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).

My Schadenfreude - How Tom Rosica's "chicken-hawks" have come home to roost!

Click on link:

Appeals court says sexual assault suit against Fr. Rosica can proceed

Immaculata Herb Farm

Immaculata Herb Farm, a Land Ministry led by Edane and Stephen Hotchkiss, is dedicated to cultivating herbs for teas and skincare. Each spring, seeds are planted, with some herbs requiring close care and others flourishing with minimal attention, maturing anywhere from 40 days to 40 years. Originally a tree nursery founded by Stephen’s grandfather, the farm has been in the family for generations, inspiring Stephen’s deep connection to nature and his creation of products that embody peace, love, and healing. Edane, a devoted tea enthusiast and practitioner of the Urasenke tradition, hosts tea ceremonies that invite guests to engage mindfully with the land. As a holistic esthetician, she crafts skincare inspired by the beauty of God’s creation. Together with their team, they grow herbs, produce small-batch goods, and offer spa services, herb walks, tea ceremonies, and retreats.

 https://immaculataherbfarm.com/?ref=VOX

Pope Leo to Priests - Do your job!

At yesterday's General Audience, Pope Leo XIV spoke about the liturgy. He also reminded priests to follow the rubrics. 

We are now over sixty years from Sacrosanctum Concilium and what we thought was the "New Mass," the 1965 Missal, which, as a young boy, we were told was the Mass of Vatican II. We had no idea another new one was on the way. But they did. 

The Pope asks priests to offer Mass properly. Why are they not? Yes, there are too many options in the reformed Mass, too many opportunities for self-expression and an offering of "thanksgiving" (eucharist) rather than an offering of "sacrifice." 

A few years ago, during the suspension of Mass due to the China Virus by our cowardly Cardinal Thomas "No Mass for You" Collins, a priest friend read Sacrosanctum Concilium for the first time - they never read the Documents of Vatican II at St. Augustine's Seminary. What does that tell you about the "spirit" rather than the letter? Yet, when he read it, he was scandalized. He called to tell me, and he immediately realized the result of that document was not the Mass he said that morning. I told him that he was correct, that Mass only lasted four years. He knew that S.C. was referring to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or traditional Latin Mass. 

But here we are in 2026, and priests here in Cardinal Frank Leo's Archdiocese of Toronto are still not following the Council nor yesterday's words of the Holy Father.

What is it with these men, these priests, who threaten the younger ones who were called under Benedict XVI and now trying to serve the LORD and His people, yet these aging pastors in their sociopathic and psychopathic disorientation continue to berate them back into the 1970's or 1980's? As someone 69 myself, do I have to say we all have to be dead to see this fixed? Get out, retire with your Depends to Presentation House and let the suspended Thomas Rosica take care of you. You are the problem. Your work has been less than stellar and less than the straw of which Aquinas wrote. You are the cause of the abandonment of the faith, and you will be held to account, to say nothing about the Cardinals and their numerous mediocre Auxilliaries. Faithless cowards and effeminates. All of them. 

On the cusp of the Consecrations by the Society of St. Pius X of new bishops, the Pope has decided to speak on liturgy, Mediator Dei and Sacrosanctum Concilium. 

Why, and what message is he sending?

 

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Saint Peter’s Square

Wednesday, 27 May 2026

The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. III. Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The reform of the liturgy: tradition and development

Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!

In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, the Venerable Pius XII writes that “the Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded” (no. 59).

In full accordance with this principle, the Second Vatican Council, in the Introduction to the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), recognizes “particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” (no. 1). The Council assembly was gathered, in fact, with the desire to “impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church” (ibid.).

At that moment in history, there was a strong sense of the need for a renewal of the ritual forms through which, for centuries, the Church had glorified God and sanctified the Christian people. Thanks to the Liturgical Movement, the conviction had matured—later expressed by Saint John Paul II—that “a very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the Church. The Church not only acts but also expresses herself in the liturgy, lives by the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life” (Letter Dominicae Cenae, 13).

To encourage the access of the faithful to the richness of the gifts of grace dispensed by the sacred liturgy, the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium thus indicates, with a very effective phrase, the direction to take: “That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress” (SC, 23).

Pope Benedict XVI grasped in this declaration of intent the “reform programme” of the Council Fathers, “a balance between the great liturgical tradition of the past and that of the future”, noting that “tradition and progress are often clumsily opposed”, whereas “actually, the two concepts merge: tradition is a living reality, which therefore includes in itself the principle of development, of progress. It is as if to say that the river of tradition also carries its source in itself and flows towards the outlet” (Address to participants in the Congress promoted by the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm on the 50th anniversary of foundation, 6 May 2011).

The Council affirms the legitimacy of this progress, rooted in authentic Tradition, distinguishing within the liturgy “immutable elements, divinely instituted” from “elements subject to change [which] not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it” (SC, 21). Changes of this type have taken place constantly over the centuries in order to enable the faithful to participate fruitfully, through ritual actions, in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, the foundation of the Christian faith. The Church’s worship has thus been “embodied” in the cultural forms of each age and has been able to influence them and even transform them. The liturgy has thus been, for centuries, a driving force for evangelization. Today, this energy must be renewed in continuity with the authentic and living Catholic tradition, that is, in accordance with a dynamic aimed at introducing believers to the fullness of the truth.

It is therefore understandable why the Council Fathers recommended that the revision of the rites, when “the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them”, must be carried out taking care that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC, 23). For the good of the entire Church, every reform must always be preceded by careful “theological, historical and pastoral” investigation (ibid.). The Council Magisterium, in this way, thus calls for the avoidance of confusion amongst the faithful, discouraging anyone from adding, removing or altering anything in liturgical matters on their own initiative (cf. SC, 22). The progress evoked in the Conciliar Constitution in no way compromises ecclesial communion: rather, it seeks to confirm and foster it.

I therefore urge all those called to prepare the celebration of the divine mysteries, in particular priests who exercise the ministry of liturgical presidency, to always uphold that respect for the texts and regulations of the liturgy which springs from an inner attitude of openness and trust in God, manifesting humility before His greatness and sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion.

Ils savaient, ils savaient tous et ils l'ont couvert!

Les évêques du Québec enseignent la féminité par Susan du Conseil paroissial.

Qu'est-ce qui se passe au Québec, la « Belle Province» ? Sommes-nous vraiment revenus aux années 1980 ? L'Église catholique est-elle maintenant entièrement sous l'emprise de la « sodomie » ? Alors que j’ai dénoncé les pratiques douteuses qui ont marqué l’histoire du séminaire Saint-Augustin de Toronto (voir le lien à gauche: Vox Cantoris: A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"), qui, au Québec, dénonce la corruption qui sévit dans les séminaires et au sein de l’épiscopat ? Les catholiques québécois s'en soucient-ils vraiment ?

Nos sources indiquent qu'un évêque auxiliaire dans Québec entretient une relation intime avec un prêtre d'âge mûr.

Pire encore, l’épiscopat est au courant, tout comme bien des prêtres, et ils ferment les yeux. Est-ce parce qu'ils cautionnent ces pratiques et y participent eux-mêmes ? Faut-il s'étonner de la chute vertigineuse de la fréquentation des messes au Québec ? Est-ce étonnant qu'il n'y ait plus de vocations ? Que fait donc le primat du Canada, l'archevêque Gérald Cardinal Lacroix, à part se teindre les cheveux ?

Rappelons-nous la sagesse de saint Pierre Damien (1007-1072), abbé du monastère de Fonte Avellana et cardinal-évêque d'Ostie.

https://www.catholictradition.org/deceit-damian.htm 

N'épargnant pas les ecclésiastiques qui, en toute connaissance de cause, permettent à des sodomites d'entrer dans les ordres ou de demeurer dans le clergé tout en souillant leur charge, le saint moine fustige les supérieurs inactifs du clergé et des prêtres, leur rappelant qu'ils devraient trembler pour eux-mêmes car ils sont devenus complices de la culpabilité d'autrui, en laissant le fléau destructeur de la sodomie se perpétuer dans leurs rangs.

Vient ensuite le jugement le plus sévère, réservé aux évêques qui commettent ces actes absolument damnables avec leurs fils spirituels. « Qui peut espérer la prospérité du troupeau quand son berger s'est enfoncé si profondément dans les entrailles du diable, lui qui fait la maîtresse d'un clerc, ou la femme d'un homme ? Qui, par sa luxure, livre à l'esclavage, sous la loi d'airain de la tyrannie satanique, un fils qu'il a spirituellement engendré pour Dieu ? », s'exclame le saint avec dégoût. Établissant un parallèle entre la sentence infligée au père coupable d'inceste avec sa fille ou au prêtre qui commet un « sacrilège » avec une religieuse, et la souillure d'un clerc par son supérieur, il demande si ce dernier doit échapper à la condamnation et conserver sa charge. En réalité, ce dernier cas mérite un châtiment encore plus terrible, affirme-t-il, car tandis que les deux premiers cas concernaient des rapports naturels, un supérieur religieux coupable de sodomie a non seulement commis un sacrilège avec son fils spirituel, mais a aussi violé la loi de nature. Un tel supérieur damne non seulement sa propre âme, mais entraîne une autre avec lui, déclare Damien. 

Consultez les statistiques ci-dessous pour visualiser les avertissements de Saint Pierre Damien.

Si un prêtre de cette région souhaite signaler cette situation en fournissant des preuves et en toute sécurité, avec une garantie d’anonymat, il est invité à écrire à voxcantoris@rogers.com.

Declaration of Catholic Faith addressed to Pope Leo XIV by the SSPX

Update: I’m pleased to see that Father Z’s comments align closely with my own. The leadership of the Society of St. Pius X shows a great deal of arrogance and pride (Noted on the question of the non-baptized), and Pope Leo XIV should approach the situation with an open heart of charity.

Thoughts about the collision of the Holy See and the SSPX. Wherein Fr. Z rants. | Fr. Z's Blog

Until now, I have not addressed the current matters concerning the Society of St. Pius X. I do not attend Holy Mass at their chapels, though in the past I have and participated in their choir and, in Toronto, served on their New Church Committee under the former Priory priest. I hold great admiration for their work and for the achievements of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I have always regarded the original excommunications as an unfortunate response, and I welcomed the actions of our late Pope Benedict XVI. I was pleased when Pope Francis granted them faculties, though I believe they made a strategic error by not requesting the appointment of new bishops, as I suspect he would have agreed.

Fast forwarding to the current situation, it seems to me that on both sides, there is an extreme lack of charity and far too much pride. The Society has never changed its arguments, and whilst we can appreciate it, in many ways, they cannot tell the Pope to rewrite the documents of the Second Vatican Council, nor expect him to respond in such a short timeline, if at all. They are arrogant and prideful. On the other hand, Vatican authorities are bellicose and arrogant themselves and think that all is well in spite of the reality staring them in the face. 

Now, we stand at the cusp of the consecration of new bishops, which they need, but without a papal mandate and the inevitable excommunication. I have said to many, when asked, that the solution is not that hard, and it requires charity and faith.

To me, the answer is simple.

"Holy Father, we accept that the Second Vatican Council is a valid Council of the Holy Catholic Church. We have some concerns about specific wording, but more importantly, the interpretation of those wordings and the resultant actions. We accept the licity alidity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1969 when it is offered in accord with the official rubrics licit and with the correct intention, and we deplore, as do you, the abuses. We hope and pray that in the fullness of time, clarity removes all doubt as to the faith we have all experienced over the last 60 years. We ask you for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls for a mandate to consecrate bishops."

Pope Leo responds:

"My dear Sons, I grant you the mandate to consecrate. I invite you to a commission with all your bishops to engage in a permanent structure for your worldwide apostolate and a continuing dialogue where the clarification you seek is discussed and resolved."

How do you excommunicate this? 

Declaration of Catholic Faith addressed to Pope Leo XIV | FSSPX News

Declaration of Catholic Faith addressed to Pope Leo XIV

 May 14, 2026                     Source: FSSPX News  

Declaration of Catholic Faith addressed to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV by Fr. Davide Pagliarani Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X 

Most Holy Father, 

For more than fifty years, the Society of Saint Pius X has endeavoured to set before the Holy See a matter of conscience in the face of the errors that are destroying Catholic faith and morals. Regrettably, all the discussions entered into have remained without result, and none of the concerns expressed have received any truly satisfactory response. 

For more than fifty years, the only solution truly considered by the Holy See has appeared to be that of canonical sanctions. To our great regret, it seems to us that canon law is thus being used, not to confirm in the faith, but to lead away from it. 

In the text that follows, the Society of Saint Pius X is glad to express to You, filially and sincerely, its devotion to the Catholic faith, concealing nothing, either from Your Holiness or from the universal Church. 

The Society places this simple Declaration of Faith in Your hands. It seems to us to correspond to the minimum indispensable to be in communion with the Church, and to truly call ourselves Catholics and, consequently, your sons. 

We have no other desire than that of living and being confirmed in the Roman Catholic Faith. 

“Thus, remaining firmly rooted and established in the true Catholic Faith, strive always to be worthy ministers of the divine Sacrifice and of the Church of God, which is the Body of Christ.

For, as the Apostle says: ‘all that is not of faith is sin’,1 schismatic and outside the unity of the Church.”2 

DECLARATION OF CATHOLIC FAITH 

In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, divine Wisdom, the Word Incarnate, Who willed one sole religion, Who rendered the Old Covenant definitively null and void, Who founded one sole Church, Who triumphed over Satan, Who conquered the world, Who remains with us until the end of time and Who shall come again to judge the living and the dead. 

He, the perfect Image of the Father, the Son of God made man, was appointed the sole Redeemer and Saviour of the world through the Incarnation and the voluntary offering of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Our Lord satisfied divine justice by shedding His Most Precious Blood, and it is in that Blood that He established the New and Eternal Covenant, abolishing the Old. He is therefore the sole Mediator between God and men and the sole way to come to the Father. Only he who knows Him knows the Father. 

By divine decree, the Most Holy Virgin Mary has been directly and intimately associated with the entire work of Redemption; to deny this association — in the terms received from Tradition — is therefore to alter the very notion of Redemption as willed by divine Providence. 

There is only one Faith and one Church by which we may be saved. Outside the Roman Catholic Church, and without the profession of Faith that she has always taught, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. 

Consequently, every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul, and there is but one baptism as the means of being incorporated into her. This necessity concerns the whole of humanity without exception and embraces without distinction Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists. 

The mandate received by the Apostles, to preach the Gospel to every man and to convert every man to the Catholic faith, remains binding until the end of time and responds to the most absolute and most pressing necessity in the world. “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”3 Therefore, to renounce the fulfilment of this mandate constitutes the gravest of crimes against humanity. 

The Roman Church alone possesses simultaneously the four marks that characterize the Church founded by Jesus Christ: Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. 

Her unity flows essentially from the adherence of all her members to the one true Faith, faithfully preserved, taught, and handed down by the Catholic hierarchy throughout the centuries. 

The denial of even a single truth of faith destroys faith itself and renders radically impossible all communion with the Catholic Church. 

The only possible path to restoring unity among Christians of different confessions consists in the urgent and charitable appeal addressed to non-Catholics to profess the one true Faith within the one true Church.

The Catholic Church can in no way be regarded or treated on an equal footing with a false form of worship or a false church. 

The Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the sole possessor of supreme authority over the whole Church. He alone directly confers on the other members of the Catholic hierarchy jurisdiction over souls. 

“The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might make known, by His revelation, a new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the Deposit of the Faith.”4 

To a unique Faith there corresponds a unique form of worship, the supreme, authentic, and perfect expression of that same Faith. 

The Holy Mass is the perpetuation in time of the Sacrifice of the Cross, offered for many and renewed upon the altar. Although offered in an unbloody manner, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is essentially expiatory and propitiatory. No other form of worship offers perfect adoration. No other form of worship that is not ordered to it is pleasing to God. No other means is sufficient for the sanctification of souls. 

Consequently, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can in no way be reduced to a mere commemoration, to a spiritual meal, to a sacred assembly celebrated by the people, to the celebration of the Paschal mystery without sacrifice, without satisfaction of divine justice, without expiation of sins, without propitiation, and without the Cross. 

The help afforded to souls by the Sacraments of the Catholic Church is sufficient in every circumstance and in every age to enable the faithful to live in a state of grace. 

The moral law contained in the Decalogue and perfected in the Sermon on the Mount is the only one practicable for obtaining the salvation of souls. Every other moral code — founded, for example, on respect for creation or on the rights of the human person — is radically insufficient to sanctify and save souls. In no way can it replace the one true moral law. 

Following the example of Saint John the Baptist, true charity obliges us to warn sinners and never to renounce the means necessary to save their souls. 

He who eats the Body of Our Lord and drinks His Blood whilst in a state of sin eats and drinks his own condemnation, and no authority can alter this law contained in the teaching of Saint Paul and in Tradition. 

Sins of impurity that are against nature are of such gravity that they always and in every circumstance cry to God for vengeance, and are radically incompatible with every form of authentic Christian love. Such a ‘lifestyle’ can therefore in no way be recognized as a gift from God. A couple practising this vice must be helped to free themselves from it, and can in no way be blessed — formally or informally — by ministers of the Church. 

The submission of institutions and nations, as such, to the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ flows directly from the Incarnation and the Redemption. Therefore, secularism of institutions and nations constitutes an implicit denial of the divinity and universal kingship of Our Lord. 

Christendom is not a mere historical phenomenon, but the only order willed by God among men. 

It is not for the Church to conform herself to the world, but for the world to be transformed by the Church. 

It is in this Faith and in these principles that we ask to be instructed and confirmed by Him Who has received the charism to do so. With the help of Our Lord, we would rather die than renounce them. It is in this immutable Faith that we desire to live and die, in the hope that it may give way to the direct vision of the immutable eternal Truth. 

Menzingen, 14 May 2026,

on the Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord 

Davide Pagliarani

Bishop Bonny - Puts the Twerp in Antwerp

Twirp, a less common spelling of “twerp.” 

Noun.

: a silly, insignificant, or contemptible person

RORATE CÆLI: Schism Incoming - Bishop of Antwerp, Belgium, Officially Declares Intention to Ordain Married Priests

Bishop Bonny is clearly a:

Non mittendus cánibus! Unless you're in Switzerland.

From the Sequence for Corpus Christi written by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Ecce panis Angelórum, Factus cibus viatórum: Vere panis fíliórum, Non mitténdus cánibus.

Behold the Bread of Angels,  For us pilgrims food, and token Of the promise by Christ spoken, Children's meat, to dogs denied.

Unless you live in Dioces of Chur, the oldest diocese in Switzerland, having been erected in the 5th. century.

Bishop Bonnemain: No Excommunication For People Who Shared Eucharist With Dogs

 

Clarification result of the incident in the parish of Guthirt - Diocese of Chur

What Pope Leo XIV should have said to Mrs. Sarah Mullaly

Hello, Sarah. Lovely to see you here. I’ve met many laywomen, but that dress you’re wearing could start its own comedy show! Perhaps you’d have more fun heading home, whipping up a batch of cookies for the grandkids, and then treating your husband to a deluxe foot rub. Oh, and about those murdered and martyred ancestors of yours, the cathedrals stolen and the destroyed monasteries...but first, let's talk about your immortal soul.

From Pope Leo XIII:

On the Nullity of Anglican Orders - Papal Encyclicals

Pope John Paul II:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994)

New bishop for the Diocese of London in Canada!

Date: April 21, 2026 at 6:34:08 AM EDT

Subject: Pope Leo XIV appoints Bishop Daniel Miehm as the new Bishop of London

His Holiness, Pope Leo XIV, announced today that he has accepted the resignation of Bishop Ronald Fabbro and appointed Most Rev. Daniel Miehm to be next Bishop of the Diocese of London. He will serve as the 11th bishop of the Diocese. Bishop-designate Miehm is currently serving as the Bishop of the Diocese of Peterborough, an appointment he has held since 2017.  Bishop Fabbro has served as the Bishop of London since 2002 and offered his resignation prior to his 75th birthday in 2025 in accordance with the requirements of canon law.

 Comments from Bishop Miehm

 “With gratitude to God for many blessings over these past nine years as the Bishop of Peterborough, I now prepare to embrace a new responsibility in my ministry. I feel humbled to be called by the Holy Father to serve the Church as the Bishop of London. I am grateful to the Holy Father for his confidence in me, especially as I follow in the footsteps of Bishop Ronald Fabbro, who has given such stellar leadership in the Diocese of London, and to the Church in Canada. It gives me both encouragement and consolation to know that he will continue to reside in the diocese, and I pray that he may continue to enjoy good health as he enters retirement.

 "I look forward to serving the people of the Diocese of London, and to working collaboratively with the clergy, consecrated men and women and lay members of the faithful. I know that I will be assisted in this important work by a very dedicated and able Diocesan pastoral and administrative staff as we move forward together.

"In this Easter season, as the Church celebrates the resurrection of Christ, we are invited to deep faith, trust in God, and hope in the promise of new life. It is in such a spirit that I embrace this new chapter in my continued service to the Church. I ask your prayers for me, for all those I have served in Peterborough and for those whom I will meet and serve in my Episcopal ministry in the Diocese of London.” 

Words of welcome from Bishop Fabbro 

“The people of the Diocese of London join in thanking God for this appointment and will welcome Bishop Miehm warmly. I've known Bishop Miehm for many years and am confident that he will be a good shepherd to the faithful of the Diocese. He comes to us with a wealth of experience as Bishop of Peterborough. He is a strong, compassionate leader with outstanding pastoral instincts and the wisdom to guide our Diocese into the future. Under his episcopal leadership, the Diocese of London will be in very capable hands. 

"I am profoundly grateful for the countless blessings I have received during the 24 years I have served as Bishop of this Diocese and will continue to pray for the faithful of the Diocese in my retirement. I join with all of you in our prayers for Bishop Miehm. May God grant him good health and many years of fruitful ministry, and may he be a good and faithful shepherd to the people of this Diocese."

Biography of Bishop Daniel Miehm 

Bishop Daniel Miehm was born in 1960 in Kitchener, Ontario.  After studies at St. Jerome's College, University of Waterloo and St. Augustine's Seminary in Toronto, he was ordained to the Priesthood on May 6, 1989, at the Cathedral of Christ the King in Hamilton. 

Bishop Miehm served as a Priest in the Diocese of Hamilton from 1989 to 2013.  During his ministry, he served as Associate Pastor at St. Francis Xavier Parish in Stoney Creek and the Cathedral of Christ the King in Hamilton, as Pastor at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish in Hamilton and St. Ann Parish in Ancaster. During this time, Bishop Miehm also served as a member and representative on various Councils in the Hamilton Diocese.  From 1996 to 2012, he served as Judge and Defender of the Bond on the Toronto Regional Marriage Tribunal. In June of 2012, he was appointed Founding Pastor of St. Benedict Parish in Milton where he was ministering at the time of his episcopal ordination.          

After exemplary service as a priest he was ordained a bishop on May 7, 2013 and served as an Auxiliary Bishop in the Diocese of Hamilton. Following his appointment by Pope Francis, Bishop Miehm was installed as the 13th Bishop of the Diocese of Peterborough on April 19, 2017. 

Bishop Miehm holds a Master's of Divinity degree from St. Augustine's Seminary and a Licentiate in Canon Law from the Angelicum University in Rome.

On a national level, he serves the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) as a member of the Permanent Council and as co-chair of the Hindu-Catholic Dialogue. For nine years, he was the CCCB bishop liaison to Canadian Catholic Campus Ministry. 

Provincially, Bishop Miehm sits on the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario (ACBO) Executive as a Councillor, and he chairs the Education Commission.  He is also bishop liaison to the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association. 

Until the time of Bishop-designate Miehm's installation, Bishop Fabbro will serve as the Apostolic Administrator of our Diocese, and so priests are asked to continue using his name in the Eucharistic Prayer until the time of the installation of the Bishop-designate. 

Let us pray for Bishop-designate Miehm, the faithful and clergy of the Diocese of London, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our local Church and the Diocese of Peterborough while they await the appointment of a new bishop.  

The Three Stooges

 With apologies to Larry, Moe and Curly.

This Joyful Eastertide - King's College Cambridge.

Haec Dies - Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina