WAR AS MORNING ENTERTAINMENT AND POSSIBLY THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR III! BUT LET’S BE CLEAR, EVEN IF WAR IS PACKAGED AS ENTERTAINMENT BY THE 24 HOUR NEWS STATIONS, WAR IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT; IT IS HELL!

This morning as I left Planet Fitness, I saw this in the sky and thought Hilton Head was being attacked by a ballistic missal from Iran:

It turns out, though, that it was a Space-X launch from Cape Canaveral. How disappointing! 

 I exercise Monday through Friday at a gym getting there before 5 AM. Of course there are televisions galore to watch as one exercises. I spend 45 minutes on the elliptical machine. As with the first Gulf War, when I was exposed to war in real time, live and on television, I felt I was watching a war show in order to be entertained. 

I thought to myself, self, this is really sick. And thus it has been ever since that first Gulf war. War live and in person on your television set thanks to modern technology and 24 hour news stations. How entertaining! 

Of course it is insidiously evil! 

Prior to typing this, I was able to watch live on Fox an incoming ballistic missal attack on Tel Aviv on Fox and Friends. It was really exciting and really entertaining to see how the Israeli’s missal defense works and to hear all those air-raid sirens going off and all those great explosions in real time! What a thrill.

Did I say that war is hell and insidiously evil? 
But it is packaged as entertainment. What about that??????????  

THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY AS TAUGHT BY POPE LEO XIV: THIS TIME ON THE TRUE NATURE OF THE CHURCH, A DIVINE AND HUMAN REALITY….

Pope Leo gave an excellent catechesis on Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council and it is certainly an exercise in Pope Benedict’s hermeneutic of continuity.

My most humble but extremely astute comments embedded in the pope’s text in red. 

LEO XIV

GENERAL AUDIENCE

St Peter's Square
Wednesday, 4 March 2026

[Multimedia]

___________________________________

Catechesis. The Documents of Vatican Council II. II. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium. 2. The Church, a Visible and Spiritual Reality

Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and wecome!

Today, we will continue our exploration of the Conciliar Constitution Lumen gentium, a dogmatic Constitution on the Church.

In the first chapter, which is primarily intended to answer the question of what the Church is, she is described as a “complex reality” (no. 8). Now we ask ourselves: what does this complexity consist of? Some might answer that the Church is complex in that she is ‘complicated’ and therefore difficult to explain; others might think that her complexity derives from the fact that she is an institution steeped in two thousand years of history, with characteristics that differ from any other social or religious group. In Latin, however, the word ‘complex’ indicates rather the orderly union of different aspects or dimensions within the same reality. For this reason, Lumen gentium can affirm that the Church is a well-organized body, in which the human and divine dimensions coexist without separation and without confusion. (In a nutshell, Pope Leo shoots down those heterodox left Catholics who view the Church merely as a human institution subject to the same political and religious manipulations as other institutions. I can remember as a young priest being called out by an aging “spirit of Vatican II” priest that I shouldn’t describe the Church as one Divine reality, with two natures, human and divine. He said that implies the Church can’t change her doctrines in either a democratic or dictatorial way.)

The first dimension is immediately perceptible, in that the Church is a community of men and women who share the joy and struggle of being Christians, with their strengths and weaknesses, proclaiming the Gospel and becoming a sign of the presence of Christ who accompanies us on our journey through life. Yet this aspect – which is also evident in its institutional organization – is not sufficient to describe the true nature of the Church, because it also has a divine dimension. The latter does not consist in an ideal perfection or spiritual superiority of its members, but in the fact that the Church is generated by God’s plan for humanity, realized in Christ. (This is an excellent description of the true Church and her true Traditions!)

Therefore, the Church is at the same time an earthly community and the mystical body of Christ, a visible assembly and a spiritual mystery, a reality present in history and a people journeying towards heaven (LG, 8; CCC, 771).

The human and divine dimensions integrate harmoniously, without one overshadowing the other; thus, the Church lives in this paradox. She is a reality that is both human and divine, which welcomes the sinful man and leads him to God.(The mission of the Church is the Mission of the Risen Lord, to save souls!)

To illuminate this ecclesial condition, Lumen gentium refers to the life of Christ. In fact, those who met Jesus along the roads of Palestine experienced his humanity, his eyes, his hands, the sound of his voice. Those who decided to follow him were moved precisely by the experience of his welcoming gaze, the touch of his blessing hands, his words of liberation and healing. At the same time, however, by following that Man, the disciples opened themselves to an encounter with God. Indeed, Christ’s flesh, his face, his gestures and his words visibly manifest the invisible God.

In the light of the reality of Jesus, we can now return to the Church: when we look at her closely, we discover a human dimension made up of real people, who sometimes manifest the beauty of the Gospel and other times struggle and make mistakes like everyone else. However, it is precisely through her members and her limited earthly aspects that Christ’s presence and his saving action are manifested. As Benedict XVI said, there is no opposition between the Gospel and the institution; on the contrary, the structures of the Church serve precisely for the “realization and concretization of the Gospel in our time” (Address to Swiss Bishops, 9 November 2006). An ideal and pure Church, separated from the earth, does not exist; only the one Church of Christ, embodied in history. (Yes, and Jesus enfleshed Humanity in His One Divine Nature, is not only welcoming and healing and forgiving, but requires those He touches through the Church’s mission to use their free-will by God’s grace to live a life transformed by Jesus and the Mission of the Church. Christ always welcomes sinners, but He does not welcome sin—he judges and castigates sin. But the Risen Lord through the Mission He has given to His Church never imposes salvation on anyone, it is a gift to be receive in true Faith and good works as taught by His Church!)

This is what constitutes the holiness of the Church: the fact that Christ dwells in her and continues to give himself through the smallness and fragility of her members. Contemplating this perennial miracle that takes place in her, we understand ‘God's method’: He makes himself visible through the weakness of creatures, continuing to manifest himself and to act. For this reason, Pope Francis, in Evangelii gaudium, exhorts us all to learn “to remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other (cf. Ex 3:5)” (no. 169). This enables us still today to build up the Church: not only by organizing its visible forms, but by building that spiritual edifice which is the body of Christ, through communion and charity among ourselves.

Indeed, charity constantly generates the presence of the Risen One. “If only we could all just let our thoughts dwell on the one thing, charity! It’s the only thing, you see, which both surpasses all things, and without which all things worth nothing, and which draws all things to itself, wherever it may be” (Sermon 354, 6, 6). (Faith, true faith, and good works, as taught by the Church, are necessary for our eternal salvation.)

THIS IS A BULLETIN COVER FROM A PARISH IN NEW YORK CITY IN THE 1950’S!

 There was a time in the not too distant past, before the “New Springtime for the Church” that over 90% of Catholics took their faith seriously enough, as though their eternal salvation depended on it, and went to Mass each and every Sunday and often during the week.

I can’t imagine, though, that with all those Masses on the hour and half hour that they had good liturgy. If they had the post-Vatican II ethos, no telling how many would be going to Mass. Oh, wait! We do know!

I hope they had more than one priest in this parish!

THE ALTAR RAILING AS A SACRAMENTAL TO THE SUPERNATURAL ALTAR IN HEAVEN…WITHOUT THE SUPERNATURAL, THINGS BECOME UNNATURAL

Kneeling shoulder to shoulder, as saints of God, to receive our Eucharistic Lord, a most powerful communal experience lost completely in the “chow line procession “ that eliminates the communal in favor of the exclusive Lone Ranger reception of Holy Communion:

Recently Pope Leo speaking to seminarians and priests from Spain, said this:

Removing the supernatural and finding the unnatural

At the centre of the Holy Father’s address was a striking quotation from G.K. Chesterton: “Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural” (cf. Heretics, VI). Pope Leo XIV used this line as a key to his entire message, explaining that when the living relationship with God is obscured or weakened, life itself begins to fall into disorder from within. This “unnatural” state concerns not only scandalous sin, but the silent, daily decision to live as though God were merely a concept, pushed to the margins of one’s thoughts and choices.

For a seminarian or a priest, this danger is heightened. What could be more unnatural, the Pope asked, than speaking of God with familiarity while living as if He did not truly exist in the fabric of one’s life? He warned that nothing is more dangerous than becoming accustomed to the things of God without truly living from God. Everything, then, begins - and always returns - to a living and concrete relationship with the One who has chosen us.

My astute, humble supernatural comments: 

Many Catholics feel as though the institutional Church through its overreaching reform of the Tridentine Mass attempted to remove as much of the “supernatural” concerning the Mass and other Sacraments and even sacramentals, in order to make the Mass more intelligible, less formal, less reverent (less supernatural) and more natural, all of which has led to the unnatural loss of reverence, awe and wonder. 

And thus Catholics go elsewhere, mostly to nothing (nones) the most unnatural thing for Catholics to do or elsewhere, like the FSSPX. But those going to so-called “Tradition” are far fewer in numbers than those going to Protestant non-denominational sects with their exuberant musical entertainment, Bible studies and fellowship. The actual schism in the Church that doesn’t need the pope, bishops or priests for the Sacraments are those going to Protestant non-denominational sects, not to mention, of course, those who have become nones.

One of the things that Vatican II did not mention or foresaw was eliminating kneeling to receive Holy Communion, removing altar railings to make way for a “chow line” of those constantly on the move as they go to Holy Communion and for many processing  in a direction not even close to the altar or even towards it!

One of the greatest restorations that can be made to the Bugnini Mass is the restoration of kneeling for Holy Communion at an altar railing. It moves the reception of Holy Communion back to the supernatural, to the supernatural altar of God in heaven and a tangible, touchable, supernatural experience of the altar as the altar railing is not only an extension of God’s altar in heaven, but the altar in the Church. 

For me, as a child, I always felt I was at the altar when I knelt to receive Holy Communion and waited for the priest, acting in persona Christi, to offer me Holy Communion along with the communal aspect of those kneeling on either side of me to do the same. It was a suburb supernatural experience of the personal and communal aspects of receiving Holy Communion.

As well, as a child, teenager and young adult, it was more of a supernatural experience for me to kneel at the altar railing to pray my penance, adore Christ in the Blessed Sacrament or simply say a prayer on a visit to the Church apart from Mass. 

The altar railing was and is a sacramental, touching the supernatural, and leading us away from the unnatural, blah, superficial and irreverent to the Supernatural and All Holy! 

DO I HEAR AN AMEN!?

 "It seems short-sighted to brush aside the hunger of many young Christians for ritual and formality by branding it as imbecile nostalgia. Why not enable them to find within their own tradition a patrimony rightfully theirs?" 

–Bishop Erik Varden, September 2024

OPTIONS! OPTIONS! OPTIONS! WERE THESE CREATED TO KEEP THE CELEBRANT FROM BECOMING BORED AND WHAT OPTIONS IN THE BUGNINI MASS COULD BE CURTAILED BY A BISHOP, WILLY, NILLY?

We have already discussed the truly rabid clericalism, built-in and not built-in, of the Bugnini Mass. 

For brevity, the not built-in clericalism is the Bugnini Mass hijacked by the personality of the priest, his liturgical hospitality, manipulation of words and gestures, disregard for the rubrics and general instruction of the Roman Missal. And bishops do it too; so there isn’t any correction of the lowerarchy by the hierarchy.

But worse is the institutional clericalism of the Bugnini Mass with its plethora of options and choices made exclusively by the priest-celebrant or others to whom he might delegate various choices. 

The Propers of the Mass (Introit, Offertory, Communion anthiphons) might be used or maybe not and normally never!

The several choices for the Penitential Act or omitting it in favor of the Asperges!

Many different Eucharistic Prayers and prefaces—who picks? Why, of course, the priest! 

Prayer over the People or Solemn Final Blessing, yea or nea?  It depends on how tired I am. And yes, by all means Eucharistic Prayer II because it is shorter and then allows for a long Universal Prayer which are mini homilies, and mini-homilies at the Introductory Rite, before the Scripture Readings and after Holy Communion. 

Pope Leo in his first lengthy interview as pope said that the (Bugnini) Novous Ordo Mass may be celebrated in Latin now.

But is that true? A bishop in my Province of Atlanta, specifically, The Diocese of Charleston, does not allow this to happen. Other bishops around the world too. And clearly, Holy Communion under both forms is explicitly allowed in the Roman Missal’s Instruction by way of Intinction—meaning the Communion Minister intincts the Host and places the Host on the Communicant’s tongue. I implemented this many years ago in one of my previous parishes only to have a now former bishop ask me not to offer Holy Communion this way. I wanted to ask him, sarcastically, but my good sense prevailed and I didn’t, are you going to tell me which Eucharistic Prayer or Penitential Act I can’t use???????

Let me let you in on a secret. If the TLM is to be suppressed as Pope Francis indicated that the goal of Traditionis Custodis was/is, I felt it should have simply be killed and not linger and make the laity and priests who celebrate it angrier and angrier, and unnecessarily. 

I recommended to my bishop that he allow priests to celebrate the Bugnini Mass in a way that imitates the TLM. I recommended that the Introductory Rite using exclusively the “I Confess” with absolution be said at the “foot of the altar.” The priest and servers ascend for the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect, all prayed at the altar in the fashion of the TLM and ad orientem, with the priest facing the people for the Collect to say or chant “Let us Pray” and going to the Epistle side to pray the Collect. Of course the Introductory Rite Procession utilizing the Gregorian chant for the Introit. The Liturgy of the Word as in the Bugnini Mass, but with the Gradual from the revised Roman Gradual and any and all tracts and sequences from the same source. After the homily, the Credo and Universal Prayer Litany at the altar, ad orientem, as well as the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Communion kneeling and at an altar railing. 

Allowing this, in place of the TLM, and by any priest in any parish who requested it or simply did it as yet another choice would have been better than the slow death that we are seeing now with the TLM. 

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

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

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

CHAPTER II 

THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Walter Card. Brandmüller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Translated by Matthew Sherry 

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

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

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

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

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

 Why the East Never Defined Purgatory

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

But the Orthodox East began somewhere else.

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

The question was never:

“How much punishment remains?”

The question was:

“How healed is the soul?”

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

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

Why?

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

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

The difference is not location.

It is disposition.

This matters pastorally.

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

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

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

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

Not speculation.

Not fear.

But preparation.

The fire we will meet is Love.

The question is: are we learning to receive it?

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

This an an AI summary highlighted in papal gold:

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

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

Key Aspects of Eastern Catholic Belief on Purgatory:

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

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