Mike Lewis has a well thought out commentary on the liturgical affinity that Pope Leo has and it isn’t in continuity with Pope Benedict’s vision.
But as another blog says about Pope Leo, we’ll have to see.
What is very clear now and after 60 years after Vatican II, the only thing that we can count on with post-Vatican II popes, bishops and priests is that once they are gone, we can’t count on anything they accomplished as the next guy is going to reverse it, change it or ignore it.
That, in a nutshell, is Vatican II—it reversed, changed and ignored every other council that preceded it, what Pope Benedict XVI clearly diagnosed as the spirit of rupture not continuity.
That spirit of rupture continues with each Vatican II and post Vatican II pope, bishop and priest.
You just can’t count on continuity and stability any longer. In the most clericalism way possible, the laity, to include the lower clergy, are at the mercy of those in charge.
And if the laity get to be in charge, you can bet that there will be clericalism on steroids. We’ve already experienced that for decades now with “lay pastoral ministers.” Synodality, al la Pope Francis”, will put that lay clericalism on steroids.
Press the titles for two rather good commentaries:
Benedict Was the Outlier on Liturgy
Pope Leo XIV’s general audience on Wednesday clarified something that many conservative and traditionalist Catholics have been unwilling to face: the pope believes both that the liturgical reform is a good thing and that the reforms carried out following the Second Vatican Council are “firmly rooted in the living tradition of theChurch.”
And from Infovaticana:
6 comments:
Mike Lewis has insisted that Pope Benedict XVI’s liturgical vision "is a minority position among recent popes."
"Francis decisively declined to continue the program commonly described as the “reform of the reform,” and Leo has given no indication that he wishes to revive it.
"Like Francis, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, Pope Leo speaks of the reform as necessary, traditional, and directed toward the fuller participation of the faithful."
=======
Tis difficult to to
The above is difficult to counter as Mike Lewis noted also that Pope Benedict XVI was not opposed to "the reformed Mass. In his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, he insisted on the “value and holiness” of the reformed Roman Rite."
"He identified Paul VI’s Missal as the ordinary expression of the Roman Rite..."
That is important to note as it would be incorrect to claim that in totality, Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical vision had been out of touch with Popes Saint Paul VI, Blessed John Paul I, Saint John Paul II, Francis, as well as Leo XIV.
Certain aspects, not all, in regard to Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical vision do not correspond to Pope Leo XIV's liturgical vision.
Summorum Pontificum, for example, is not Pope Leo XIV's liturgical radar screen. Rather, Pope Leo XIV is on board with Traditionis Custodes.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Is Traditionis Custodes dead? As usual, MT Suit is wrong and only exposes his lack of knowledge and charity and continues to come here and waste our time with his delusions.
In West Virginia the bishop there just increased the number of Latin Mass locations from 2 to 5. Deo gratias!
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/08/new-bishop-of-west-virginia-increases.html#more
For the leftwing loon Catholics who post here, this is the DOJ's report on the Biden Administration wasting resources on investigating traditional Catholics, rather than investigating the abortion industry and Antifa:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/08/us-department-of-justice-releases-long.html
Pope "Leo does not believe that the reformed liturgy is a defective product awaiting reconstruction."! TAW&G but what about the "Sensus Fidelium"? Restore Summorum Pontificum and allow the faithful to decide the outcome. "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
Amen. Funny how the proponents of "choice" will only allow choice, if it corresponds with their "choices!"
Post a Comment