I’M STICKING WITH MY LITURGICAL WAR, I MEAN, SPIRITUAL WARFARE…

I copied and paste this Facebook article I found. However, it did not paste the name of the author and when I went back to Facebook, I couldn’t find the original post that I copied! Apologies to the author. My comments after his post.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in 1922:

Fr. Pius Parsch celebrating Mass in 1922 in a 'popular' style of Mass approved by bishops and spread through Germany/Austria. Whatever the defects, the style became quite popular.

We should not forget Vatican II saw itself as endorsing a movement already well under way in many places, popular among laypeople & scholars, and endorsing fairly standard views among liturgical scholars regarding what the earliest Roman liturgy looked like. 

[NB: Newman's 'Callista' gives a similar picture of what early Roman liturgy was thought to be like.]

But there were alternative approaches to what would come from that movement as pertains to liturgical reform. Some scholars, such as Louis Bouyer, came to see the product of VII's reform as falling short of their intended goals, even as they endorsed Sacrosanctum Concilium as the great victory for their movement. 

I cannot help but agree with Bouyer. Being myself firmly in the Bouyer-Ratzingerian camp on the VII reforms, I'd think: Some changes were good & reasonable; others bland & decrease in quality; others inadvertently led to rupture & chaotic abuses. But there was reasonability in the initial aims of the liturgical movement that needs not to be forgotten.

(In fact, let me say too that, despite the picture (above) I agree with Razinger, Bouyer, Lang, etc., that 'versus populum' liturgy has turned out to have largely the wrong effect on everyone. It seems to me the right response would be to reverse this emphasis and  reintroduce 'ad orientem' celebrations into popular practice again.)

My most humble commentary:

Some have claimed that I am clairvoyant—who knows. I have no idea what Pope Leo will do to calm down the current liturgical wars that are on many fronts. Thank you Vatican II and Pope Francis. 

Somehow I doubt that Pope Leo will abrogate TC and go back to SP, but who knows? I do think he will encourage bishops to be generous about the celebration of the Vetus Ordo. I would hope he would eliminate some of the Orwellian aspects of TC or later communications from Cardinal Roche, like the Vetus Ordo can’t be celebrated in parish churches, forcing its celebrations to shrines and gymnasiums. 

As well, the truly Orwellian Roche mandated law, that the Vetus Ordo can’t be advertised in parish bulletins is truly Orwellian and should have been shot down by now. 

What do I think that Pope Leo should do? Write a TC type authoritative document that liberalizes the celebratioin of the Vetus Ordo along the lines of Ecclesia Dei of St. John Paul II.

Then, allow the Novus Ordo to have the option of “looking like” the Vetus Ordo’s celebration by simply giving the Novus Ordo what the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship already has and promulgated by Pope Francis! 

What is that? You know:

The PATFOTA, the Gradual from the Roman Gradual, the ancient Offertory Prayers, ramped up rubrics for the Eucharistic Prayer approximating the Vetus Ordo’s, the Triple Non Sum Dignus and the Last Gospel. Also, reestablish all the Octaves dropped in the Modern Missal as well as Septuagesima and Ember Days as Divine Worship has done and format a new Novus Ordo Missal to reflect the look of Divine Worship which looks like the Vetus Ordo Missal which includes in the propers the Offertory Antiphon. The Gloria Patri is also reinstated in Divine Worhship for the Introit and the other times this is prayed in the Mass. 

The option of celebrating Mass ad orientem and with Holy Communion distributed to kneeling communicants must be made explicit!

It must be made clear that the Novus Ordo may be celebrated in Latin (although the lectionary normally in the vernacular) or it can be a hybrid of Latin and vernacular. 

What I suggest and hope Pope Leo will do is a part of organic development of the Novus Ordo that respects its essence and tradition while re-enchanting it with elements of tradition from the Vetus Ordo. 

IS THE NEW LITURGY WARS BETTER THAN THE OLD LITURGY WARS? IN MY MOST HUMBLE OPINION, I DON’T THINK SO!

I’ve already written about the old liturgy wars which did not revolve around the use or non-use of the Vetus Ordo. Rather it focused on the Novus Ordo and bitterly complained and waged war on the poor, abusive celebration of this Mass. 

The main fighting points were combatting narcissistic priests who turn the Mass into a way for the priest to entertain his fans or to “improve” the Mass with his own creativity, words, and antics. Often there is also a contest about which priest-celebrant can be the most welcoming, the most sincere and the most pious. 

This war also revolved around the lack of unity in how the Novus Ordo is celebrated not only from one diocese to another, but also from one parish to another and even various Masses in the same parish!

For most waging this liturgical war, their motto was/is that the Novus Ordo is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get!

Well, that all changed with Summorum Pontificum and the expansive celebration of the Vetus Ordo. With the Vetus Ordo today, and more so when it was the Ordinary Mass of the Latin Rite, you know what you are going to get and it is celebrated well, also encouraging actual participation, both externally and internally. 

Once those who were waging war on liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo had the vetus Ordo were there isn’t liturgical abuse and there is unity between the various places in which this Mass is celebrated, they could care less about the liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo—they admitted defeat and were happy that they had a decent non-abused Mass to attend in the Vetus Ordo! It brought them liturgical peace!

But now, because of Pope Francis ill-adviced TC, the war is waged to bring it back to the days of Summorum Pontificum. There is little war waging on liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo—for many, that war was lost as there is no hope ever of overcoming the abuses of the Novus Ordo. 

I don’t agree. Pope Leo needs to help bishops STOP 🛑 liturgical abuse in their dioceses and even to the point of not advertising those abusive Masses in bulletins. 

Do I hear an “amen?”

THE NATIONAL cATHOLIC REPORTER CONTINUES TO FOMENT SCHISM! AND IT’S WORSE THAN THE FSSPX UPCOMING SCHISM!

IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT POPE LEO IN A TALK TO THE DICASTERY ON EVANGELIZATION AND IN A LETTER TO ITALIAN BISHOPS SAYS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT SYNODALITY AS IT HAS BEEN PRACTICED IN A CHAOTIC AND NON-SENSICAL WAY IN THE PAST THREE YEARS OR SO!

 You can read Pope Leo’s talk on evangelization HERE. 

And the important talk to the Bishops of Italy, but in Italian, can be found here. Use Google Translate for the English. Press the title:

To Bishops of the Italian Episcopal Conference

POPE LEO XIV SHOULD RECOVER AND RE-PROMULGATE POPE BENEDICT XVI’S EXCELLENT APOLOGETIC FOR SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM!

Pope Benedict’s clear, concise and beautiful apologetic for Summorum Pontificum knocks the ball out of the park!

The important elements in Benedict’s stunningly clear apologetic, I highlight in bold black except for the two paragraphs that would be close to Pope Leo’s heart—unity in the Church, which I highlight in red. 

Pope Benedict was the Saint and hero for this unity, not only within the Latin Rite, with its two forms of her one Rite, but also with Protestants and how in brought into full communion with the Church Anglicans, clergy and laity, with the Ordinariate. Pope Benedict is the model for true Vatican II ecumenism, not the feel good, tea and crumpets form of it espoused by those who don’t want true unity but prefer a kumbaya experience of joy and holding hands while praying and singing. 

Pope Benedict XVI

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions — the liturgical reform — is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form — the “Forma ordinaria” — of the Eucharistic liturgy. The last version of the “Missale Romanum” prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a “Forma extraordinaria” of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a “Forma extraordinaria” of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the “usus antiquior,” will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

POPE LEO’S SECOND WEDNESDAY CATECHESIS ON SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM…

 GENERAL AUDIENCE

Saint Peter's Square
Wednesday, 27 May 2026

[Multimedia]

________________

Catechesis. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. III. Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. 2. The reform of the liturgy: tradition and development

 

Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!

In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, the Venerable Pius XII writes that “the Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded” (no. 59).

In full accordance with this principle, the Second Vatican Council, in the Introduction to the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), recognizes “particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” (no. 1). The Council assembly was gathered, in fact, with the desire to “impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church” (ibid.).

At that moment in history, there was a strong sense of the need for a renewal of the ritual forms through which, for centuries, the Church had glorified God and sanctified the Christian people. Thanks to the Liturgical Movement, the conviction had matured—later expressed by Saint John Paul II—that “a very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the Church. The Church not only acts but also expresses herself in the liturgy, lives by the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life” (Letter Dominicae Cenae, 13).

To encourage the access of the faithful to the richness of the gifts of grace dispensed by the sacred liturgy, the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium thus indicates, with a very effective phrase, the direction to take: “That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress” (SC, 23).

Pope Benedict XVI grasped in this declaration of intent the “reform programme” of the Council Fathers, “a balance between the great liturgical tradition of the past and that of the future”, noting that “tradition and progress are often clumsily opposed”, whereas “actually, the two concepts merge: tradition is a living reality, which therefore includes in itself the principle of development, of progress. It is as if to say that the river of tradition also carries its source in itself and flows towards the outlet” (Address to participants in the Congress promoted by the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm on the 50th anniversary of foundation, 6 May 2011).

The Council affirms the legitimacy of this progress, rooted in authentic Tradition, distinguishing within the liturgy “immutable elements, divinely instituted” from “elements subject to change [which] not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it” (SC, 21). Changes of this type have taken place constantly over the centuries in order to enable the faithful to participate fruitfully, through ritual actions, in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, the foundation of the Christian faith. The Church’s worship has thus been “embodied” in the cultural forms of each age and has been able to influence them and even transform them. The liturgy has thus been, for centuries, a driving force for evangelization. Today, this energy must be renewed in continuity with the authentic and living Catholic tradition, that is, in accordance with a dynamic aimed at introducing believers to the fullness of the truth.

It is therefore understandable why the Council Fathers recommended that the revision of the rites, when “the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them”, must be carried out taking care that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC, 23). For the good of the entire Church, every reform must always be preceded by careful “theological, historical and pastoral” investigation (ibid.). The Council Magisterium, in this way, thus calls for the avoidance of confusion amongst the faithful, discouraging anyone from adding, removing or altering anything in liturgical matters on their own initiative (cf. SC, 22). The progress evoked in the Conciliar Constitution in no way compromises ecclesial communion: rather, it seeks to confirm and foster it.

I therefore urge all those called to prepare the celebration of the divine mysteries, in particular priests who exercise the ministry of liturgical presidency, to always uphold that respect for the texts and regulations of the liturgy which springs from an inner attitude of openness and trust in God, manifesting humility before His greatness and sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion.

My brief commentary:

It is great that Pope Francis is not mentioned in this particular catechisis but only Pope Benedict and St. John Paul II—the two great liturgical popes both of whom promoted the renewal of the liturgy in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium but also were progressive enough to allow the older rites to be celebrated as well, Pope Benedict XVI truly progressive and non-rigid in this regard. We can’t say that about Pope Francis. 

The last paragraph is truly important and in Pope Leo paraphrases Fr. Z! The pope tells priests to read the black and do the red!

Pope Leo also calls for the organic reform of the Liturgy:

…in this way, thus calls for the avoidance of confusion amongst the faithful, discouraging anyone from adding, removing or altering anything in liturgical matters on their own initiative (cf. SC, 22). The progress evoked in the Conciliar Constitution in no way compromises ecclesial communion: rather, it seeks to confirm and foster it.

FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS, WHICH HAS DAMAGED THE CHURCH’S COHERENT MORAL TEACHINGS, WAS NEVER NEEDED. POPE LEO SHOULD RETURN THE CHURCH TO THE POPE FRANCIS APPROVED RESPONSUM OF CARDINAL LADARIA, THEN PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH!

IN FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS, POPE FRANCIS EVEN CONTRADICTED HIMSELF!

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 22^nd of February 2021, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle.

Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex, 15.03.2021

Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium
regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex

TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED: 
Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

RESPONSE:
Negative.

Explanatory Note

In some ecclesial contexts, plans and proposals for blessings of unions of persons of the same sex are being advanced. Such projects are not infrequently motivated by a sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith, “so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives”^[1].

On such paths, listening to the word of God, prayer, participation in ecclesial liturgical actions and the exercise of charity can play an important role in sustaining the commitment to read one's own history and to adhere with freedom and responsibility to one's baptismal call, because “God loves every person and the Church does the same”^[2], rejecting all unjust discrimination.

Among the liturgical actions of the Church, the sacramentals have a singular importance: “These are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions of life are sanctified”^[3]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies, then, that “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” (#1670).

Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”^[4]. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”^[5].

Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex^[6]. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.

Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing^[7] invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”^[8].

The declaration of the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the Church understands them.

The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness. At the same time, they should recognize the genuine nearness of the Church – which prays for them, accompanies them and shares their journey of Christian faith^[9] – and receive the teachings with sincere openness.

The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations^[10], who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God^[11].

At the same time, the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit”^[12]. But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are”^[13].

For the above mentioned reasons, the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex in the sense intended above.

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of this Congregation, was informed and gave his assent to the publication of the above-mentioned Responsum ad dubium, with the annexed Explanatory Note.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 22^nd of February 2021, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle.

Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I. Prefect
	✠ Giacomo Morandi Archbishop tit. of Cerveteri Secretary

MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS IS BOOK LENGHT! WILL IT BECOME A NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLER? ONLY AI KNOWS FOR SURE…

THIS IS AN AI SUMMARY:

Magnifica Humanitas ("Magnificent Humanity") is a landmark encyclical by Pope Leo XIV focusing on the ethical and societal impacts of artificial intelligence. It calls for technological advancements to serve human dignity, community, and the common good, rather than reducing people to data points, deskilling workers, or concentrating power. [1, 2, 3]

Core Themes

• Human Dignity vs. The Technocratic Paradigm: Warns that a hyper-focus on efficiency and optimization can lead people to view themselves as projects to be upgraded rather than beings made for authentic communion.
• The Power of Algorithms: The Pope highlights the dangers of unchecked algorithmic power, algorithmic surveillance, and the digital attention economy, which can threaten inner freedom and undermine personal data privacy.
• Regulation & Digital Sobriety: Urges policymakers to slow down the rush to scale AI, create robust legal frameworks to prevent discrimination, and foster "digital sobriety" to combat behavioral addictions in today's tech landscape.
• Warfare & Geopolitics: Addresses the alarming use of AI in modern warfare and emphasizes the need for strong multilateralism to protect ethical limits and preserve peace.
• Christian Humanism: Rejecting transhumanist ideologies, the encyclical invites humanity to anchor its future in faith, objective truth, and the pursuit of wisdom. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

For the complete theological and social framework, you can read the full text of Magnifica Humanitas via Vatican News. [1]

YOU CAN READ MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS HERE.

POPE LEO’S PENTECOST SUNDAY SOLEMN MASS….

Let’s say that a parish has a schola that sings as well as the Sistine Choir at this papal Mass and that choir sings for Pentecost all the Propers as is sung at this papal Mass, but the Mass is in the Vetus Ordo.

But, Vatican II allowed the Vetus Ordo to have some vernacular as Pope Leo uses in his papal Mass. 

But, Vatican II allows the Vetus Ordo to have the Liturgy of the Word as is done in the Novus Ordo, as in this papal Mass.

Wouldn’t everything that Vatican II desired for the Mass be accomplished in the Vetus Ordo? 

This is what an article at “Where Peter Is”, aka, “Where Pope Francis Was” says about Pope Leo’s first catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. Everything that Pope Leo teaches here could early be applied to the Vetus Ordo as I describe it being celebrated above:

…Leo also stressed the bidirectional structure that Sacrosanctum Concilium assigned to participation. The faithful’s participation, he said, is “at once ‘internal’ and ‘external.’” It does not end when the dismissal is given. The liturgy “is called to unfold in a tangible way throughout daily life, in an ethical and spiritual dynamic, so that the liturgy celebrated is translated into life.” Here he touched on Romans 12:1, teaching that our lives through liturgy and practice become a “living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” when we live out the truth of what we have received in the Mass and especially the Eucharist, the Source and Summit of Our Faith. The Council’s hard-won concept of participatio actuosa is ultimately about conformity of the human person’s entire existence to the paschal mystery...

…What this opening installment quietly accomplishes is significant. It removes the question of Sacrosanctum Concilium from the genre of liturgy-wars commentary and restores it to the genre of catechesis on the mystery of Christ. The pope did not adjudicate disputed questions about translation, posture, or the relationship of the two forms of the Roman Rite. He returned instead to the Constitution’s own first move, which is theological and Christological before it is rubrical. “Let us allow ourselves to be shaped inwardly by the rites, symbols, gestures and above all the living presence of Christ in the liturgy,” Leo concluded, perhaps opening a new chapter of reflection on the ongoing discussions surrounding the liturgy.

COME HOLY SPIRIT…

 Pentecost

Saint Joseph Church in Macon decorated for Pentecost Sunday around 2007 or so. We only did that once, as a parishioner had to climb a tall ladder to do the pinning of the drapery to the top of the capital column below the cupola.  There is a way to the cupola in the attic of the church, hanging the drape from its railing wasn’t dangerous, but the ladder thing was and I said, no more. Once is enough!

Happy Pentecost!

IF TRUE, THIS WILL NOT PLEASE SYNODALERS OR FR. JAMES MARTIN, SJ…

But Pope Leo did say during His Holiness's high altitude press conference, that FS’s blessings are just for the individual like the Final Blessing he and all bishops and priests offer at the end of Mass!

Sat May 23, 2026 - 11:55 am EDT
(LifeSiteNews) — The Coptic Orthodox Church has decided to reopen dialogue with the Catholic Church after Pope Leo XIV reportedly assured Patriarch Tawadros II regarding the “non-blessing of same-sex couples.”
On Friday, the Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church announced that the decision to resume talks following a May 15 phone discussionbetween the two leaders.

THE OLD LITURGY WARS: PART II…

Prior to the return of the Vetus Ordo, even in a limited way around 1986, for the majority of thinking Catholics,  the liturgy wars did not revolve around the old verse the new Mass. It revolved around the proper celebration of the new Mass compared to the abusive ways the new Mass was being celebrated not only by priests but various communities including religious orders. 

Those who wanted a free-wheeling liturgy with creativity on the spot, the celebrant-focused Mass, and making things up as he goes and, for some weird purpose still unknown to me, giant puppets used at Mass, they accused those who were waging war on all of that as being liturgical Nazis.

For them, the problem was that anyone would call them out, especially the liturgically rigid. 

And it wasn’t just puppets that war waged upon, but unnecessary numbers of extraordinary ministers of communion, making them ordinary. It was also on the use of the common chalice for huge numbers of communicants which, in fact, is against liturgical law in the GIRM. 

But this war was also on poor music, normally contemporary Broadway sounding ditties set to religous words. But also instrumentation that excluded the organ which was suppose to have a pride of place at Mass, along with Gregorian Chant, Latin and reverence. The old liturgy wars was about the loss of all of these, including reverence.

It was a war on sloppiness too and on wreckovations. 

There is a lot more too. But with Summorum Pontificum and then Custodis Traditionis, a war to crush SP, the liturgy wars have shifted to not having the Vetus Ordo celebrated on an equal footing with the Novus Ordo. In fact, the war from the Vatican on the Vetus Ordo also included the nuclear option of not even being able to advertise the Vetus Ordo in parish bulletins and this mandated not from the local bishop but from Rome! That’s what Orwellianism is, no?

CARDINAL FERNANDEZ IS GOING TO COMMISSION A STUDY ABOUT WHY THE TRANSMISSION OF THE FAITH HAS FALLEN SO DRAMATICALLY IN THE LAST 60 YEARS, AFTER VATICAN II! DUH!

Edward Pentin has an article on the big plans of Cardinal Fernandez to figure out why the Church is declining in so many places in the world. Press the title for the story and then below the title is my most humble summary of the true problem which doesn’t take a Church genius to figure out:

Cardinal Fernández Shares More Details on Upcoming ‘Transmission of the Faith’ Document

Edward PentinVatican

 I have written on the blog time and again, that the decline in participation in the Church, at least in the USA, must be attributed to the “spirit of Vatican II’ and spirit of rupture, chaos and division and the methodology used to shove this spirit down the throats of Catholics, some who willingly swallowed and enjoyed it and others who choked and threw up in disgust. 

Apart from the 1960’s cultural upheaval that was secular in nature but bled into the Church too, because of the spirit of Vatican II and revolutionaries in the culture bringing that revolution to Vatican II through a rupture hermeneutic, we have seen as a result of that and its trickle down effect to this day, that having nearly 90% of Catholic attend Mass on Sunday in 1965 is now down to about 5% to 20% of Catholics doing so today.

And of that percentage, a high percentage are sporactic  in attending Mass, don’t believe in Transubstantiation, advocate for women priests, same sex or whatever marriages and free love. They want divorced enshrined also. 

What the spirit of Vatican II did to the Church beginning in 1965 with the laity, is a direct result of a mistaken belief that if some things in the Church can change, any and everything else can change!

I would venture to guess that the 90% of Catholics attending Mass prior to the Council believed that everything in the Church was set in concrete and nothing could change in the Church as it concerned her discipline, sacraments, faith and morals. NOTHING!

Very shortly after the Mass began to change, habits disappeared, priests and nuns leaving their vocations to marry each other or whoever, Catholics thought that everything should change. Allow nuns to marry and remain nuns. Let priests marry and stay priests. 

And then in 1968, after the laity thought they could have sex without procreation by being allowed to use the pill, after all, everything else was changing, why not that, Pope Paul VI said no with Humanae Vitae!

And in 1968 you had angry young Catholics of marriage and childbearing age infuriated by that and so were priests and nuns. Many laity left the Church over that which meant so did their families, their children. 

Trace the real decline in Catholicism and the transmission of the true faith to 1968 and accelerating after than for more than three generations now.

This, in our own day, has led to a flimsy Catholicism, that no religion or any religion is okay.

This has led to a contempt for Church law and its requirements.

This has led to once storied Catholic families known for their commitment to the Church no longer committed to the Church. Children brought up in the post-Vatican II Church of this generation, no longer practice, aren’t getting married in the Church and aren’t having their children baptized. And they aren’t giving their parents Catholic funerals!  And many of these Catholics, were brought up in post-Vatican II practicing Catholic families, who went to Catholic schools and Catholic universities are the ones totally disengaged from the institutional Church altogether!

And the sex abuse scandal, truly on steroids in the early aftermath of Vatican II and precisely around 1974 less than 10 years after Vatican II, has caused infinite damage to the psyche of lay Catholics and their love of the Church. 

And now there is the Synod that is so compromised from an academic and intellectual perspective making all things equal for the sake of making everyone and every sin welcomed into the Church, one wonders if those in the institutional Church and the synod and in the highest places of the Church don’t have a death wish for the Roman Catholic Church!

I don’t condone the intransigence of the FSSPX as it concerns certain aspects of Vatican II. And if they ordain bishops without papal approval, the pope, according to current canon law, should excommunicate them. But, what they are like today is basically what the Church and parishes were like prior to the Council. Most Ordinary Form parishes are far, far, far, from the unity of Catholic Faith that we once had and the unity in the way we worshipped and Catholic spirituality and faith and morals. For the most part, and apart from the macro issues the pope has with the FSSPX, their parishes are what our parishes were like on the eve of Vatican II—strong, committed and secure in their Catholic modesty, identity and unity—-that is gone for the most part in most parishes as nearly 95% of Catholics in a geographical area don’t even bother to attend Mass, get married in the Church or have their children baptized. They are cooked in secular politics and the ways of the world, flesh and devil. 

As it concerns our parishes, I have had to put bulletin announcements reminding Catholics that Daisy Duke shorts, tank tops and bare midriffs are not allowed at Mass. Nor are t-shirts with any slogans, especially obscene slogans or political propaganda. Do you think FSSPX parishes have to put that into their bulletins????

Need I write more?