THE LORD GIVES AND THE LORD TAKES AWAY—BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD!

Adult Catholics who have respect for the Supreme Pontiff, understand that the Lord gives and the Lord takes away—blessed be the Name of the Lord. 

Popes give and popes take away—blessed be the popes. But are we obliged, under the pain of mortal sin, to like it? It depends. 

St. Pope John Paul II opened the door to more celebrations of the Vetus Ordo. Pope Benedict XVI went much further allowing it to be celebrated freely but also as the exception rather than the rule—the rule is the Novus Ordo. It is the ordinary form of the Mass, while the Vetus Ordo is out of the ordinary, which better defines in English, Benedict’s use of extraordinary not as“being better” but as out of the ordinary or regular usage.

For the first 10 years of Pope Francis papacy, there was no indication from His Holiness that he would suppress in any way or aspect Summorum Pontificum, let alone abrogate it altogether. 

Even Praytell was a bit shocked with the complete suppression of Summorum Pontificum because by Pope Francis doing this, he was striking Pope Benedict XVI in the face even while the Emeritus Pope was still living next door to His Holiness—and there was no communication to the Emeritus Pope that Pope Francis would completely suppress SP and institute the backward looking TC (when the NO was the only form of the Mass allowed after Vatican II). 

Thus, we can say that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a victim of this abusive document and everyone else who embraced SP because Pope Benedict XVI allowed it—they were obedient to His Holiness and moved forward (forward looking) with SP. And they (and me) accepted Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Vatican II in continuity with what preceded it. The majority of Catholics who accepted SP also accept Vatican II properly interpreted and in line with how Pope Benedict XVI interpreted Vatican II and SP.

Thus, we can say that all those who were obedient to Pope Benedict’s liturgical vision, not just in allowing the Vetus Ordo, but also inspiring a logical “reform of the reform” of the Novus Ordo were victimized by Pope Francis and His Holiness’ Traditionis Custodis. 

But we aren’t children and we cannot remain stuck in the victims’ state of mind.

We know that in life, in our faith life and worship too, that God and the popes give and God and the popes take away. We might feel victimized, but that’s our problem not theirs. 

Arthur Cardinal Roche gave an interview to a less than friendly interviewer, which the good Cardinal should be commended for doing so.

I have no reason to believe that Cardinal Roche is making up or is in a state of wishful thinking when he says Pope Leo XIV is not going to change Traditionis Custodis or bring back SP. I take it at face value that he is communicating what Pope Leo has indicated to him. 

Children might pout about this for the rest of their lives, but adults should not be doing so. They should put on their big boy pants and move forward and accept reality and remain in full communion and love with the pope and the bishops in union with him. 

But I think that Cardinal Roche, who once supported Pope Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum and then supported his new boss, Pope Francis and TC and he’s supporting is newest boss Pope Leo XIV, should have been less verbally victimizing of those who had and have a hard time when Pope Francis in the most authoritarian and mean way, suppressed the liturgical magisterium of Pope Benedict. 

Here’s what Cardinal Roche said in the interview which Rorate Caeli carried:

Interviewer: This year will mark five years since the implementation of Traditionis Custodes, the motu proprio from Pope Francis’s pontificate, which adjusted a previous motu proprio from Pope Benedict’s pontificate. Do you think, in view of these changes from pontificate to pontificate, we are likely to see Pope Leo give his own guidance – particularly as much of the Catholic revival amongst young people seems at least to have a focus on the 1962 Mass? Or do you see something coming from Pope Leo?

Cardinal Roche:  No, I do not. He is not going to change Traditionis Custodes. He is not going to go back to Summorum Pontificum.

 

His words to the priests and people of consecrated life in Notre-Dame on Saturday evening are very, very clear: stop preferring your own particular view about this matter, and return to what the Church is asking you to do. He said that very clearly, not only there, but also two or three weeks back in his concluding talk for his Wednesday catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. He made it very clear that the direction of the Church is in this particular direction, and that personal choices should not come into this matter.

 Why? Because the Church assembles as a family, as a group, not simply as individuals. Of course we are individuals, but we assemble as a Church who believe in what the Church has given to us, what it handed down to us from the Lord, and we remain faithful to that deposit of faith.

Interviewer: Would you say to those people who attend the Vetus Ordo that it would be better for them to go to a Novus Ordo, or would you say they really should not be going to a Vetus Ordo Mass?

Cardinal Roche: You should not be going to that Mass exclusively, I think. That is what I would say. But the thing that impresses itself upon me constantly, dealing with groups of traditionally minded people, is that when they come to see me and talk about this, and they say the Pope has not been kind to us, I say to them: the Holy Father has given you the possibility of celebrating the Mass according to the Antecedent Rite. What is your problem? What else is it that you are wanting?

Generally speaking, they cannot answer the question. But you see in the traditionalist blogs that they are wanting more than that. They are wanting to turn back to a Church that does not have the teaching of the Second Vatican Council; that does not have this new form of working together in order to evangelise the world. So I would say, for any Catholic with any tendency, you should always examine your conscience against what is the teaching of the Church, and not just what you prefer to do yourself.

My comment to the last sentence above: Cardinal Roche is spreading calumny not only about the majority of quiet Catholics who embraced SP and Vatican II as Pope Benedict XVI understood it, but he is also spreading the same calumny about Pope Benedict XVI of happy memory. In other words, Pope Benedict should have examined his conscience against what is the teaching of the Church and not just what he preferred to do himself! Sheesh! 

MY FEARS WERE REALIZED: POPE LEO HAS LUNG CANCER—PLEASE CONTINUE TO STORM HEAVEN FOR POPE LEO AND FOR THE CHURCH!

 This is an AI summary:

AI Overview

Pope Leo XIV has been diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma, a form of lung cancer, following a successful surgery on October 13, 2026. Doctors removed the lower lobe of his right lung at Rome's Gemelli hospital. 

• Procedure: A 90-minute operation to remove the lower lobe of his right lung using a video-assisted technique.
• Outcome: The Vatican announced that the surgery was successful with no complications.
• Recovery: The 71-year-old pontiff woke up normally and is resting. He is expected to spend about a week recovering at 
  Rome's Gemelli hospital.
   

Medical Prognosis

As reported by The New York Times, medical experts state that early-stage lung adenocarcinoma treated with surgery typically carries a very high survival rate. Pope Leo has no history of tobacco use and maintains an active lifestyle, frequently playing tennis and swimming, which doctors note supports a positive recovery outlook. 

It remains unclear if his recovery period will disrupt his upcoming international travel schedule, which includes planned November trips to South America

I have known many parishioners with this form of lung cancer who have recovered and lived normal lives for many years. God bless Pope Leo! Viva il Papa!

I DIDN’T WANT TO SPECULATE ON POPE LEO’S HEALTH, SINCE WE HAVE HIPPA LAWS IN THE USA, BUT SINCE THE PILLAR HAS, SO WILL I OUT OF PRAYERFUL CONCERN…

 As Pope Leo undergoes surgery today (October 13) we must hold him in prayer. My 8:30 AM Mass at St. Gregory the Great in Bluffton, SC will be a votive Mass for the Holy Father. 

I wanted to write this yesterday, but thought that I should not be speculating on health issues of a pope and how serious his surgery might be and what they might find. 

But since the Pillar has done so this morning (October 13) I wanted to add my nickel's worth.

My concern is about how quickly this surgery has been scheduled, meaning it is occuring in the middle of an important meeting the pope has called to discuss the “reception” of Amoris Laetitia. The Holy Father was to be the celebrant for the closing Mass this Wednesday and the summary report was to be released. 

The report is now being sidelined to another date so the pope can listen to the results and offer His Holiness’ own commentary. Cardinal Tagle, the new dean of the Cardinals, will substitute for the pope as the celebrant of the Mass on Wednesday.

It seems to me that if this were not very serious, they could have postponed the surgery until Thursday, but there seems to be an urgency for the surgery.

Prayers for the pope are important. Here’s a great prayer for those undergoing surgery:

PRAYER TO ST. LUKE FOR A SAFE SURGERY

O blessed Saint Luke, fondly invoked as the Beloved Physician and a follower of Christ, you devoted your life to the healing and care of those who were sick and suffering. We come before you now, asking for your intercession on behalf of those preparing for surgery, in particular Pope Leo XIV.

We pray for those who will be undergoing surgery that they may be filled with courage, strength, and peace of mind. We humbly pray that you direct the hands of the medical staff who will be executing the treatment and fill them with your knowledge, expertise, and compassion.

We also offer prayers for the loved ones and families of those getting ready for surgery. In this time of doubt and anxiety, may they find consolation and support and draw courage from their faith and the love of those around them.

We ask that you watch over those recovering from surgery so that they may experience a swift and complete recovery. May they continually put their faith in God's care and providence, and may they be filled with gratitude for the gift of life and the benefits of medical treatment.

Saint Luke lead us all on the paths of love, compassion, and selfless service. May we constantly be led by Christ's light as we dedicate our lives to the healing and caring of the sick and suffering. May we follow your wonderful example. Amen.

Saint Luke, pray for us.

Here’s the Pillar’s commentary, press the title:

How worried should Catholics be about the pope’s health?

The timing of the pope’s announcement and surgery this week suggests that the timing isn’t entirely by choice.

OCTOBER 12, 2026 • ED. CONDON

RANTS AND RAVES AND ODDS AND INS AND OTHER SUNDRIES

 While we aren’t seeing 90% of all Catholics attending Mass each Sunday, at least at our Cathedral in Savannah, their 10 AM and 11:30 AM Masses are packed. I don’t think it is helpful to refer to any Mass validly celebrated, even with liturgical abuses, as bogus, although abuses are bogus. 

A well celebrated Bugnini Mass attracts the young and old—it’s the poor celebrations that weaken or destroys attendance and orthodox belief. The cathedral has a world class choir director/organist as well as choirs.

And what’s up with no indication that on October 12th, it is the Memorial of Saint Carlos Acutis? It was not in the Ordo nor the USCCB’s Liturgical Readings guide. The only way I was reminded of it was a Spanish resource, in English, that offers a reflection on the day’s Gospel Reading. They indicated St. Carlos but also a Spanish Memorial, Our Lady of the Pillar, which I have never heard of before, but is celebrated in Spain.

And to think, when I was a teenager and wore jeans to Mass (in the 1970’s) my father chastised me for it and now there are statues of St. Carlos placed in churches with him wearing jeans! There is a God!

And we now know that Pope Leo XIV will undergo surgery on Tuesday, October 13, for the removal of a tumor on his lung. It’s a great day to have surgery—as it is the feast day of several saints, including St. Edward the Confessor, St. Lubentius, and Blessed Maddalena Panattieri. Additionally, it marks the anniversary of the final apparition of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917, where a miraculous event known as the Miracle of the Sun occurred! Prayers for a successful surgery and full recovery for our Holy Father and for the Intercession of our Lady of Fatima and those other saints! The pope is expected to remain in Gemeli Hospital for a week.

Of course, there’s the “pope’s nose” and now the “pope’s lung”!

And while the heterodox right is apoplectic that the new head of Saint Peter’s seems to be somewhat behind TC, he certainly isn’t anti-grandmother’s lace or ad orientem—Bishop of Gaylord, Michigan take notice! Lace of this magnitude isn’t my cup of tea, but I do like Arsenic and Lace! 

Finally, it is good to remember that modern brutalist architecture for Catholic churches was widely used prior to Vatican II and this one in Los Angeles is a great example. It has been nicely adapted for the Bugnini Mass without being wreckovated ! I like this very much.

IF IT’S TODAY, WHICH BISHOP DO I PRAY FOR IN THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER??????

 One of the things that helps keep my aging mind sharp as a tack is trying to remember when I celebrate Mass what diocese I am and the bishop’s first name of that diocese. As you may or may not know, the priest when he prays the Eucharistic Prayer must mention the first name of the bishop of the diocese where he is celebrating Mass. When I celebrate Mass in the Diocese of Charleston it is Jacques Fabre-Jeune, when I am in the Diocese of Savannah, it is Stephen Parkes and when I am at Parris Island or any US military installation in the world, it is Timothy Broglio. It’s easy to have a “senior” moment at that point in the Eucharistic Prayer….But no matter where I am, my bishop is the Bishop of Savannah, currently Bishop Stephen Parkes, or is it……

POST VATICAN II TO A PRE-VATICAN II SANCTUARY!

 At the Parris Island Marine Base Chapel , it’s a quick conversion from Protestant to Catholic! Proselytizing? Maybe, but you know the Marines! 

PRAY FOR POPE LEO XIV WHO IS TO UNDERGO SURGERY TO REMOVE A LUNG TUMOR!

Please pray for Pope Leo who will undergo surgery this week to remove a tumor from his lung:

O God, who in your providential design willed that your Church be built upon blessed Peter, whom you set over the other Apostles, look with favor, we pray, on Leo XIV our Pope and grant that he, whom you have made Peter’s successor, may be for your people a visible source and foundation of unity in faith and of communion. Grant Pope Leo a safe surgery and a full recovery.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

- The Roman Missal (2011), Prayers for the Pope (p. 1243)

YIKES OR NIKES?

 YOU CAN READ A POST I WROTE ABOUT VIOLA BACK IN 2021, WITH PHOTOS HERE.

Also this:

Archbishop Viola was part of an event in 2012 in Perugia along with Father Cassian Folsom (prior of the Norcia Monastery), which discussed active participation in both forms of the Roman rite. 

And Sileri non possum has an excellent commentary HERE.

Appointment of vicar general of His Holines for Vatican City, archpriest of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican and president of the Fabric of Saint Peter

The Holy Father has appointed Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola, O.F.M., hitherto secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, as vicar general of His Holines for Vatican City, archpriest of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican and president of the Fabric of Saint Peter.

 

Appointment of secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

The Holy Father has appointed Monsignor Aurelio García Marcías, under-secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, as secretary of the same Dicastery.

WOW! THE WANT TO BE LIKE THE NATIONAL cATHOLIC REPORTER BLOG, WHERE PETER IS, AKA, WHERE FRANCIS WAS, HAS A LINK TO AN ITALIAN BLOG THAT SAYS THE AMORIS LAETITIA MEETING IS UNDERMINING SYNODALITY—LET’S PRAY THAT AT LEAST IT IS UNDERMINING A HETERODOX VERSION OF IT!

 Mike Lewis of the Blog Where Peter Is, aka, Where Francis Was, was gloating on another thread about how Pope Leo XIV is Pope Francis II. He mentions that Pope Leo is continuing all of Pope Francis’ initiatives when it comes to Fiducia Supplicans, Traditionis Custodis and of course, Amoris Laetitia. But in fact, unlike Pope Francis, Pope Leo does not want to denigrate or cancel any of his previoius professors, like Pope Francis canceled a significant part of Pope Benedict’s liturgical magisterium and many aspects of St. John Paul II’s teachings. What Pope Leo is doing, which Mike Lewis does not understand, is that he is clarifying and purifying those teachings of Pope Francis which were seen as denigrating his immediate predecessors. And Pope Leo has certainly reversed many policies of Pope Francis as it concerns the Diocese of Rome. 

At any rate, this Italian blog says it straightforwardly, Pope Leo has undermined Pope Francis’ version of synodality. Do you agree? 

This is a google translation of an Italian Blog called Settimana which you can read in Italian Here:

Sinodalità mortificata

When Pope Leo convened the world’s bishops last March for a "summit on the family," I said to myself: "This will be the litmus test to see whether or not there is a genuine intention to take seriously the efforts of those millions of the faithful who—across the globe and throughout the 2023–2024 Synodal Journey—have repeatedly gathered at local, national, and continental levels to develop the concept of synodality and promote its consistent practice within the Church."

Now that the moment of truth has arrived, it must be said that the synodality so deeply desired, sought after, and proclaimed essential has, in this initial test, been undermined.

It is disheartening that this so often happens in the Church: proposals are made, discussions held, and declarations issued, yet nothing actually comes of them.

Making the family the focus of a major ecclesial gathering offered an ideal opportunity to put synodal practice to the test—perhaps the best opportunity imaginable. After all, if there is one aspect of Christian life that is—by virtue of their vow of celibacy—systematically absent from the bishops' own lived experience, it is family life: the dynamics of the marital relationship and the commitment involved in raising children.

The fact remains that bishops, priests, friars, and nuns do not, in the ordinary course of events, experience the process of seeking a partner with the aim of marriage, or grappling with the difficult discernment of that decision. They do not face the complex undertaking of merging every aspect of their existence—even the most intimate—with another person, nor do they experience the joys, the struggles, and often the crises that accompany raising children, and so forth. Only by living through these experiences does one become enriched with the charisms of married and family life that the Spirit bestows upon the faithful whom He calls to live them out. It is only through lived experience that the charisms the Spirit grants the faithful—enabling them to face life’s concrete challenges in His light—become manifest.

The meeting scheduled for October 7, 2026, involves the participation of approximately 248 people; among them, the number of married lay faithful is projected to be a very modest 11 couples—that is, 22 individuals.

I consider the appeal addressed to the Pope by *Catholic Church Reform International*—an international network of Catholic organizations and individuals committed to Church reform—to be reasonable and entirely consistent with the arduous synodal journey undertaken thus far: "In a synod on the family, families must have the right to a deliberative vote. There is no synodality if bishops gather without the people. Families must be present and have a say in discussions regarding family pastoral care."

One had therefore expected to see the reappearance—in the Paul VI Hall—of those round tables to which we have become accustomed, in sufficient numbers to accommodate, alongside the bishops, at least an equal number of married lay faithful, a certain number of engaged couples, and a significant presence of divorced persons; after all, the Synod is gathering to discern the "steps to be taken today to proclaim the Gospel to families." Between now and October 14, it is still possible to rectify the situation, should there be the will to do so. One need only look to the model of the most recent Synod of Bishops, in which 96 of the 368 voting members were not bishops. The aim is not to replace the episcopal magisterium—founded on the sacrament—with undifferentiated assemblies, but rather to define the spheres in which its authority is exercised. If the Spirit of the Lord willed the existence of a ministry endowed with authority, it was to ensure the Church’s faithful preservation of the Apostles’ authentic preaching and to safeguard the unity of the Church that directly flows from it.

This makes it both possible and appropriate to adopt a synodal practice in which the faithful—endowed with charisms relevant to the specific matter at hand—play a decisive role, while ordained ministers serve as guarantors of the faith’s authenticity, safeguarding community communion amidst the plurality of emerging views.

IT WAS JUST PLAIN STUPID AND DISTRACTING FOR DOMINICAN-SISTER HELEN ALFRED, OP, TO QUOTE A DOMINICAN PRIEST FATHER MICHAEL PALUCH, OP, WHO SAID JESUS WAS INITIALLY “FLIRTING” WITH THE SAMARITAN WOMAN—DID I SAY IT WAS JUST PLAIN STUPID?

What a stupid, silly, unnecessary and even blasphemous thing for Dominican Sister Helen Alfred to repeat at a Vatican meeting, what a Dominican Priest, Fr. Michal Paluch said about Jesus, that he initially was flirting with the Samaritan women. What nonsense and why repeat something so false and filled with calumny and far more than just breaking the 8th Commandment? What was the point in using that term or repeating it and its sloppy and lazy academic point? A complete distraction from an otherwise good talk!

 I asked my good friend, AI, if Jesus was flirting with the Samaritan woman when our sinless Lord asked her for water. And this is what Artificial Intelligence knows which evidently two human Dominicans, with non-artificial intelligence don’t know:

No, Jesus did not flirt with the Samaritan woman in John 4; the biblical narrative describes a theological encounter offering spiritual salvation, not a romantic or sexual interaction. [1]

What the Bible Says

The Setting: Jesus met an unnamed Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well in Sychar at noon. [1, 2]
The Social Barrier: In first-century culture, it was socially shocking for a Jewish man to speak publicly with a Samaritan—and with a woman outside his family. [1, 2]
The Dialogue: Jesus asked her for a drink of water and then shifted the conversation to "living water,"using it as a metaphor for eternal life and the Holy Spirit rather than any physical or double-entendre meaning. [1, 2]
The Result: The woman recognized Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah, then left her water jar to run back to her town and tell others about him. [1]

Where the Flirtation Claim Comes From

Unconventional Sermons: The idea that they were flirting or that "living water" was a sexual euphemism comes from a small number of modern sermons and commentators (such as a Florida Episcopal pastor's sermon that drew widespread public critique). [1]
Wits and Teasing: Some interpreters describe their back-and-forth dialogue as snappy, sharp, or playful verbal sparring—breaking deep cultural and religious taboos—which a few people loosely describe as a "verbal flirtation" or "matching of wits". [1]
Mainstream Theological Consensus: Christian scholars, historians, and mainstream traditions reject the idea of romance or flirtation, viewing the passage strictly as a moment of radical grace, cross-cultural breaking of barriers, and theological revelation. [1]

THIS DOCTOR OF THE FIELD HOSPITAL CHURCH HAS MADE THE RIGHT PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS, THAT OF GASLIGHTING AND MANIPULATION OF ORTHODOX CATHOLICS MOST OF WHOM ARE FAR FROM RIGID PHARISEES!

 In today’s Church, we need not just doctors of the body, but psychiatrists who can make the proper diagnosis and Bishop Robert Mutsarets is a great psychiatrist. Read His Excellency’s full commentary post at Rorate Caeli by pushing their title. My money bytes below the photo:

The Deceptive Tactics of the Silent Revolution Engulfing the Church - by Bishop Robert Mutsaerts

This does not mean that nothing may ever change. The liturgy has developed, canon law has changed, ecclesiastical disciplines have been modified, and theological formulations have been refined. An oak tree looks different after five hundred years than when it was an acorn. But when that acorn suddenly produces a tulip, "development" is no longer the right word.

There is reason to be concerned about this. Why? Read Church history. Ecclesial upheavals rarely begin with the announcement: "As of Monday, we are abolishing two thousand years of Catholic tradition." It happens differently. First it is said that a doctrine is being misunderstood. Then that the terminology is "hurtful." Next that no one wishes to change the doctrine, but that "pastoral space" is needed. Local experiments then arise. The experiments become practice. The practice creates expectations. The expectations become "lived reality." And finally, those who defend the original doctrine are asked why they cling so rigidly to a formulation that has by now been superseded. That is the silent revolution.

Sometimes the Church must find new words to proclaim the same truth in a comprehensible way. But that is precisely why the decisive question is not: Is something changing? The question is: Is what is changing recognizable as an organic development of what preceded it, or is there a rupture with what came before? That is why continuity is not the hobby of nostalgics. It is a Catholic criterion. The Catholic question is never only: "Is this kind?" "Is this inclusive?" "Does this work pastorally?" The decisive question remains: Is this the same faith that we have received? The faith of Paul, of Augustine, of Thomas, of Trent, of Newman, of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.