH!

My most astute but extremely humble comments first:

Having had an audience with Pope Leo hours before the Consistory began, I can’t imagine that Cardinal Zen would not have informed His Holiness about his plans to say what His Eminence said at the Consistory. It is a bombshell in my most humble opinion that Cardinal Zen would have said all of this in the presence of Pope Leo and most of the Cardinals of the Catholic Church.

And again, it is unimaginable that Pope Leo would not have known this is what Cardinal Zen was going to say and that His Holiness allowed His Eminence to say it!

Of course many orthodox Catholics, including myself, agree with Cardinal Zen and I have written on my most humble blog that the pope or anyone in the Church saying that the Holy Spirit is the source of all the chaos of the synod on synodality is a grotesque manipulation of Catholics, especially those who are ill-informed about Catholic teaching and worse, those who wanted to change the Church into something that is not Catholic, more Bergolian than Catholic!

From the College of Cardinals Report. Press the title for their full article. I copy the Cardinal Zen portion of the article and print it below the titles:

Cardinal Zen Denounces “Bergoglian Synodality” as “Ironclad Manipulation” at Extraordinary Consistory

Full text of Cardinal Joseph Zen’s intervention at the two-day meeting of cardinals convened by Pope Leo XIV.

COLLEGE OF CARDINALS REPORT

JAN 09, 2026

Here below is the full text of Cardinal Joseph Zen’s intervention at the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals, published with the kind permission of His Eminence.

---

On the Accompanying Note by the Holy Father Francis 

 Pope Francis said that, with the Final Document, he gives back to the Church what has developed over these years (2021–2024) through “listening” (to the People of God) and “discernment” (by the Episcopate?).

(Cardinal Zen) I ask:

• Has the Pope been able to listen to the entire People of God?

• Do the lay people present represent the People of God?

• Have the Bishops elected by the Episcopate been able to carry out a work of discernment, which must surely consist in “disputation” and “judgment”?

• The ironclad manipulation of the process is an insult to the dignity of the Bishops, and the continual reference to the Holy Spirit is ridiculous and almost blasphemous (they expect surprises from the Holy Spirit; what surprises? That He should repudiate what He inspired in the Church’s two-thousand-year Tradition?).

The Pope, “bypassing the Episcopal College, listens directly to the People of God,” and he calls this “the appropriate interpretative framework for understanding hierarchical ministry”?

The Pope says that the Document is magisterium, “it commits the Churches to make choices consistent with what is stated in it.” But he also says “it is not strictly normative …. Its application will need various mediations”;“the Churches are called upon to implement in their different contexts, the authoritative proposals contained in the document”; “unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching”; “each country or region can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its tradition and needs.”

I ask:

• Does the Holy Spirit guarantee that contradictory interpretations will not arise (especially given the many ambiguous and tendentious expressions in the document)?

• Are the results of this “experimenting and testing,” e.g. (of the “creative activation of new forms of ministeriality”), to be submitted to the judgment of the Secretariat of the Synod and of the Roman Curia? Will these be more competent than the Bishops to judge the different contexts of their Churches?

• If the Bishops believe themselves to be more competent, do the differing interpretations and choices not lead our Church to the same division (fracture) found in the Anglican Communion?

Perspectives on Ecumenism

• Given the dramatic rupture of Anglican communion, will we unite ourselves with the Archbishop of Canterbury (who remains with only about 10% of the global Anglican community), or with the Global Anglican Future Conference (which retains about 80%)?

• And with the Orthodox? Their Bishops will never accept Bergoglian synodality; for them, synodality is “the importance of the Synod of Bishops.” Pope Bergoglio has exploited the word Synod, but has made the Synod of Bishops—an institution established by Paul VI—disappear.