The article is paywalled (behind the Euro, no less), but based on what may be surmised it says, the recent controversy is not over denial of the Mass, but over being barred admittance altogether—by the Vatican police, halfway across St Peter’s Square, no less—and I hope it accounts for first-hand accounting like that found here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/10/there-was-no-room-for-them-in-inn.html?m=1#more
I read this yesterday. It certainly makes things more murky, but it seems far from being the rest of the story.
This obviously leaves a few contradictory narratives open between the organizers and SNP's version of events. Which one is true?
2. Let's assume that SNP was correct in their report. This in itself provides as many questions as answers. It certainly explains the initial exclusion from St Peter's. It 8s also likely that the program for the stopping at St Peter's tomb could have disrupted the scheduled event. I'd be interested in knowing a few things here.
-did anything change in the lead up to the recent announcement? -were the pilgrims themselves aware of the real situation, or did the people that went go as a protest? Were they kept in the dark by organizers? At this point the SNP report becomes less clear and devolved into a series of ad hominem and straw man attacks, even if the substance is accurate. -Did Bishop Schneider know about the purported scheduling conflict? I know that he has been the most, let's say, incautious of the famous mainstream Latin mass bishops, but he just put out a interview (which I haven't seen yet) which is presented as a response to events as told by the organizers. Even with him going off the rails a bit lately, I'd like to think that he's better than to be part of that sort of slimy media campaign. He himself could have been misled, buy perhaps not.
Was the sudden time limit at SMM a Vatican response to this hubbub?
Finally, if the organizers are truly this devious, this is an own goal of such massive proportion so as to make one wonder why they took the trouble of doing it. If Leo would hesitate to allow it for being "triumphalist", I'm not sure how they could expect this to ever happen again after pulling a stunt like this. It would be so stupid that it makes me wonder if there's more to this story even now.
I doubt that the Vatican will officially weigh in, so unless the organizers choose to address thus, I doubt we'll hear much more.
I’ve seen at least one indication that the basilica personnel didn’t think the pilgrimage, at 1:00, wouldn’t conflict with an event 2.5 hours later. The Secretariat of State, upon being informed that the basilica personnel didn’t think there was a schedule conflict, nevertheless refused the request for simple access. Who decided the police and a wall in St Peter’s Square was required is beyond me.
No matter how you cut it, this whole saga, from TC to today, is one grand debacle on all sides and each side is instrumentalizing SP, TC and now this debacle. It looks bad for the Vatican and perhaps the Traditionalists are using this to their advantage, to constantly proclaim inclusivity and then not allow the pilgrimage to enter the basilca and then to block them in doing so. I think it is legitimate to ask why the LGBTQ pilgrimage during the Holy Year was allowed to enter with obscene statements of their tee-shirt/jackets?
8 comments:
The article is paywalled (behind the Euro, no less), but based on what may be surmised it says, the recent controversy is not over denial of the Mass, but over being barred admittance altogether—by the Vatican police, halfway across St Peter’s Square, no less—and I hope it accounts for first-hand accounting like that found here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/10/there-was-no-room-for-them-in-inn.html?m=1#more
Nick
I read this yesterday. It certainly makes things more murky, but it seems far from being the rest of the story.
This obviously leaves a few contradictory narratives open between the organizers and SNP's version of events. Which one is true?
2. Let's assume that SNP was correct in their report. This in itself provides as many questions as answers. It certainly explains the initial exclusion from St Peter's. It 8s also likely that the program for the stopping at St Peter's tomb could have disrupted the scheduled event. I'd be interested in knowing a few things here.
-did anything change in the lead up to the recent announcement?
-were the pilgrims themselves aware of the real situation, or did the people that went go as a protest? Were they kept in the dark by organizers? At this point the SNP report becomes less clear and devolved into a series of ad hominem and straw man attacks, even if the substance is accurate.
-Did Bishop Schneider know about the purported scheduling conflict? I know that he has been the most, let's say, incautious of the famous mainstream Latin mass bishops, but he just put out a interview (which I haven't seen yet) which is presented as a response to events as told by the organizers. Even with him going off the rails a bit lately, I'd like to think that he's better than to be part of that sort of slimy media campaign. He himself could have been misled, buy perhaps not.
Was the sudden time limit at SMM a Vatican response to this hubbub?
Finally, if the organizers are truly this devious, this is an own goal of such massive proportion so as to make one wonder why they took the trouble of doing it. If Leo would hesitate to allow it for being "triumphalist", I'm not sure how they could expect this to ever happen again after pulling a stunt like this. It would be so stupid that it makes me wonder if there's more to this story even now.
I doubt that the Vatican will officially weigh in, so unless the organizers choose to address thus, I doubt we'll hear much more.
I’ve seen at least one indication that the basilica personnel didn’t think the pilgrimage, at 1:00, wouldn’t conflict with an event 2.5 hours later. The Secretariat of State, upon being informed that the basilica personnel didn’t think there was a schedule conflict, nevertheless refused the request for simple access. Who decided the police and a wall in St Peter’s Square was required is beyond me.
Nick
Not sure about the police, but I've also heard that the wall is in place because they're setting up this year's nativity scene.
That would make more sense.
Nick
https://elwanderer.com/2026/10/25/peregrinacion-ad-petri-sedem-real-news-y-fake-news/
Hi Father, in case you're interested, here is Wanderer's take. Whatever happened, this seems to be a rather bizarre situation.
No matter how you cut it, this whole saga, from TC to today, is one grand debacle on all sides and each side is instrumentalizing SP, TC and now this debacle. It looks bad for the Vatican and perhaps the Traditionalists are using this to their advantage, to constantly proclaim inclusivity and then not allow the pilgrimage to enter the basilca and then to block them in doing so. I think it is legitimate to ask why the LGBTQ pilgrimage during the Holy Year was allowed to enter with obscene statements of their tee-shirt/jackets?
https://silerenonpossum.com/en/tradizionalisti-contro-il-papa-i-documenti-smentiscono-la-ricostruzione-summorum-pontificum/
Post a Comment