THE REFORM OF THE REFORM—FOLLOWING CHAPTER II OF SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

Below this post, is an article by His Eminence, Walter Cardinal Brandmuller. In it he recommended that the Bugnini Mass needs a “reform” and this time in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium. To this end, he recommended rereading Chapter II of Sacrosanctum Concilium. 

Here is Chapter II with my most brilliant, but as ever, most humble comments embedded in red in the text:

CHAPTER II 

THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST

47. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity [36], a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us [37]. (Here Vatican II makes explicitly clear that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, not a reenactment of the Last Supper! The Last Supper anticipates Good Friday and Easter Sunday! But in many places, the Bugnini Mass is celebrated as though a commemoration of the Last Supper!)

48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator [38], they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all. (This paragraph of important. The Liturgical Movement of the 20th Century was already addressing this in many places in Europe. But, yes, and I vividly remember this, that in the pre-Vatican II Church, many, not all, were doing other things, like the Rosary, to occupy their time during the Mass. But that was changing in the late 1950’s when hand missals were highly recommended for people to follow the actual Mass. Also, I doubt that most pre-Vatican II Catholics understood that the laity also offer the Immaculate Victim, with the priest. They should also receive Holy Communion, of course in a state of grace, frequently.)

49. For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.

50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. (I think the Bugnini “Liturgy of the Word” got the reform correct, although the later revised Lectionary went beyond what i think was required.)

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. (The Order of the Mass should not have been revised, that was not mentioned. The PATFOTA should have been simplified but not radically and certainly not eliminated. The double Confiteors, with the double absolutions and in the vernacular and prior to the chanting of the Introit, would have been faithful to this chapter. This would leave the Kyrie as independent from the Penitential Act that precedes it and the greeting by the priest remaining prior to the Collect. The other unecessary duplication would be the Communion Rite, with two seperate rites, first for the priest and secondly for the laity. The Bugnini Rite is very close to that Chapter II requested but not entirely. And certainly, as the 1962 Missal did, the Confiteor prior to the people’s Communion needed to be eliminated!)

51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years. (The revised lectionary should have focused on maintaining the original Tridentine lectionary and simply building upon it with an additional B and C years. The revision of the daily lectionary is fine as it is but needs to recover some things eliminated from the Tridentine’s daily Mass lectionary, which doesn’t exist. AND CERTAINLY PSALM 42 AT THE PATFOTA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED OR THE PSALM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WASHING OF THE HANDS AND CERTAINLY THE INTROIT, OFFERTORY AND COMMUNION ANTIPHONS, WHICH ARE SCRIPTURES, SHOULD NOT HAVE EVER, EVER, EVER BEEN MADE OPTIONAL!!!!!)

52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason. (I think this was well received for the most part!)

53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world [39]. (The “prayer of the Faithful, as it has developed in the Bugnini Mass is a disaster! It should follow what is said here. It should be a litany with the laity’s response, brief and short petitions and the ones mentioned and prescribed, perhaps with three choices that are rotated each Sunday and one set for daily Mass, very brief! The Prayers of the Faithful are too wordy, demanding of God, almost homilies and quite poltical!)

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.(I think preserving Gregorian Chant would preserve Latin for the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons in sung Masses. Pope Paul tried to get all the bishops to use his “Jubilatio Dei” supplment for the laity to chant in Latin the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei and of course, the Greek Kyrie. Everything else in the vernacular as an option.)

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. 

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended. (I agree with this, but it is difficult to accomplish!)

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism. (Communion under both kinds was not forseen for each and every Mass with hoards of Extraordinary Communion Ministers assisting!)

56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation. (This was to battle the minimalist approach to fulfilling one’s obligation. i think we were taught that if you came in before the offertory or maybe in time for the Gospel, you fulfilled your obligation, but if you missed the Gospel or the offertory, can’t remember which, you did not. but of course, you could leave during Communion, especially if you were not receiving!)

57. 1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

1. 

a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;

c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.

2.

1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of con-celebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.

2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper.

58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.

WHEREIN I FULLY AGREE WITH HIS EMINENCE WALTER CARDINAL BRANDMULLER ABOUT THE LITURGICAL WARS, REIGNITED BY POPE FRANCIS, THAT THOSE WHO ARE WARING SHOULD LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS!

What concerns me most about the liturgy wars, apart from those who hate the TLM and those who hate the Bugnini Mass, two extremes that need to be neutralized, but rather that those who love the Bugnini Mass, don’t really love his Mass, meaning doing the red and reading the black, they love the myriad of abuses associated with this Mass, free-lancing, the priests peersonality overwhelming the liturgy and each liturgy different depending on the parish or the priest celebrating the Bugnini Mass. The greatest threat to the Bugnini Mass is liturgical abuse, pure and simple and that lay Catholics never know what they are going to get—it’s like a box of chocolates!

At least with the TLM, every person who goes, from those who love it to those who tolerate it, to those who hate it, they know what they are going to get! 

I love Cardinal Brandmuller’s call for a truce and his perspective on the liturgy wars of the past 60 years which were ignited almost immediately after Vatican II! My most humble, astute comments embedded in his text in red: 

For the love of God : “Lay down your arms!”

by Walter Card. Brandmüller

It was not with "Sacrosanctum Concilium" of Vatican II, but rather with the implementation of the liturgical reform after the council that a rift was opened in large parts of the Catholic world. What arose from it was an unhealthy conflict between “progressives” and “retrogrades.” Should one be surprised ? Not at all. This only demonstrates what a central role the liturgy occupies in the lives of the faithful. (I have said this over and over and over again. Pope Leo needs to go back to SC and reform the Bugnini Mass by following what SC actually requested—a conservative purification!)

The so-called “liturgical conflict,” moreover, is not a phenomenon that arose only after Vatican II, nor even exclusively in the Catholic sphere. When Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexis I introduced a liturgical reform in Orthodox Russia in 1667, various communities broke away, some even rejecting the priesthood itself, with divisions that persist to this day. (The Eastern Orthodox is built on schism, though, not just with the pope but with each others. The good Cardinal might be mixing apples and oranges in this regard!)

Also in the Catholic and Protestant West, during the Enlightenment, vehement disputes were ignited over the introduction of new hymnals. In Catholic France, the replacement of the ancient Gallican liturgy with the new Missale Romanum in the mid-nineteenth century met with fierce opposition. (I am fascinated by this as I am not aware of the Gallican liturgy or why it was changed.)

In short, in all these cases it was not a matter, as for Arius or Luther, of dogma, of revealed truth. Rather, these questions became a matter of dispute in intellectual circles.

What does, however, affect the daily life of piety are the rites, customs, and concrete forms of religiosity experienced every day. It is there that conflict is ignited, sometimes even over secondary details, like variations in the texts of hymns or prayers. And the more irrational the reason for the dispute appears, the more violent the clash becomes. (True! Bugnini Mass lovers dinigrate those who love the TLM as backwardists and violently so, and TLMer’s denigrate the Bugnini Mass. What is lost in all of this is Who is lost—the Real Presence of the Crucified and Risen Lord and His one Sacrifice which opens the gates of heaven to those willing to receive Jesus in a worthy manner.)

Such a minefield is certainly no place for a bulldozer. In most cases, it is not the doctrine of faith that is directly affected. What is affected is religious sentiment, cherished devotional formulas, habit. And this often penetrates deeper than an abstract theological formula : because it touches on vital experience.

Likewise, it is equally erroneous to invoke the slogan “beneath the cassocks, the musty odor of a thousand years” to demand demolitions and ruptures with tradition, since this would ultimately disregard not only the Christian but also the human essence of inherited tradition. This is generally true of any attempt at reform, especially when it affects daily religious practice, like for example the reorganization of parishes, which impacts the daily lives of the faithful.

Yet, surprisingly, such distrust or even rejection of innovations did not manifest itself when Pius XII first reformed the Easter Vigil in 1951, and then, in 1955, the entire Holy Week liturgy. I myself experienced this personally, as a seminarian and young priest. And except for perplexed reactions in some rural contexts, in the places where these reforms were implemented with fidelity they were greeted with joyful anticipation, if not with enthusiasm.

Yet today, with hindsight, one must ask why instead the reforms of Paul VI generated certain reactions, all too well known. In the first case, the Church experienced a liturgical upswing ; in the second, many saw a liturgical break with tradition taking place.

After the pontificate of Pius XII, the election of John XXIII was perceived in various ecclesiastical circles as a liberation from magisterial constraints. The door also opened to dialogue with Marxism, existentialist philosophy, the Frankfurt School, Kant, and Hegel – and with this, to a radically different way of understanding theology. The hour of theological individualism had struck, of the farewell to what was dismissed as “pastism.”

The consequences for the liturgy were grave. Arbitrariness, proliferation, unbridled individualism led, in not a few places, to the replacement of the Mass with personal compositions, even collected in ring binders prepared by the celebrants. The result was liturgical chaos and an unprecedented exodus from the Church, which, despite the Pauline reform, continues to this day. (I think the chaos was somewhat mitigated during the JPII and Benedict XVI years—it was Pope Francis who reignited the liturgy wars causing reactions more vehement than in the early 1970’s. But Pope Francis cherished the period of time after the Council until St. John Paul II was elected. Much of the blame must be laid at Pope Francis’ tomb.)

In response, groups and circles arose determined to counter the chaos with unwavering fidelity to Pius XII’s "Missale Romanum." So the more arbitrariness and disorder reigned on the one hand, the more the rejection of any development hardened on the other, despite the positive experiences already achieved with Pius XII’s reforms. Thus, Paul VI’s reform of the missal – which was not without its flaws – also encountered criticism and resistance. And while these objections often had their reasons, they were not justified. The “Novus Ordo” had been promulgated by the pope : despite legitimate criticism, it had to be accepted in obedience. (I am completely in accord with what the good Cardinal writes here and yes, I agreed with Pope Benedict’s two forms of the one Roman Rite, the normal one, Bugnini’s Mass and the out of the ordinary one, the TLM.)

The apostle Paul writes that Christ “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross,” and with His death He redeemed the world. If, therefore, in the Eucharistic celebration Christ’s obedience unto death is made present, this celebration cannot take place in disobedience. (Absolutely!)

And yet, what happened ? For some, the reforms were not enough : they continued with their liturgy in ring binders, the fruit of individual creativity. Others, instead, made opposition with fidelity to the “Mass of all time,” forgetting – or ignoring – that the rite of the Holy Mass has developed and transformed over the centuries, taking on different forms in both the East and the West, according to the respective cultural contexts. In truth, the only “Mass of all time” is limited to the words of consecration, which, moreover, are handed down with different formulations in the Gospels and in Paul. This, and only this, is the “Mass of all time.” Where there was no desire to acknowledge this, the sides were drawn up, and the struggle continues to this day. (I think these are extremes of only a small minority of Catholics on each side of what the good Cardinal writes. Most Catholics just want to be left alone and participate in Mass, which ever type, that nourishes them.)

It must not be forgotten, however, that the authentic liturgy, conscientiously celebrated in the name of the Church, is in many places a peaceful and daily reality. But the question remains : how was such a lacerating conflictual development possible ? A look at history reveals something.

The battles fought after the Council of Trent did not concern the nature of the Holy Eucharist. Pius V’s new "Missale Romanum" was gradually introduced in various countries, lastly in France at the end of the 19th century, without causing conflict, while old local rites, like the Ambrosian in Milan, or those specific to religious orders, continued without difficulty. (I did not know that the Tridentine Mass was released gradually and that France was last, as they used the Gallican Missal, of which I know nothing!)

It was only at the beginning of the 20th century, in the context of modernism, that the dispute over the sacrifice of the Mass resurfaced, but now not so much over the rite as over the essence of the sacrifice itself. The outbreak of the First World War, with its devastating consequences for Europe, prevented an adequate solution, leaving the issue to smolder under cover, unresolved. And in the years that followed, the liturgical movement, important in the postwar period, also concerned itself – with a few exceptions – not with the essence but rather with the performance of the liturgy, particularly of the sacrifice of the Mass by the community of the faithful. The seizure of power by the communist, fascist, and national socialist dictatorships, followed by the Second World War with its consequences, further prevented a definitive solution.

It was Pius XII who, in the midst of the postwar problems and aware of the unresolved questions relating to the holy sacrifice of the Mass, took up the subject again in his encyclical Mediator Dei of 1947 : he reiterated and clarified the dogma of the Council of Trent and finally provided guidelines for a worthy liturgical celebration. (What most Americans don’t understand and what Europe doesn’t understand about America, is that in the USA what was experienced in Europe, especially the rise of extremes on the left-communism and the right-fascism, were not issues in the USA and the USA, politically, remained united during the period when Europe was being so challenged and respect for human life and rights so disregarded.)

Yet the controversies did not cease ; on the contrary, they were ignited again, not so much over the rite as over the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The excessive emphasis – to the point of true absolutization – on the convivial nature of the Holy Mass led, and still leads, to grave liturgical abuses, sometimes even blasphemous. Abuses born from fundamental misunderstandings of the mystery of the Eucharist.

Added to this is the fact that it almost always depends on individual priests whether the Holy Mass is celebrated according to the scrupulously observed “Novus Ordo” or whether free rein is given to the celebrants’ subjective ideas. Cases in which episcopal authorities have intervened against abuses have been rather rare. It is not yet sufficiently understood that this dissolution of liturgical unity is the fruit of uncertainty or even of a loss of authentic faith, and constitutes a threat to unity in the faith itself. (Of course, I have written about the cult of the personality of the priest or bishop in the Bugnini Mass, which is the greatest scandal associated with the abuse of the Bugnini Mass!)

It is therefore necessary – if there is the desire to avoid or heal fatal fractures in ecclesial unity – to reach a peace, or at least a truce, on the liturgical front. This is why it is worthwhile to return to the title of Bertha von Suttner’s famous pacifist novel, published since 1889 in 37 editions and 15 translations : "Die Waffen nieder!": Lay down your arms !

This means, first of all, disarming the language when speaking of liturgy. Likewise, it would be necessary to avoid any kind of mutual accusation. Neither side should bring into doubt the seriousness of the other’s intentions. In short, tolerance must be exercised and controversy avoided. Both sides should ensure a liturgy that scrupulously respects the respective norms. Experience shows that this warning applies not only to the innovators, but also to the supporters of the “old Mass.” (Yes! I have heard TLM supporters denigrate even a Bugnini Mass celebrated by the book, with splendid Gregorian Chant, in Latin and ad orientem! I have celebrated such Bugnini Mass and have witnessed a tiny minority of TLMers leave the Mass when they discovered it wasn’t the TLM. And comparing the two as though Jesus isn’t present in the Bugnini Mass or His one Sacrifice must end! Nonetheless, I am grateful to read the good Cardinal sees the two Masses, celebrated by the Book, coexisting in a peaceful manner!)

Both sides should impartially study chapter II of the conciliar constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium" and evaluate the subsequent developments in its light. It would then become clear how far post-conciliar practice has strayed from the constitution, which, it should not be forgotten, was also endorsed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. (Absolutely!)

Only in this way, in silence and with great patience, will it be possible to work toward a reform of the reform that truly corresponds to the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Then the time may come when a reform capable of honoring the requirements of both sides will be presented. 

(YES! YES! YES! THE REFORM OF THE REFORM IS NEEDED!!!!!!)

But until then, once again, for the love of God : “Lay down your arms!” (ABSOLUTELY!)

(Translated by Matthew Sherry 

THE CHURCH OF THE EAST AND THE CHURCH OF THE WEST IN UNION WITH THE SUCCESSOR OF SAINT PETER, THE POPE, BREATHES WITH TWO LUNGS WHEREAS THE EASTERN ORTHODOX ONLY BREATH WITH ONE LUNG—THAT EXPLAINS THEIR BEING OUT OF FULL BREATH…

For the Church of the East and West in full communion with the Pope, it's never either/or but rather, both/and!

The fullness of the Church of the East and West resides in the Catholic Church headed by the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope. While the west describes certain dogmas in a more linear way, the east, in union with the pope, uses more mystical terms, less rigid or juridical than the west. But as with most things within true Catholicism, it isn’t either/or but, rather, both/and.

When it comes to purgatory, this is all the more important!

Below in blue is from a schismatic priest of the Eastern Church in Schism with Rome, commonly known as Eastern Orthodox and thus more rigid about the either/or rather than the both/and. For them it’s either the east or the highway. But not so for the Church of the East in union with the Successor of Saint Peter:

 Why the East Never Defined Purgatory

In the medieval West, theology increasingly described salvation in legal categories: guilt, satisfaction, punishment, merit. Think of the influence of Anselm of Canterbury and the scholastic tradition. Within that framework, Purgatory became dogmatically defined, a necessary post-mortem satisfaction of remaining penalties.

But the Orthodox East began somewhere else.

The Fathers, like Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, speak of salvation not as legal balancing, but as healing. Illumination. Deification, theosis, which means participation in the divine life (cf. 2 Peter 1:4).

The question was never:

“How much punishment remains?”

The question was:

“How healed is the soul?”

Orthodoxy absolutely affirms purification after death. We pray for the departed at every Divine Liturgy. Love does not cease at the grave.

But the East resisted defining the mechanics. At councils like Council of Florence and Council of Trent, the Latin Church articulated Purgatory in precise terms. The Orthodox Church responded with reverent restraint.

Why?

Because Scripture gives us images: fire, judgment, glory, but not diagrams.

And in our tradition, the “fire” is not a created torture chamber. It is the unmediated presence of God Himself. The same divine love is joy to the purified and torment to the hardened.

The difference is not location.

It is disposition.

This matters pastorally.

Many Christians today live with anxiety-driven spirituality. We imagine salvation as a transaction. A ledger. A cosmic courtroom.

But Orthodoxy proclaims something deeper: salvation is synergy, our cooperation with grace, and lifelong transformation into Christ. The focus is not mapping the afterlife. It is healing the heart now.

So the East never defined Purgatory, not because it denied purification, but because it refused to reduce salvation to penalty satisfaction.

The Church invites us to repentance, Eucharistic life, prayer for the departed, and trust in the mercy of God.

Not speculation.

Not fear.

But preparation.

The fire we will meet is Love.

The question is: are we learning to receive it?

But, the Church of the East in full communion with the Church of the West under the Supreme Pastor, the pope, holds basically what the Schismatic East holds but is not adverse to how the west has formulated the dogma of purgatory. They know that it isn’t either/or, but rather, both/and although the Eastern Church would prefer the east’s tradition as it regards purgatory:

This an an AI summary highlighted in papal gold:

Yes, the Eastern Catholic Churches (Eastern rites in union with the Pope) believe in the doctrine of purification after death

—often termed purgatory—but generally describe it differently than the Latin (Western) Church. While they affirm the dogma that souls needing purification can be helped by prayer, they do not typically use the term "Purgatory" nor do they share the medieval Latin concepts of "fire" or specific "temporal punishments". 

Key Aspects of Eastern Catholic Belief on Purgatory:

• Core Dogma: They adhere to the same essential dogma as Rome: there is a state of purification for souls on their way to heaven, and prayers for the dead are efficacious.
• Difference in Terminology: Eastern Catholics, such as the Byzantine Church, often avoid the term "purgatory" because it holds specific Western medieval baggage.
• Theological Approach: Instead of a "place" of punishment, the East often views this state as a final journey, growth, or a process of, as some describe it, a "purifying ascent to the Father".
• Unity: As part of the Catholic Church, they fully accept the dogmatic teaching that those who die in God's grace but are not perfectly purified undergo purification.
• Prayers for the Dead: Eastern Catholics routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead and pray for their purification. 

In essence, Eastern Catholics hold the same belief as the Roman Catholic Church regarding the necessity of post-death purification, but they express and conceptualize it through their own unique Eastern theological tradition.

Dr. Paul Thigpen, PHD—REQUIESCAT IN PACEM…

When I was pastor of The Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta, Georgia (1991-2004) I wanted to hire a “pastoral assistant” to coordinate various ministries of the parish around 1993-94 or so.

I advertised widely for the position. I received one application from an Episcopal Priest, Rev. Fletcher Bingham, a pastor at a small Episcopal Church in Augusta and the other from an Evangelical minister in Florida, Paul Thigpen! 

I thought to myself, self, don’t these applicants know that I am the pastor of a traditionally minded Roman Catholic parish? Why are they applying!

I spoke to both on the phone and eventually hired the Episcopal priest! Yes! You read that correctly!

I received he, his wife and two of his three children into the Church after I had hired him, a couple of weeks later. Eventually one of his sons became a Dominican priest in the western province.

Dr.Paul Thigpen moved to Augusta and joined my parish and was active there until he moved to Savannah. 

He died on Tuesday, February 25th. God rest his soul and may God comfort his wife and family!

You can read about him from ETWN News. Press the title:

Paul Thigpen, theologian who explored ‘wondrous’ question of extraterrestrial life, dies at 71

A convert to Catholicism, Thigpen wrote prolifically on saints, the Blessed Mother, and the possibility of intelligent alien life, among other topics.

CONSIDERING THE SCANDAL OF THE PACHAMMA DEBACLE AT THE VATICAN AND EVEN ON THE ALTAR OF ST. PETER’S BASILICA, POPE LEO XIV GIVES A SOBER WAY TO INCLUTRATION..

My own perspective is that inculturation should take place primarily in popular devotions. It becomes more problematic when dragged into the official liturgies/sacraments of the Church. Obviously the greatest form of inculturation is the use of local languages. Prior to Vatican II this occurred in popular devotions and songs that accompanied these devotions. Vatican II saw the decline of popular devotions, which now, though, are on the upswing again. But with the decline, inculturation was imposed upon the Mass and other sacraments in an unthinking and uncritical way.

Often times, inculturation events are performed for Catholics not of that particular culture and appears to me to be more entertainment dragged into the Mass rather than authentic inculturation. This is particularly true of using cultural costumes and dances and performing these for all to see and wonder what the heck this has to do with the transmission of the Gospel and the worship of the true God and the veneration of the saints. 

Pope Leo gives an excellent corrective. I will highlight in dark red what is truly important in this speech:

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS LEO XIV
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE
"THEOLOGICAL AND PASTORAL CONGRESS"
ON THE GUADALUPE EVENT IN MEXICO

Dear brothers and sisters,

I greet you cordially and thank you for your reflection on the sign of perfect inculturation that the Lord bestowed upon his people in Our Lady of Guadalupe. In reflecting on the inculturation of the Gospel, it is fitting to recognize the way in which God himself has manifested himself and offered us salvation.

He has chosen to reveal himself not as an abstract entity nor as a truth imposed from without, but by progressively entering into history and engaging in dialogue with human freedom. “After speaking long ago to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways” (Heb 1:1), God revealed himself fully in Jesus Christ, in whom he not only communicates a message, but also communicates himself. Therefore, as Saint John of the Cross teaches, after Christ there is no other word to expect, nothing more to say, for everything has been said in him (cf. Ascent of Mount Carmel, II, 22, 3-5). Evangelizing consists, above all, in making Jesus Christ present and accessible. Every action of the Church must seek to draw human beings into a living relationship with Him, a relationship that illuminates existence, challenges freedom, and opens a path of conversion, preparing them to receive the gift of faith as a response to the Love that gives meaning to and sustains life in all its dimensions.

However, the proclamation of the Good News always takes place within a concrete experience. Bearing this in mind is to recognize and imitate the logic of the mystery of the Incarnation, by which Christ “became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14), assuming our human condition, with all that it entails in its temporal configuration. It follows, then, that the cultural reality of those who receive the proclamation cannot be ignored, and it is understood that inculturation is not a secondary concession or a mere pastoral strategy, but an intrinsic requirement of the Church’s mission. As Saint Paul VI pointed out, the Gospel—and consequently, evangelization—is not identified with any particular culture, but is capable of permeating them all without submitting to any (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, 20).

From this conviction, inculturating the Gospel means following the same path that God has traveled: entering with respect and love into the concrete history of peoples so that Christ may be truly known, loved, and welcomed from within their own human and cultural experience. This implies embracing the languages, symbols, ways of thinking, feeling, and expressing themselves of each people, not only as external vehicles for the proclamation, but as real places where grace desires to dwell and act.

However, it is necessary to clarify that inculturation does not equate to the sacralization of cultures or their adoption as the decisive interpretive framework for the Gospel message. Nor can it be reduced to a relativistic accommodation or a superficial adaptation of the Christian message, since no culture, however valuable, can simply identify with Revelation or become the ultimate criterion of faith. To legitimize everything culturally given or to justify practices, worldviews, or structures that contradict the Gospel and the dignity of the person would be to ignore that every culture—like every human reality—must be illuminated and transformed by the grace that flows from the Paschal Mystery of Christ.

Inculturation is, rather, a demanding and purifying process through which the Gospel, remaining whole in its truth, recognizes, discerns, and embraces the seeds of the Word present in cultures, and at the same time purifies and elevates their authentic values, freeing them from that which obscures or distorts them. These seeds of the Word, as traces of the previous action of the Spirit, find in Jesus Christ their criterion of authenticity and their fullness.

From this perspective, Our Lady of Guadalupe is a lesson in divine pedagogy on the inculturation of salvific truth. She does not canonize a culture nor absolutize its categories, but neither does she ignore or despise them: they are embraced, purified, and transfigured to become a place of encounter with Christ. The Virgin of Guadalupe reveals God's way of approaching his people: respectful in its starting point, intelligible in its language, and firm yet gentle in its guidance toward the encounter with the fullness of Truth, with the blessed Fruit of her womb. On the tilma, amidst painted roses, the Good News enters the symbolic world of a people and makes its closeness visible, offering its newness without violence or coercion. Thus, what happened at Tepeyac is presented not as a theory or a tactic, but as a permanent criterion for discerning the evangelizing mission of the Church, called to proclaim the True God for whom we live, without imposing Him, but also without diluting the radical newness of His saving presence.

Today, in many regions of the Americas and the world, the transmission of faith can no longer be taken for granted, particularly in large urban centers and in pluralistic societies, marked by visions of humanity and life that tend to relegate God to the private sphere or to disregard Him altogether. In this context, strengthening pastoral processes requires an inculturation capable of engaging in dialogue with these complex cultural and anthropological realities, without uncritically accepting them, so that it fosters a mature and adult faith, sustained in demanding and often adverse contexts. This implies conceiving the transmission of the faith not as a fragmented repetition of content nor as a merely functional preparation for the sacraments, but as a true path of discipleship, in which a living relationship with Christ forms believers capable of discerning, of giving an account of their hope, and of living the Gospel with freedom and consistency.

Therefore, catechesis becomes an indispensable priority for all pastors (cf. CELAM, Aparecida Document, 295-300). It is called to occupy a central place in the Church's activity, to accompany in a continuous and profound way the process of maturation that leads to a faith truly understood, embraced, and lived personally and consciously, even when this means going against the grain of dominant cultural discourses.

In this Congress, you have sought to rediscover and understand how to properly disseminate the theological content of the Guadalupe event and, consequently, of the Gospel itself. May the example and intercession of so many holy evangelists and pastors who faced this same challenge in their time—Toribio de Mogrovejo, Junípero Serra, Sebastián de Aparicio, Mamá Antula, José de Anchieta, Juan de Palafox, Pedro de San José de Betancur, Roque González, Mariana de Jesús, Francisco Solano, among so many others—grant you light and strength to continue the proclamation today. And may Our Lady of Guadalupe, Star of the New Evangelization, accompany and inspire every initiative leading up to the 500th anniversary of her apparition. I wholeheartedly impart my blessing to you.

Vatican City, February 5, 2026. Memorial of Saint Philip of Jesus, Mexican protomartyr.

Leo the Poor, 14th

POPE LEO’S LATEST REVERSAL OF POPE FRANCIS

I can’t imagine that Pope Leo isn’t consulting with Bishop Varden about how to deal with a problem like Maria, I mean, like the TLM. Bishop Varden’s approach is my approach and thus the right approach. 

It appears to me that he is not bothered by Summorum Pontificum or the so-called reform of the reform—meaning the reform of the Tridentine Mass in continuity with it! 

My own perspective is that we need the Bugnini Mass to be overhauled like Bugnini overhauled the Tridentine Mass thus making the Bugnini Mass almost unrecognizable from the Tridentine Mass. The new overhaul of the Bugnini Mass needs to make it look nothing like the Bugnini Mass but more like the Tridentine Mass. I am in favor of the 1965 Missal in other words. 

But this is Pope Leo’s latest reversal of Pope Francis. Press the Silieri non possum title for the full report:

Rome: Leo XIV appoints four auxiliaries and ends his predecessor's excesses

I THINK THAT IT IS EXTREMELY GOOD NEWS THAT POPE LEO XIV ASKED BISHOP VARDEN TO PRESENT TO THE POPE AND HIS CURIA THEIR LENTEN RETREAT

 Papabile? Yes, of course, but certainly the red hat too, before that.

From Vatican News, with my emphasis in red:

Lenten Retreat: Bishop Varden reflects on the splendour of truth

Bishop Erik Varden delivers his fifth reflection at the Spiritual Exercises in the Vatican for Pope Leo XIV, Cardinals residing in Rome, and heads of Dicasteries, focusing on the theme: “ The Splendour of Truth”. The following is a summary of his reflection.

By Bishop Erik Varden, OCSO*

Saint Bernard (of Clairvoux) keeps us on our toes. He states: ‘I would have you warned: no one lives on earth without temptation; if one is relieved of one, let him surely expect another’. We must nurture the correct balance between assurance in God’s help and distrust of our frailty, dreading temptations while we accept their inevitability, remembering that God submits us to them because they are useful.

Useful in what sense?

As we resist arrows launched by the Father of Lies, our commitment to the truth will be strengthened. We shall be fit, having turned away from weakening falsehood, to strengthen our brethren.

Ambition represents a particular form of capitulation to untruth. Ambition is a not very subtly sublimated form of cupidity. Describing it Bernard, always eloquent, surpasses himself. Ambition, he says, is ‘a subtle ill, a secret virus, an occult pest, an artisan of deceit; it is the mother of hypocrisy, the parent of envy, the origin of vices; it is kindling for crimes, causing virtues to rust, holiness to rot, hearts to be blinded. Remedies it turns into illnesses. From medicine it extracts apathy’. Ambition springs from an ‘alienation of the mind’. It is a madness that comes about when truth is forgotten. The fact that ambition is a form of insanity makes it ridiculous in any instantiation, but especially so when it occurs in persons given to a state of selfless service. Not for nothing does the figure of the ambitious clergyman haunt literature and cinema as a comic, but not very funny, trope — from the fawning parsons in Jane Austen to the tart courtier priest in Patrice Leconte’s notable film Ridicule.

‘What is truth?’

People of our time ask this question earnestly, often with remarkable good will, notwithstanding their confusion, fear, and the rush they are always in. We cannot let it go unanswered. We have no energy to waste on the silly temptations of fear, vainglory, and ambition. We need our best resources to uphold substantial, essential, freeing truth against more or less plausibly shining, more or less fiendish substitutes.

In our predicament, rich in opportunity, it is imperative to see and articulate the world in Christ’s light. Christ, who is truth, not only shields us; he renews us, impatient to reveal himself through us to a creation increasingly aware of being subject to futility.

It is tempting to think we must keep up with the world’s fashions. It is, I’d say, a dubious procedure. The Church, a slow-moving body, will always run the risk of looking and sounding last-season. But if she speaks her own language well, that of the Scriptures and liturgy, of her past and present fathers, mothers, poets, and saints, she will be original and fresh, ready to express ancient truths in new ways, standing a chance, as she has done before, of orienting culture. 

This work has an important intellectual dimension. It also has an existential dimension. As Cardinal Schuster said on his deathbed: ‘It seems that people no longer let themselves be convinced by our preaching, but in the presence of holiness, they still believe, they still kneel and pray.’

Was not the universal call to holiness, the call, that is, to embody truth, the strongest note struck by the Second Vatican Council? It resounded splendidly like a gong throughout its deliberations. The Christian claim to truth becomes compelling when its splendour is made personally evident with sacrificial love in sanctity, cleansed of temptations to temporise.

* Bishop Erik Varden, Bishop of Trondheim, Norway, was asked to preach the 2026 Spiritual Exercises for Pope Leo XIV, Cardinals residing in Rome, and the heads of Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, which runs from Sunday, February 22, to Friday, February 27. Here is the link to his website.

Here is artificial intelligence summary of the future Pope Varden (you read that here first!):

Bishop Erik Varden, O.C.S.O., Bishop of Trondheim, Norway, presents a liturgical perspective deeply rooted in his background as a Trappist monk, characterized by 

a commitment to contemplative prayer, tradition, bodily engagement, and the "via pulchritudinis" (the way of beauty). His approach is generally seen as orthodox and traditional, yet it avoids rigid factionalism, focusing instead on the liturgy as a means of personal and communal transformation, rather than a political tool. 

Key aspects of Bishop Varden's liturgical perspective include:

• The "Physical and Ascetic" Dimension: Varden views the liturgy as a "yogic" experience, meaning it should fully engage the body, not just the mind. He emphasizes the importance of posture—bending, standing, kneeling—and fasting as ways to help the body "inhabit" its own meaning and resist a "formless" existence.
• Objectivity of the Mystery: Varden has expressed that a "sheer objectivity" in the liturgy is necessary to draw people out of their own subjective, often chaotic, experiences and into the "twofold mystery" of Christ.
• "Traditional" without "Reactionary": While he shows understanding for the younger generation's desire for pre-conciliar forms as a relief from "formlessness," Varden does not advocate for nostalgia for the 1950s. Instead, he sees the desire for tradition as a search for a, "deeply felt hunch that their physical self is a reliable bearer of meaning".
• Liturgical Time as Synchronicity: Varden sees the liturgical year as a way to live within the "whole story" of salvation, moving beyond a linear, historical, or "experimental" view of time.
• The "Way of Beauty": He frequently employs art, poetry, and music in his preaching, viewing beauty as a vital conduit for divine truth.
• Critical of "Formlessness": He notes that the post-conciliar church often fell into "minimalist utilitarian schemes" and argues that the liturgy should provide structure, dignity, and a counter-cultural space. 

In essence, Varden advocates for a liturgy that is both ancient and deeply, physically, and spiritually lived in the present moment, treating it as the "source and summit" of Christian life rather than a subject for constant innovation