Unlike Pope Leo, though, I was able, by Pope Francis’ special permission after his godawful Traditionis Custodis, to celebrate the TLM at Savannah’s Sacred Heart Church. I was able to hear and internally participate (actual participation) in the 15 minute chanting by Sacred Heart’s fantastic schola, the more that 1000 year tradition of the Tractus.
The first photo is of some John Paul II High School students from Saint Gregory Church in Bluffton, SC, who attended the TLM for the very first time. They were absolutely blown away.
And the second photo is of a young man who had grown up in a large non-denominational church in Savannah, who, by experiencing the TLM, is now preparing to become a Roman Catholic.
Truly the TLM is a powerful tool in the Church’s really new evangelization! Other pictures of Sunday’s TLM with yours truly follow:
What the beretta doesn’t do to my hair, the high winds on Sunday completed. I can understand why the beretta fell into disuse once it became optional in the Bugnini Mass:
My actual participation in the 15 minute chanting of the First Sunday of Lent Tractus, that has more than a 1,000 year tradition in the Mass, but Bugnini Mass goers never have heard!:
I was blessed to celebrate the TLM’s First Sunday in Lent at Sacred Heart Church in Savannah, Georgia, I felt like Pope Leo who also on the First Sunday of Lent celebrated Mass at the Basilica of the Most Sacred Heart in Rome, near the Termini train station.
However, poor old Pope Leo was not as fortunate as I was as I was able to celebrate the TLM with a grand, magnificent schola who chanted the Mass in a most marvelous way to include the Ancient Tract that has been heard and chanted for over 1,000 years!
But poor old Pope Leo had to put up with kitschy Italian folk music with guitar in a magnificent church edifice built not for that musical crap but for Gregorian Chant.
And poor old Pope Leo did not get to hear the long Tract from the Roman Gradual that is even present in the revised, modern Roman Gradual but 99.9% of practicing Catholics who attend the Bugnini Mass have never, ever, heard! What a scandal!
To add insult to injury to our poor old Pope Leo, or salt to the wound, the Pope’s Lenten retreat Master reminded the pope later in the evening, on the very same day, the following:
For more than a thousand years the Roman liturgy of theFirst Sunday of Lenthas retained, as a fixed element, atractus of exquisite beauty (press tractus for the audio of it) that prepares for the Gospel -always the same one:Christ’s temptation in the desert,” said Bishop Erik Varden, O.C.S.O.,Prelate of Trondheim,Apostolic Administrator of Tromsø, andPresident of the Scandinavian Bishops’ Conference, who is this year’s papal retreat master leading the meditations. Pope Leo XIVpersonally invited him to do so.
You can tell that Pope Leo is saddened that he was not able to hear the Tractus at his modern Mass in Rome with guitar and kitschy Italian folk music, if one wants to call it music:
I, on the other hand, got to hear the ancient Tractus and it lasted 15 minutes to boot! I have a smile on my face after reading what Bishop Varden said to Pope Leo!
Pope Leo’s homily at Mass from the Parish of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Castro Pretorio)
Dear brothers and sisters,
A few days ago, with the rite of Ash Wednesday, we began our Lenten journey. Lent is an intense liturgical season, offering us the opportunity to rediscover the richness of our Baptism, to live as fully renewed creatures thanks to the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus.
The First Reading and the Gospel we have just heard, in dialogue, help us rediscover the gift of Baptism as a grace that embraces our freedom. The Genesis narrative brings us back to our condition as creatures, tested not so much by a prohibition, as is often believed, as by a possibility: the possibility of a relationship. Human beings are thus free to recognize and embrace the otherness of the Creator, who recognizes and embraces the otherness of creatures. To prevent this possibility, the serpent insinuates the presumption that he can erase all differences between creatures and the Creator, seducing man and woman with the illusion of becoming like God. Satan pushes them to possess something that—so he says—God wishes to deny them, thus perpetually keeping them in a state of inferiority. This fresco from Genesis is an unsurpassed masterpiece that represents the drama of freedom.
The Gospel seems to answer the age-old dilemma: can I realize my life fully by saying "yes" to God? Or, to be free and happy, must I free myself from Him?
The scene of Christ's temptations ultimately addresses this dramatic question. It leads us to discover the true humanity of Jesus who, as the conciliar Constitution Gaudium et Spes teaches, reveals man to himself: "In the mystery of the Incarnate Word, the mystery of man truly becomes clear" (GS, 22). Indeed, we see the Son of God who, opposing the wiles of the ancient Adversary, shows us the new man, the free man, the epiphany of freedom that comes to fruition by saying "yes" to God.
This new humanity is born from the baptismal font. And so—especially in this Lenten season—we are called to rediscover the grace of Baptism, as the source of life that dwells within us and dynamically accompanies us with the utmost respect for our freedom.
First of all, the Sacrament itself is dynamic, because what it offers is not limited to the space and time of the rite, but is a grace that constantly accompanies our entire life, sustaining our following of Christ. But Baptism is also dynamic because it constantly sets us on a new journey, since grace is an interior voice that urges us to conform to Jesus, liberating our freedom so that it may find fulfillment in the love of God and neighbor.
We thus understand the relational nature of Baptism, which calls us to live in friendship with Jesus and, thus, to enter into his communion with the Father. This grace-filled relationship also enables us to experience authentic closeness with others, a freedom that—unlike what the devil proposes to Jesus—is not a pursuit of one's own power, but a self-giving love that makes us all brothers and sisters. Indeed, Saint Paul states: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).
Brothers and sisters, Pope Leo XIII asked Saint John Bosco to build the church where we stand today. He had understood the centrality of this place, next to Termini Station and at a unique crossroads of the city, destined to become even more important over time.
For this reason, dear friends, in meeting you today I see in you a special expression of proximity, of closeness to the challenges of this area. Indeed, there are many young university students, commuters who come and go for work, immigrants seeking employment, young refugees who have found in the building next door, thanks to the Salesians' initiative, the opportunity to meet Italian peers and carry out integration projects; and then there are our brothers and sisters who are homeless and find welcome in the Caritas spaces on Via Marsala. In just a few meters, one can touch the contradictions of this time: the carefree attitude of those who leave and arrive with all the comforts and those who have no roof over their heads; the many potentials for good and the rampant violence; the desire to work honestly and the illicit trade in drugs and prostitution.
Your parish is called to address these realities, to be a leaven of the Gospel in the local community, to be a sign of closeness and charity. I thank the Salesians for the tireless work they carry out every day, and I encourage everyone to continue to be a small flame of light and hope right here.
May Mary Help of Christians always support us on our journey, making us strong in times of temptation and trial, to fully experience the freedom and brotherhood of God's children.
Cardinal Camillo Ruini thinks Benedict XVI’s resignation was a mistake. Ruini also found himself flummoxed by the Francis pontificate and unsure whether the reign of the late Argentinian pontiff will prove to have done more harm or good.
“I found myself in difficulty with Pope Francis,” Ruini said in response to a question asking whether the late pontiff had disappointed him. “The change was too great and sudden,” Ruini said.
“More than disappointed,” Ruini said he was “surprised.”
Asked for his measure of the Francis pontificate, whether it did “more good or more harm to the Church,” Ruini said his would be “a complex assessment, with very positive aspects and others much less so.”
“It’s too early to judge which of them prevail,” he said.
He acknowledged things red hats and curial officers – along with the rank and file in the Church’s central governing apparatus and bishops around the world have whispered privately for years: that Benedict’s resignation was a mistake and Francis’s reign was not easy for the Church.
MY COMMENTS: I am glad that Cardinal Ruini confirms my own feelings about Benedict and Francis. I too felt that Pope Benedict XVI made a mistake in resigning and should have persevered in his papacy. Would he have lasted ten more years? I doubt it but things would have worked out differently for the Church.
But, the Holy Spirit always repairs mistakes in the Church but not on our timeline.
I feel the same way as Cardinal Ruini feels about Pope Francis’ papacy. I think it was a disaster and now I know I am not alone and that many felt it was a disaster, including Cardinal Pell.
But of course there were good things but the bad seem to overwhelm me because some of the bad things were so mean-spirited:
1. How he berated those who desired the way the Church was going under Pope Benedict—renewal in continuity, respect for Tradition and traditions. Those who like liturgical and clerical refinery. The worst thing he did was to call into question their mental health and sincerity—a horrible judgment for someone who others touted as non-judgmental. In reality Pope Francis was the most judgmental pope ever and mean in his judgements.
2. Canceling, for the most part, the papacies of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI especially the liturgical magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI and doing so while His Holiness was the Emeritus Pope, still living and not even giving Pope Benedict a courtesy call concerning Traditionis Custodis.
3. Beginning processes that might have led to heterodox and heretical changes in Doctrine, Morals and the Faith of the Church. Francis’ synodal way was laying the foundation for this and Fiducia Supplicans is a virus, too, to regularize as virtue sexual sins of whatever degree and type. Both Francis’ synodal way and FS were processes to lead to the collapse of the doctrines of the Sacraments along with their anthropology and substitute an inversion of these.
4. Chipping away at the foundation of the Church as being the True Church and necessary for salvation and that Christ and His Church are the exclusive ways of salvation. It seem to me , in my most humble opinion, that Pope Francis was more interested in a Church that makes this world a utopian experience where all are embraced and nothing is sinful but exclusion. Heaven and hell as a just reward were relegated to obscurity.
What is good about Pope Francis papacy? He showed two or more new generations of Catholics, who have no living memory of Vatican II and its aftermath in the 1960’s well into the 80’s, what that period was like, with its confusion, experiments, ambiguity and that everything about traditional Catholic identities was up for grabs and open to change, even doctrines and morals. These new generations got to see how ugly it was because it was still ugly under Pope Francis’ direction.
I have no reason not to believe the veracity of this artificial intelligence’s summary. Do you?
Here it is:
In a recent interview shared by
Matt Fradd, Bishop Athanasius Schneider recounted a conversation with Pope Leo XIV regarding the Traditional Latin Mass.
According to Bishop Schneider, the Pope shared that numerous young people have approached him to testify that their conversion to the Catholic faith occurred through the Latin Mass.
Key Details from the Interview
The Pope's Observation: Pope Leo XIV reportedly acknowledged that the ancient liturgy is a significant driving force for modern conversions among the youth.
Proposed Resolution: During their meeting, Bishop Schneider proposed that the Pope issue an Apostolic Constitution to "free" the Latin Mass and establish "pacific co-existence" between the traditional and modern forms of the Roman Rite.
Context of Restrictions: This dialogue occurs as many traditionalists hope for a reversal of restrictions placed on the Latin Mass by the previous papacy.
Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born Pope (elected May 8, 2025), has shown some early signs of openness to traditionalists, such as permitting a Latin Mass celebrated by Cardinal Raymond Burke in St. Peter's Basilica.
Pope Leo gave a very good homily for Ash Wednesday. He not one time said “Todas! Todas! Todas!” But rather he called everyone (todas, todas, todas) to repent. But he also called structures of sin, businesses and institutions to repent. The full homily is HERE.
Perhaps he meant it as the Book of Jonah meant that cows and other livestock should also repent and put on sackcloth. Of course, this was to add humor to the serious need to repent:
In the Book of Jonah (chapter 3), the king of Nineveh orders a, severe, city-wide fast, requiring both people and livestock (cows, sheep) to wear sackcloth and abstain from food and water to repent for their wickedness.
This is what Pope Leo said:
Naturally, sin is personal, but it takes shape in the real and virtual contexts of life, in the attitudes we adopt towards each other that mutually impact us, and often within real economic, cultural, political and even religious “structures of sin.” Scripture teaches us that opposing idolatry with worship of the living God means daring to be free, and rediscovering freedom through an exodus, a journey, where we are no longer paralyzed, rigid or complacent in our positions, but gathered together to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who repent — individuals, businesses and institutions that admit they have done wrong!
My most astute reactions: Of course I am a child of the 1970 liberal seminary formation and once I landed at our Cathedral in Savannah in 1985, I was imbued with what Pope Leo, who must have been taught was I was taught in the 1970’s, that structures of sin should repent.
When my then-bishop, also the chair of the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee at the time, Bishop Raymond Lessard, heard me say such an absurd statement, he corrected me and said, people sin and repent, but not institutions and businesses or so-called “structures of sin!”
And you know what, Bishop Lessard was/is right. The KKK can’t repent, but people who belong to it can and then they must repent of having been a part of an organization, organized by people, who promote hatred and discrimination. The organizations of hate groups or groups that promote death and laws opposed to the true God, can’t repent. Can the KKK repent and keep that name? Can the Nazi Political Party, in the Germany of Hitler and now in neo-forms, repent and been seen as good? Can you be a good Nazi if the organization of Nazis repents and changes it name? Repentant people must distance themselves from the affiliations they had that promote hate, death and evil ideologies. They must work at eradicating organizations, businesses and structures that people join in order to promote those institutions.
Can the American Democrat party repent of its pro-death, anti-God ideologies? Its rabid pro-abortion advocacy and promotion of laws that lead to the genocide of innocent children? Laws that promote active euthanasia and assisted suicide? Advocates for the sexual mutilation of children and teenagers and promotes sinister LGBTQ++ ideologies?
Can a Catholic belong to the Democrat Party and be a Catholic in good standing? If they can be excommunicated for belonging to a schismatic religious sect, let’s say, like, the FSSPX, shouldn’t they also be excommunicated for belonging to the Democrat Party, that promotes the anti-God culture of death, sexual mutilation of children and teenagers and contempt for natural law and all the laws of God and true religion?
There are certain things, too, that we can complain about the Republican Party, but I don’t think there is anything there on parr with what the Democrats promote.
Of course even the Nazis, fascists, KKK and Democrats do/did some good things. But can institutions repent of the evil they do that cannot be masked by the cotton-candy facade of good they think they promote? Only people can repent and in terms of evil, corrupt institutions, those repentant people must distance themselves from the organizations that formed their evil intents. Those institutions must be disbanded by repentant people.
Of course, Pope Leo is an Augustinian. As an Augustinian, his religious order had to contend with the Augustinian priest, Fr. Martin Luther’s schism, rebellion that led to the Protestant rebellion which had worldwide ramifications for divisions in the Church.
Where will Pope Leo go with this? Time will tell.
Letter from Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández
Response of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Menzingen, 18 February 2026 Ash Wednesday
Most Reverend Eminence,
First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency in communication.
I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019.1 At that time, the Dicastery did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X was impossible.
For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.
This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today.
That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.
I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some supplementary considerations.
We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent pontificates.
I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.
This dialogue is supposed to clarify the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations.
This official reading is expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia. It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these documents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established.
One cannot ignore the context of the dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favourable response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society.
Yet, after a long silence, it is only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of schism,2 and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public, creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue.
Furthermore, to us it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
Thus, we do not see how these criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in our place.
Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with the aim of producing a doctrinal statement that the Society could accept regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical precedents of efforts made in this direction. I draw your attention to the most recent: the Holy See and the Society had a long course of dialogue, beginning in 2009, particularly intense for two years, then pursued more sporadically until 6 June 2017. Throughout these years, we sought to achieve what the Dicastery now proposes.
Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period.3 This shows that, if one persists in a doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and lacks sufficient serenity, in the long term, instead of achieving a satisfactory result, one only worsens the situation.
Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.
As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also why we are speaking today.
This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. It asks nothing else of you—no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation, which, in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences. The Society cannot abandon souls. The need for the sacraments is a concrete, short-term need for the survival of Tradition, in service to the Holy Catholic Church.
We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that, in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.
Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated “listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, the Society asks of you nothing more than this—and above all it does not ask it for itself: it asks it for these souls, for whom, as already promised to the Holy Father, it has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman Church.
Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—do not take this as a provocation—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.
I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.
Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.
Davide Pagliarani, Superior General + Alfonso de Galarreta, First Assistant General Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant General + Bernard Fellay, First Counsellor General, Former Superior General Franz Schmidberger, Second Counsellor General, Former Superior General
The Society, however, defends itself against any accusation of schism and, relying on all traditional theology and the Church's constant teaching, maintains that an episcopal consecration not authorised by the Holy See does not constitute a rupture of communion—provided it is not accompanied by schismatic intent or the conferral of jurisdiction. Cf. Annex II.
