BOMBSHELL GOOD NEWS FROM THE PREFECT FOR THE DICASTERY OF DIVINE WORSHIP—CARDINAL ROCHE! HE SAYS NO, NO, NO, OR BETTER YET, NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! TO LAY PREACHING AT MASS AND HE EVEN GOES BEYOND THAT!!!!! I AM SURE THAT POPE LEO HAS HAD ENOUGH WITH THE “WANT-TO-BE” SCHISMATIC GERMANS

The Pillar is reporting that Cardinal Roche is emphasizing “Redemptionis Sacramentum” which is truly good news and I give a link to that to refresh our memories about it as it was issued in 2004!

The prohibition of lay people preaching a homily at the  homily time is also extended to seminarians, students of theological unions and pastoral assistants and any other kind of layperson or group or community or association!”

This is truly a smackdown to the German bishops and there heretical synodal way that will lead to schism if the pope doesn’t slap them down and threaten excommunications of bishops, some of whom are cardinals, and lesser clergy and religious, not to mention lay Catholics. 

Sileri non possum has this to say:

Woelki and the concern voiced that very day

This is where the date of 30 March becomes relevant again. While the request to be sent to Rome was being prepared in Würzburg - and while all the bishops of the German Bishops’ Conference had been duly informed - Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki voiced his opposition. During the Chrism Mass in Cologne Cathedral, without making any reference to the letter sent to the Holy See, he addressed the priests of the diocese and urged them not to adopt this practice.

When the letter arrived in Rome, the issue was far from new and did not take the Dicastery’s leadership by surprise. On 1 April, Silere non possum had reported on the words spoken by the Archbishop of Cologne during the Chrism Mass, setting out both their substance and their context. The Cardinal framed his entire address around the relationship between the priestly ministry and the Eucharist, warning against “today’s attempts to separate the proclamation of the Word of God in the homily from presiding over the Eucharistic celebration”. Woelki urged priests to safeguard “this important theological link” and not to yield to a “purely functional understanding”.

That was precisely the point Rome has now set down in black and white: preaching at Mass belongs to the very structure of the liturgical action and of the ordained ministry, and cannot lightly be delegated to someone who does not preside over the Eucharist.

In the same homily, the Cardinal went further, denouncing the existence of circles in which “it is openly said that everything possible must be done to make themselves independent of the priest and his ministry”. Woelki’s conclusion left no room for doubt: “This, dear brother priests, is no longer Catholic, and I urge you to oppose all this from the outset.” Almost three months later, the Dicastery for Divine Worship has vindicated the Cardinal of Cologne on both doctrinal and disciplinary grounds.

In short, following the publication by the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of the letter reining in interpretations of Fiducia Supplicans, this is the second firm and unmistakable signal Rome has sent to revolutionary Germany: the wind has shifted.

PRESS THE TITLE FOR THE FULL PILLAR ARTICLE: 

Vatican says ‘nein’ to lay homilies in Germany

MY FINAL SALVO:

Since Cardinal Roche is  emphasizing Redemptionis Sacramentum, you can read it in full and it is important to reread it as it addresses so many other problems that persist in the Latin Rite, even though it was issued in 2004!!!! You can read it HERE.

BUT THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION! DO I HEAR AN AMEN????

90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”. [176] 

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. [177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, [178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179] 

[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling. [180] 

[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice. [181] Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

[95.] A lay member of Christ’s faithful “who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a Eucharistic Celebration in which he or she is participating, with due regard for the prescriptions of can. 921 § 2.” [182] 

1. The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. [254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, [255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law, [256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist. [257] 

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons. [258] 

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. [259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason. 

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS RUSSIAN ORTHODOX VIDEO ABOUT HOLY COMMUNION AND HOW TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION AND HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DIVINE LITURGY THAT COULD NOT BE TAUGHT TO ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO NEED THIS TYPE OF CATECHESIS NOW MORE THAN EVER!

If Catholics of the Latin Rite received Holy Communion standing as do the majority in the Eastern Rite Church and all of Eastern Orthodoxy, standing for Holy Communion would be equally as reverent looking as kneeling is for Latin Rite Catholics! 

FROM A VISUAL POINT OF VIEW, EVEN IF ONE IS NOT A CATHOLIC, WHICH METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING AND RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION PROMOTES WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES TO BE THE TRUTH ABOUT HOLY COMMUNION?

Signs and symbols are very important and communicate a message even to non-believers. 

For example, if I am a “seeker” and attended Mass only twice in my lifetime, and the first time I saw everyone kneeling to receive Holy Communion, that would tweak my curiosity about Holy Communion and why anyone would kneel to receive Holy Communion. The sign and symbol of receiving Holy Communion as Pope Benedict distributed Holy Communion upholds, promotes and makes clear what the Church believes about the Most Holy Trinity and our Lord’s Real and Substantial Presence that the Holy Eucharist is. 

However, if I went to a Mass where I saw what is happening in the first photo, like the Muslim in that photo, I would think that nothing really important is happening and especially if I could compare the two ways of distributing Holy Communion. The first photo shows through signs and symbols that the Bread may  only be a symbol, only bread that symbolically represents Christ—thus it doesn’t really matter how you receive, standing, kneeling, on your head or by an AI robot, it is just a symbol and symbol understood as anyone would understand it, believer or not—a symbol of Jesus but not really Jesus! In other words, if anyone wanted a memento of having attending Mass, let’s say at St. Peter’s Basilica, one could take that symbol of Christ home and place it in a curio. It’s not really the Real Presence of Christ, only a symbol and no different than a statue or other image of Christ that people keep in their curios. 

If the cardinals at the consistory with Pope Leo are reading my blog, and certainly there must be at least one cardinal, let’s get real about the reform of the reform and return the entire Latin Rite to kneeling for Holy Communion and distributed only by a bishop, priest, deacon and formally installed adult acolyte and that acolyte properly vested.  

Ask Pope Leo to write a Traditionis Custodis type document returning the Church kneeling for Holy Communion and enforce it as TC is enforced and tell bishops that Masses that still allow people to stand for Holy Communion, with anyone and everyone distributing Holy Communion can’t be held in a parish church or advertised in bulletins! What’s fair is fair! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

That truly isn’t too much to ask. Why would anyone think that is too much to ask?

SINCE VATICAN II ENDED IN 1964, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN IN CONSTANT FLUX AND CHAOS—BLEEDING CLERGY, RELIGIOUS AND LAITY—AND NO END OF THE CHAOS SEEMS TO BE IN SIGHT

I know that the Council of Trent was a bulwark against the Protestant Reformation and led to a truly new springtime for the Church, especially in the post-World War II period prior to Vatican II.

Vatican I caused some controversy and led to a schism by the Old Catholics.

Vatican II has created many schisms, especially with those who have sought the ordination of women, who want to redefine the sexual morality of the Church, allowing  for LGBTQ++++ ideologies and redefining genders, Holy Orders and Matrimony. 

It appears that the FSSPX bishops will be excommunicated and possibly all those who attend their chapels. If so, it makes clear that Todos, Todos, Todos,  only applies to sexual sinners who flaunt their sin in the most public way and even at Mass. But if you go to an FSSPX parish or chapel, that will get you excommunicated. 

At any rate, after more than 60 years after Vatican II there is still division and chaos over just about everything. 

Most sane Catholics know that this is not renewal and it certainly has not brought about a new springtime for the Church. But that’s the Church today.

THE FSSPX AGAINST SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION AND CANON LAW, NOT TO MENTION, THE SUPREME PONTIFF!

 A diocese in Australia has warned the faithful of that diocese about the upcoming consecration of a priest of the FSSPX as a bishop, valid but illict.

The warning also indicates that the one of the bishops ordaining the new illicit bishop is a member of a Sedevacantist group—you read the correctly! 

George Weigel has a very good article on why the FSSPX are not to be trusted. Like Lutherans during the time of Martin Luther—they aren’t Catholic—they don’t accept Scripture and Tradition—that indicates a loss of Catholicity! 

In my most humble opinion, Pope Leo is correct from the moral and canonical points of view to excommunicate the FSSPX just as Martin Luther and his followers were excommunicated. The Church needs more anathemas in this day, even more so, than in the days of the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation. 

Kudos to Pope Leo for recovering just anathemas! 

But with that said, I do pray that like St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Leo will find a way to embrace those priests, religious and laity of the FSSPX into the fullness of the Catholic Church, east and west, by recovering Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum and perhaps giving the FSSP and other communities of priests who celebrate the Vetus Ordo an Ordinariate with their own bishops. I think that is the way to go and a blossoming of Ecclesiia Dei and Summorum Pontificum!

Press the title for George Weigel’s very fine commentary on the FSSPX:

The SSPX Leadership Against Scripture and Tradition

COMMENTARY: Even if the Society of St. Pius X hits the brakes at the last moment and doesn’t commit formally schismatic acts, the grave problem posed by the SSPX will continue.

THE LATE GREAT CARDINAL RUINI IN HIS OWN WORDS, AND CERTAINLY, ALL OF US IN OUR RIGHT MINDS FELT THIS WAY!

As I always wrote on this blog, I felt Pope Francis was bringing the Church backwards to the time before the election of St. Pope John Paul II, and even before St. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, thus that short period between 1965 and up to Humanae Vitae in 1968. 

It was as though His Holiness wanted to restart the Church pre-Humanae Vitae and go from there with His Holiness at the helm of the listing barque, a list His Holiness exacerbated. 

Cardinal Ruini  felt as I did but stated it in a different way:

I have always been devoted to the Pope, and for this I thank the Lord and my teachers, especially the professors of the Gregorian University. After John Paul II, I worked for three years with Benedict XVI, and I thank him with all my heart, also for the affection he continues to show me. When Pope Francis was elected, I rejoiced and, insofar as I could, immediately supported him. Even today I rejoice and thank him for his extraordinary missionary and evangelizing zeal. Yet I must confess that I find myself in a state of unease—not for personal reasons, certainly, but because I struggle to understand certain directions that seem to me to reopen wounds which, after the Council, had only with difficulty been healed. I humbly ask the Lord to convince me inwardly that the Church is His and that He Himself cares for her, beyond our human perspectives.

And this is what Pope Leo XIV stated in His Holiness’ homily at the Requiem for Cardinal Ruini:

Cardinal Camillo Ruini had the grace of personally knowing and working with some great saints of recent times, such as Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II. Regarding his relationship with Pope Wojtyła—whom he served as a collaborator for many years—he wrote in particular: "In John Paul II, I experienced Your presence, Lord; I was able to witness firsthand the union in prayer, the inseparability of prayer, life, and apostolate, the courage of faith guiding history, and the capacity to love and forgive" (ibid.). I believe the Cardinal drew a great deal from the great Pontiff’s example of a unified life, for we can find in him, too, many of the traits he used to describe the saintly Pope; and I think this harmony of spirit can inspire us as well on our own journey.

As the motto of his episcopate, our brother chose a phrase inspired by the Gospel of Saint John: *Veritas liberabit nos*—"The truth will set us free" (cf. Jn 8:32). These words encapsulate the profound understanding of the human person and of freedom that Christ revealed to us and that the Church teaches: we are made for truth and goodness, and only in this do we find unity, peace, and fulfillment—both in this earthly life and for eternity. They clearly remind us of a message that is particularly significant for our times, an era in which one can easily become disoriented by relativistic trends and by entirely fluid views of reality and the human person. Looking at Cardinal Ruini’s life—at how he lived and how he departed this world—we can discern a sign of the strength and steadfastness with which a person grows and matures when they find, in the Truth that comes from God, the center and anchor of their existence.

And this is what Edward Pentin writes about Cardinal Ruini:

He praised John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but was less at ease during the pontificate of Pope Francis. His criticisms, he suggested, stemmed not from conservatism but from concern that some of the faithful might struggle to understand Francis’ direction of the Church. Upon the pontiff’s death in April 2025, Cardinal Ruini set out four conditions that, in his view, the new Pope should possess: sound doctrine, capacity for governance, a spirit of communion, and the strengthening of the faith. Many observers saw in these criteria an implicit critique of the pontificate just ended.

AS THE POPE SAYS THIS, HE CERTAINLY MUST BE AWARE OF THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN HIS WORDS TO THE EASTERN CHURCHES AND HOW LITURIGICAL AND EVEN THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES ARE TREATED IN HIS HOLINESS’ OWN LATIN RITE!

 What I copy below is from Sileri non possum’s English commentary on Pope Leo’s elocution to an organization of Eastern Catholics. You can read the entire English commentary HERE.

What I highlight in red below, though, is the most important part of the Pope’s talk in my book and His Holiness has said similar things in the past about the East. 

Under Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, His Holiness showed clearly the similarity between the “united, yet not uniform” two forms of the one Roman Rite, the Ancient Order and the Bugnini Order. 

But Pope Leo XIV brings in a new dimension, that of spiritual and theological diversity that enriches each other, another type of “united, yet not uniform” 

This can clearly be applied to the FSSPX! 

For example, in the East, there is a completely different emphasis on the purification that takes place after death, the anthropology of the sacraments, and in many Eastern Rites, they join with Eastern Orthodoxy in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Father and the Son as the West has emphasized. And this is in their liturgical Creed! They also have their own Code of Canon Law. 

In our own Western or one Latin Rite, it is obvious that the FSSPX disagree with the liturgical reform carried out by Bugnini and approved by St. Pope Paul VI.

They also reject Vatican II’s religious liberty document, ecumenical dialogue with other Christian Communions and dialogue with non-Christian religions and even non-believers. 

I believe that the Eastern Rites reject much more about Vatican II than the FSPPX and also many other ecumenical Councils since the Great Schism, yet they are in full Communion with the Pope and the Holy See.

The Eastern Rites are the model to promote true unity in the Church and full Communion—and that is what Pope Leo is saying in the remarks I paste below:

Formation and identity: “supporting a Church does not merely mean providing it with material means”

…the Pope expressed his appreciation for the particular richness of the Eastern Catholic communities, guardians of traditions they share with the Orthodox Churches. He dwelt on the image of a Church “united, yet not uniform”, whose “fertile womb has given birth to various spiritual and theological traditions, as well as different rites and disciplines, which enrich one another”. In support of this, he cited the Second Vatican Council, which taught that the different theological formulations of East and West “are often to be considered complementary rather than conflicting”.

The Christian East, he warned, “can only be preserved if it is understood: to lose that understanding is to impoverish the Church”. To know and love it, however, there must be investment in formation — a need already indicated by John Paul II in Orientale lumen, from which Leo XIV took up the invitation “to deepen … knowledge of the spiritual traditions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian East” and to offer appropriate teaching on these subjects in seminaries and theological faculties.

To this bond between knowledge and charity, between “open minds and working hands”, the Pope added the need for a spiritual foundation: the spiritual life, constancy in prayer and participation in the sacraments. Good works, he recalled, referring to the Letter of James, bear no lasting fruit unless they are nourished at their source, which is God; and if “faith without works is also dead”, it is equally true that works, without a living faith, remain fruitless.

THE HETERODOX “RIGHT” SSPX CONFLATED WITH THE HETERODOX “LEFT” THE GERMAN SYNODAL WAY—THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE HETERODOXY OF THE SSPX AND NOT THE HETERODOXY OF THE SYNODAL WAY ARE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES AT THIS POINT

Yes, I too have been tempted to criticize the Vatican for freaking out over the SSPX and their “minor” heterodoxy but major canonical rebellion while bending over backwards to accommodate the German Synodal Way with a firm hand but no threats and also coddling the ideologues in the Church concerning the LGBTQ+++ which is far more than promoting disordered sexual relationships but also challenging the sexual anthropology of the Sacraments in terms of man and woman, bride and bridegroom—the Sacraments of Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony. 

However, there is a BIG difference.

The SSPX since Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the living bishops of his time has been been coddled by the Vatican too. Even Pope Francis coddled them by expanding their canonical ability to hear confessions of any Catholics and to make sure their celebrations of marriage are not only licit but valid. 

The big schismatic act is ordaining bishops for their cult. 

So far, no heterodox bishop of the German Synodal Way has ordained bishops without papal approval, none!

So far, no other heterodox religious orders, like the Jesuits, have ordained bishops without papal approval. 

As far as I can tell, no bishop in the world has ordained women as deacons and priests and hasn’t be excommunicated. 

Even Pope Francis excommunicated priests who participated in invalid ordinations of women and maybe even a bishop or two, but I am not sure about that.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE IN A HETERODOX GROUP OF PEOPLE FINDING BISHOPS TO ORDAIN AND HAVING CATHOLIC BISHOPS ORDAIN THEM WITHOUT PAPAL APPROVAL AND THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT DON’T DO THAT, BE THEY ON THE RIGHT OR THE LEFT!

AT THE UPCOMING CONSISTORY, WILL POPE LEO XIV REPUDIATE THE SYNOD GROUP #9 ALIEN AND NON-CATHOLIC, NON CHRISTIAN REPORT

George Weigel has an absolutely brilliant commentary on Pope Leo XIV, the upcoming Consistory and that godawful report of Synod Study Group #9 as it compares to St. John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor! 

Weigel writes explicitly what people of orthodoxy and common sense knew and know. Under the Pope Francis’ pontificate there were those put in place by the pope who had axes to grind against both JPII and BXIV! Weigel rightfully describes it as “a continutation of the war against St. Pope John Paul II’s 1993 encylical, Veritatis Splendor.”

You can press the red title for the complete Weigel commentary, but below it, I highlight in penitential violet the important evaluation that Weigel makes. 

But, that godawful Synod Study Group, God willing, will provoke the orthodox cardinals at the upcoming consistory to bitterly complain to Pope Leo XIV so that he might erased it from the synod as a matter of justice to St. JPII and His Holiness’ great encyclical, Veritatis Splendor!

Consequential Consistorial Connections

MONEY-BYTE:

Recently, an international controversy broke out over the report of Synod Study Group #9, which committed an act of calumny against Courage International, the American-founded ministry to those with same-sex attraction who wish to live chastely as the Catholic Church understands chastity. That breach of ecclesial solidarity was made possible in part by what the Synod General Secretary has described as the Study Group’s “valuable work”–a characterization of the report’s theology that deserves serious scrutiny, leading to serious challenge, even repudiation, at the upcoming consistory.

Shortly after the report of Synod Study Group #9 was released, a knowledgeable friend, fully aware of some of the good things that happened at the Synods of 2023 and 2024, nonetheless wrote me that the biblical text that kept coming back to me as he read Study Group #9’s report was, “The sheep will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him because they do not recognize the voice of strangers” (John 10.5). The voice in that report, he continued, “is simply not recognizably Christian. The content is bad, to be sure, but even prior to that, there is something alien about the way [the report] speak[s] of the faith.”

And the reason for that, I suggest, is that Synod Study Group #9’s report is a continuation of the war against Pope St. John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical, Veritatis Splendor. That war has been waged by aggressive parties within the Catholic theologians’ guild and certain bishops’ conferences (notably Germany and Belgium) since the encyclical was issued. The war intensified during the previous pontificate, and the assault on Veritatis Splendor has now been given what some will take as quasi-official sanction, given that Study Group #9’s report was issued by the General Secretariat of the Synod (the official stationery of which does not, it might be noted, refer to a Synod of Bishops.)

I CHANTED THIS COLLECT FOR THE VIGIL MASS AND 8 AM SUNDAY MORNING MASS AND FLUBBED IT BOTH TIMES! WAS IT ME OR IS IT THE PRAYER?????

 Let’s focus in on “since without you mortal frailty can do nothing.” Just what the heck does that mean? Wouldn’t it be better to pray, “since without you, frail human beings can do nothing”?  Or, and how about making it postive: “since with You mortal frailty can do something.” 

It seems to me, that “without You, mortal frailty does do something and it isn’t good!” We sin without God!

As I chanted this at both Masses, I stumbled because I thought I was saying something that wasn’t written and at the second Mass I was so flummoxed that I skipped the line after it, only to have to go back and chant it right. 

UGH!

Am I making much to do about nothing, like without You mortal frailty can do nothing?????????

HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, DO YOU SAFELY ACCESS THE TABERNACLE??? OTHERWISE A BEAUTIFUL NEW CHURCH SLIGHTLY NORTH OF DOWNTOWN ATLANTA…

Harrison Design and the Church of Mary Our Queen in Peachtree Corners, Georgia

by Shawn Tribeon June 12, 2026Architecture

The architects at  Harrison Design , a firm based out of Atlanta, Georgia with various other satellite offices, undertood a project in recent years to design a new church for the parish of Mary, Our Queen in Peachtree Corners, Georgia. Harrison Design themselves note that the…

READ MORE

LET’S TALK ABOUT THE VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF BISHOPS (NOT PRIESTS, ALTHOUGH THAT’S NOT INSIGNIFICANT) AS IT CONCERNS THE BUGNINI MASS’S OPTIONS AND STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE FOR MODERN CHURCHES AND OLDER ONES

There are several bishops issuing guidelines for the building of new churches and the renovations of older ones that will be used exclusively for the Bugnini Ordo of Mass.

Some bishops take no positions and let pastors do as they please—that’s a mistake to say the least!

Other bishops micro manage their pastor’s liturgical decisions even when using options clearly in the Bugnini Roman Missal and General Instruction.

That’s a mistake too.

I recently read where a well-known Cardinal in a famous archdiocese is telling priests to make sure they get permission before they start renovating their churches. That is good.

But then His Eminence goes on to say that altar railings are not to be installed in new churches or restored in older ones that were wreckovated. Fortunately, he did not say to rip out altar railings already existing, thank God for all blessings.

But then His Eminence went on to say that standing for Holy Communion is the norm and that making kneeling equal to that should not and cannot happen. Thus he “canceled”  what Pope Benedict allowed and modeled himself. 

Because Pope Benedict XVI modeled it and the Bugnini Roman Missal does not forbid it, many pastors began to give the option of receiving Holy Communion kneeling  to their parishioners. In those churches with no altar railing, kneelers are placed at Communion stations. A communicant can stand or kneel at these. No one is forced to stand or to kneel.

Then, altar railings were installed or restored in many churches. I can’t imagine that any pastor would spend the amount of money needed to do such a thing without consulting his pastoral and finance councils and then the bishop or the bishop might be first consulted for permission. 

I did that at St. Joseph Church in Macon, Georgia. With permission of Bishop Kevin Boland, now retired, we renovated the church and removed the altar railing and expanded the sanctuary and acquired a new free standing altar, ambo and celebrant’s chair. He approved it all.

10 years later, Bishop Gregory Hartmayer, now the Archbishop of Atlanta, gave me permission to restore the altar railing. 

He knew that it would be used for the EF Mass celebrated there and he knew that I had provided kneelers for those who desired to kneel for Holy Communion for a few years before the railing’s restoration.

Thus, we had Pope Benedict XVI publicly modeling distributing Holy Communion to kneeling communicants, the proliferation of kneeling for Holy Communion worldwide because of it and it then becoming customary in the Bugnini Mass to kneel for Holy Communion in many parishes.

Then, to cancel all of this, and even a pope, you have bishops, some cardinals, forbidding what a popular pope once allowed and modeled himself.

And this in the Bugnini Mass that is built for multiple options than only a cleric makes and because of flimsy rubrics and bishops who don’t care, enables all kinds of illicit/abusive actions and celebrations, many done by bishops themselves! 

What the H***?

Thus, in the most clericalism kind of way, lay Catholics are subject to the whims of bishops, some who are cardinals, and pastors who make decisions that conflict with the decisions of previous bishops, some who are cardinals, and pastors, some who are monsignors. And they forced one option on lay Catholics when multiple options exist in the Bugnini Mass! 

This kind of incoherence diminishes the authority of those bishops, some who are cardinals and those pastors, some who are monsignors, who cancel previous decisions of previous bishops, some who are cardinals, and pastors, some who are monsignors. 

All of this turns the Church into an ecclesial joke. 

I WAS SHOCKED! SHOCKED I SAY! THAT THE POPE’S LETTER TO PRIESTS ON THE SOLEMNITY OF THE MOST SACRED HEART OF JESUS SAID NOTHING, NOTHING, I SAY, ABOUT CLERICALISM AND SYNODALITY! SHOCKED I SAY!

 Money-byte from Pope Leo’s elocution:

The response to the call to holiness lies not so much in works of asceticism or striving for perfection –– though these are necessary –– but in trusting adherence to the love revealed in Jesus’ pierced Heart. 

😀

Actually, I was really happy that nothing was said about clericalism and synodality. Pope Francis seem to want to wear down us priests and make us poor, miserable sinners, self-absorbed and covered in grandmother’s lace, in my case, my nonna’s lace. 

Pope Leo, though, said nothing, absolutely nothing, I say, about priestly clericalism and priests who don’t like synodality as promoted by Pope Francis. 

In fact, it seems to me, and I might be wrong, wrong I say, that we are hearing less and less from the Holy Father about Pope Francis’ synodality. Am I wrong? I hope not, because I think, and of course thinking it makes it true, that the Holy Spirit may be suppressing Pope Francis’ hype and type of synodality. I have to be right, no? 

Here’s Pope Leo non-synodal and non-clerical letter to priests:

MESSAGE OF POPE LEO XIV
TO PRIESTS ON THE OCCASION OF THE DAY OF PRAYER 
FOR THE SANCTIFICATION OF PRIESTS

[Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 12 June 2026]

_________________________________

Dear brother priests,

On the day when the Church ponders her Lord’s pierced Heart, from which gushes forth an inexhaustible fountain of peace and unity for all humanity, I first address to myself and to all of you the words that God spoke to the people of Israel: “Be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2; cf. 1 Pt 1:16). This divine call echoes down the ages. Even today it resonates strongly with every believer and, in a particular way, with us priests. Holiness is neither one option among many nor an abstract ideal, for it involves the very identity of every person who wishes to share in the life of the risen One.

Holiness is sharing in Christ’s mystery

God invites us to share in his own holiness. When he calls us to be holy as he is holy, he indicates that the path we must follow involves being fashioned after his own Heart. And for us, dear brothers, this call is particularly radical. The Lord has promised: “And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer 3:15). The holiness he asks of us is a trustful abandonment, allowing ourselves to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. Yet it is precisely here that the great paradox of our priestly life emerges. We are called to share in God’s own holiness, but we carry this treasure in earthen vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4:7). We are limited and imperfect, often weak and weary, and at times wounded. How can such a vulnerable human heart respond to such a high calling? The priest lives this tension. Yet at the same time, he must recognize that he finds peace in the open side of the Lord Jesus.

A journey toward union

The union of our heart with Christ’s Heart is not an experience reserved for a select few; rather, it is a sacramental, Eucharistic journey that unfolds each day of our lives. Dear brothers, by our ordination we have been configured to Christ, yet we must always renew within ourselves the gift of grace through our daily celebration of the Eucharist, prayer, meditation on the word of God and humble service to our brothers and sisters. Let us remain united to Christ in everything — in all that we do and in all that happens to us every day. Then the holiness that we have sought in vain through isolated efforts will reveal itself for what it is: a response to the grace that precedes, sustains and transforms us. Indeed, our humanity is not compartmentalized. Prayer, ministry, relationships, weariness, joys and failures — even time or love that apparently seems wasted — all become privileged places where God reveals himself and his infinite love. 

The priest who has an upright, simple and pure heart can be contemplative in the midst of action, merciful and faithful in times of trial, and joyful in the gift of himself. The world greatly needs pastors who offer more than simply words or programs; it needs the living witness of a reconciled heart that exudes the sweet fragrance of Christ’s holiness. A priestly life that is steady and configured to Jesus’ Heart is a credible sign of unity, peace and mercy. Thus, in an age marked by division and fear, we must be builders of peace and witnesses of the tenderness of the Good Shepherd who knows how to gather the scattered and heal the wounded. Our zeal is not restlessness, but the overflowing of a love that is “‘ecstasy,’ openness, gift and encounter” (Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos, 28).

The Heart of Christ is the heart of the saints

The response to the call to holiness lies not so much in works of asceticism or striving for perfection –– though these are necessary –– but in trusting adherence to the love revealed in Jesus’ pierced Heart. The Apostle John invites us to contemplate the open side of the crucified One (cf. Jn 19:34), in which God definitively shows us what holiness is: not an inaccessibly distant or detached perfection, but a love that gives itself even to the point of being wounded and so can become a source of mercy and life. The Sacred Heart of Jesus is an exemplary image of the surpassing love of God. It is an all-powerful love precisely because it is capable of being vulnerable and of transforming sorrow into grace and suffering into hope.

The Sacred Heart, therefore, is the “place” where holiness is manifested as closeness and tenderness. The priest’s holiness, then, is embodied in humble and courageous nearness, in being all things to all people, and in keeping the gate of the sheepfold open so that many can enter and find pasture and rest (cf. Jn 10:9). For this reason, we are called to a relationship with God that does not distance us from others but brings us closer to everyone — shaping patient and tender hearts, capable of closeness, compassion and listening. Thus, through the union of our imperfect hearts with Jesus’ pierced Heart, our journey toward holiness is fulfilled. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us (cf. Gal 2:20). Such holiness cannot be lived in isolation. Cherish your priestly fraternity: seek one another, listen to one another and support one another. The priest who isolates himself slowly fades away; the priest who walks alongside his brothers grows. Saint Augustine reminds us of this when he says: “How shall we avoid finding ourselves in darkness? By loving our brothers. What is the proof that we love our brothers? This: that we do not fracture unity and that we practice charity” (In Epist. Io. ad Parthos II, 3).

Dear priests, renew each day your “Here I am” before Christ’s pierced Heart. Give yourselves entirely to him, so that you may love his people with the same love with which he loves them. And joyfully remember how the saintly Curé of Ars loved to say that “the priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus” (cf. Benedict XVI, Letter Proclaiming a Year for Priests on the 150th Anniversary of the “Dies Natalis” of the Curé of Ars, 569). This love is a pledge and a guarantee that, if we surrender and offer ourselves completely, nothing of us will be lost. I entrust each and every one of you to the Virgin Mary, Mother of Priests. May she, who cherished the mystery of her Son in her heart, also teach us to keep alive and make the Heart of Christ, Savior of the world, beat within us.

12 June 2026, Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

LEO PP. XIV

WAS THE KING’S JET AN ACT OF GOD TO PREVENT A HIGH ALTITUDE PAPAL PRESS CONFERENCE? THE PLANE THAT REMAINED IN SPAIN…

His Holiness, Pope Leo XIV, Supreme Pontiff, flies home to Rome on a Falcon! His Majesty, the King’s Falcon!

I thought that Pope Leo’s departure from Spain on the private jet of His Majesty, the King of Spain, was planned from the beginning.

But it wasn’t!

Spain’s Iberian Jetliner packed with reporters and others, which would have included Pope Leo and His Holiness’ Court, had a mechanical difficulty and could not take off.

Thus His Majesty, the King, came to the rescue of His Holiness the Pope and offered the Supreme Pontiff His Majesty’s private Falcon jet—but just for His Holiness the Pope and His Holiness’ Court.

Everyone else, mostly reporters, who would have sat back in steerage on the Iberian Flight had to take another flight back to Rome.

Thus there was no Papal High Altitude Press Conference! Praise God from Whom all blessings flow—a true act of God to cancel a papal press conference. 

Silirium non possum has a cynical comment on the press, in this regard:

The dismay of the press hacks

A dismal showing, then, and on an international scale, for the Spanish flag carrier, forced to watch the Pontiff being whisked away by a royal Falcon because of a fault on its own aircraft. An image that will not easily fade. Yet Iberia must be credited with one achievement, and not a small one: it spared the Pope the now unbearable end-of-journey press conference. That secular liturgy in which, at the end of every apostolic mission, the press hacks compete to weary the Pontiff, seeking to turn a pastoral pilgrimage into the question time of any ordinary politician.

Andrea Tornielli did not board the flight offered by the King: he is not the head of any dicastery, although he has still not understood as much, and he is not a cleric. For these gentlemen, in the end, the journey was a total flop. Tornielli flew to Spain at the Holy See’s expense, remained there without producing anything useful, took his beatings after inciting his “sworn enemies”, and on top of that even lost the return press conference. It is difficult to imagine a more eloquent ending.

P.V.
Silere non possum

THE FSSPX UPCOMING SCHISM—IS IT TOO MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING OR IS IT SOMETHING?

Let’s face it, like the German Catholic Augustinian monk, Father Martin Luther, the FSSPX are rebels, revolutionaries and think they know better than Holy Mother Church headed by the Successor of Saint Peter. They think, like Fr. Martin Luther, they can keep the Church faithful and purified. 

Unlike Fr. Martin Luther’s reformation that was instrumentalized by the various kingdoms at the time to distance themselves from Rome’s political interference, no country in which there are large numbers of FSSPX communities will use them to hate Rome. 

In terms of the number of practicing Catholics, the FSSPX are a drop in the bucket and are receiving far more attention for their disobedience and upcoming schism than their numbers require or deserve.

I was happy when Saint Pope John Paul II reached out to traditionalists to allow them to have the Tridentine Mass with His Holiness’ Ecclesia Dei. He also formed the FSSP to keep those who were attracted to the rebellious FXSSP in ecclesial union with Rome.

Pope Benedict put St. John Paul’s efforts on steroids only to have an authoritarian pope reverse all of that in a very unfortunate and, quite frankly, dishonest way. 

Synodality, as promoted by Pope Francis, encourages the heterodox to let their voices be heard even when they were speaking out against defined doctrines of the Church, as it concerns Holy Orders and more perniciously about changing Catholic morality in sexual matters into acceptable amorality. 

Yes, those denying defined Catholic teachings were encouraged to let their position be known through synodality. They are secure and brash enough to say that they must first change Catholics’ orthodoxy by making unacceptable sinful behavior into acceptable and virtuous lifestyles. Then and only then, can they change doctrines and morals—they understand what it means to cook Catholics in a crockpot so they won’t know they are being cooked only to learn eventually that they are overcooked!

Yet, the FSSPX doesn’t really want to change any doctrines or moral teachings of the Church. Yes, they disagree with the post-Vatican II revision of the Mass by a small group of elitist liturgical theologians. 

Yes, they disagree with ecumenism, religious freedom and a few other non-dogmatic teachings of Vatican II—more pastoral positions than dogmatic definitions . 

Yet, synodality gave voices to heterodox Catholics, to include some bishops and some bishop-cardinals, to change the doctrines and dogmas of Holy Orders, Marriage, and sexual morality, positions that really need be be anathematized not regularized. 

The recent practice of synodality as well as the heretical and schismatic German synodal way are much greater threat to Catholic ecclesial unity and communion.

The FSSPX are insignificant chicken feed compared to the greatest threat to the Catholic Church in this our Modern Church which is heterodox synodality and the German Sinodal Way. 

Just my two cents worth, as outdated as cents is (pun intended). 

WHAT A MORAL CONUMDRUM!

 A teenager asked me about the sinfulness of PDOAs! And he used the letters of the acronym instead of the words presuming that I would know what the H that means which I didn’t but do now since he told me!

What would you say?

—FOHHI or Flummoxed on Hilton Head Island !

THE INCOHERENCE THAT LITURGICAL AD LIBBING AND ADDING THINGS HAS BROUGHT TO THE BUGNINI ORDER OF THE MASS COMPARED TO THE ANCIENT ORDO OF THE MASS…

 Even with all the controversies about how Bugnini stripped the Mass of its coherence, as well as of its solemnity and reverence, although it wasn’t truly all his fault what happened with his Mass after it went into effect, most Catholics, clergy and laity, knew what liturgical abuse was and named it as so.

Most of the most egregious liturgical abuses are not to be found in the Liturgical Order of the Mass of Bugnini, but rather heaped upon his Mass by the clergy after it was promulgated. Bugnini’s rubrics are weak and flimsy and may contribute to liturgical abuses, but I don’t think Bugnini desired liturgical abuses.

Not so today. Bishops and lower clergy along with the laity are so accustomed to liturgical abuses, they don’t realize that these are abuses. 

For example, it is not foreseen in the Bugnini Mass, even in 1970, that there would be such wordiness and lunacy concerning these words at the “Introductory Rite for the Penitential Act” when in red it says: In these or similar words. 

Today, we know that bishops and priests, using not similar words in the Missal, but a whole bunch of  many unsimilar words instead, completely break the trajectory of Prayer begun with the Introit to launch into a barrage of words after the Greeting, not to introduce the Penitential Act, but to blab on, welcoming everyone, using secular greetings and giving a secular talk or a mini homily. This is a liturgical abuse, no? But no one, especially the bishops and priests doing it are even aware of it so common is this tripe today.

But here’s something I’ve gotten quite accustomed to doing and don’t realize how dumb and incoherent it is, although it may be a pastoral nicety. I thank Fr. Z for pointing this out.

It has to do with the blessings that bishops, priests and deacons give to those who approach to receive Holy Communion but aren’t able to do so, thus they seek a blessing instead. The Bugnini Mass does not encourage this as there is absolutely nothing in its missal to give directions on it or even suggesting it as a pastoral option!  And certainly prior to the council, no one sought a blessing at Communion time, apart from receiving. It just wasn’t done. If you couldn’t go to Holy Communion you did not go to the altar railing. And even small children remained in the pew while their parents went to Holy Communion. 

Fr. Z points out the incoherency of giving a blessing to non-communicants who approach the “minister of Holy Communion” at Communion time. The cleric is holding the ciborium in his left hand with the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, in which the entire Most Holy Trinity is received, and then uses is free right hand to offer a blessing.

While it isn’t rubrical to bless anyone in the Communion line with the words, God bless you, and with no “Sign of the Cross” gesture from a lay EMHC, or an actual Sign of the Cross from the hand of a bishop, priest or deacons, it happens constantly in the Bugnini Mass and today even in the Ancient Ordo, but at least no lay people are doing it in the AO!

What is rubrical in the Ancient Ordo is for the bishop or priest to make the Sign of the Cross with the Host as he uses the formula said to the Communicant. This is kosher and it is the Lord’s blessing as in Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. 

While it is not rubrical in the AO Mass, It would be a coherent extension of the AO’s rubrics to bless non-communicants with the Host rather than the priestly hand at Communion time, no?

But liturgical abuses always bring incoherence to the Mass in whatever form, but it is far more prevelant in the Bugnini Mass, no?

THE PILLAR’S ED CONDON HAS A GREAT COMMENTARY, BACKED UP WITH FACTS, COMPARING THE OLD AND THE NEW PAPAL NUNCIOS TO THE USA!

Evidently, the new nuncio compared to the old is like the difference between night and day and reflects the comparison between Pope Francis and Pope Leo, a night and day difference too.

Press the title for the excellent and hopeful change in regime and mentality, especially concerning the USA, between the nuncio of the night and the nuncio of the day!

Press the title for the Pillar’s great commentary:

‘I’m happy to be here’: The new nuncio’s new message

Money-byte:

But beyond appearances of personal style, perhaps the most striking difference between the new and old nuncios was the substance of his ecclesiastical vision.

And his final address in November was remarkable for its characterization of the Francis pontificate as a kind of year-zero event in the Church, a point of irrevocable departure in a new, unalterable direction.

Well known for his insistence on synodality as the new, preeminent, perhaps exclusive ecclesial paradigm, Pierre signed off his term in Baltimore last November by telling the bishops that “the synod on synodality invites us to a different way.”

“Even if some are inclined to pursue a path that diverges from the pastoral vision of Francis, we know that the way forward is one that does not diverge but advances on the path of Francis is the way of moving forward in the Church,” Pierre said.

Archbishop Caccia’s first address to the conference was, in this context, received as something of a night-and-day contrast. Apart from not mentioning synodality at all, while Pierre was known to season his speeches with quotes from Gaudium et Spes, the pastoral constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Caccia offered the bishops the gift of a pocket edition of Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, the council’s dogmatic constitutions to, he said, “remind us who the Church is, and how the Church listens to the Word of God. They bring us back to the sources of our communion and mission.”

“This continuity is important,” Caccia said. “We are not beginning again from zero. We receive a living tradition; and above all, we receive the love of Christ, poured out from his heart for the life of the world.”