Leo's initiative is a nice example of subsidiarity in action. It allows SSPX priests to unite with a Bishop willing to sponsor them and, following the submission of several required documents to the Vatican, those priests would be able to continue celebrating the Latin Mass. ✝

️Lay faithful would be able to unite with a priest willing to celebrate the Latin Mass for them and, depending on certain details, they could continue attending the old rite.

This effectively ends Traditiones Custodes, because if attending the Latin Mass is allowable for SSPX priests and laity who take advantage of Pope Leo's new initiative, it certainly cannot be forbidden for anyone else.

Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, and former Archbishop of Rochester, New York, Fulton Sheen.

Bishop Robert Barron of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester (Minnesota) recently proposed a solution to the disagreement between Pope Leo and Donald Trump about the US war with Iran, based upon paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which notes, among other things:

"The evaluation of [the four just war conditions] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

According to Bishop Barron:

"The role of the Church, therefore, is to call for peace and to urge that any conflict be strictly circumscribed by the moral constraints of the just war criteria. But it is not the role of the Church to evaluate whether a particular war is just or unjust. That appraisal belongs to the civil authorities, who, one presumes, have requisite knowledge of conditions on the ground."

He added:

"If we understand that the Pope and the President have qualitatively different roles to play in the determination of moral action in regard to war, we can, I hope, extricate ourselves from the completely unhelpful narrative of “Pope vs. President.”

It is important, to be sure, to go back to the source and apply Church teaching to issues of war and peace. This is a part of a Catholic Bishop's three-fold mission to teach, govern, and sanctify.

However, any application of the Catechism's just war teaching must also be done in conjunction with paragraph 2246, which says that it is part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

Of further relevance is paragraph 258 of Pope Francis's encyclical Fratelli Tutti :

"War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information.

In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy” have been met.

Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even “preventive” attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”… The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely."

This is why Pope Leo's Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, recently said that the war does not seem to meet the Catechism's just war criteria.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio and Bishop James Massa.

Bishop James Massa, who celebrates the Latin Mass and who is the Chairman of U.S. Bishops' Conference Committee on Doctrine, has made a similar statement, saying the justness of the war is “very questionable.”

Bishop Massa also noted that Pope Leo has not condemned all wars as unjust.

Furthermore, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the head of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military 🪖 Services, said in early April that he does not think the conflict is a just war.

Notably, future Pope Benedict XVI was asked in 2003 if the US/UK war against Iraq fit the Catechism's just war doctrine. He replied:

"Pope [John Paul II] expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith. 

The Holy Father’s judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a just war."

Furthermore, a comparable statement was made about the Vietnam 🇻🇳 War in 1967 by Venerable Fulton Sheen. Archbishop Sheen was one of, if not the first, American Bishop to publicly advocate for an end to US military involvement in Vietnam:

"May I speak only as a Christian and humbly ask the President to announce 'In the name of God, who bade us love our neighbor with our whole heart and soul and mind, for the sake of reconciliation, I shall withdraw our forces immediately from Southern Vietnam.'"

Ideally, a similar situation could be found to the current situation in the Middle East. Could not the US withdraw all forces involved in the war with Iran and Israel withdraw from Lebanon, Palestine, and the Golan Heights? 😇

As unlikely as this is, the cessation of unjust hostilities presents the best way to end the (very real) disagreement between the Pope and the President

.

"It is the Pope’s prerogative to articulate Catholic doctrine and the principles that govern the moral life. In regard to the concrete application of those principles, people of good will can and do disagree.

Bishop Barron noted that he "would warmly recommend that serious Catholics within the Trump administration...meet with Vatican officials so that a real dialogue can take place."

The next day, the Vice President of the United States, who Bishop Barron described as a "serious Catholic," noted, among other things:

“When the Pope says that God is never on the side of people who wield the sword, there is more than a 1,000-year tradition of just war theory...We can, of course, have disagreements about whether this or that conflict is just.”

The following day, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who is not a Catholic, said that he “was taken a little bit aback” when the Pope said that God does not listen to the prayers of “those who wage war” and that their “hands are full of blood.” “There’s something called the just war doctrine,” Mr. Johnson said.

On that same day Bishop James Massa, who celebrates the Latin Mass and who is the Chairman of U.S. Bishops' Conference Committee on Doctrine said:

“For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war.”

A just war "must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: ‘He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.’”

Bishop Massa added: “When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ.”

Furthermore, Bishop Massa has said: “We need to go back and look at that [just war] criteria again...I think what we’ll find is that it’s very questionable, the actions that have been recently taken by the United States government.”

In other words, Pope Leo's condemnation of the US/Israeli war with Iran 🇮🇷 is not merely an interesting theological opinion which we should examine and then decide to accept or reject.

The Pope’s recent words on the subject of war bear out this analysis:

"[Through prayer]...Thoughts, words and deeds...break the demonic cycle of evil and are placed at the service of the Kingdom of God...in which there is no sword, no drone, no vengeance, no trivialization of evil, no unjust profit.”

"Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic, and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.”

"Enough of the idolatry of self and money! Enough of the display of power!  Enough of war!  True strength is shown in serving life...Nothing is lost by peace; everything may be lost by war."

"The balance within the human family has been severely destabilized. Even the holy Name of God, the God of life, is being dragged into discourses of death...those who pray are aware of their own limitations; they do not kill or threaten with death.  Instead, death enslaves those who have turned their backs on the living God, turning themselves and their own power into a mute, blind and deaf idol to which they sacrifice every value, demanding that the whole world bend its knee."

“Absurd and inhuman violence is spreading ferociously through the sacred places of the Christian East, profaned by the blasphemy of war and the brutality of business, with no regard for people’s lives, which are considered at most collateral damage of self-interest.”

“Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of Peace…”

"there are certainly binding responsibilities that fall to the leaders of nations. To them we cry out: Stop! It is time for peace!"

"Christ, King of Peace, cries out again from his cross: God is love! Have mercy! Lay down your weapons! Remember that you are brothers and sisters!"

"reject war—especially a war which many people have said is unjust, which is continuing to escalate and which is not resolving anything."

Hopefully, today's re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz is a sign that the Pope’s words 🙏 are having an effect. 😇✝️⛪

️

The next three weeks will be busy for supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass. The “Summorum Pontificum” pilgrimage will take place this week in Rome 🇮🇹. Pilgrims will be joined for Vespers by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi. Also, the pilgrims will have a TLM in St. Peter’s Basilica celebrated by Cardinal Raymond Burke.

In November, Cardinals Gerhard Muller and Robert Sarah will celebrate TLMs in the United States 🇺🇸. Also, a Solemn High Mass will be celebrated by the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone.

The National Catholic Register noted that “The decision to allow the Mass at St. Peter’s to go ahead “appears to have come from the top,” and quotes Papal master of ceremonies Marco Agostini, who noted “Clearly, [it was] because the Pope said: ‘Let them do it.’”

As seen in the pictures 📸 below, the Pope is receptive to Latin and traditional liturgical elements. It has been reported in multiple places that he has celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass himself.

Please give him a special place in your prayers 🙏 in these coming weeks.

Since his election, Catholics have been wondering whether Pope Leo will restore the liberty for priests to say the Latin Mass.

One interesting clue as to how the Pope might approach this issue can be seen in his address to eastern Catholics given shortly after his election.

In that speech, he praised eastern liturgies and noted the use of original language of Jesus, Aramaic, in some of them. Like Aramaic, Latin is also a language which was spoken during the lifetime of Jesus.

Furthermore, he reiterated the appeal of his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, that the “legitimate variety of Eastern liturgy and discipline... may redound to the great honor and benefit of the Church.” This desire, the present Leo noted “remains ever timely."

Thus, Leo noted that Catholics in the West must "recover the sense of mystery that remains alive in [eastern Catholic] liturgies, liturgies that engage the human person in his or her entirety, that sing of the beauty of salvation and evoke a sense of wonder at how God’s majesty embraces our human frailty!"

Notably, Leo's speech to eastern Catholics is similar to a homily given by Cardinal Claudio Gugerotti after Pope Francis's death, during which he also happened to mention the-then Cardinal Robert Prevost and Saint Augustine. 😉

Cardinal Gugerotti (who speaks Latin) is currently the head of the Roman Curia's Congregation for Oriental Churches. In 2005, he wrote a book warning against liturgical novelties.

As seen in the above picture, he once celebrated Mass in Latin (and ad orientem) at Corpus Christi Church in London, which has hosted such Latin Mass-loving figures as Cardinals Raymond Burke, Robert Sarah, and Francis Arinze.

A collaboration between Pope Leo and Cardinal Gugerotti, if true, would seem to suggest an ending of restrictions on the Latin Mass. Indeed, former memeber of the Roman Curia, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, recently said he believes this will happen.

More evidence will be forthcoming when the Pope's permanent Curial appointments are announced in several weeks.

The Vatican's website for the 2025 Jubilee Year has had a notable recent update. The calendar of Jubilee pilgrimages now shows that a group from the SSPX will celebrate a Solemn High Mass in Rome, after which they will process the Holy Door of the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran.

St. John Lateran is the official Cathedral of the Pope, and as such, is the highest ranking Catholic Church in the world.

The symbolism here is quite fitting considering the increasing regularization of the SSPX which occurred during the reign of Pope Francis. Hopefully, this is a sign that full regularization of the Society's canonical situation will be achieved under the pontificate of Pope Leo.

Recently, Cardinal Robert Sarah, who celebrates the Latin Mass, celebrated Mass at the shrine of Saint Anne in Brittany, France. That Mass commemorated the 400th anniversary of Saint Anne's apparition in that area.

Notably, Cardinal Sarah had been asked by Pope Leo to serve as his Papal Emissary for this event. This is an interesting appointment considering that Cardinal Sarah was not regarded as being on the same theological wavelength as the previous Pontiff.

Indeed, one German Cardinal recently noted that Cardinal Sarah (along with Pope Benedict) were responsible in 2020 for persuading Pope Francis to back off from trying to change the priestly celibacy requirement.

Cardinal Sarah was also one of the 5 Cardinals who signed the 'dubia’ sent to Pope Francis in 2023 which sought clarification about certain Papal pronouncements.

Thus, it is worth noting this extract from Cardinal Sarah's homily at St. Anne's shrine:

“Even when all seems dark, we can always say, with our beloved Pope Leo XIV, evil will not triumph, evil will not prevail. God, our God, is infinitely good, infinitely beautiful, infinitely great. Today, with Saint Anne, in this place blessed and chosen by God, may this cry of love rise up in each of our hearts: “Come, let us adore the Lord, come, let us adore Him, let us bow down before Him, let us kneel before the Eternal, our Creator, for He is our God. Amen.””

The use of the term “beloved” to describe Pope Leo is noteworthy. Cardinal Sarah does not appear to have ever used this term to describe Pope Francis. Furthermore, this must be viewed together with the fact that his fellow Latin Mass-devotee (and dubia signer), Cardinal Raymond Burke, also has gotten along well with the new Pontiff.

Indeed, as noted recently, Cardinal Burke has even assisted Pope Leo with some of his homilies. The fact that these 2 Cardinals have such a close relationship with him is an auspicious sign and suggests that his papacy may be quite different than that of his predecessor.

46-year-old Monsignor Fredrik Hansen recently started his tenure as the Bishop of Oslo (southern Norway). Previously, he served as a seminary professor in the United States.

He is apparently the youngest Bishop in Europe. Notably, he uses the 1962 version of the Latin rite Breviary and celebrates the Latin Mass.

Readers in the NYC area take note: Bishop Hansen will be visiting the area on August 2 to celebrate a pontifical Mass at St. Rocco's Church in Glen Cove, NY.

The Norwegian Church is one of the current bright spots in European Catholicism and this week marks its annual Olsok festival in honor of the noted Norwegian Saint Olav.

Pope Leo recently celebrated his first Mass as Pope using the ad orientem posture. This Mass was said near the Papal summer home of Castel Gandolfo at an Italian police chapel.

This appears to be the first time in decades that a Pope has celebrated Mass ad orientem outside the Vatican. This ancient liturgical tradition is shared by the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican Ordinariate, and even by some protestant Churches.

Leo's use of ad orientem brings to mind a recent report by the editor of Inside the Vatican Magazine, Robert Royal, who regularly appears on EWTN. He said that a source told him that Pope Leo considers the liturgy to be one of his top priorities. This is why Leo recently created a synodal study group on this topic.

If there any topic worthy of discussion at the next Synod of Bishops, it would be how to continue the reform of the liturgy undertaken by Pope Benedict, who was responsible for liberating the Latin Mass and conducting a tradition-friendly overhaul of the Novus Ordo.

Indeed, Pope Leo might consider calling a council on the liturgy as recommended by Robert Royal's podcast co-host, former Vatican insider, Fr. Charles Murr. It is worth noting that before becoming Pope, Leo said thag he reads Inside the Vatican, so could it be that he's taking notes from its podcast? 😉

Call this one a good synodal surprise. Cardinal Raymond Burke of Wisconsin recently gave an interview to the Blue Army Shrine in Metuchen, New Jersey. In that interview he noted that he has assisted Pope Leo with several of his early homilies.

This is a stunning turnaround for Cardinal Burke, who was not well-liked by Pope Francis. In fact, Pope Francis once evicted Cardinal Burke from his Vatican apartment and terminated his pension, although these measures were thankfully reversed. Cardinal Burke served as the Chief Justice of the Vatican's highest court during the reigns of Popes Benedict and Francis and is noted for his love of the Latin Mass, which he regularly celebrates.

He was one of Pope Francis's well-known theological opponents in the episcopacy, and was one of the Cardonals who issued a dubia asking Pope Francis to clarify several matters of ecclesiastical import. It is an excellent sign to see that he is involved in assisting Pope Leo, who recently sent him a congratulatory noted (in Latin) for his 50th ordination anniversary.

It is also worth noting that Pope Leo is reported to say the Latin Mass himself, something which, to date, has not been denied by the Vatican. 😉

What should people do when they go to Mass? This was the topic of a recent article in a notable Catholic publication. In particular, the article mentioned this quote by the great English priest, Monsignor Ronald Knox:

“if you find it difficult or if you find it dull trying to follow the Mass, you are much better employed in simply kneeling there and saying your prayers, with a book or without a book, while Mass is going on” and that “[t]he Church doesn't oblige you to follow Mass; she only obliges you…to be there.”

To be sure, if someone is genuinely incapable of following along at Mass, there is nothing wrong for that person to engage in some form of personal prayer. However, this is not the ideal situation. For this, it would be helpful to turn to the words of Fr. Stedman, an American priest who did much to help popularize the use of hand Missals for people going to Mass.

In the introduction to the 1937 edition of his “My Sunday Missal,” Fr. Stedman addresses the question of engaging in personal devotions during Mass:

“The Mass, according to the saintly Piux X, is the “primary and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit and the faithful will be filled with this spirit only in proportion as they participate in the sacred mysteries.” Notice the words “primary” and “indispensable.”

All other exercises, private and public are secondary. The rosary, Benediction, novena services, the way of the cross, all other private and public devotions are beneficial, but all their efficacy is drawn from the sacrifice of the cross, offered again in every Mass.

In this age of universal reading and inexpensive printing only the Missal should be used at Mass. All honor to devotions and other devotional prayers, but let them recited at their proper time, not during Mass.”

But what of the quote from Monsignor Knox that “[t]he Church doesn't oblige you to follow Mass; she only obliges you…to be there?” Again, it is informative to note this quote from Fr. Stedman's “My Sunday Missal”:

“Too long have people forgotten that they are not merely to assist at Mass but to actually participate in it; not merely to hear Mass but to take a personal part in it; that the missal is not the private prayer of the priest at the altar, but the collective prayer of all present both in the pews as well as at the altar.”

This is reiterated by the Second Vatican Council, which taught:

“Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.”

The topic of active participation has also been the subject of numerous statements from 20th and 21st century Popes, which will be discussed in a future post.

Cardinal Victor “Tucho” Fernandez is currently the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is a venerable department of the Roman Curia, whose past leaders have included Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Gerhard Muller.

However, it is fair to say that Cardinal Fernandez, who was the chief drafter of the infamous Vatican document, Fiducia Supplicans, among other things, has failed to live up to theological standard of his predecessors. It is not surprising, then, that Catholic commentator Taylor Marahall, who recently returned from Rome, has said that, according to an unnamed source, Cardinal Fernandez may be out of a job in September when Pope Leo appoints permanent department heads in the Roman Curia.

This seem like the most likely outcome, especially considering the orthodox theological tone Pope Leo has been setting since being elected. However, it begs the question of who should replace Cardinal Tucho? Several choices come to mind:

➡️ Cardinal Gerhard Muller, who held the same job during the pontificate of Pope Benedict and during first few years of Pope Francis. He is an orthodox voice who would be a much-needed antidote to Cardinal Fernandez.

➡️ Archbishop Georg Ganswein. He is the Papal nuncio to several Baltic states and was private secretary to Pope Benedict. Interestingly, he was, at one time an SSPX seminarians. He would be an orthodox voice like Cardinal Muller.

➡️ Bishop Erik Varden. He is the Bishop of Trondheim, Norway 🇳🇴. He is notable for his excellent responses to Fiducia Supplicans and synodality. If appointed to the job, he would be an excellent evangelizing influence.

Who would you like to see as the next head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Pope Francis's 2021 persecution edict against the Latin Mass, Traditiones Custodes, states, among other things:

"With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene."

"[Summorum Pontificum], intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division."

"Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."

Notably, journalist Diane Montagna has recently obtained a copy of the Vatican's assessment of the episcopal consultation referenced by Pope Francis. The assessment noted that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good" and "in places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.” The latter quote is from a final report given to Pope Francis, of which the assessment was a part.

The report predicted that “weakening or suppressing Summorum Pontificum would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve.” Additionally, some Bishops who responded to the Vatican's questionnaire believed that changing Summorum would “foster the departure of disappointed faithful from the Church toward the Society of St. Pius X or to other schismatic groups," encourage distrust toward Rome, create “a resurgence of the liturgical wars,” and “even foster the emergence of a new schism.” Furthermore, such a move “would delegitimize two Pontiffs—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who had committed themselves to not abandoning these faithful.”

Not surprisingly, the report recommended “Let the people be free to choose," as suggested by one Filipino Bishop. To that effect, it recommended that priests and seminarians be taught how to say the Latin Mass. The report believed such training would be conducive to greater ecclesiastical unity and peace, and would contribute to increased Diocesan vocations.

How, then, should Pope Leo XIV respond to these revelations? At this point, it would seem that the most synodal outcome would be to implement the recommendations of the report by restoring Summorum Pontificum. Such a move would be conducive to increased Papal fundraising, increased vocations, and an increase in Mass attendance among young people.

As the report noted, “A constant observation made by the bishops is that it is young people who are discovering and choosing this older form of the liturgy. The majority of the stable groups [of Latin Mass attendees] present in the Catholic world are composed of young people."

In this way, by turning towards the past, the Church would indeed be turning towards its future.

The US attack against Iran has provoked a strong reaction throughout the world, including from Pope Leo XIV. It raises the important question of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding war. The starting point for this is found in Sections 2308 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.””

This is further elaborated upon in the following Section of the Catechism:

“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”

Here, we must ask whether it is certain that Iran's nuclear program will inflict lasting and grave damage upon the United States or the community of nations. In his press conference after the bombing, the President of the United States said, among other things:

“For 40 years, Iran has been saying, 'Death to America, death to Israel.' They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms… with roadside bombs. We lost over 1,000 people and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East, and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular. So many were killed by their general, Qassim Soleimani. I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue…We've gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.”

That does not answer the question of whether Iran's nuclear program poses a grave, lasting, and certain threat to the United States or the Community of nations.

Even if one pretends, for the sake of argument, that the first condition has been met, that still leaves the second condition: have all means of ending the Iranian nuclear program been shown to be impractical or ineffective?

For that, one can look to the recent bilateral negotiations between the US and Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program. Those negotiations came to a recent halt, though, after Israel bombed numerous sites in Iran, and killed or wounded several people involved in Iran's negotiating team.

The United States knew about that attack in advance and provided some support for it. Thus, it cannot be said that the US exhausted all peaceful means of ending the Iranian nuclear program.

However, even if we pretend, for the sake of argument, that the US exhausted all peaceful options, there's still the question of whether the attack had a serious prospects of success.

Some reports have noted that Iran evacuated the bombed sites several days in advance. The US had at least some knowledge of this evacuation. Also, even when combined with the June 13 raid, the attack on the nuclear sites still leaves open the possibility that Iran could simply move their evacuated material to other sites and continue work on their nuclear program.

Also, it is conceivable that other nuclear powers could respond to the raid by providing nuclear assistance to Iran. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a serious prospect that the raid would destroy the Iranian nuclear program.

However, even if we pretend, for the sake of argument, that a serious prospect of success existed, there's still the fourth and final question: will the US raid against Iran “produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated?”

The Catechism notes that the “power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.” As noted, this raid could cause some nuclear nations such as China, Russia, and North Korea, to provide assistance to Iran such that it might obtain a nuclear weapon quicker than it otherwise would have.

Also, the raid further exacerbates tensions in the middle east, in particular, between Jews and Muslims, the full effects of which cannot ascertained. It could also exacerbate tensions between the US and other nuclear nations.

Furthermore, the raid could cause retaliatory strikes which could cause more death and misery. Considering that the raid did not eliminate Iran's nuclear program and caused no casualties, it is possible that future responses to the raid could easily exceed damage caused by the raid.

Thus, it cannot be said that the fourth condition in the Catechism has been met by the US bombing raid against Iran.

Previous posts here have discussed a draft persecution edict composed by Bishop Michael Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte. That document would seek to prohibit various traditional liturgical practices, including altar rails and ad orientem worship.

A Benedictine abbot in Bishop Martin's Diocese has recently denounced the fact that this draft document was leaked to the public. The abbot believes the leaking of the persecution edict is a ‘work of death’ which foments disunity, perverts truth, and is lacking in charity. He used the same terminology to criticize a recent anonymous letter from several priests in the Diocese who are critical of Bishop Martin's leadership style.

He believes that the publication of these documents has “gravely damaged trust,” and claimed that the “resulting media frenzy” regarding Bishop Martin has “gravely injured the peace and unity of this local Church.” He described some Catholic media outlets covering this story as “Church-related political action committees,” who have stirred division with “jargon, hyperbole, and nearly apocalyptic urgency.” 🤯

The abbot believes that the real problem facing Bishop Martin's Diocese is “a lack of proper obedience and respect for legitimate authority,” which he thinks has made people “feel free to pick and choose what teachings they choose to accept, what authority they regard as legitimate.”

The abbot's remarks raise an important question. What is the role of the laity when Bishops teach error? To start, we can turn to the document Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council. It says, among other things:

“The laity…are called upon, as living members, to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church and its continuous sanctification, since this very energy is a gift of the Creator and a blessing of the Redeemer.

The lay apostolate…is a participation in the salvific mission of the Church itself. Through their baptism and confirmation all are commissioned to that apostolate by the Lord Himself…Now the laity are called in a special way to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth. Thus every layman, in virtue of the very gifts bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church itself "according to the measure of Christ's bestowal.""

This command is especially relevant to the current situation involving Bishop Martin. Diocesan priests are usually reticent to speak out against episcopal errors due to the possibility of retaliation, which, depending on the situation, could lead to a priest being deprived of his material livelihood. Thus, because the laity do not depend upon their Bishop's good graces, it is they who are uniquely suited to speak out when he proclaims error.

Here, by noting the errors of Bishop Martin's draft liturgical edict, the laity are also helping him in his own ministry, which includes, according to Vatican II, the responsibility of administering the liturgy “in accordance with the Lord's commandments and the Church's laws, as further defined by his particular judgment for his diocese.”

It is, as one may say, synodality in action. 😉

The Archbishop of Louisville, Kentucky, Shelton Fabre, recently issued a letter containing several provisions he wants to be implemented by the feast day of Corpus Christi.

Two of the provisions are worth noting:

"Deacons, servers, and other ministers present in the sanctuary are to observe the normative posture of standing to receive Holy Communion to be good models for the faithful while they serve in these visible liturgical ministries."

"Churches may not set up kneelers for the Communion line or establish a procedure for distributing Holy Communion behind a communion rail. Such practices communicate an expectation that the faithful should kneel."

This, of course, raises the question of whether the Archbishop may deny communion to an altar server, Deacon, or other minister if they kneel for communion. As his document notes, the norm for receiving communion is standing, unless, of course, a communicant wishes to kneel. That provision can be found in Section 160 of the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, which are the liturgical rubrics governing celebrations of the Novus Ordo.

Interestingly, he also cited a Vatican document which states no one may ever be denied communion because they choose to kneel. It states, among other things, "the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion."

That would appear to be to the proper response to people who kneel for communion. The only allowable reasons to deny such people communion would be if they are not properly disposed or if a canonical impediment was present, as outlined in Sections 915-916 of the Code of Canon Law.

Thus, it would seem that the Archbishop has no authority to ban altar servers, Deacons, and ministers from kneeling for Communion. To do so, if anything, would violate the general obligation of Bishops to support altar boy societies “due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations.” Preventing altar boys from kneeling for communion seems like a bad way to be supportive and to encourage vocations.

Also, equating being a good model for the faithful with standing for communion could create confusion and lead some to believe that kneeling for communion is somehow less than praiseworthy.

Next, it must be asked whether the Archbishop has the authority to ban altar rails. Notably, he cites no authority in support of it. Thus, for the reasons discussed in a previous post, it would appear that he has again exceeded his authority.

One point to note here is that his letter would appear to allow the elderly and the infirm to use an altar rail or kneeler if they would otherwise be unable to kneel.

That would creates the odd situation where a grandparent, for instance, would be able to use an altar rail but his/her grandchild would not. This raises the question of whether a non-elderly/infirm person could be denied communion for using an altar rail. The answer to this appears to be no, unless, of course, a communicant is improperly disposed or a canonical impediment exists.

It would seem that the optimal solution here would be to have a communion rail but let people know they are free to stand or kneel. This would allow for everyone's rights to be respected and would avoid people having to kneel for Communion on the ground.

As noted in previous posts, Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte has composed a draft edict which would outlaw numerous traditional liturgical practices. The decree has been shelved for now, according to Pillar Catholic. However the Bishop continues to implement it at his Masses and may try to implement parts of it in the future.

In particular, he is keen on ending the use of altar rails, according to an anonymous source cited by Pillar Catholic. Thus, it was of great interest to see what occurred at one of his recent confirmation Masses. A video from that Mass shows practically everyone in the Church kneeling on the ground to receive communion from the Bishop, including all of the confirmandi.

In light of all this, it is instructive to consider the question of whether a Diocesan Bishop has the authority to prohibit altar rails. The relevant rubric on this question says the sanctuary "should be appropriately marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation."

An altar rail falls within the definition of a "particular structure and ornamentation." This is noted in a 2000 document from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

It also important to discuss kneeling for communion. The rubrics note that the norm is standing, but recognize that people also have the right to kneel. A 2002 Vatican document also noted that people always have the right to kneel. A 2004 Vatican document added that a person may not be denied communion because they choose to kneel.

Thus, it appears that a Bishop has no authority to categorically forbid altar rails in his Diocese. On the other hand, since the use of them is optional, he may decide to stop using them if they exist in his own parish, that is to say, the Diocesan Cathedral. Also, since standing for communion is the norm in the US, he may see to it that no communicant is forced to use an altar rail.

But what if communicants decide to use an altar rail against a Bishop's wishes? In that case, they could not be denied communion simply because they were kneeling, as per the above-noted 2004 Vatican document. Additionally, there exists no specific authority for a Bishop to deny them communion because they were kneeling at an altar rail.

In general, the only reasons to deny someone communion are contained in Sections 915-916 of the Code of Canon Law. Unless a Bishop could find an applicable reason contained therein, it appears as if he would have no authority to deny communion to people who used an altar rail against his wishes. Indeed, as Section 912 says: “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.”

Theoretically, a Bishop could go through the process to establish what's called a Diocesan law banning altar rails. However, that would fail because such a law would fail because it contradicts the Section of the rubrics which allows for the use of altar rails.

Even if such a Diocesan law didn't contradict any other law, it still would run afoul of Vatican II's constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Section 23 of that document says that no liturgical innovations can be done "unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." A Bishop would be hard-pressed to argue that the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires the banning of altar rails.

So what is a Bishop to do if he opposes altar rails but is surrounded by altar rail loving people? One idea would be to consult Section 42 of the rubrics which says that bodily postures at Mass must be conducive “to making clear the true and full meaning of its different parts.” If a Bishop followed the spirit of this section, he would be commending encouraging parishes where everyone (or nearly everyone) kneels for communion.

Also, Bishops should follow the 2017 guidance from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which calls for parishes to help disabled people feel welcome. Banning disabled people from using altar rails and forcing them to kneel on the ground for communion hardly seems inclusive. 😉

Archbishop Edward Weisenburger of Detroit has issued a decree which, among other things, bans public Latin Masses except at 4 designated locations. It also states that “use of the ad orientem posture by the priest when using the ordinary form of the Mass is no longer permitted and the Mass must be celebrated on a free standing altar.”

Oddly, the next paragraph adds the following:

“When celebrating the ordinary form of the Mass or any of the Church's prescribed liturgies, no cleric or lay person may add, omit, or alter anything in the ordinary form of the Mass on his own authority…so that “the truth of the faith as celebrated might appear ever more in all its beauty” and “how the reformed liturgy is the witness to an unchanged faith, the witness of a renewed ecclesiology, and the primary source of spirituality for the Christian life.””

As noted, in a previous post, a Bishop has no authority to prohibit the Novus Ordo from being celebrated ad orientem. Indeed, the most recent edition of the Roman Missal presumes it as the default liturgical posture. Furthermore, a 2000 document from the Vatican stated that a priest may celebrate Mass ad orientem or he may celebrate it facing the people.

Also, if the Archbishop of Detroit wants to celebrate the Novus Ordo as a witness to an unchanged faith and wants to help the beauty of the faith appear ever more, he would be encouraging the use of ad orientem rather than persecuting it. Some scholars have traced the use of ad orientem to the early second century and it could have been in use prior to 70 AD.

A similar statement could be made about the Latin Mass, which originated in North Africa around the time of St. Augustine and has existed in various forms for over 1,500 years. Instead of persecuting it, the Archbishop of Detroit should, at minimum, have imitated the example of his fellow Michiganer, the Bishop of Saginaw, who recently halted the Latin Mass persecution in his Diocese and referred the matter to Pope Leo for re-evaluation.

Today marked the end of the annual 3-day pilgrimage from Paris to Chartres Cathedral in France. This pilgrimage is organized every year by supporters of the Latin Mass. It begins with a Mass in Paris, after which pilgrims commence a grueling 3-day long hike to the city of Chartres, France, located some 70 miles away.

Pilgrimage attendance set a record this year, with nearly 20,000 people joining the trek across France. A notable pilgrim this year was the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, Athanasius Schneider, who celebrated Mass for the pilgrims yesterday on the solemnity of Pentecost. 🕊 🔥

Today, the Bishop of Chartres, France, greeted pilgrims as they approached the famed Chartres Cathedral. Later, during his homily at the closing Mass, he delivered a message from Pope Leo, who conveyed his blessing to the pilgrims and noted that he was praying for them.

This is a stark turnaround from the preceding weeks and months, during which the pilgrimage was subject to a less than friendly reception from several French Bishops and the previous pontificate.

However, the winds of change appear to be upon us as shown, for example, in this passage, from Pope Leo's Pentecost homily: “For we are truly the Church of the Risen Lord and disciples of Pentecost if there are no borders or divisions among us; if we are able to dialogue and accept one another in the Church, and to reconcile our diversities; and if, as Church, we become a welcoming and hospitable place for all.”

This brings to mind his installation homily, where he noted that part of the Petrine ministry is to sheperd the Church in the “co-existence of diversity,” a diversity which once again appears to include one of the Church's oldest and most venerable liturgical rites.