POPE LEO PLEASE GIVE TO THE BUGNINI MASS THE VERY SAME ELEMENTS FROM OUR 1962 ROMAN MISSAL THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE ORDINARIATE’S DIVINE WORSHIP, THE MISSAL! PLEASE. AND WITHOUT DELAY! LET ME THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!

 One has to be aware that there was great fear in the Ordinariate community that Pope Francis would do to Pope Benedict’s Anglican Ordinariate what Pope Francis did to Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum. In fact, prior to becoming pope, Pope Francis had disagreed with Pope Benedict’s forming the Anglican Ordinariate. He basically stated that the Church needs Anglicans as they are. Interesting no?

Pope Leo has now enshrined the Ordinariate as a permanent part of the Catholic Communion. The Vatican document praises the Ordinariate Mass for preserving 500 years of Anglican Patrimony inculturated into this form of the Roman Mass. But it also allows the Latin Rite’s patrimony from the 1962 Missal, in terms of PATFOTA, the 1962 Order of Mass, especially the Introductory Rite, the use of the gradual and tract, the older Offertory Prayers, all of them, some of the rubrics of the 1962 Missal for the Roman Canon and our Prayer II, the only two in their missal, and the Roman Canon normally required for Sunday Masses. It also allows specifically for ad orientem and receiving Holy Communion kneeling and at an altar railing. 

It also has the triple “Lord, I am not worthy” and other 1962 Missal elements linked to the Our Father!

Once again, let me beg the pope, in this case, now Pope Leo to give to the Bugnini Mass the same options from our 1962 Roman Missal given to the Ordinariate! Not to do so is a huge, I mean, a huge injustice to Bugnini Mass goers and parishes!

Here’s a splendid example of the Ordinariate’s Mass so praised by the Vatican and Pope Leo for its beauty!

NEW VATICAN LITURGICAL EVANGELIZING BOMBSHELL CONCERNING POPE BENEDICY’S ANGLICAN ORDINATIATE!

 And it is issued the day after the Archbishopess of Canterbury is installed! WOW!

This has implications for our own reform of the reform too!

Press title for OSV report! The hits keep on coming!

VATICAN AFFIRMS PERMANENT PLACE OF ‘ANGLICAN HERITAGE’ IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

THE PILLAR HAS AN ARTICLE ON POPE LEO’S UNDERMINING OF TRADITIONIS CUSTODIS AND THERE IS A COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE ON THE FRENCH THAT POPE LEO USED, WHICH IS WORTH STUDYING!

 Thanks to Pope Leo’s words to the French bishops to allow the Vetus Ordo to be respected and grow, while also upholding what Vatican II taught about revising the Vetus Ordo (as did Pope Benedict) Pope Leo’s French words are worth noting.

A commenter on the Pillar article did so and very nicely. The following is from that comment:

1. The characterization of the liturgical divide *itself* as a «douloureuse blessure», a painful wound.

2. «Pour la guérir, un regard nouveau...est certainement necessaire»: "To heal [the wound], a new perspective/look/pass-over is certainly necessary." This is the big one to me. There is in this sentence the sense that "the previous way of handling this is not working to heal the division, so the expectation is a different direction."

3. «des frères riches e leur diversité» "Brothers rich in their diversity", pertaining to liturgical expression. This is similar language used with eastern rite discussions and mutual enrichment there.

4. «d’inclure généreusement les personnes sincèrement attachées au Vetus Ordo». Two things here. "To include generously"--generously is actually carrying a lot of weight here. It's demanding something substantial, rather than lip service. And "Persons sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo". This is a wording I have primarily seen used by folks sympathetic to the Extraordinary Form, even by those who are Extraordinary Form attenders themselves, specifically because it highlights the earnestness and faith behind the attachment, and abandons the polemic or negative strawman often employed by those hostile to the EO.

5. «dans le respect des orientations voulues par le Concile Vatican II en matière de Liturgie.» Tying the reality of liturgical diversity to the norms of Vatican II, clearly framing the "generous inclusion" as being not opposed to Vatican II but in fact an authentic expression of its guidelines. Massively contradicts the more bullyish interpretations of TC, with regards not only to the EO but to traditional-ish practices like prie-dieux.

It's not splashy, it's not TNTing the last 10 years of handling of this issue. But there is a *lot* of attitudinal and tonal work going on in this language.

And finally, notably, despite how any English translation may or may not sound, this is *not* labyrinthine, bureaucratic, buzzwordy French. The French feels very clear and actually astonishingly direct in its communication of these ideas.

BECAUSE OF POPE LEO’S BOMBSHELL LETTER TO THE FRENCH BISHOPS (THE EPICENTER OF THE LEFEBRVE MOVEMENT) ENCOURAGING BISHOPS TO ALLOW THE GROWTH OF THE VETUS ORDO WHILE SEEING THE BUGNINI MASS AS THE ORDINARY VATICAN II MASS, MANY MISSED THE OTHER BOMBSHELL FROM POPE LEO, BUT YOURS TRULY DID NOT!

 Here’s the other bombshell from Pope Leo:

This apostolic succession, founded on the Gospel and in the Tradition, is explored further in Chapter III of Lumen gentium, entitled “On the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular on the Episcopate”. The Council teaches that the hierarchical structure is not a human construct, functional to the internal organization of the Church as a social body (cf. LG, 8), but a divine institution whose purpose is to perpetuate the mission given by Christ to the Apostles until the end of time.

Emphasizing the hierarchical nature of the Church and that she ordains only men to be ordained to the three degrees Holy Orders, bishop, priest and deacon, he emphasized that these infallible teachings are not products of social organization based on cultural prejudices. 

And that in a nutshell, is the 1960’s “spirit of Vatican II” that was promoted by progressive theologians and bishops aligned with them, that so many aspects of the hierarchical Church are prejudiced by social constructs, out-dated cultural paradigms which can and must be changed by the enlightenment of the current cultural context and social movements. 

Pope Leo called that mentality out and using a document of Vatican II to do so.

This has implications not only for the hierarchical nature of the Church and her all male Sacrament of Holy Orders, but also for moral teachings. 

We can’t change the anthropology of the male and female paradigm concerning the Church and her Sacraments because these are not cultural but divinely revealed for all times and places. 

We can’t change the sexual moral teachings of the Church either because these are divinely revealed and not culturally determined by prejudiced thinking and attitudes. 

This is also confirmed by Pope Leo in his letter to the French bishops. So many in the Church today want to accept the sins of people as well as the sinner. This manifests itself in Jesuitical Father James and his pastoral outreach to the ideologues of the LGBTQ++++ MOVEMENT. He wants the sin and sinner loved and accepted. 

But Leo, though, teaches us what the Church teaches in his letter to the French Bishops:

The Church cannot renounce justice, nor diminish the gravity of the facts, but neither can she lose sight of what the Lord Jesus has entrusted to her: the possibility of conversion, the call to penance, the duty not to reduce anyone to his sin. In a cultural climate that increasingly seems inclined towards a summary form of justice, more interested in the public elimination of persons than in their responsibility and real change, the Holy See calls for justice, reparation, responsibility and conversion to be held together.

IF YOU ARE CAPABLE, PLEASE READ BETWEEN THE LINES…

 I have had an ecumenical spirit throughout my life having grown up as a part of the minority of people who belong to the Catholic Church in the Bible Belt. 

Most of my friends, classmates and co-workers were not Catholic, most, too, practicing Christians. 

Thus I know the need to respect the conscience of those who are not Catholic and the reasons why they are and remain non-Catholic. That doesn’t mean a watered-down Catholicism. The opposite is true, one must be secure in their Catholicism.

It is important to love each other and brothers and sisters, Catholic or not. It is important to work for common goals while also recognizing major differences which are stumbling blocks. 

Thus, I read Pope Leo’s letter to Dame Sarah in this context. Are you able to read between the lines?

Here it is:

MESSAGE OF POPE LEO XIV 
ON THE OCCASION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

[Multimedia]

_________________

To The Most Reverend and Right Honourable
Dame Sarah Mullally
Archbishop of Canterbury

 

“Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from
Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, in truth and love.” (2 Jn 1:3)

 

With this assurance of God’s abiding presence, I send prayerful greetings to Your Grace on the occasion of your Installation as Archbishop of Canterbury.

I know that the office for which you have been chosen is a weighty one, with responsibilities not only in the Diocese of Canterbury, but throughout the Church of England as well as the Anglican Communion as a whole. Moreover, you are commencing these duties at a challenging moment in the history of the Anglican family. In asking the Lord to strengthen you with the gift of wisdom, I pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit in serving your communities, and draw inspiration from the example of Mary, the Mother of God.

Sixty years ago, during their historic encounter in Rome, our predecessors of happy memory, Saint Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, committed Catholics and Anglicans to “a new stage in the development of fraternal relations, based upon Christian charity” (Joint Declaration, 24 March 1966).  That fresh chapter of respectful openness has borne much fruit over the past six decades and continues to this day.

On that same occasion, Pope Paul and Archbishop Ramsey also agreed to initiate a theological dialogue. Indeed, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has contributed enormously to a growth in mutual understanding since its creation. The rewards of this valuable work have set us free to witness together more effectively (cf. International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, Growing Together in Unity and Mission, 93).  This is especially vital given the manifold challenges facing our human family today. I am grateful, therefore, that this important dialogue continues.

At the same time, we also know that the ecumenical journey has not always been smooth.  Despite much progress, our immediate predecessors, Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby, acknowledged frankly that “new circumstances have presented new disagreements among us.”  Nevertheless, we have continued to walk together, because differences “cannot prevent us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ by reason of our common baptism” (Joint Declaration, 5 October 2016). For my part, I firmly believe that we need to continue to dialogue in truth and love, for it is only in truth and love that we come to know together the grace, mercy and peace of God (cf. 2 Jn 1:3), and thus can offer these precious gifts to the world.

What is more, the unity which Christians seek is never an end in itself, but is directed towards the proclamation of Christ, in order that, as the Lord Jesus himself prayed, “the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). In addressing the Primates of the Anglican Communion in 2024, Pope Francis declared that “it would be a scandal if, due to our divisions, we did not fulfil our common vocation to make Christ known” (Address to Primates of the Anglican Communion, 2 May 2024).  Dear sister, I willingly make these words my own, for it is through the witness of a reconciled, fraternal and united Christian community that the proclamation of the Gospel will resound most clearly (cf. Message for the 2026 World Mission Day, 2).

With these fraternal sentiments, I invoke upon you the blessings of Almighty God as you take up your high responsibilities. May the Holy Spirit come down upon you and make you fruitful in the Lord’s service.

 

From the Vatican, 20 March 2026
Memorial of Saint Cuthbert, Bishop

LEO PP. XIV

THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW “ARCHBISHOP” OF CANTERBURY…

 

It wasn’t their Holy Eucharist, simply a liturgy. The music, typical of most Anglican parishes, was absolutely splendid. 

There was Roman Catholic participation and I think the new Archbishop of Westminster participated and a couple of cardinals, one who isn’t a bishop. 

The liturgy had a lot of English pageantry, something in which they excel. 

Most Bugnini Mass goers would be delighted if this happened in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are thrilled it happens in the Anglican Communion, which has the look of Catholicism without Holy Orders or Apostolic Secession and most of all Bugnini Mass goers love the Anglican Communion’s ethos of “anything goes.!”

The King and Queen of England were not present. Prince William and Princess Kate were there instead.

Canterbury Cathedral is an absolutely splendid example of Gothic architecture. Its history is phenomenal. 

I was able to go there in the early 1980’s and in fact purchased a ceramic chalice in their gift shop which I did use at times in my Bugnini Mass celebrations. Then there was a warning about using these types of chalices as they contain lead and could poison the poor humble priest drinking from it as it would leach into the Wine. 

Of course, then the Vatican forbade chalices not made of Precious Metals. I was obedient to health and the Vatican!

But as progressive as the Anglican Communion is, they should repatriate this magnificent Cathedral back to its original owners, the Holy Roman Church. That would be a marvelous act of restitution! No? 

ON THE VERY DAY THAT A WOMAN IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, WHICH HAS INVALID AND UTTERLY VOID HOLY ORDERS, IS “ELEVATED” TO BE THE FIRST WOMAN “ARCHBISHOP” OF CANTERBURY, POPE LEO CORRECTS THEIR HERESY!

Pope Leo corrects heretical notions of Holy Orders on the very day day a woman is installed as the “Archbishop of Canterbury” by the Anglican Communion which does not have Apostolic Succession” or valid Holy Orders. 

His Holiness is also correcting and challenging the schism fomenting Archbishop, Cardinal Hollerich who can’t wait for female priests. Perhaps he should become Anglican?

His Holiness makes clear the hierarchical nature of the Church, thus making clear what Pope Francis had made incoherent and muddied. 

Pope Leo makes clear, infallibly so, that only men can be called to Holy Orders, that of bishop, priest and deacon.

Thank your Pope Leo!

GENERAL AUDIENCE

St Peter's Square
Wednesday, 25 March 2026

[Multimedia]

_________________

Catechesis. The Documents of Vatican Council II. II. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium. 5. On the foundation of the Apostles. The Church in her hierarchical dimension"

Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!

We will continue our catecheses on the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, commenting on the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium on the Church (LG). After presenting her as the People of God, today we will consider her hierarchical form.

The Catholic Church is founded on the Apostles, whom Christ appointed as the living pillars of His mystical Body, and possesses a hierarchical structure that works in the service of the unity, mission and sanctification of all her members. This sacred Order is permanently founded on the Apostles (cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), as authoritative witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Acts1:22; 1 Cor 15:7) and sent by the Lord Himself on mission into the world (cf. Mk 16:15; Mt 28:19). Since the Apostles are called to faithfully preserve the Master’s salvific teaching (cf. 2 Tim 1:13–14), they hand on their ministry to men who, until Christ’s return, continue to sanctify, guide and instruct the Church “through their successors in pastoral office” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 857).

This apostolic succession, founded on the Gospel and in the Tradition, is explored further in Chapter III of Lumen gentium, entitled “On the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular on the Episcopate”. The Council teaches that the hierarchical structure is not a human construct, functional to the internal organization of the Church as a social body (cf. LG, 8), but a divine institution whose purpose is to perpetuate the mission given by Christ to the Apostles until the end of time.

The fact that this theme is addressed in Chapter III, after the first two chapters have considered the very essence of the Church (cf. Acta Synodalia III/1, 209–210), does not imply that the hierarchical constitution is a subsequent element with respect to the People of God: as the Decree Ad gentes notes, “the Apostles were the first budding-forth of the New Israel, and at the same time the beginning of the sacred hierarchy” (no. 5), inasmuch as they were the community of those redeemed by Christ’s Paschal Mystery, established as a means of salvation for the world.

To understand the Council’s intention, it is advisable to read carefully the title of Chapter III of Lumen gentium, which explains the fundamental structure of the Church, received from God the Father through the Son and brought to fulfilment by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Council Fathers did not want to present the institutional elements of the Church, as the noun “constitution” might imply if understood in the modern sense. The Document concentrates instead on the “ministerial or hierarchical priesthood”, which differs “in essence and not only in degree” from the common priesthood of the faithful, recalling that the latter are “nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ” (LG, 10). The Council thus addresses the ministry conferred upon men endowed with sacra potestas, sacred power (cf. LG, 18) for service in the Church: it focuses in particular on the episcopate (LG, 18–27), then on the priesthood (LG, 28) and the diaconate (LG, 29) as degrees of the one sacrament of Holy Orders. (My comment: here Pope Leo makes sure to link all three aspects of Holy Orders to the one Sacrament to which only MEN are called.)

By the adjective “hierarchical”, therefore, the Council intends to indicate the sacred origin of the apostolic ministry in the action of Jesus, the Good Shepherd, as well as its internal relationships. The Bishops, first and foremost, and through them the priests and deacons, have received tasks (in Latin munera), which lead them to the service of “all those who belong to the People of God”, so that, “working toward a common goal freely and in an orderly way, [they] may arrive at salvation” (LG, 18).

Lumen gentium repeatedly and effectively recalls the collegial and communal nature of this apostolic mission, reaffirming that the “duty which the Lord committed to the shepherds of His people is a true service, which in sacred literature is significantly called ‘diakonia’ or ministry” (LG, 24). We can therefore understand why Saint Paul VI presented the hierarchy as a reality “born of the charity of Christ, to fulfil, spread and ensure the intact and fruitful transmission of the wealth of faith, examples, precepts and charisms bequeathed by Christ to His Church” (Address, 14 September 1964, in Acta Synodalia III/1, 147).

Dear sisters and dear brothers, let us pray to the Lord that He may send to His Church ministers who are ardent with evangelical charity, dedicated to the good of all the baptized, and courageous missionaries in every part of the world.

BOMBSHELL GOOD NEWS: POPE LEO’S WAY OF CORRECTING THE HORRIBLY FLAWED AND PASTORALLY INSENSITIVE TRADITIONIS CUSTODIS—THANK YOUR HOLY FATHER AND GOD BLESS YOU…

 BOMBSHELL! 💣 

In addition to Pope Leo’s bombshell pastoral solution, you can read a great interview with Cardinal Eijk who recently celebrated His Eminence’s first Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Ancient Ordo! More bishops need to learn this and experience what His Eminence describes. 

You can read the interview HERE!

UPDATE: Vatican News report:

Liturgy and the Tridentine Mass

Finally, the Pope addressed an issue to which he is “particularly attentive”: the growing number of communities attached to the Vetus Ordo (the celebration of the Mass in Latin according to the liturgy in use before the Second Vatican Council).

In this regard, Pope Leo XIV expressed concern that this situation could open “a painful wound within the Church regarding the celebration of the Mass,” which he described as “the very sacrament of unity.”

If the Church is a mother who cares for her children, he said, she must heal wounds and learn to look upon others “with renewed understanding and greater sensitivity."

He therefore invites the Bishops, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to seek “concrete solutions” that will generously include those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo, while remaining faithful to the directions of the Second Vatican Council.

A COMMUNIQUE FROM THE POPE TO FRENCH BISHOPS: BASICALLY WHAT POPE LEO IS SAYING IS WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING FOREVERRR…IT’S NOT EITHER/OR BUT BOTH/AND. I AM CONVINCED THAT POPE LEO READS MY BLOG, OR MAYBE NOT:

BYW, THIS IS WHAT “PASTORAL” LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF PAPAL MINISTRY: 

Finally, dear brothers, you intend to address the delicate theme of the Liturgy, to which the Holy Father is particularly attentive, in the context of the growth of communities attached to the Vetus Ordo. It is troubling that a painful wound continues to open in the Church concerning the celebration of the Mass, the very sacrament of unity. To heal it, a fresh regard from each person toward the other, with a greater understanding of the other's sensibility, is surely needed — a regard that could allow brothers enriched by their diversity to welcome one another mutually, in charity and in the unity of faith. May the Holy Spirit suggest to you concrete solutions that would generously include those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo, while respecting the orientations set forth by the Second Vatican Council regarding the Liturgy.

I DISLIKE IT! I LIKE IT! A RENOVATION RE-ENCHANTMENT RUN AMUCK AND A RENOVATION REENCHANTMENT DONE THE RIGHT WAY AND BOTH BY ECCLESIASTIC STUDIOS AND SONS….

 The first “before” and “after” runs off the rails. While the after is better, it is way too much! Did I write, it is way too much! And on top of that, the baldachin contains a true altar with the tabernacle under it and then in front of that another altar. Two altars back to back when the before only had one! Why, oh why!?

It is inconceivable to me that bishops in some dioceses have no policies about having only one main altar when building new churches or having major renovations of older churches. 

Thus, I dislike this first “before and after” although the after is better than the before, to say the least, but overdone and of course those back to back altars which are not in the “before”. 

BEORE (UGH):

AFTER (UGH):

With this second renovation, I like it, but not completely. This is clearly a 1980’s structure that has seating on three sides of the altar. I get it; but I don’t think this configuration creates a better sense of community compared to straight seating that is more common in pre-Vatican II churches. In fact, it causes more distractions for everyone. But, alas.

The “before” isn’t that bad, but the after is much better. The altar railing is placed in the proper position, on the nave level, thus not becoming a visual barrier to the altar or obscuring it. They maintain only one main altar with a splendid, I mean, splendid reredos for the tabernacle and six candlesticks. This part is beautifully done! My only critique is the ceiling. It is overdone and should have been more muted. I find it distracting to the rest of the renovation, but alas!

BEFORE (NOT BAD):

AFTER (VERY BEAUTIFUL, VAST IMPROVEMENT):

WHAT TO DO! WHAT TO DO! WHAT TO DO? PART TWO!!!

Okay, let’s get real and let’s be honest. The majority of Catholics who still practice their faith, between 2% to 30% of the Catholic population in various regions of the USA attend the Bugnini Mass. 

Many of these active Catholics, not all, experience very beautiful celebrations of the Bugnini Mass even while experiencing the active/actual participation of the laity in the various ministries of the Mass, from male and female participation as servers, lectors, communion ministers, ushers, cantors, choir members and sacristans. 

In many parishes that celebrate the Bugnini Mass exclusively, the orthodox doctrines of the Mass are upheld in the teachings of the Mass as both Sacrifice and Banquet and the Real Presence of the Crucified and Risen Lord in the Consecrated Bread and Wine, transubstantiation.

The Bugnini Mass has also made good Catholics, who express their faith and morals in positive ways and in good works, especially the concern for the poor, the environment and the unborn and born. 

But taking a critical eye, we know that forgoing ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and receiving Holy Communion in the hand reduces the clergy and laity’s embrace of the Mass as sacrifice and lessens the orthodox embrace of Transubstantiation. 

As far as the Ancient Order and expression of the Roman Mass, there is more orthodoxy concerning not only the Mass but Catholic life and living a sacramental life. A greater majority of regular participants in the TLM are orthodox except when they become heterodox by rejecting certain aspects of Vatican II which are a part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Thus, TLM participants are prone to heterodoxy by becoming elitists and gnostics, by rejecting parts of or entirely Vatican II. This type of heterodoxy can lead to schism. We see this in those who attend the TLM having no problem with attending also the FSSPX even though they are in a canonically irregular situation and may well become schismatic when new bishops are ordained. 

I still say that the pope should deal with the flaws in the Bugnini Mass, especially how it is celebrated by various bishops and priests and how the laity act during these celebrations. Music is all over the place and a disaster in many parishes. Even if no changes are made to the current Bugnini Missal, making explicit that the Bugnini Mass may be celebrated ad orientem and by receiving Holy Communion kneeling at a kneeler or altar railing would be a great reform and have a beneficial impact on the orthodoxy of Bugnini congregations. 

Returning to Summorum Pontificum even with the use of the 1962 Roman Missal and/or the 1964 Roman Missal, is the way to go. Some say that having various missals for the one Roman Rite, and keep in mind that the Ordinariate’s missal is also another missal of the one Roman Rite, creates division in the Church.

I say, along with Pope Leo, that diversity in unity is possible and in fact is defacto already in exclusively Bugnini parishes where there is a multiplicity of languages from different language Bugnini Missals. 

Many Bugnini parishes are divided by language and seldom if never come together due to the division that various languages bring to parish communities. Some parishes have not only English Masses, but also, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese and Vietnamese and more and in the same parish!

Allow the 1962 Missal and celebrate diversity in unity, orthodox diversity, orthodox unity, though!

WHAT TO DO!? WHAT TO DO!? WHAT TO DO!? OH! WHAT ARE WE TO DO!? WELL, I’M GOING TO TELL YOU!

There are all kinds of ideas about the future of the Mass, both the ancient and modern. It’s all so very confusing.

And finally we have a good Abbot in France writing the pope about forming a new Missal with two ways of celebrating it. But many people don’t like his ideas, although they merit consideration and his recommendation to Pope Leo is more likely to garner widespread support, with only modern and ancient liturgical nerds complaining.

But here’s my definitive recommendation to Pope Leo:

The modern/Bugnini Missal is a disaster, not so much the Missal, as the manner in which it is celebrated, to include all the Kitschy music dragged into it and all the instrumentation and all the Broadway melodies set to sacred words. 

A thorough revision of the Bugnini Mass needs to take place, which eliminates the clericalism of options that the priest makes exclusively, depending on his ideologies or how he’s feeling that day.  The Ordinariat’s Missal with its limited options, is the way to go and how they were allowed to modify the Roman Calendar. 

The Bugnini Mass’s Introductory Rite is a disaster! Take away all the options except for the Confiteor and Kyrie following. Mandate the use of the Propers, chanted or spoken. Mandate no improvising annd the celebrants verbosity! Address the disaster of liturgy music, and priests ad libbing and acting like an MC imposing his happy, clappy personality on the Mass. 

Make sure the Liturgy of the Eucharist is ad orientem and Kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving on the tongue is the norm!

As far as the Ancient Mass goes, go back to Summorum Pontificum but emphasize the role of the bishop in supervising its use, so that it isn’t foisted upon any parish where it isn’t welcomed. Allow pastors of parishes to determine its use in his parish, not any other priest, assigned or visiting. 

And this is my bombshell promulgation, the Roman Missal that is to be used for the Ancient Latin Mass, is the Roman Missal revised after Vatican II as Vatican II actually requested,  the 1964/65 Missal not the 1962 Roman Missal. 

WHY ARE THE CRUCIFIX AND OTHER SACRED IMAGES COVERED DURING PASSIONTIDE, THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF LENT?

 Only those who go to the Ancient Latin Mass with its exquisite lectionary know why. Bugnini Mass goers are mystified by the covering of statues. 

Bugnini Mass goers, in fact, may not see their statues and crucifix covered at all or in some Bugnini Mass parishes, these are covered beginning Ash Wednesday, as church decorators heard about the custom but are clueless as to the reasons why and when these should be covered!

But Ancient Latin Mass goers, hearing each year on the First Sunday of Passiontide (no longer called this in the Bugnini Mass) hear the same Gospel over and over each 1st Passion Sunday.

Are you smart enough, after reading the Gospel, to figure out why the crucifix and statues are covered during Passiontide and are you even smart enough to know what Passiontide is?

The Bugnini Missal says that images “may” be covered beginning the Sunday before Palm Sunday, but doesn’t say why and the Gospel of the modern lectionary gives no reason why either!

But even in the Bugnini Mass, beginning Monday of the 5th week of Lent, the preface changes from the Lenten Preface to the First Passion Preface—an homage to the Passiontide, but no reason for it in the Bugnini Mass!

Here are the readings from the ancient lectionary for 1st Passion Sunday. Can you figure out from reading the Gospel as to why the crucifix and statues are covered?

THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES PROPOSES TO POPE LEO THAT HE PROMULGATE ONE NEW ROMAN MISSAL WITH TWO FORMS—SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDING FOREVERRRR!!!!!

UPDATE! UPDATE! UPDATE! THIS SATURDAY MORNING POPE LEO MET WITH CARDINAL ROCHE, PREFECT FOR THE DICASTERY OF DIVINE WORSHIP! WHAT DOES IT MEAN? WHAT DOES IT MEAN? OH! WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!THE POPE ALSO MET WITH THE PREFECT FOR THE DICASTERY OF BISHOPS TOO!

This is the way to go and it is of commonsense! And it fulfills Vatican II and Pope Benedict’s expressed desire that one new Roman Missal flow from the usage of both the old and the new! 

What Dom Kemlin does not address is the elephant in the room afflicting the Bugnini Mass. Bishops are forbidding its celebration ad orientem and kneeling at a kneeler or altar railing. While those attached to the Ancient Missal would have to compromise on some things, so too, should those attached to the Bugnini Missal—for them the norm of kneeling for Holy Communion should be made the norm with standing as an option and ad orientem could be accomplished by the traditional altar set-up even when facing the congregation or truly ad orientem. The return to older altars should be made explicit.

As well, the current Roman Calendar needs some adjustments as the Ordinariate’s Calendar already has, such as ember days, the season of Septuagesima and Passiontide. In this context even the modern lectionary needs some tweaking to accommodate Passion Sunday, within the context of Passiontide, as well as Septuagesima!

With these codicils, I endorse this 100%!!!!!

This is copied by way of Google Translation from InfoCatolic; 

DOM KEMLIN CALLS FOR EVERY SENSIBILITY TO "TAKE A STEP TOWARD THE OTHER"

One Single Missal, Two Ordinaries: The Formula the Abbot of Solesmes Proposes to the Pope for Liturgical Peace

The Abbot of Solesmes has written to Pope Leo XIV to propose an unprecedented solution to the liturgical war: inserting the old Ordinary of the Mass into the current Roman Missal, so that both forms may coexist within a single book.

(RFC/InfoCatólica) The Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, has sent a letter to Pope Leo XIV in which he proposes integrating the old *Ordo Missae* into the current Roman Missal as a means to put an end to the liturgical divisions that have afflicted the Church since the Second Vatican Council.

The initiative—born following a personal meeting with the Pontiff in Rome—seeks to allow both forms of the Latin Rite to coexist within a single missal, thereby avoiding the continued existence of separate liturgical books which, in the Abbot's view, fuels the rift among the faithful.

A Meeting in Rome as the Catalyst

The letter, dated November 12, 2025, was written just days after Dom Kemlin concelebrated with Pope Leo XIV at the Abbey of Sant'Anselmo—the Benedictine headquarters in Rome—on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the dedication of its church. Upon being introduced as the Abbot of Solesmes, the Pontiff exclaimed, "Ah! Solesmes!"—indicating his familiarity with the abbey. That gesture encouraged the monk to address the Pope with a reflection that, in his own words, he had "carried in his heart for a long time." Dom Kemlin presides over the Benedictine Congregation of Solesmes, which encompasses monasteries that celebrate according to both forms of the Roman Rite: Fontgombault Abbey and its foundations maintain the old missal, while Solesmes adopted the post-conciliar reform, retaining Latin and Gregorian chant. "I have experienced this issue in a very personal, very intimate way," the abbot confessed in an interview with RCF. "When I see divisions over this subject, I suffer. The liturgy is intended to foster unity within the Church, not to divide us."

The Proposal: A Single Missal with Two Ordinaries

The solution proposed by Dom Kemlin consists of incorporating the *Vetus Ordo* (the Ordinary of the Mass predating the Second Vatican Council) into the current *Missale Romanum*, while leaving the *Novus Ordo* of Paul VI intact. In this way, both Ordinaries would form part of a single Roman Missal, featuring a unified liturgical calendar. A priest could then opt to use elements from the old rite—such as the prayers at the foot of the altar or the traditional Offertory—without stepping outside the framework of the current missal.

The abbot emphasizes that this proposal is "inclusive" and would require concessions from both sides. The old rite, too, would be enriched: it would be opened up to the use of the vernacular for those who desire it, to concelebration, to the new Eucharistic Prayers, and—above all—to the post-conciliar lectionary, which is "much richer than the old one," thereby providing "a genuine biblical enrichment for the faithful."

Dom Kemlin expressly rules out the approach of merely tweaking Paul VI’s missal to bring it closer to the old one, arguing that such a move "would displease everyone" and run the risk of ending up "not with two missals, but with three." Spiritual Roots, Not Ideological Ones

One of the central points of the letter is the recognition that the majority of the faithful attached to the ancient rite do not act out of ideological motivations, but rather because they "experience within it a strong and authentic spiritual experience that they are unable to find in the new missal." The Abbot invites us to interpret this fact "as a sign of the Spirit" and to approach it "with clear-sightedness."

Dom Kemlin goes further, asserting that the two ordinaries "present notable differences in liturgical 'unction'—in the ways of entering into prayer—and underpin different anthropologies." This observation, far from weakening his proposal, actually grounds it: precisely because the divergence is profound, merely tweaking one of the rites is insufficient; rather, it is necessary to embrace both within a common framework.

Between the Heritage of Solesmes and the Legacy of Benedict XVI

The Abbot frames his initiative within the tradition of Dom Guéranger—the restorer of Benedictine life at Solesmes in the 19th century and the architect behind the return of French dioceses to the Roman Rite. "Following in his footsteps, I have written to the Holy Father," he explains.

Regarding Benedict XVI’s *motu proprio Summorum Pontificum* (2007), Dom Kemlin points out an essential difference: that document permitted the use of the old missal alongside the new one—an approach that "did not diminish the differences." His proposal, conversely, would integrate both *ordinaries* into a single liturgical book. Furthermore, regarding *Traditionis custodes*—promulgated by Pope Francis in 2021 to restrict the use of the earlier rite—the Abbot maintains that his initiative does not contradict it, given that Francis sought precisely to put an end to divisions.

A Monastic Model Exportable to the Entire Church?

Dom Kemlin acknowledges that peaceful coexistence is already a reality within his own congregation: when the Abbots of Fontgombault or Triors visit Solesmes, they celebrate according to the conciliar missal; he, in turn, does the same—using the old rite—when visiting those monasteries. "This unity already exists in *germine* within our congregation. We must share this grace so that it may become a grace for the entire Church," he affirms.

Nevertheless, some observers point out that the letter itself admits to "anthropological" differences between the two forms. This raises the question of whether a unity founded upon the coexistence of two *ordinaries*—each resting on distinct underlying premises—can truly be stable, or whether it might instead serve to make even more visible the very fracture it seeks to heal.

The letter concludes on a note of humility: the Abbot asks for forgiveness for the "boldness" of his initiative and reaffirms Solesmes’ fidelity to the Holy Father. "The aim is not to impose a solution, but rather to propose a path for reflection in order to contribute to healing the liturgical divisions that wound our Mother, the Holy Church."

Letter

PAX ABBEY OF SAINT PETER OF SOLESMES

November 12, 2025

Most Holy Father,

In my capacity as Abbot of Solesmes and President of the Benedictine Congregation of Solesmes, I take the liberty of writing to You to respectfully share some reflections, with the aim of bringing an end to the liturgical strife that is troubling the faithful in France—but also in the United States, England, Germany, and elsewhere.

Dom Guéranger, the restorer of Solesmes in the 19th century, was one of the principal architects of the return of the dioceses of France to the Roman liturgy. Through his work of restoring monastic life—but also through his various writings—he gave rise, in a sense, to the Liturgical Movement, which led to the Constitution *Sacrosanctum Concilium* of the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical reform that followed it. This reform was, therefore, received with gratitude at Solesmes. It was put into practice there without hesitation, yet with the care to remain rooted in tradition—particularly by preserving the use of Latin and Gregorian chant.

Other monasteries within our Congregation—specifically the Abbey of Fontgombault and its subsequent foundations—chose to resume the use of the old Missal, with certain adaptations. This difference in orientation was, initially, a source of tension within our Congregation. However, little by little, we have learned to respect—and even to appreciate—the diverse choices made by one another.

With the aim of getting to know one another better and fostering mutual understanding, we have established a "Commission for Liturgical Unity" within the Congregation, which meets every two months. We have decided to expand our upcoming meeting by inviting representatives of the Augustinian tradition. […]

Most Holy Father, it is often said that those attached to the old rite instrumentalize the Mass, using it as a banner of identity. If, indeed, such behaviors exist, they are far from being the norm. As a fervent advocate of the Rite of Paul VI, I can only attest that the majority of those attached to the old rite are so because they experience within it a strong and authentic spiritual life—one they are unable to find in the new missal. I believe the time has come—if we are to work toward a true return to unity—to acknowledge this with clear-sightedness and to interpret it as a sign of the Spirit. It is, I believe, solely within the *Ordo Missae* of the Missal of Paul VI that those attached to the old rite fail to recognize themselves.

It is, in fact, indisputable that the two *Ordines* (that of Saint Paul VI and that of Saint Pius V) exhibit notable differences regarding liturgical "unction" and the modes of entering into prayer; moreover, they embody distinct anthropologies. For this reason, I do not believe we will succeed in persuading those attached to the *Vetus* to freely embrace the *Novus Ordo*. Consequently, "tweaking" the Missal of Paul VI in one way or another strikes me as inevitable if we are to regain the path toward unity.

One solution, advocated by some, would consist of tweaking the *Ordo Missae* of the Paul VI Missal to make it more similar to the old *Ordo Missae*. I do not believe that is a good solution. In fact, it would displease everyone and would do nothing but create new divisions, with the risk of ending up with not two, but three missals.

For this reason, I would respectfully like to suggest another solution which, in my opinion, could achieve the liturgical peace we so deeply desire.

It would consist simply of inserting the old *Ordo Missae* into the *Missale Romanum*—tweaked, where appropriate, only minimally to bring it into conformity with the Second Vatican Council (specifically by opening it, for those who so desire, to the use of the vernacular, to concelebration, and to the four Eucharistic Prayers)—while simultaneously leaving the new *Ordo Missae* unchanged. The two *Ordos Missae* would thus form part of the single *Missale Romanum*. Rather than dividing and rejecting, this solution would allow for the inclusion and welcoming of those faithful attached to the old Missal, without thereby offending or alienating those attached to the new *Ordo*.

This would make it possible to restore liturgical unity, as the entire Latin Church would utilize a single *Missale Romanum*, with a single calendar. I am convinced that the faithful attached to the *Vetus Ordo* would be satisfied with such a solution and would benefit from all the indisputable contributions of the liturgical reform (new prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers, revised prayers, the Sanctoral Cycle, the cycle of readings, etc.); likewise, the faithful attached to the liturgical reform would see no changes affecting them.

I beg your forgiveness for the boldness of writing to you in this manner to offer these suggestions. The Abbey of Solesmes has always been at the service of the Holy See and of the Pope. Since the time of Dom Guéranger, it has consistently been committed to the service of the liturgy and of the unity of the Church. I would simply like to reiterate our readiness to contribute to healing the liturgical divisions that wound our Mother, the Holy Church.

Entrusting this suggestion to your hands, I assure you, Most Holy Father, of my complete dedication and my daily prayer—as well as that of the entire Congregation of Solesmes—for your ministry in the service of the universal Church.

Fr. Geoffroy Kemlin