I have no reason not to believe the veracity of this artificial intelligence’s summary. Do you?
Here it is:
In a recent interview shared by
Matt Fradd, Bishop Athanasius Schneider recounted a conversation with Pope Leo XIV regarding the Traditional Latin Mass.
According to Bishop Schneider, the Pope shared that numerous young people have approached him to testify that their conversion to the Catholic faith occurred through the Latin Mass.
Key Details from the Interview
The Pope's Observation: Pope Leo XIV reportedly acknowledged that the ancient liturgy is a significant driving force for modern conversions among the youth.
Proposed Resolution: During their meeting, Bishop Schneider proposed that the Pope issue an Apostolic Constitution to "free" the Latin Mass and establish "pacific co-existence" between the traditional and modern forms of the Roman Rite.
Context of Restrictions: This dialogue occurs as many traditionalists hope for a reversal of restrictions placed on the Latin Mass by the previous papacy.
Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born Pope (elected May 8, 2025), has shown some early signs of openness to traditionalists, such as permitting a Latin Mass celebrated by Cardinal Raymond Burke in St. Peter's Basilica.
Pope Leo gave a very good homily for Ash Wednesday. He not one time said “Todas! Todas! Todas!” But rather he called everyone (todas, todas, todas) to repent. But he also called structures of sin, businesses and institutions to repent. The full homily is HERE.
Perhaps he meant it as the Book of Jonah meant that cows and other livestock should also repent and put on sackcloth. Of course, this was to add humor to the serious need to repent:
In the Book of Jonah (chapter 3), the king of Nineveh orders a, severe, city-wide fast, requiring both people and livestock (cows, sheep) to wear sackcloth and abstain from food and water to repent for their wickedness.
This is what Pope Leo said:
Naturally, sin is personal, but it takes shape in the real and virtual contexts of life, in the attitudes we adopt towards each other that mutually impact us, and often within real economic, cultural, political and even religious “structures of sin.” Scripture teaches us that opposing idolatry with worship of the living God means daring to be free, and rediscovering freedom through an exodus, a journey, where we are no longer paralyzed, rigid or complacent in our positions, but gathered together to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who repent — individuals, businesses and institutions that admit they have done wrong!
My most astute reactions: Of course I am a child of the 1970 liberal seminary formation and once I landed at our Cathedral in Savannah in 1985, I was imbued with what Pope Leo, who must have been taught was I was taught in the 1970’s, that structures of sin should repent.
When my then-bishop, also the chair of the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee at the time, Bishop Raymond Lessard, heard me say such an absurd statement, he corrected me and said, people sin and repent, but not institutions and businesses or so-called “structures of sin!”
And you know what, Bishop Lessard was/is right. The KKK can’t repent, but people who belong to it can and then they must repent of having been a part of an organization, organized by people, who promote hatred and discrimination. The organizations of hate groups or groups that promote death and laws opposed to the true God, can’t repent. Can the KKK repent and keep that name? Can the Nazi Political Party, in the Germany of Hitler and now in neo-forms, repent and been seen as good? Can you be a good Nazi if the organization of Nazis repents and changes it name? Repentant people must distance themselves from the affiliations they had that promote hate, death and evil ideologies. They must work at eradicating organizations, businesses and structures that people join in order to promote those institutions.
Can the American Democrat party repent of its pro-death, anti-God ideologies? Its rabid pro-abortion advocacy and promotion of laws that lead to the genocide of innocent children? Laws that promote active euthanasia and assisted suicide? Advocates for the sexual mutilation of children and teenagers and promotes sinister LGBTQ++ ideologies?
Can a Catholic belong to the Democrat Party and be a Catholic in good standing? If they can be excommunicated for belonging to a schismatic religious sect, let’s say, like, the FSSPX, shouldn’t they also be excommunicated for belonging to the Democrat Party, that promotes the anti-God culture of death, sexual mutilation of children and teenagers and contempt for natural law and all the laws of God and true religion?
There are certain things, too, that we can complain about the Republican Party, but I don’t think there is anything there on parr with what the Democrats promote.
Of course even the Nazis, fascists, KKK and Democrats do/did some good things. But can institutions repent of the evil they do that cannot be masked by the cotton-candy facade of good they think they promote? Only people can repent and in terms of evil, corrupt institutions, those repentant people must distance themselves from the organizations that formed their evil intents. Those institutions must be disbanded by repentant people.
Of course, Pope Leo is an Augustinian. As an Augustinian, his religious order had to contend with the Augustinian priest, Fr. Martin Luther’s schism, rebellion that led to the Protestant rebellion which had worldwide ramifications for divisions in the Church.
Where will Pope Leo go with this? Time will tell.
Letter from Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández
Response of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Menzingen, 18 February 2026 Ash Wednesday
Most Reverend Eminence,
First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency in communication.
I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019.1 At that time, the Dicastery did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X was impossible.
For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.
This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today.
That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.
I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some supplementary considerations.
We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent pontificates.
I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.
This dialogue is supposed to clarify the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations.
This official reading is expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia. It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these documents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established.
One cannot ignore the context of the dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favourable response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society.
Yet, after a long silence, it is only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of schism,2 and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public, creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue.
Furthermore, to us it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
Thus, we do not see how these criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in our place.
Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with the aim of producing a doctrinal statement that the Society could accept regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical precedents of efforts made in this direction. I draw your attention to the most recent: the Holy See and the Society had a long course of dialogue, beginning in 2009, particularly intense for two years, then pursued more sporadically until 6 June 2017. Throughout these years, we sought to achieve what the Dicastery now proposes.
Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period.3 This shows that, if one persists in a doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and lacks sufficient serenity, in the long term, instead of achieving a satisfactory result, one only worsens the situation.
Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.
As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also why we are speaking today.
This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. It asks nothing else of you—no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation, which, in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences. The Society cannot abandon souls. The need for the sacraments is a concrete, short-term need for the survival of Tradition, in service to the Holy Catholic Church.
We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that, in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.
Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated “listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, the Society asks of you nothing more than this—and above all it does not ask it for itself: it asks it for these souls, for whom, as already promised to the Holy Father, it has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman Church.
Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—do not take this as a provocation—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.
I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.
Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.
Davide Pagliarani, Superior General + Alfonso de Galarreta, First Assistant General Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant General + Bernard Fellay, First Counsellor General, Former Superior General Franz Schmidberger, Second Counsellor General, Former Superior General
The Society, however, defends itself against any accusation of schism and, relying on all traditional theology and the Church's constant teaching, maintains that an episcopal consecration not authorised by the Holy See does not constitute a rupture of communion—provided it is not accompanied by schismatic intent or the conferral of jurisdiction. Cf. Annex II.
Feeling nostalgic. I found this Stewarship video from 16 years ago, 2009 that we did when I was pastor of St. Joseph Church in Macon. We did a series of annual videos shown at all our Masses during our Stewardshp Renewal. I see many great people in this video some who have gone home to the Lord but were such an inspiration to me and others.
This was the description of the video done by volunteers and at no cost to the parish:
This is a video about discipleship through stewardship at St. Joseph Catholic Church Parish in Macon, Georgia.
It has been the marvelous work of the church's Stewardship Council headed by Beckie Harwood in collaboration with Lovel Miguel who edited and authored the video. Thank you to all the pastoral leaders and parishioners in this video for sharing aspects of their stewardship.
This morning Pope Leo gave a lecture to the Priests of the Diocese of Rome. My comments in red embedded in the pope’s text. I do not give the entire text, just the part on pastoral ministry.
…Some areas of pastoral life, which I would like to briefly touch on.
… In particular, regarding the relationship between Christian initiation and evangelization, we need a clear change of direction; in fact, ordinary pastoral care is structured according to a classical model that is primarily concerned with ensuring the administration of the sacraments, but such a model presupposes that faith is also somehow transmitted by the surrounding environment, by society as well as by the family environment. In reality, the cultural and anthropological changes that have occurred in recent decades tell us that this is no longer the case; indeed, we are witnessing a growing erosion of religious practice.
Therefore, it is urgent to return to proclaiming the Gospel: this is the priority. With humility, but also without being discouraged, we must recognize that "part of our baptized people does not experience their belonging to the Church," and this also calls for vigilance against a "sacramentalization without other forms of evangelization" (Evangelii Gaudium, 63). Let us recall the questions of the Apostle Paul: "How are they to believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?" (Rom 10:14). Like all large urban agglomerations, the city of Rome is marked by constant mobility, by a new way of inhabiting the territory and experiencing time, by increasingly plural and sometimes frayed relational and family fabrics. Therefore, parish ministry must refocus on proclamation, seeking ways and means to help people reconnect with Jesus' promise. In this context, Christian initiation, often dictated by school curriculum, needs to be revisited: we need to experiment with other ways of transmitting the faith, even beyond traditional paths, to seek to engage children, young people, and families in new ways. (I agree to a certain extent. As with so many things Catholic, it isn’t either/or but both/and. The relatively new phenomenon of homeschooling, was an experiment that many officials in the Church were suspicious of because it took control for catechetical formation from the institutional parish to the home. Many feared this would adversely affect Catholic schools and CCD programs. But in fact, home schoolers are better formed in the faith than what can be done by the parish alone, schools or CCD programs. I think also of theology on tap and other creative ways to evangelize. What are some others though and what do you think Pope Leo has in mind?)
A second aspect is this: learning to work together, in communion. To prioritize evangelization in all its many forms, we cannot think and act alone. In the past, the parish was more firmly tied to the local area, and all who lived there belonged to it; today, however, lifestyles and models have shifted from stability to mobility, and many people, not only for work, but also for various experiences, also living relationships beyond their territorial and cultural boundaries. The parish alone is not enough to initiate a process of evangelization capable of reaching those unable to participate adequately. In a large territory like Rome, we must overcome the temptation to self-absorption, which breeds overexertion and dispersion, and work increasingly together, especially among neighboring parishes, sharing charisms and potential, planning together, and avoiding overlapping initiatives. Greater coordination is needed, which, far from being a pastoral expedient, seeks to express our priestly communion. (Definitely in the Diocese of Savannah, people attend parishes where they are nourished, find friendship and are enabled to exercise ministries. Other parishes provide more traditional liturgy and music while others are more contemporary. Can we all work together without denigrating each other but also avoiding heterodoxy?)
One final aspect I would like to emphasize: closeness to young people. Many of them—we know—"live without any reference to God and the Church" (Address to Participants in the Plenary Session of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, January 29, 2026). It is therefore a matter of grasping and interpreting the profound existential unease that inhabits them, their confusion, their multiple difficulties, as well as the phenomena affecting them in the virtual world and the symptoms of a worrying aggressiveness, which at times leads to violence. I know you are aware of this reality and are committed to addressing it. We don't have easy solutions that guarantee immediate results, but, wherever possible, we can listen to young people, be present, welcome them, and share a little of their lives. At the same time, since these issues affect various aspects of life, we also seek, as parishes, to dialogue and interact with local institutions, schools, specialists in education and the humanities, and all those who care about the fate and future of our young people. (I do think that a problem with neo-traditionalist clergy, usually of a younger and less mature vintage, is that they are aloof, above and paternalistic towards the laity. They appear to be threatened by those who exercise lay ministries. There can be a certain arrogance. But on the other end, there can be a loss of priestly identity and become a pal priest with a pal Jesus. Somewhere in the middle is the best way to go.)
And speaking of youth, I would like to offer a word of encouragement to younger priests—almost all of you, right?—who often experience firsthand the potential and struggles of their generation and this era. In a more difficult and less rewarding social and ecclesial context, one can run the risk of quickly exhausting one's energy, accumulating frustration, and falling into loneliness. I urge you to be faithful daily in your relationship with the Lord and to work with enthusiasm, even if you don't yet see the fruits of your apostolate. Above all, I invite you to never withdraw into yourselves: don't be afraid to discuss yourselves, even your own fatigue and crises, especially with the brothers you believe can help you. Of course, all of us are required to have an attitude of listening and attentiveness, through which we can concretely live out our priestly fraternity. Let us accompany and support one another.
Dear friends, I am happy to have shared this moment with you. As I recently recalled, our first commitment is to "preserve and foster our vocation through a constant journey of conversion and renewed fidelity, which is never merely an individual journey but rather a commitment to caring for one another" (Apostolic Letter, A Fidelity That Generates a Future, 13). In this way, we will be pastors after God's heart and will be able to best serve our diocese of Rome. Thank you!
This as reported by Crux, press title for their full but confusing article. Actually there are a lot of confused people the least of which the odd couple!
SÃO PAULO, Brazil – The wedding of a transgender couple at a church in Pompeya, Argentina, on Jan. 28 has no effect and will be annulled by decree, the local archbishop told Crux.
Solange Ayala, a born-male trans-woman, and Isaías Díaz Núñez, a born-female trans-man, were married at the church of Our Lady of Pompeya in Corrientes according to the Catholic rite. The ceremony was celebrated by Father Fernando Luis Gómez.
Okay, orthodox Catholics would rightly say this is disordered. But, there is a true male pretending to be female and a true female pretending to be male and somehow they had a Catholic wedding in a Catholic Church in Argentina .
There was no deception concerning the pretense of the opposite sex of either person entering a Catholic marriage, even the priest knew and the bishop.
I am not a canonist. I think there is some LGBTQ+++ shenanigans going on here, to push the envelope of Feducia Supplicans—as though no one thought the LGTB1+++ Lobby in the Church would do such a thing. FS is a virus attacking the credibility of the sexual moral teachings of the Church and leading to this Orwellian sort of thing.
Pope Francis sowed was is reaped.
But with that said, biologically we are talking two genders/sexes, male and female at their conception, sex and gender assigned to them by God at their conception.
What canon says they can’t be married in the Church? Perhaps if there was intentional mutilation of their bodies where conception could not happen, that would make a case for nullity?
But what if all is in tact and they simply are transvestites?
I’m glad I’m retired, although I did have something kind of like this years ago and yes it was clearly invalid, but there was a grave deception involved and perpetrated on the victim.
Lifesite news calls it a nothing burger. I beg to disagree. It was an excellent message. You can read the Pillar’s commentary here.
I post the actual video below.
The sadness is that what Bishop Martin has done up to this video is to kick evangelization to the side of the road, as well as love for Jesus, as he stives to micro manage the liturgy and even how the altar is decorated, even when in-line with current practices, include papal practices,
The way he has treated those who desire the TLM is disgraceful as is Traditionis Custodis.
And kneeling for Holy Communion isn’t the greatest threat to Catholic unity—it is the heterodoxy of those who receive Holy Communion and not in a state of grace and approach the Sacrament in a casual way receiving Holy Communion in their hand in a way not prescribed for those receiving in their hand. Shall we talk about all those who walk off with the Host? Those Hosts found on the floor, in hymnals and missalettes and those taken for satanic purposes?
Perhaps with his video, the good bishop is trying to reset his pastoral ministry. He’s made a mess of things in his less than first year.
Even the National catholic Reporter had words of warning for the good bishop:
A common piece of advice to Catholic pastors undertaking a new assignment is to wait, go slow, check out the lay of the land and only then implement change.
Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte, North Carolina, who came to the diocese in May 2024, either didn't get that memo or has ignored it.
In a little over a year and a half, Martin has:
Put brakes on the growth of the traditional Latin Mass movement, acting to curtail it in parish life by confining the ritual to a single chapel site in a rural area outside of Charlotte.
Mandated another year in priestly formation at the local seminary, which has been known as a traditionalist enclave. Men seeking ordination must now spend a year teaching religion or another subject in diocesan middle or high schools, and living in a nearby rectory.
Been confronted by a revolt among his younger clergy, who have signed a dubia, a petition to the Vatican, questioning Martin's approach to the traditional Latin Mass and the altar rail edict. About a third of the diocese's active priests signed the petition. A dubia is usually submitted by bishops and is rarely used by diocesan clergy against their bishop.
Rita Ferrone, a liturgist, has a commentary in Commonweal which you can read HERE.
But she thinks that Pope Leo XIV is Pope Francis II. Delusional.
But this is what she thinks are the most import aspects concerning the liturgy:
“The Liturgy in a Synodal Perspective”dated August 28, 2025, has received almost no attention whatsoever. But even a cursory reading of the questions that form the starting point of their investigations shows that the group has not gathered to discuss trivialities. They will be considering complex, challenging questions that, if addressed well, could have an impact on the quality, style, and content of the liturgical experience of Catholics around the world.
The first question concerns ecclesiology. How does our understanding of synodality as an integral dimension of Church life affect how we celebrate liturgy, particularly the Eucharist? The second question concerns how to foster a better realization of the central importance of baptism and Christian initiation, as well as how to enable more active participation in the liturgy. The third concerns “the recognition of the role of women.” A particular issue highlighted here is how lectionaries might better reflect the scriptural witness of women in salvation history.
The fourth question is focused on enhancing liturgical preaching and promoting mystagogical catechesis. The fifth asks “how to continue along the path of a healthy decentralization of liturgical authority” with respect to inculturation and the translation of texts (the reference here is to Pope Francis’s 2017 motu proprio, Magnum principium). Under the umbrella of this question, the group will also consider the oversight and service provided by the Dicastery for Divine Worship concerning these and other liturgical matters (cf. the Apostolic Constitution Predicate Evangelium, 88–97). The sixth and final question is directed toward liturgical formation. The proposal, based on Pope Francis’s teaching in Desiderio desideravi, is that liturgical formation is a mystagogical undertaking intended for everyone—priests, ministers, and the whole people of God—so that all might “recover the capacity to live completely the liturgical action” (Desiderio desideravi, 27).
As for me and my household, maybe 99% of practicing, orthodox Catholics, we are more concerned about encountering Jesus Christ in a transcendent, reverent and sober way. We want a Mass where the black is said and the red is followed. We want a Mass where there is attention to detail, organized, and well rehearsed by musicians and cantors/choirs, servers, readers and if needed Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
We want a Mass that looks and sounds like the Installation Mass for the new Archbishop Westminster.
We want a Mass that points to Christ and His salvation for us, freeing us from the fires of hell.
We want a Mass where we can pray and thank God for all He has done in eternity.
We want a Mass that makes clear that the Church is the Church of all ages, to include the Church Triumphant in heaven, the Church Militant on earth and the Church suffering in Purgatory.
We want a Mass that places Christ in the center of the three aspects of the Church encountered at Mass and we want that encounter to be made clear by the care that is taken by both the clergy and laity to show forth the splendor of Christ crucified and risen. Christ the King, we His subjects.
We want a Mass that enables us once we leave Mass, to be proud to be Catholic and to live our faith at home, work and the public square. We want a Mass that helps us to participate fully in the Church in the world in which we live and to believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church to which Christ calls all to be joined for their life on earth and their life in heaven.
Forget Rita’s dribble, we don’t want that, we want Christ!
The Chants are magnificent and splendid Gregorian Chant and the Alleluia Gospel Chant was out of this world!
The Chants are in Latin all of them! The Archbishop prays the Roman Canon (in English). There are no other languages other than English and Latin! This unites all those cultures into a coherent and audible unity!
The Installation Rite prior to the beginning of the Mass, was splendid, dignified and reverent. It exhibted the sobriety of the Roman Rite both in its older, more ancient form, and also required in its modern expression.
There is no applause, hooping and hollering or a feeling that one is celebrating the person being installed rather than the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no showing of the Papal Bull by the one being installed, as though it is his precious Hiesman Trophy, parading around, like a clown, with it throughout the cathedral!
The only applause, and it was quite sober and controlled, was when Cardinal Nichols presented the new Archbishop with the Pastoral Staff, crozier.
The vestments are splendid! It is a modern Mass, with female altar servers and a woman religious as one of the lectors.
This is a Solemn Sung Mass. As such, Archbishop Moth celebrates the Mass by chanting all his parts! He chants the Collect, the Prayer over the Offerings, the Preface Dialogue and Preface and all other parts pertaining to the Celebrant! Thank you Archbishop Moth—this is an example for Pope Leo IV too!
There were some unique aspects to the Installation and I presume a tradition of this English Cathedral. One of the canons actually installs the new Archbishop and the role of the canons is pronounced, which isn’t the case in the USA.
The Papal Nuncio, without theatrics or ad-libbing, reads the Papal Bull from the parchment. He is the one that briefly shows the parchment to the canons and others but remaining in the sanctuary. The parchment is not given to the Archbishop! The Archbishop never takes it or shows it, unlike Archbishop Hicks in New York who made a spectacle of it and himself.
Archbishop Moth celebrates the Mass without any theatrics nor pandering to those in front of him or acting in a way that expresses raw emotions to others.
There is no pandering to the multiplicity of cultures in this London Archdiocese, perhaps more than that which is in New York City. There isn’t a multiplicity of languages employed or different musical expressions of the various cultures. Latin Chant and music unique to the Roman Rite are used! Latin is employed, proper to the Roman Rite! Gregorian Chant is used, proper to the Roman Rite in its revised form!
Pandering to different cultures during a Roman Rite Mass is exactly that, pandering to the laity and pleasing them and their cultural accomplishments. The Roman Rite isn’t about pandering to people and their accomplishments. It is about worshiping God! It is about pleasing and praising Him and lifting our eyes to Him. It isn’t about our narcissism.
I pray that Pope Leo writes an enclical on the Sacred Liturgy and authoritatively promoting the use of both forms of the one Roman Rite and that the revised Rite be in continuity with the older and clearly so! I pray he uses this Installation Mass as an example of how to celebrate the Modern Rite.
The only criticisms I have of the Mass, one problem which is with the revised Order of the Mass, is that after the installation rite and the various greetings offered to the Archbishop in a sober and brief way, the actual Mass begins with the Gloria. It is a mistake not to start this aspect of the ritual with the free-standing Kyrie followed immediately by the Gloria.
The other criticism is the multiplicity of people, as at the Vatican, reading the intercessions of the Universal Prayer. However, it is concluding by all asking for the intercession of Our Lady of Westminster, by praying together the “Hail Mary” which many liturgists, unlike me, would flinch!
But everyone knows that I would prefer formal, brief litanies, from the Missal, not made up, for the Universal Prayer with brief “ejaculations” for the Pope and Church, for the World and World Leaders, For the sick and suffering, the Faithful Departed and needs held silently in the hearts of the Faithful.
My only other gripe, is that the Archbishop takes and places or removes his miter himself! No! No! No! Have the MC do it, please!
Be sure to hear the distribution of Holy Communion. It starts with a splendid “Ave Verum Corpus” followed by the Proper Chant for Holy Communioin in unaccompanied splendid Latin Gregorian Chant! How reverent! This is how the majority of lay Catholics (excluding liturgists) would like to receive Holy Communion. While I don’t care for post-Communion hymns or motets, what is sung after Holy Communion is an English devotional hymn, “Sweet Sacrament Divine”. What a great collective act of thanksgiving by the congregation after Holy Communion. No singing by the laity at Communion, as they are receiving Holy Communion, but a collective post-Communion hymn! Marvelous.
After the chanted Post Communion Prayer, the Archbishop intones the “Te Deum” which is wondrously chanted!
During the chanting of the Te Teum, the Archbishop departs to pray before the Blessed Sacrament I think, then he goes around the cathedral blessing the people, as the Te Deum continues to be sung, so no applause or ruckus noise.
Returning to the sanctuary, the Archbishop stands ad orientem before the altar for the completion of the Te Deum.
Prior to the final Blessing and Dismissal, the papal nuncio offers his remarks, wearing choir dress and beretta. He acknowledges Cardinal Nicols and there is restrained applause but brief, no standing ovation.
Then Archbishop Moth offers some restrained, noble and modest final remarks and thanks.
The Archbishop chants the formal Episcopal Blessing and the deacon chants the dismissal.
Then a great English anthem “Praise to the Holiest is sung by all. I wonder if it of the Anglican Patrimony? But all remain in place for this Anthem until a few verses are sung. then the choir departs behind the servers and finally the Archbishop and entourage but remaining before the altar until its conclusion with the recessional with an organ and brass instrumental fanfare recessional. Magnificent!
I must say that I love the way the six high candles and crucifix, along with the Episcopal candles and six additional candles are placed behind the free standing altar, but appearing as a unit!
Big Benny, who I fear is no longer with us, but a member of this Cathedral, would be well pleased I think. If he is gone, Requiescat in Pacem!
All I have to say about this Splendid Installation Mass is:
WOW! WOW! WOW! I FEEL THAT I HAVE BEEN TO A CATHOLIC WORSHIP SERVICE! I DIDN’T FEEL THAT WITH ARCHBISHOP HICK’S INSTALLATION!
