Cardinal Cupich has a degree in liturgy. Unfortunately he received it in the 70’s or 80’s. That time was not the zenith of liturgical thought or praxis.
I knew Cardinal Cupich when he was Monsignor Cupich and the rector of the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus. He navigated the “reckovation” of their main chapel and it was horrible, but very much following the ideologies concerning the Modern Mass of that period of time , which, by the way, went way beyond Vatican II and what was recommended there and even what Bishop Bugnini fabricated with his new Mass codified by Pope Paul VI and thus becoming the Mass of Paul VI.
Before and after by Cardinal Cupich:
It took another rector to restore that chapel to what is was and should have remained. Oddly, that rector is also a priest of my Diocese of Savannah.
After Cupich restoration:
See the Liturical Arts Journal article on this chapel and more photos of the restored look HERE.
But we know that Cardinal Cupich recently has made an incredible statement concerning the unity of the Roman Rite that requires that the Liturgy codified by Trent (but not a newly created Liturgy) be eliminated . Only doing so, according to the Cardinal, bless his little heart, will that bring about the unity the Church of the Roman Rite needs.
It is an incredible statement, to say the least.
These are my questions to Cardinal Cupich, bless his heart:
1. What about the liturgy at Saint Sabina’s in Chicago—does it and that parish promote unity in the Roman Rite in general and the Archdiocese of Chicago in particular?
2. What about the Ordinariate Mass approved by Pope Francis in 2013? Does that too break the unity of the Roman Rite, especially as it has its own bishops?
3. What about the Ambrosian Rite, the modern version, in Milan. Does that damage the unity of the Church?
4. What about all the various languages in which the Mass is celebrated even in one diocese or archdiocese? Does that create division too?
5. What about the various parishes that incorporate into the Bugnini Mass various forms of inculturation, some approved others not? Does that create disunity in the Church?
Pope Leo, God willing, is well informed about how the Bugnini Mass is distorted by liturgical abuses and the personalities of bishops and priests who celebrate it. He must be informed about the wild liturgical abuses that go on in a huge number of parishes and the sloppiness that occurs also, which is a liturgical abuses also.
How can bishops, some who are cardinals, as well as priests who are in the know convince Pope Leo not to listen to Cardinal Cupich and others of his liturgical ideology formed in the 70’s?
How can we in the Roman Rite trust our bishops, some cardinals, who are ignorant about the liturgy in 2026 and promote memes and ideologies that are blatantly incorrect?
The Truth has set me and so others like me, free. And we have eyes to see and ears to hear. Does Pope Leo and most of the Roman Rite cardinals?
26 comments:
Let's not forget that Cupich allowed "Father" Pfleger.
Cardinal Cupich has confirmed that Pope Leo XIV had authorized Cardinal Roche's letter in regard to liturgy that he (Cardinal Roche) had distributed to his brother Cardinals at the Extraordinary Consistory.
https://liturgyandtruth.substack.com/p/liturgy-tradition-reform-unity-by
Cardinal Cupich:
"As was reported, the Holy Father proposed four topics for discussion at the consistory. Pope Leo asked four curial cardinals to prepare resource documents that might help focus our discussions of the topics.
"Once we arrived in Rome, Pope Leo asked us to choose two of the four, which ended up being the evangelical mission of the church and synodality.
"While the topics of liturgy and the reform of the curia were not selected, all cardinals received the resource documents prepared on these topics by Cardinals Arthur Roche and Victor Manuel Fernandez, respectively.
"Given the importance of the role of liturgy in the life of the church, I want to share with you some of the points Cardinal Roche, prefect of the Dicastery for the Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, made in the resource document he prepared."
=======
I had thought it unlikely that Cardinal Roche had drafted/distributed the letter in question without Pope Leo XIV's authorization.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Cardinal Cupich has received solid support from Popes Saint John Paul II to Leo XIV.
Pope Leo XIV even offered powerful support in regard to Cardinal Cupich's approach to the abortion/pro-life issue.
=======
Had they deemed it necessary, Pope Leo XIV's three immediate predecessors had the authority to offer correction to Cardinal Cupich. Pope Leo XIV is free to offer correction to Cardinal Cupich.
None of the above-mentioned Popes moved against Cardinal Cupich.
Cardinal Cupich has long enjoyed Rome's approval.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Of course Roche wrote this at the Pope’s behest, to discuss not promulgate.
Father McDonald said..."Of course Roche wrote this at the Pope’s behest, to discuss not promulgate."
The initial spin from the right-wing pretended that the letter in question had been solely Cardinal Roche's initiative...simply his hateful opinions against the TLM/Summorum Pontificum.
But Father, as you stated, "Roche wrote this at the Pope’s behest..."
It is bizarre that Pope Leo XIV would have authorized a letter, even just to initiate a liturgical-related discussion, that had served supposedly as a pro-Traditionis Custodes...vicious anti-TLM/Summorum Pontificum screed.
Bizarre in that, if the letter did not reflect Pope XIV liturgical mindset, why on earth did he authorize a supposed vile attack against the TLM/Summorum Pontificum?
If anything, the letter, with Pope Leo XIV approval, had been packed with lies and misrepresentations supposedly.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Leo, I doubt, but don’t know for sure, did not dictate this letter to Cardinal Roche. The point of the Extraordinary Consistory is for there to be talking points for the cardinals to discuss. Cardinal Roche has provided those points for cardinals to debate. And the debate is on. Cardinal Cupich has let us know his position. So has Cardinal Pizzaballa who lives with a diversity of liturgical rites as Patriarch of Jerusalem. Unless Pope Leo is like Pope Francis with decisions already made, but the extraordinary consistory a smoke screen of consultation, and I don’t believe that of Pope Leo for one minute, the debates have begun and the flimsy character of Roche’s document is becoming very evident to the cardinals. This is good news But time will tell.
I had posted the following nearly two weeks ago:
"According to Catholic commentator Austen Ivereigh, who is close to those advising Pope Leo XIV, the Holy Father had asked Cardinal Roche to prepare the paper."
TJM responded: "LOL - Leo set a trap for that simpleton."
=======
We know, of course, that His Holiness had not "set a trap for that simpleton."
TJM's preposterous response demonstrated the level of denial, on this blog, as well as elsewhere, among various right-wing extremists.
That is, said folks pretended that Cardinal Roche's supposed vile attack against the TLM/Summorum Pontificum was his initiative.
There was no way that Pope Leo XIV had anything to do with Cardinal Roche's supposed hateful attitude against the TLM/Summorum Pontificum.
Well, as even Father McDonald has acknowledged, "Of course Roche wrote this at the Pope’s behest..."
Why did Pope Leo XIV authorize such a (supposed) scathing attack attack against the TLM/Summorum Pontificum?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Cardinal Cupich has a degree in liturgy from the Dark Ages (the two decades following the close of Vatican II), meaning he has a shockingly good excuse for being so ignorant, dishonest, and/or stupid to think that it is "in keeping with Pope St. Pius V" for there to be "only one rite to as a means of preserving the unity of the church."
Setting aside the Eastern rites--who just awkwardly have to look on as they're implicitly accused of divisiveness--Pope Pius V explicitly said jurisdictions with a rite older than 200 years were to retain that liturgy unless there was unanimous agreement among the clergy to adopt the Roman rite. To the point, after Quo Primum, at least a half-dozen separate rites for the Mass in the Roman Church, again setting aside the Eastern brethren, carried on with Pope Pius V's blessing.
Nick
You really have an obsession with using words like vile, MT. Out of the abundance of the heart...
Anyway, why would Pope Leo allow Cardinal Zen to make such a vile vile vile attack on the Tremendous Oracle's pet project of synodality?
Nick
MT,
You, yet again, make the category error that the Pope letting someone say something means he agrees with it. Maybe that was true for His Tremendousness--who, despite his rhetoric about parrhesia, was reportedly ruthless with anyone who dared openly disagree with him. That simply isn't true.
You're the one injecting, as always, hyperventilating rhetoric about "vile attacks," which you seem really obsessed with. All Roche's letter had to be was wrong, and it showed his weakness.
Nick
Pope Leo's successors also had the authority to correct Marcel Maciel, Cardinals McCarrick and his slimy bunch, Cardinal Daneels... and so many more... their silence is a ringing endorsement, in your books, apparently.
Nick
Father McDonald said..."Of course Roche wrote this at the Pope’s behest..."
Father McDonald said..."...The flimsy character of Roche’s document is becoming very evident to the cardinals."
So, Pope Leo XIV had authorized the letter in question...a letter that is '"flimsy."
What was His Holiness thinking?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Do we have any high-level testimony that Pope Leo XIV had authorized Cardinal Zen's disgraceful January 7, 2026 A.D. intervention at the Extraordinary Consistory?
As to the, as far as I know, unsubstantiated claim in question:
It is bizarre that Pope Leo XIV allowed supposedly Cardinal Zen to trash Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) as just two days later, His Holiness destroyed...shattered...Cardinal Zen's portrayal of Pope Francis .
Pope Leo XIV, January 9, 2026 A.D:
"This past year saw...the return to the Father’s house of my venerable predecessor, Pope Francis."
"The whole world gathered around his coffin on the day of his funeral, and sensed the loss of a father who had guided the People of God with immense pastoral charity."
Pope Leo XIV had kicked to the curb Cardinal Zen's disgraceful portrayal of Pope Francis. Nevertheless, the claim is that just two days prior to that, Pope Leo XIV had allowed Cardinal Zen to trample Pope Francis.
Therefore, one day Pope Leo XIV is in on the vile trampling of Pope Francis.
Two days later, Pope Leo XIV declared that Pope Francis "had guided the People of God with immense pastoral charity."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Cardinal Cupich has a degree in liturgy from the "Dark Ages" supposedly. His vicious critics have insisted that everywhere he has served as bishop, Cardinal Cupich has inflicted massive damage upon the liturgy.
Nevertheless, not one Pope, from Saint John Paul II to Leo XIV, had/has intervened in regard to the supposed horrific damage that Cardinal Cupich inflicted upon the Roman Liturgy.
Said supposed damage in question has continued unabated during Pope Leo XIV's watch.
In regard to the Archdiocese of Chicago; Why has Pope Leo XIV not protected his spiritual children from Cardinal Cupich?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Never in history has a pope authorized publication of something flimsy... or worse. Nope, no approvals of slavery, no approvals of blessing same-sex relationships that were rejected by bishops leading millions, if not hundreds of millions of Catholics that had to be walked back and explaind multiple times despite supposedly being the "last word," no dodgy proclamations about Marian titles that were also hastily walked back.
"What was His Holiness thinking?"
Asked and answered. You aren't paying attention, MT. You just switch into "vIlE aTTaCk" mode and nothing else breaks through.
In MT's book, it seems everything a pope says, does, or approves is tremendous and wonderful and brilliant, and saying anything else is a vile attack... a vile attack. I just don't think there's much history or Catholic doctrine on the limits of the papacy in MT's book.
Nick
Apologies, I must correct myself--Quo Primum didn't require unanimous agreement among the clergy, if I remember correctly. The bishop had to make the decision, or the community's chapter.
Nick
Oh, now criticizing Cupich is “vicious.” The critics are in habitual vice. Slander upon slander.
Anyway, recent popes also have rarely intervened directly when priests rape teenaged boys and bishops cover it up. By your mindless, unrealistic standard, that means those popes condone that behavior. Bravo, MT; from pushing Pope Benedict as modernist heretic to arguing the pope into condoning child rape… what a week you’ve had.
Nick
Interesting comments over at Fr Z's on this topic:
https://wdtprs.com/2026/01/daily-rome-shot-1536/#comments
A certain person here has trafficked in the creation of lies that he has employed to defame me. Recent example:
Said person claimed, for example, that I have pushed "Pope Benedict as modernist heretic..."
That is a lie.
The other day, via a different thread, I had proclaimed Joseph Ratzinger as "a holy, orthodox, loyal son of Holy Mother Church."
For years on Father's blog, I have identified Joseph Ratzinger repeatedly as a holy man...orthodox to his core...a great Pontiff.
Why does the person in question feel the need to post lies about me?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Sometimes you are incoherent. Pope Francis reversed or canceled Pope Benedict’s liturgical genius and Cardinal Roche continues that dismal, wrong-headed trajectory alone with Cardinal Cupich. Joseph Ratzinger should be raised to a Doctor of the Church. Francis, Roche and Cupich are academic lightweights compared to Ratzinger and Ratzinger was at Vatican II. Francis initiated a breach in continuity with Benedict. Both Francis and Benedict are dead, RIP, but in your mind calling Francis out is the mortal sin, not Francis creating a breach with his intellectual giant predecessor, Benedict.
Oh, now you're worried about defamation? Really... You've persisted in now multiple slanderous statements against me for months, ignoring my repeated requests for clarification or retraction. And if you're going to accuse "a certain person" of defamation, you could at least use my name. But then, you've consistently demonstrated an allergy to actually taking a position, making a direct statement of your own. It must always be slippery, indeterminate, and indirect, often using the often-inapt words of another, or simply shutting down when you realize you've talked yourself into a corner.
And worry not, MT, truth is an absolute defense to defamation. You posited that (1) Ratzinger espoused modernist views in a paper in his early life, a paper that he had to re-write simply so it could be published and (2) that Ratzinger's views did not change over the course of his life, insisting that he was the same man before he went to Rome and thereafter. Therefore, if your positions are carried to their logical ends, he was a modernist when he was pope.
Unless, as you have stated, Ratzinger espoused modernist views and his views did not change over the course of his life and simultaneously he was "a holy, orthodox loyal son" of the Church, in which case you don't seem to realize that modernism is, in fact, not orthodox.
I don't think there's much difference as to which position you hold, as I think you are wrong either way, but there is no "creation of lies"; I just make the mistake of reading your comments and thinking you believe the self-contradictory blather you perpetually sling in every direction.
Nick
Ol' Nick - Like you're one to complain about others defaming you. Right.....
Mikey, are you sure want to insert yourself into something that I've brought up multiple times before and that's not about you--quelle surprise--when you're on the record here repeatedly picking on and insulting just about every commenter here except, ever-so-coincidentally, Mark Thomas?
How many years is it now that you've called me by a name used for Satan?
There's good reason I maintain there's no way you're an actual Fr. Michael Kavanaugh, just someone trying to beclown some real Fr. Kavanaugh out there. I'm not sure I could come up with any other charitable read.
Nick
Ol' Nick - I am quite sure, and I am quite ready to admit that I have enjoyed the fracas here as much as anyone.
Oh, and it's very kind of you to worry about "some real Fr. Kavanaugh out there. Well, I'd have to be honest and say it's not really a kindness, just a way of making yourself look good when you complain about being defamed while have participated in that activity like many here.
e.g. I call you Ol' Nick, you respond with "Mikey." But you're the one who has been wronged. Right.......
Nick, I enjoy reading your (and certain others’) blunt comments because they often give a perspective many of us readers are probably thinking or maybe were just unaware of and even enjoy disagreeing with! But may I suggest you use a search engine to look up “indications of autism in adults.” After reading the list of the most common characteristics of autistic adults, I think you’ll identify its possible existence manifested in comments written in a particular repetitive style with the same repetitive content. That being the case, would not the charitable thing to do be to cut them some slack because they are who they are and just can’t change themselves? We need to pray for them, as "there but for the grace of God, go I." Just a thought.
Oh, please, Joe. You're not a diagnostician in matters of autism.
Rather than pretend you've figured me out, why not respond, if you like, to what I post, rather than inventing reasons to dismiss them?
Post a Comment