Another look back on the Archdiocese of Toronto's gay mafia

Time to troll the Arch, again. They would rather my fellow Toronto Catholics knew nothing about this. There is a link to the original on the left. 

How many of these priests are still "active?" Well, any priest in Canada, in his late 60's and on, who attended St. Augustine's Seminary from at least 1970 knows what happened and that this is all true. 

Still today, they try to intimidate into silence. They threaten in many ways. One day, I will write the story of what they have tried to do, only to fail, numerous times.

"They are lying to us, they know they are lying to us, we know that they know they are lying to us, they know that we know that they are lying to us, and still, they lie." Paraphrased from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. 

Friday, 30 August 2024

A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"

 

This post has been in the works for quite a while. I have mulled over it, slowly editing, transcribing, and cleaning up what I have found for publication from an old microfiche file. The events blogged about earlier this week (the sexual assault lawsuit against Thomas Rosica and the victim's gall, through his solicitor, to seek this writer as a witness) have caused me to consider it again. Therefore, I have decided to publish what follows. 

The purpose of this publication is to document an occurrence forty years ago and provide a historical record of certain activities at St. Augustine's Seminary in the Archdiocese of Toronto and the corruption of the times, the power and influence from the 1980s, which are still being felt today. One of the priests featured below is retired, yet, as recently as a few months ago, remained on the Archdiocesan Priests Council. This is not an accusation of anything untoward on the part of the new Archbishop, now Cardinal Francis Leo, Indeed, this history may likely be news even to him and if this provides any service to him, to know the history and the rot and expose those who have worked against the faith, then that alone is worth its publication. The Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto have a right to be aware of things that happened forty years ago that have long been forgotten or covered up and still affect the Church today. Many think that we have had no crisis of sexual perversion or abuse. This is not true. What we have is enough money to buy off the victims and force them into signing non-disclosure agreements.

Let me raise some points of fact about the hushed-up scandals that happened here in the Archdiocese of Toronto:

• A certain highly placed cleric, a Monsignor, in the chancery, fathered at least two children whilst in his high clerical office of Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs and Vicar General. What became of the mother? He went on to become a successful financial executive and passed away in 2022.
• A priest professor at St. Augustine's Seminary raped and sodomized a young seminarian so badly that he was taken away by ambulance to repair the anal rupture. Years before, the Cardinal at the time, Aloysius Ambrozic, was told to get rid of him, to which he responded. "I have nobody else to teach liturgy." That injured seminarian was later ordained in the United States, where he remains in a religious order. He was ordained by a Toronto Auxiliary Bishop in Washington. Odd, no? Police were not called. Charges were not laid. The crime was never reported. It was covered up. The perpetrator is now dead and judged.
• That same priest professor in a former post as a religious order prior was a pastor in a Mississauga (west of Toronto) parish and could very well be responsible for at least two other priests he may have "groomed." One of these is an openly homosexual man who left the priesthood, played the piano as a lounge singer, married a woman, divorced her and now lives in a same-sex relationship with another man. The other, whose theology and priestly formation skills were warped by the 1960s and the radical and false "spirit of Vatican II",  was, in 1976, Toronto's own James Martin of his day. He rose to rank as Rector of St. Augustine's and later Judicial Vicar. You will read about him below. Both of these men were formed as youth or young priests under the same Friar in Mississauga.
• A certain "hunk" of a Monsignor with the same Irish surname as a then Toronto Police Chief was frequently brought home to the Rosedale mansion of Cardinal Carter, "daddy," drunk and in drag from the gay district on Church Street.
• Another priest professor at the seminary was known to fondle young men and worse, and was found coming out of the St. Charles Tavern on Toronto's Yonge Street and bragging about it in secular media.
• Several deaths of priests and professors from AIDS.
• The former Dean of Studies planned a "gay" retirement home.
• FORMER DEAN OF STUDIES AT TORONTO SEMINARY BUILDING RETIREMENT HOME FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS - LifeSite
• Toronto Builder Constructs First Gay and Lesbian Condos - LifeSite

In the photo of a book page above, the late Anne Roche Muggeridge refers to a document called "A Dialogue of Trust." It was written by the then Rector referred to above, who was fired for it, sent away to the Catholic University of America in Washington to study and then returned to the Archdiocese of Toronto and served at a senior level in the chancery structure as the Judicial Vicar. All true. He kept the keys to the vault on matters such as lawsuits, assaults and abuse. As referred to earlier, as of a few months ago, he still remained on the priests' council. As a point of personal reference, I actually attended his first Mass at St. Domenic's in Mississauga. My father was the family barber. 

These crimes and abuses happened in the age before the internet and search engines. The money of the Archdiocese silenced those whom it had to and forced non-disclosure agreements upon them. Stories abound about car accidents and bicycle accident deaths, one in particular of a prominent priest, but none can be proven. All of the information above has been given to me by priests of the Archdiocese of Toronto. They know. Some know more than others. All has been covered up, and all the names are known. As for the letter referred to by Anne Roche Muggeridge, nobody had a copy of "A Dialogue of Trust."  It disappeared into history, it was never written, it didn't exist, nobody had it, and it was not published and could not be found. Until now.

The Body Politic was a "gay" newspaper published monthly and founded in 1971, until it ceased publication in 1987. It was located on Yonge Street not far from that same St. Charles Tavern where the academic priest abuser hung out. After intensive searching, "A Dialogue of Trust" was found. It had been published in The Body Politic as part of a larger article on the attempt by Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter to "hide his gay purge" of St. Augustine's Seminary. It makes one ask, if not for the intrepid reporters at The Globe and Mail back then, certainly not on the side of the Church or Seminary, what would have happened? Would we have ever known? If all of those events above occurred under the administration of Cardinals Carter and Ambrozic how much worse would it have been without the reporting. It seems that after Cardinal Carter's "purge," only two seminarians were left. What of the others? How many went on after 1983 to be ordained, and were men who had or may have continued to act out their same-sex desires and attractions ordained,d and what has it meant for the Church in Toronto? How many of their mentors are still around to influence the Church in Toronto? Again, I repeat, part of the purpose of this post is as a public service to Archbishop Leo. 

What follows was transcribed from a microfiche copy by the writer. Bear in mind that it was written for an audience sympathetic to the cause.

TORONTO'S ARCHBISHOP TRIES TO HIDE HIS  GAY PURGE, BUT THE STORY GETS OUT

Cardinal slams the closet door

Tensions over the apparent presence of gay students in a seminary in Metropolitan Toronto have escalated, with the help of Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, into an anti-homosexual witch-hunt which has led to the dismissal of three faculty members and the expulsion of two students. 

Some details of the purge at St Augustine's Seminary in Scarborough, the preeminent school for the training of Roman Catholic priests in English-speaking Canada, were made public in two reports published by The Globe and Mail on September 7 and 8. The stories said that the Rev Brian Clough, St Augustine's rector, and the Rev Thomas Dailey, dean of studies, had been dismissed the first week of June and that the Rev John Tulk, a professor of church history, had been fired early in September. 

Globe reporters Stanley Oziewicz and Peter Moon uncovered the following facts: 

• Carter, the archbishop of Toronto, ordered the dismissals after an investigation of the seminary conducted at his request by the Most Rev Marcel Gervais, auxiliary bishop of London, Ontario; 

• Carter asked Gervais to investigate after coming into possession of a document about "tensions" between gay and straight seminarians that was distributed to St Augustine's sisters, students and faculty by Clough; 

• The tensions had arisen from allegations of homosexual behaviour at a party held in Tulk's rooms at the seminary. 

Beyond these few facts, little has been revealed about the origins of the dispute. Although he had reported the June dismissals when they occurred, Oziewicz first learned some of the details several weeks later from an anonymous letter. In their September stories, Oziewicz and Moon wrote: "Sources, including members of the faculty and student body at the seminary, members of religious orders and laymen, agreed to talk for this article provided they were not identified. Many feared for their future careers if their names were used...." TBP's own investigation has encountered similar fears. Most of those interviewed said they feared retaliation by Cardinal Carter. A priest told TBP: "The diocese is actively trying to find out who gave that information to The Globe and Mail." A member of a religious order commented: "He (Carter) doesn't show any sensitivity toward people, so they're afraid to speak out." When told TOP had been able to learn much of the story and would publish it, the member added, "It will do a lot of good because it shows how they really operate." 

In addition to those quoted, TBP's account of the tensions leading to the dismissals and expulsions has been gathered from a well-placed source who wishes to remain anonymous, and from documents which have come into our possession. Brian Clough could not be reached for comment. A copy of this article was sent to Margaret Long, Assistant to the Director of Communications of the Archdiocese of Toronto, for comment, but she did not return any of TBP's calls.

Cardinal Carter: a secret operation against creeping Protestantism and homosexuality

The presence of suspected gay students in the seminary apparently first became an issue during the 1982/83 seminary year when some first-year students complained about the campy behaviour of some other students. The issue was taken up by an informal group of about a dozen conservative seminarians who were united by their dissatisfaction with the faculty's generally liberal interpretation of Catholic theology. They came to be known as "the machos." Defenders of those accused were dubbed "the effeminates," the group to which the two students who were expelled belonged. Most students belonged to neither. (According to Oziewicz and Moon, Gervais found that between six and 12 of the approximately 50 students were "homosexually oriented." Our source suggests that even Gervais's upper figure may be much too low.) 

Gossip and paranoia flourished. Dennis Hayes, a seminarian who says he belonged to neither group, explained: "When you group a number of people you have a fishbowl type of effect; when people start talking, these things spread.. an innocent comment can turn into a vicious attack." 

In March 1983 several students were criticized in their written year-end evaluation by faculty for their "feminine mannerisms." 

A month later, the authors of an annual letter from students to faculty complained that the faculty was tolerating a "vigilante group" that was harassing suspected gay students. The letter also said that criticism of some students for their mannerisms had exacerbated the situation.

By September it appeared that the letter had had some effect: at the week-long retreat which starts the school year, most of the faculty who spoke of the matter called for tolerance of differences in the seminary. 

But the complaints continued. Charles Lewis, a former RCMP employee said to be in the "macho group" — an allegation which he did not deny — told TBP he himself had lodged a complaint about sexual activity in the seminary: "guys doing things they shouldn't be doing." But he admitted he hadn't witnessed such activity himself. On the other side, rumours flew that "the machos" were searching

Toronto's gay bars for seminarians.

TBP has found no evidence to support this allegation. 

Tensions between the two factions became so acute that, in the late fall, Clough held separate meetings with members of the two groups and with unaligned students in an attempt to cool the dispute.

But after a party held in Tulk's rooms following a joint religious service with Anglican seminarians on January 26 of this year, events started to spiral out of control. Although Gervais later was to find that nothing amiss had occurred at the party, rumours circulated of drunkenness and homosexual activity. 

In a speech delivered to St Augustine's seminarians at a special house meeting six days later, Clough criticized "the rumour mill" and appealed for an end to gossip about the party. On February 8 he met again with members of the factions and other students, this time in a joint meeting. 

Then, on March 19, a three-page letter, "A Dialogue in Trust," apparently written by someone who had been at the February meeting, was distributed on Clough's authority to the seminary's students, faculty and sisters. 

Compassion and the Cardinal 

The Archbishop of Toronto knows how to pick friends, and if you're not one of them. . . . 

"CARDINAL CARTER AIDS DAVIS: No Solidarnosc for T.T.C. Workers" — that was the heading on a leaflet twitting Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, archbishop of Toronto, for backing strikes in Poland while opposing a threatened transit strike at home that would have cut into attendance at, and profits from, the recent papal tour. 

Carter, a close friend of John Paul II, was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council, which reformed the Catholic Church. Yet, his critics say, Carter is more zealous for the letter of the reforms than for their spirit. Last year, when the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops issued an economic report that blamed the profit motive for widespread poverty and unemployment, Carter disavowed the document, siding with the outraged bankers and industrialists. And early this year he authored a pastoral letter which condemned attempts to elaborate a Catholic theology that would allow birth control, abortion and the ordination of women.

Carter's record on gay issues is not completely black. He once wrote a report on police/minority relations which devoted a few lines of criticism to homophobic verbal abuse. But he has also barred the local chapter of Dignity, the gay Catholic organization, from the use of a church for their meetings and has told homophobic jokes to an audience of police officers. The fear and silence surrounding the purge at St Augustine's Seminary point not just to the man's power, but to the way he exercises it. "Insensitive" is the word which most often comes to the lips of his critics. But Carter may have inadvertently illuminated the issue when he dismissed Thomas Dailey. According to the press reports, he told the priest, "You are much too compassionate." Perhaps it is not others, who are too compassionate, but the Cardinal who is not compassionate enough. Although unsigned, the names of Clough and three students appeared at the bottom of the letter. A notable feature of this letter is its twice-stated concern that news of the tensions within the seminary might get beyond its walls. The fearful reference to "having 'outsiders' resolve those issues for us" appears to have been an allusion to Cardinal Carter.

"A Dialogue in Trust" proved to be the means of betrayal: within a few days, a copy had been conveyed to Carter. And by the second week of April, Gervais had begun his investigation into theological and sexual deviation at St Augustine's.

In the purge of St Augustine's, a harmonious constellation of authoritarianism, sectarianism and homophobia can be seen at work. Since the Second Vatican Council, part of the Catholic clergy and laity have been moving away from both the church's traditional insistence on authority as the source of truth and the concomitant paranoia about Protestant theologies. The council suggested that truth is not absolute, that a changing world can pose new questions and demand new answers.

St Augustine's Seminary has been influenced by this new current in Catholicism and has exposed its students to the interaction of social activism and feminism with traditional teachings. As one of the eight theological colleges that jointly make up the Toronto School of Theology, an ecumenical project, the seminary has encouraged an open-minded comparison of Protestant and Catholic beliefs.

But as the new Catholicism has developed, so has the conviction among some Catholics that the revolt against authority and the flirtation with Protestantism — often the same thing to their eyes — have gone too far. It is common knowledge in the Diocese of Toronto that Cardinal Carter and other conservatives are less than fond of St Augustine's, where the now thin trickle of future priests — the seminary's approximately 50 students rattle about in a building that could hold 200 — are thought to be in danger of contamination by rebellion and creeping Protestantism. Once Carter had indisputable evidence that the place of homosexuals in the priesthood was, however informally and tentatively, being explored at the seminary, he struck.

The purge was carried out in a secrecy induced by fear: everyone who knew, even the victims, was too intimidated to speak out. To this day, Carter refuses to say why the firings occurred. Gervais's report remains a secret.

According to the Globe, although Clough, Tulk and the tenured Dailey were instructors at the Toronto School of Theology, the Cardinal ordered them to resign without any explanation to the school. Carter told TST officials that any protest from them over his neglect of due process could result in the withdrawal of St Augustine's from the joint project.

Some of the homophobia was blatant. Gervais is reported to have asked students about homosexual activity, but not about heterosexual activity. And he told faculty they should not admit gay students to the seminary. When the teachers protested that there is nothing in the rules about the sexual orientation of priests, he backed off slightly but still insisted that a gay seminarian would have to have been chaste for five years before admission. Apparently, he made no such stipulation for heterosexual applicants.

But to speak of discrimination is merely to scratch the surface; the homophobia here is deeper and subtler than that.

A trust betrayed The confidential dialogue that didn’t stay confidential

What follows is the complete, unedited text of ' 'A Dialogue in Trust, ' ' the letter circulated by St . Augustine's Seminary Rector Brian Clough to students and faculty on March 19, of this year. (1983)

The following are reflections on discussions that occurred during the past year in regard to issues and tensions that were present in the house. These discussions were alluded to in Fr. Clough's address to the house in February. Initially, Fr. Clough met with three distinct groups composed of second, third, and fourth-year students. These groups represented different viewpoints on tensions that were growing within the first few months of the seminary year. The three distinct meetings allowed students to articulate their perceptions of what was occurring within and between emerging factions. These meetings were completed by the end of the first term. A collective meeting of the three groups took place a week after Fr. Clough's February address.

The purpose of the collective meeting was to provide a forum for dialogue and for the definition of issues that each group perceived. A second issue was to receive feedback on Fr. Cough's February intervention in regard to the house social with Trinity College. It was hoped that the meeting would be an initial step toward resolution of various problems. The meeting began with an attempt to identify what the problems were. The general consensus was that there was misunderstanding of viewpoints, attitudes, and behaviors. This was characteristic of all, not of a certain few. It was recognised that many of us did not know each other well enough and were unsure about positions held, which generated unease and, perhaps, a little suspicion. Within an institution there will be a broad range of personalities and attitudes. Such a situation can all too easily lead to conflict, which itself produces intolerance and insensitivity. It was felt that we were categorizing each other as to lifestyle and orientation. It should be noted that in Fr. Clough's February address there was mention made of a general nosiness of other's business and a consequent breakdown in trust. The problem, then, was one of misunderstanding and unfamiliarity that led to insensitivity and intolerance. Discussion ensued with each group expressing its feelings on the problem. It was felt that each group was given a free and equal opportunity to express their views. As the discussion progressed, it became evident that group boundaries were breaking down and that each was expressing his views as an individual, rather than as a representative of a group.

It became clear that the issue would be lost if the discussion were limited to the surface problem: that is, a tension between those perceived to be "macho" and those perceived to be "effeminate". It was agreed that such exclusive terms are damaging and denigrating. It is all too easy to categorize someone because he acts differently. The issue was then not how to limit those who act differently, but how to come to know the other with greater appreciation and understanding of his uniqueness.

 Five main points were made during the discussion:

 1: to equate homosexuality with effeminate behavior is false. A person's sexual orientation should not become a preoccupation for others. The issue is not one of homosexuality or heterosexuality within or outside the seminary, but one of sensitivity to others who may be different than ourselves.

 2: it is important to be sensitive to the effect that our behavior has on others and the possible effects or perceptions that can result from the cumulative effect of group behavior in a particular situation.

3: it should be recognized that feelings of being threatened by another's uniqueness have their source within ourselves and must be resolved within ourselves. The problem should not be 'how can I change the other', but 'how can I come to terms with myself so that I can appreciate the other more'.

4: out of an ignorance of another's pain can come a desire to avoid that individual because he is different. Thus the challenge must be recognized: to confront someone with a problem is harder than not dealing with him. 

5: the seminary community has a right to resolve its own issues without having them communicated outside the house or having "outsiders" resolve those issues for us. 

The immediate results of the meeting were generally positive. It was felt that dialogue which occurred within the context of the meeting could be transferred to a less formal setting. Much misunderstanding was identified and corrected. It may be correct to say that tolerance was learned and that out of that learning came a greater appreciation and comfort with others who were different than ourselves: that is, a tolerance that was embedded in charity and mutual respect. With the reduction of tension through the expression of difficulties came a more relaxed atmosphere in the house. An important result was that the "silent majority" spoke-up and took an active part in the discussions. It was agreed that the meeting was an initial step to the resolution of the issue. Though the issue was not totally resolved, the meeting provided an opportunity to dialogue in trust. 

The less immediate results were just as important. The meetings that occurred this year served as a first step to dialogue that can and will hopefully occur in years to come. It was recognized that there will always be problems in institutional living and that these problems should be addressed. Thus, the path was opened to future dialogue. It was suggested that the services of professionals, such as Sister Dickson, be employed in addressing issues such as sexuality, spirituality, tolerance, etc. It has been suggested that an opportunity be provided for year groups to reflect on the year with their representatives to the extended faculty meetings. It was also suggested that new students precede returning students at the start of the year by a day or two in order to better prepare them for seminary life and to ease the process of assimilation. In all, these discussions came out of an experience of grace; an experience that was felt by the whole seminary community. The meeting of the collective closed with the hope and the positive anticipation of greater interpersonal communication and friendship 

19 MARCH 1984 

M. CENERINI

FR. B. CLOUGH 

J. MURPHY

D. REILANDER 

This document has been distributed to the sisters, faculty, and students of St. Augustine's Seminary. Its purpose is specifically for the members of the house, i.e. the document is confidential to members of the house. This is why the document has not been posted on the bulletin board.

END OF A "DIALOGUE OF TRUST"

Single-sex institutions in the world. 

Homosexual activity is inevitable; that a certain fraction of its members will be gay is inevitable. Yet it remains a great unspoken concern. Mary Malone, a St Augustine's faculty member, says: "The presence of gay students among seminarians is not new. Until recently, we pretended it wasn't there." 

The St Augustine's purge was directed not so much against gay seminarians as against those, gay or straight, students or faculty, who dared to break the silence — to push or pull open the closet doors just a crack. The purge would be a warning to those still in the closet to stay there. That's perhaps why only two students were asked to leave the seminary, although Gervais estimated that there were as many as 12 "homosexually inclined" students there. That could be the meaning of Carter's explanation to reporters of Clough's dismissal: "To talk about it is one thing, but to put it in print (in "A Dialogue of Trust") is a problem." 

Malone describes Clough and Tulk as "honest, compassionate men." "Their integrity," she says, "helped something come into the open that others would have preferred to keep secret." Clough, Dailey and Tulk are gone from St Augustine's, but those responsible failed in their goal. The secret is now out in the open.

+ + + 

The Rector referred to above, Father Brian Clough, after being fired for the scandal went on to become the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto. This article is from the Globe and Mail on May 8, 1976. As of a few months ago, Clough was still on the Priest's Council.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: "I am not a schismatic!"

In his own words, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò:

A few weeks ago, I made public the events surrounding my request to meet with Leo – specifically, his initial acceptance, his sudden rescission, and then his definitive cancellation. While a Catholic Archbishop was deemed unworthy of being received in Audience, an abortionist and heterodox figure – in the guise of an Anglican “Archbishop” – merited not only the full honors of Vatican protocol but was even permitted to engage in “communicatio in sacris” with Leo and other Prelates, going so far as to impart a “blessing” within the shrine of the Prince of the Apostles. This serves only as further proof of the double standard applied by the proponents of the “synodal church.” I do not believe it is necessary to dwell on this with further commentary ... After long months of silence, the time has come to make known the contents of my letter to Leo of January 25th of this year, thereby establishing a documentary record of the matter.

Holiness, with this letter, I wish to offer for your consideration the salient events of my personal and ministerial life, so that you may get to know me and understand the intentions that motivate me. 

I was born in Varese on January 16, 1941, into a deeply Catholic family, thanks to which I was able to grow up practicing my Faith daily, receiving a solid higher education, and maturing my vocation to the Priesthood. I was ordained a priest on March 24, 1968, and, after a brief period of parish ministry in Pavia, I was invited by the then-Substitute of the Secretariat of State, Archbishop Giovanni Benelli, to enter the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, where I was admitted in October 1971. I served five Popes: first in the Nunciatures of Baghdad, Kuwait, and London; then from January 1978 in the Secretariat of State for over ten years as Secretary to three Substitutes; and then as Permanent Observer to the Council of Europe and the European Parliament in Strasbourg (1988-1992). After my episcopal consecration, received from the hands of John Paul II, I was sent to Nigeria as Apostolic Nuncio (1992-1998), then recalled to the Secretariat of State as the Delegate for Pontifical Representations (1998-2009). In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed me Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City State, and then in 2011 as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America until 2016. 

It was in my role as Delegate for Pontifical Representations that I found myself handling the investigative processes for promotions to the Episcopate, both in the Roman Curia and in the Nunciatures, as well as the most confidential and delicate cases concerning Bishops and Cardinals, including the dossier of Theodore McCarrick and other homosexual prelates. My actions in this area led to my removal from the Secretariat of State and my transfer to the Governorate as Secretary General, where Pope Benedict entrusted me with combating mismanagement and the vast network of financial corruption. Even in that case, despite having brought the Governorate’s budget, in the space of a year and a half, from a deficit of 15 million Euros to a profit of 35 million, and despite the Pope wanting to promote me to the Presidency of the Pontifical Council for Economic Affairs of the Holy See, I was removed from the Roman Curia and sent to Washington as Nuncio. My actions disturbed people who at the time were very powerful and capable of overriding the will of Pope Benedict. 

In 2016, exactly on my seventy-fifth birthday, Bergoglio ordered me to leave the Nunciature in Washington and forbade me from returning to the Vatican, where John Paul II had permanently assigned me an apartment; he also forbade me from residing in the Roman residence for retired Nuncios that was specially prepared by Pope Benedict. Before his death, Bergoglio also had my Vatican citizenship and passport revoked; he prevented me from accessing the healthcare services provided to members of the Diplomatic Service, even though I had always regularly paid my contributions; and he ordered that my car be removed from the Vatican Vehicle Registry and prevented the renewal of my Vatican driver’s license, which I had held continuously since 1973, causing me serious difficulties and effectively condemning me to house arrest. 

In August 2018 I published the explosive memorandum about Theodore McCarrick and the extensive network of corruption and complicity within the Roman Curia, which directly involved Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself. Subsequently, I lived for several years in secret locations, as Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke advised me to do, given the threats I received and the fact that my immediate predecessor in Washington, Nuncio Pietro Sambi, had died under very suspicious circumstances after having had heated confrontations with then-Cardinal McCarrick when informing him of the measures taken by Benedict XVI to counter his crimes as a serial abuser. 

The corruption, blackmail, deception, and betrayals I have had to confront have led me to question the deep origins of the disastrous state of the Catholic Church. 

Looking back on the years of my formation, at the Lateran University (1960-1964) and then at the Gregorian University (1965-1969), I had to acknowledge that even before the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the ideological framework of the entire curriculum – and of the teaching staff – was already shaped by the new conciliar teachings, even though they had not yet been approved. I remember well how in the Roman Seminaries clerical discipline gave way to anarchy on all fronts, and how the superiors encouraged the participation of seminarians in the conferences of the “new theologians” – I am referring to those who, until a few years earlier, were viewed with justified suspicion by the Holy Office, such as Küng, Ratzinger, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar, and with them that undergrowth of modernists who would soon infest the university chairs and positions of responsibility in the Vatican and in the dioceses. And as has always happened with all subversive operations, the climate of general change, continuous reforms, and enormous transformations was artificially created from above. 

From my privileged vantage point as Secretary to the Substitute, I witnessed the hemorrhaging of thousands of priestly and religious vocations, while those Priests who did not want to support the new conciliar path nor abandon the Tridentine Liturgy were ostracized, treated as heretics, excommunicated or suspended a divinis, deprived of their salaries, and left to die in solitude. 

Reconsidering those events and reforms with today’s disillusioned perspective and with the experience gained from other similar events – not least the manipulation of the “Synod on the Family” that led to Amoris Lætitia and, above all, the ongoing synodal revolution – I could not help but see in all of this a mindset that had already prepared the subversive action that would soon show its most disruptive effects.

The conciliar revolution followed a very precise script under a single direction. Everything had to appear perfectly legal and in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Church: every document promulgated had to allow for both an orthodox interpretation with which to reassure the Council Fathers as well as a heretical interpretation to be unleashed later. These documents reveal the true intentions of those who maliciously used a Council to impose doctrinal, moral, and liturgical errors that had previously been condemned by the Roman Pontiffs. 

During the long years of my ministry in the service of the Apostolic See, my unconditional obedience to the Popes and my complete absorption in the duties entrusted to me prevented me from understanding the true revolution that was underway. How could I have imagined the subversion and betrayal that were taking place? How could I have believed that the Supreme Authority of the Church and the entire Episcopate could have become accomplices of the most insidious enemies of Christ, whom Saint Pius X had identified as the Modernists? 

The “retirement” imposed on me in 2016 allowed me to dedicate myself to prayer, study, and meditation on these serious problems. I thus came to the realization that the Second Vatican Council, while maintaining the characteristics of an Ecumenical Council, was intended to be used to revolutionize the entire ecclesial structure and subvert it in all its components: in doctrine, liturgy, discipline, canon law, and especially in its hierarchical constitution. The very architects of Vatican II defined it as “the 1789 of the Church”, considering their subversive experiment to be “the Council par excellence” thus demonstrating its heterogeneity compared to all other Councils and the perennial Tradition of the Church. 

Both Jorge Bergoglio and all the post-conciliar popes proudly claimed their ideological continuity with Vatican II in order to implement and legitimize all their “reforms.” Significantly, the entire “post-conciliar magisterial corpus” establishes a new paradigm sanctioned by the Council. Its fluid doctrines – constantly evolving, just as the Hegelian synthesis they underpin is constantly evolving – are in clear rupture with the two-thousand-year-old Magisterium of the Church prior to Vatican II. 

The Council facilitated and contributed to the de-Christianization of the West and the establishment, in the civil sphere, of a new order conforming to the designs of Freemasonry. The plans of the Lodges are well known, and we are aware that they involve infiltrating the Catholic Church and attacking Her from within to achieve their predetermined goals. 

The discussion surrounding Vatican II and the coup within the Church led me to rediscover the Traditional Rite relatively recently. Abandoning the Montini Mass marked a new phase in my episcopal Ministry. Along with the Tridentine Mass (which was the one used at my priestly Ordination), I discovered a hidden world of persecuted and marginalized priests, religious, and seminarians. I considered it my apostolic duty to listen to their cry for help, offering them a response that would restore their trust in the Church from which they felt betrayed and cast out. This led me to establish the Exsurge Domine Foundation, doing everything necessary to guarantee the means of subsistence – both spiritual and material – and an authentically Catholic ecclesial identity to those who, due to their fidelity to Tradition, have been unjustly affected by the Bergoglian Terror. 

Among those I support are the members of the Familia Christi Priestly Fraternity, which was first founded and recognized within the framework of Ecclesia Dei and then brutally destroyed and dissolved. Its members have been victims of a terrible persecution – of which you cannot be unaware – by the current Archbishop of Ferrara, Gian Carlo Perego, and the Holy See itself. To these clerics, who turned to me after being abandoned to their own devices without support, and to the candidates for the priesthood who have joined them, I am providing my paternal care. 

My denunciation of the apostasy of the conciliar and synodal church and its rupture with Tradition, along with my well-founded doubts about the legitimacy of Bergoglio’s “pontificate”— which I addressed in good conscience, believing I was fulfilling my mandate as a Successor of the Apostles — earned me an unjust, illegitimate, and ideologically motivated excommunication. This canonical sanction, although I consider it null, has serious ecclesial, institutional, and personal repercussions that deeply sadden me and that stand in stark contrast to the impunity enjoyed by notoriously heretical and corrupt cardinals, bishops, and priests. 

Among these individuals, I cannot fail to mention Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzales, known in Chiclayo as “Padre Lute,” who has been accused of sexually abusing several young victims. The Holy See recently granted “padre Lute” dismissal from the clerical state without a regular canonical trial, effectively leaving him unpunished; while the victims’ canon lawyer, Monsignor Ricardo Coronado Arrascue was removed from his legal functions, reduced to the lay state, and investigated on defamatory charges. The entire affair has been documented and explained to me in detail by Monsignor Coronado himself. This case repeats the same modus operandi of Bergoglio previously adopted with McCarrick and reveals an aberrant administration of justice by the Holy See. 

In the face of the excommunication unjustly imposed upon me, I declare that I am not a schismatic! By the grace of God, I am and will remain a devout son of the Holy Roman Church and a faithful subject of the Roman Pontificate. I firmly believe in the Apostolic Communion, and I recognize the Petrine Primacy. I likewise recognize the necessity of belonging not only to the invisible Mystical Body, but also to the institutional and visible ecclesial body. 

All the popes in history up to Pius XII have been indicted along with me, placed on trial by the former Holy Office. 

I have repeatedly wondered about the reason for the persecution I am facing in the final phase of my earthly life; and whether my conviction that I have acted rightly and according to God’s will might have been mistaken. But however much I examine my actions as if I were standing before Christ the Judge at the moment of my death, I find nothing morally wrong. My accusers have merely followed a predetermined sentence, in order to remove, by means of a “canonical” stratagem, the one who has denounced the infidelity of the Catholic Hierarchy, proclaiming the Truth without restraint. A voice – my own – that could not be silenced for the simple reason that no one has ever been able to corrupt or blackmail me. 

The officials of the former Holy Office were unable to refute a single one of the arguments I presented. But it was enough for them that I dared to criticize Vatican II and Jorge Mario Bergoglio to condemn me to excommunication for the crime of schism, precisely when it is my love for the Papacy and for the perennial Magisterium of the Church that exposes me to this ruthless attack from the Vatican. I have never intended to separate myself from the Apostolic Communion, nor to disobey the Vicar of Christ, nor to found a “parallel church,” as some have accused me of wanting to do. On the contrary, I believe that I could not have served the Papacy and the Holy Church better than by speaking and acting as I did, facing the sufferings that resulted from it in a spirit of union with the sufferings of the Divine Redeemer. 

I am writing to you as an elderly Archbishop, out of love for Our Lord and in fidelity to the Holy Church. I am writing to you to express my anguish at seeing the Catholic Church eclipsed and disfigured by those who occupy Her and hold power within Her. I cannot understand how, after the disastrous experience of Jorge Bergoglio, you not only refuse to condemn his errors and scandals, but also seize every opportunity to reaffirm your complete continuity with them, in the name of a “synodal church” that adulterates the hierarchical structure and monarchical nature that Our Lord willed for His Church, and demolishes its entire doctrinal edifice. 

I appeal to another Leo, the great Pope Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci, in the paradoxical situation of knowing that he would find my words agreeable and praiseworthy, while the Bergoglian church has judged them to be schismatic. What has happened in the Catholic Church in the space of a few decades that I find myself condemned, and with me all the pre-conciliar Popes? Quomodo facta est meretrix civitas fidelis? (Is 1:21). 

The Faith I profess, the Tridentine Mass I celebrate, the Councils and magisterial acts I accept, the Professio Fidei Tridentina and the Jusiurandum Antimodernisticum that I have repeated so many times, are common to the entire Church and unite me to Her. Of this One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, unchanged in doctrine and morals, I declare myself a devoted son and servant. That Papacy, likewise unchanged, is the Roman Papacy to which I am obedient, for in the voice of the Vicar resounds the Truth of the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10:11). 

The authority of the Holy Keys must open the gates of the Heavenly Jerusalem to the righteous and exclude the wicked, not the other way around. This authority emanates from Our Lord (Rom 13:1) – and is vicarious of His Authority. It is not possible for it to be used to legitimize what He condemns, nor even less to condemn what He has commanded to be done. For this reason, I cannot obey those who, constituted in authority, refuse to be themselves subject and obedient to the Supreme Authority of God. 

I think of the words of Saint Paul: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be anathema!” (Gal 1:8) From which Church am I separated? And what authority has condemned me? The authority of the Vicar of Christ? Or that of those who preach a different gospel from the one received from Our Lord? 

I leave this letter in your hands, so that you may understand the reasons for my positions and action, in the hope of encouraging you to a profound examination of conscience and to a necessary and urgent conversion of heart, mind, and will, mindful of the words of Our Lord: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:31-32). I ask you to exercise your supreme Authority to confirm the brethren in the Faith. I ask you to confirm me in the Faith: please do so. Or tell me where I am erring and in what I am contradicting the Depositum Fidei that you must safeguard and upon which Catholic Unity is based. It is on the profession of the True Faith that I must be judged: therefore, tell me in what way I have contradicted the Catholic Faith, and I will amend myself. 

But there are no arguments that legitimize my excommunication: it was imposed on me illegitimately, to destroy my person and my action in defense of Catholic Truth; a sanction motivated not least by the implacable hatred of Jorge Mario Bergoglio towards me. An injustice that demands reparation for the grave damage caused to me and to the Cause of the Holy Roman Church. 

I trust that you will still want to grant me an audience after the cancellation of the one that had been scheduled and then cancelled on December 11, 2025. I will then be able to communicate to you in person some matters of the utmost importance relating to my apostolic Ministry and the need to ensure its continuity and future. 

From this moment forward, I renew my unconditional intention to fulfill every obligation imposed on me as a Successor of the Apostles. 

In Christo Rege, 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana, Apostolic Nuncio 

Viterbo, 25 January 2026

In Conversione S. Pauli Apostoli

Guido Pozzo shows the way forward on the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo.

Exclusive: Archbishop Guido Pozzo on Gregorian chant, the Vetus Ordo and liturgical unity | Advaticanum

 

AV: What, in your considered judgment as Superintendent of the Economy of the Pontifical Sistine Chapel Choir, role should Gregorian chant and sacred music have in the Roman liturgy? 

+GP: Gregorian chant is the proper chant of the Roman liturgy and must be given the principal place, as taught by Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council (no. 116). Through its texts it reconnects us to the entire Catholic spiritual tradition, and its melodies, which highlight the ritual words in the proper way, easily lead to contemplation of the heavenly mysteries. The liturgical quality of Gregorian chant consists first of all in its being essentially and simply prayer. It is a chant made solely for God, which expresses the worship of faith and adoration that the Church raises to God. Secondly, it is connatural to the liturgy because the text is essential and the melody is employed only to serve the contemplation of the divine mysteries. 

Alongside Gregorian chant stands sacred polyphony, with its immense heritage of art and beauty, which must be rediscovered and restored to its due honour, so that the liturgy of the Church may once again become the place where one experiences the most mature fruit of service to the worship of God. 

AV: It has been suggested that incorporating certain fixed parts of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, such as the Pater Noster immediately after the Consecration or the words of consecration themselves, in Latin could lead to a greater sense of liturgical uniformity and ecclesial unity across different cultures and languages. As someone who is one of the stewards of the Pope’s own Choir, which sings in Latin daily, what are your thoughts on whether selective use of Latin in the vernacular Mass might enrich the faithful’s experience of the universal character of the Roman liturgy? 

+GP: I personally would not exclude the possibility (without making it a juridical obligation) of inserting, in certain fixed parts of the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the vernacular, some words and texts in Latin. What seems to me even more important, however, is that in every diocese there should be at least one celebration of Holy Mass in Latin according to the Novus Ordo, animated by Gregorian chant, especially on Sundays and solemn liturgical feasts. This would foster among the faithful a deeper perception of the universal character of the Roman liturgy. 

AV: More broadly, how can we use Latin in the liturgy, whether in the Ordinary Form or in the Choir’s own repertoire, to serve as a source of spiritual enrichment for the entire Church rather than as a barrier? In your experience overseeing the Sistine Chapel Choir, what pastoral fruits have you observed when Latin is allowed to resonate alongside the vernacular? 

+GP: “A Church that embraces all peoples needs a universal language, but has no reason to adopt the language of this or that people… Humanly speaking, the Church needs a universal, unchangeable, learned language; whoever conspires to deprive her of it makes war on her unity.” These are the words of Fr Luigi Taparelli in his Theoretical Essay on Natural Law (1835), which I have no difficulty in making my own. Liturgical Latin expresses and guarantees the sacral dimension of the liturgy. To address God, the most appropriate words are those that God Himself, through His revelation, has placed on the lips of believers and those who pray. The Catholic Church has adopted the Vulgate, the Latin edition of the Bible, for her life, prayer, and doctrine. Disseminated by St Jerome in the fourth century and then revised after the Council of Trent, the Vulgate was also recognised by the Second Vatican Council, which admitted a limited and reasonable use of the vernacular languages; these, however, were to coexist alongside liturgical Latin (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 §1). 

To the objection that Latin is no longer a commonly spoken language and is therefore a “dead” language, one may reply that a language that is no longer spoken does not mean a dead language. A dead language is one that has disappeared from the culture and memory of a people. Latin is the living foundation for understanding the cultural tradition and the doctrine of the Church and of Catholic Tradition. Moreover, Latin offers theological precision in verbal formulation and the solemnity of the prayed word, thus helping the faithful to understand that the Mass is the moment in which one enters the mysterium fidei, because we enter with Christ into the oratio offered by the entire Mystical Body to the Father in the Holy Spirit. The most significant pastoral fruits consist in the conscious, progressive recovery of the vertical, cultic dimension of the liturgy, introducing the faithful into the experience of encounter with the incarnate, dead, and risen God, vitally present in the sacrament. 

AV: The Church today celebrates the liturgy in both the Novus Ordo and the earlier Vetus Ordo. In your view, how can these two expressions of the same Roman Rite best contribute to the unity of the Church rather than appearing as contrasting alternatives? 

+GP: First of all, it is necessary to clear the field of a major misunderstanding: that of considering the two forms of the Roman Rite as opposed or irreconcilable. I would prefer not to designate them with the terms “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form”, but simply as the Novus Ordo, that is, the Roman Rite reformed by St Paul VI, and the Vetus Ordo, the ancient Roman Rite, in use according to the liturgical books of 1962. It is necessary to escape from the ideological cages that set the two forms of the Roman Rite against each other. Certainly, the Novus Ordo is the common, universal, and habitual form of Catholic liturgy. The form of the ancient Roman Rite is particular and special; therefore, there is a concrete norm, which it is for the ecclesiastical authority to establish, regarding the conditions under which it is to be celebrated. 

The liturgical reform of Vatican II must not be understood as a rupture with the traditional liturgy, but must be read as a renewal in substantial continuity. Unfortunately, the line of rupture with Tradition taken by large sectors of the Church’s life has led to an ecclesial and liturgical crisis that is still present. It was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself who used grave expressions on the liturgical question: 

“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends to a large extent on the collapse of the liturgy” — he used the word “collapse” of the liturgy — “it remains to be seen,” continues J. Ratzinger, “to what extent the individual stages of the liturgical reform of Vatican II were true improvements or rather banalisations, to what extent they were pastorally wise or, on the contrary, ill-considered.” 

Once again, therefore, the crucial issue is not the renewal desired by the Council, but the reception and the concrete form of its implementation in practice. Critical observations about questionable forms of implementation cannot call into question the Missal published by St Paul VI and later reissued a third time with the approval of St John Paul II, which remains the ordinary and universal form of the Eucharistic liturgy. However, the celebration of Holy Mass in the antiquior rite certainly helps to recover and highlight, in a more pregnant and marked way, certain aspects and certain doctrinal truths that risk being obscured by a mistaken or banalised way of celebrating the reformed rite. 

For example, the convivial aspect of the Eucharist, that is, the Eucharist as a banquet (already highlighted by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei, and certainly emphasised by Vatican II and the liturgical reform), is so accentuated at the expense of the essentially sacrificial nature of the Eucharist that one forgets that without the sacrifice there is no communion. Communion arises from the sacrifice of Christ, not the other way round. The aspect of assembly and social participation, which is undoubtedly emphasised and made more visible in the liturgical reform, is sometimes emphasised at the expense of the transcendent and Christocentric element. The aspect of the common priesthood of all the faithful is emphasised at the expense of the irreplaceable role of the ministerial priesthood. It is clear that in the texts and liturgical books of the Novus Ordo there is no such imbalance; rather, it is found above all in the way the minds of the Christian people, and also of priests, are formed, and in the way the rite is concretely understood, interpreted, and celebrated by some. 

Consider, for example, the concept of actuosa participatio (active participation), so emphasised in the liturgical reform. It is not reducible to external activity, speeches, words, or comments, to a kind of “do-it-yourself”. It also includes silence, which expresses a real, deep, and personal participation, because the liturgy does not ask for arbitrary and attractive creativity, but demands solemn repetition. There is therefore a real risk of this collapse, of this instrumentalisation of the reformed rite to the detriment of the integrity of the faith and of divine worship. 

Finally, I would like to draw attention to some of the underlying reasons for the difficulties of a peaceful integration of the ancient rite into the life of the Church. The fundamental reasons are essentially two. Some are of a practical order and we can leave them aside because they are certainly not important or serious. The first fundamental reason for the difficulties is found in the lack, or presumed lack, of obedience to the Second Vatican Council, which certainly wanted to reform the liturgical books. The second reason is seen in the risk of a rupture of ecclesial unity due to the difference between these two liturgical forms, which may also imply divergence in forms of catechesis and pastoral care. 

As regards the first difficulty, it must be recalled that Vatican II certainly asked for a revision of the liturgical books, but also laid down certain fundamental criteria, and it is in the light of these criteria that the revision, and above all the practice of celebrations in the post-conciliar period, must be evaluated. Otherwise, one is not disobeying St Pius V; one is disobeying the Second Vatican Council. The criteria are formulated in numbers 34 and 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Council did not abrogate the previous books but asked for a renewal and a revision.

The other difficulty would be the existence of two different forms of the rite, which would represent an obstacle to the unity of the Church, to liturgical and pastoral unity. Here a distinction must be made, I believe, between a theological aspect and a practical one. From the theological point of view, it is well known that in the Church there have always existed different forms of the Latin rite, most of which fell into disuse following the greater unification of civil and secular European cultures. Nevertheless, until Vatican II, alongside the Roman rite in the Latin Church there existed the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite (of Toledo), that of Braga (Portugal), and the variants of the Roman rite: the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian rites. No one was ever surprised by these differences. No one found it scandalous to participate in the Dominican rite, which has some variants with respect to the Roman rite of St Pius V. 

What must be avoided, I believe, is judging the two forms of the Roman Rite on the basis of their external characteristics. Public opinion considers the following to be essential to the new liturgy: that it be celebrated in the vernacular and not in Latin, because otherwise, they say, “we don’t understand anything”; that the priest face the faithful; that a certain space be left to the free creativity of the celebrating priest and also of the lay faithful participating in the celebration, so that they can move around the altar and intervene with short or long reflections. In the ancient liturgy, on the contrary, it was considered essential that it be in Latin, that the celebrant face the altar (coram Deo), and that the faithful participate, yes, but in silence. It is not that the faithful did not participate at all before; they participated, but through silence, and not, as the reform of St Paul VI proposes and encourages, through a more active and visible role. The difference is therefore between the visible and the invisible, between silence and external activity that is phenomenologically perceptible: there is therefore a difference. But the question is whether it is an essential difference. 

For some, the two liturgical forms would express two fundamentally different attitudes in conceiving both the liturgy and the Church: a hierarchical Church versus a “People of God” Church. Some pronounce: “Before the Council the Church was hierarchical and pyramidal; now instead it is communal and popular; the whole people participates.” We reply: certainly there are different emphases and highlights. But the communion of which the Second Vatican Council speaks, the Church as communion, is a communio hierarchica. And even before Vatican II, it is not that the people and the faithful were considered second-class persons in relation to the priest. 

In any case, the point of view that considers the phenomenological, empirical aspect essential for the liturgy is not the essential point of view. The contrasts that have come to light do not in reality originate in the Council. I insist on emphasising this. In Sacrosanctum Concilium it is stated that Latin must be preserved, while giving ample space to the vernacular, but it is stated that Latin must be preserved. So how does one truly obey the Council? By making Latin disappear completely? 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this is not a question of diminishing the principles and criteria of the Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Sacred Liturgy; on the contrary, it is precisely a question of recovering those criteria even for the celebration of the ordinary form. There will certainly remain different spiritual and theological emphases between the two forms, but not as two opposed ways of being Catholic or of celebrating the praise and sacrifice of the Lord, but rather as a common patrimony, albeit with different emphases, of the one faith. 

AV: Many Catholics today appreciate both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine form of the Mass. From a liturgical and musical standpoint, why would you say these two expressions of the one Roman Rite do not stand in fundamental opposition to each other, but can instead be seen as complementary enrichments of the Church’s worship? 

+GP: In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI expressly declared that the ancient use of the Roman Liturgy is to be considered a precious treasure to be preserved for all the faithful. In a recent letter to the French Bishops, Pope Leo XIV urged the prelates to foster the reconciliation and unity of the Church, avoiding the marginalisation and exclusion of those faithful who show a particular sensitivity and attachment to the liturgical form of the ancient Roman Rite, provided that they accept the orientations of the Second Vatican Council in liturgical matters and, obviously, do not oppose or contest the Novus Ordo. 

On the other hand, the denunciation of the intolerable deviations and deformations of the liturgy in the Novus Ordo form, frequently cheapened by sloppiness, arbitrary omissions of the rubrics, and manipulations, which have occurred and unfortunately still occur, even through the unjustified tolerance of ecclesiastical authorities, cannot and must not lead to calling into question the reformed liturgy. When the Mass of St Paul VI is celebrated with fidelity, recollection, and awareness of the mystery, the spiritual distance between the ancient Roman Rite and the reformed rite appears much less pronounced than some would like to maintain. 

Pope Leo XIV has expressed himself along these lines, speaking some time ago with the journalist Elise Ann Allen. The Holy Father stressed that the deep issue does not consist in the language of the celebration nor in the distinction between the Ancient Roman Rite (Vetus Ordo) and the renewed Missal of the Novus Ordo, but in the liturgy’s capacity to arouse in the soul wonder before the living God. The crucial point today, in my view, is that the liturgy must once again become a renewed encouragement to believe, to live a life starting from the centre and dynamism of faith, to rediscover God by rediscovering Christ, and thus to rediscover the centrality of the Christian faith celebrated in the liturgical mystery. It is in the relationship with the liturgy that the destiny of the faith of the Church is decided (Benedict XVI).