The SSPX and the 2026 Excommunication: A New Chapter in an Old Schism

The SSPX and the 2026 Excommunication: A New Chapter in an Old Schism

The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, has long stood at the center of controversy within the Roman Catholic Church. On July 2, 2026, the Vatican formally declared the SSPX schismatic and imposed excommunication on its clergy and adherents who formally support the group. This followed the SSPX's consecration of four new bishops on July 1 without papal mandate, an act echoing the 1988 crisis but carrying broader canonical consequences.

 Background: From Foundation to the 1988 Crisis

Archbishop Lefebvre established the SSPX in Écône, Switzerland, to preserve the pre-Vatican II liturgical traditions, particularly the Traditional Latin Mass, amid what he saw as modernist influences following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). The society faced suppression in 1975, but tensions peaked in 1988 when Lefebvre, against explicit orders from Pope John Paul II, consecrated four bishops (Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta) without papal approval.

This act triggered automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication for those directly involved under Canon Law, as it was deemed a schismatic rejection of papal primacy. Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei condemned the move and warned that formal adherence to the schism incurred excommunication. Lefebvre and the bishops disputed the validity of the penalties, arguing they acted out of necessity to safeguard Tradition.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four surviving bishops as a gesture of outreach. However, the SSPX as an organization remained without canonical status, and its priests' sacraments (especially confessions and marriages) operated in a gray area. Popes Francis and subsequent leaders granted limited faculties for certain sacraments but stopped short of full regularization.

 The 2026 Consecrations and Excommunication

On July 1, 2026—exactly 38 years after the 1988 event—SSPX bishops Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay consecrated four new bishops (Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier) at Écône, defying warnings from Pope Leo XIV. Thousands attended the ceremony despite the risks.

The Vatican responded swiftly. On July 2, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a decree declaring the act schismatic. It confirmed automatic excommunication for the consecrating and newly consecrated bishops. Going further than in 1988, the decree extended this to SSPX priests as schismatics and excommunicated, while warning lay faithful who "formally adhere" to the society that they too incur the penalty. It also declared SSPX-administered confessions and marriages invalid.

This represents a hardening of the Church's position, moving beyond individual penalties to a declaration affecting the entire fraternity.

A Timely Reminder from the Society’s Namesake

Pope St. Pius X, after whom the SSPX is named, offered a powerful teaching on papal authority and holiness in a November 18, 1912 allocution: “Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.” This excerpt underscores the traditional Catholic emphasis on unity with the Successor of Peter as a mark of true sanctity, a principle that adds poignant irony to the current situation involving a society bearing his name. 

 SSPX's Perspective and Ongoing Divisions

The SSPX maintains it is not schismatic, viewing its actions as necessary resistance to perceived errors in the post-conciliar Church. It rejects the 1975 suppression and both the 1988 and 2026 excommunications as invalid, arguing canon law allows for extraordinary measures in crisis. Supporters see the society as a guardian of doctrinal and liturgical continuity.

Critics, including many within the Church, argue that repeated defiance of papal authority undermines unity and constitutes genuine schism. The 2026 events have renewed debates over Tradition, authority, and the legacy of Vatican II.

 Implications for Catholics

For the faithful, this creates painful choices. The Vatican urges Catholics to avoid SSPX chapels to remain in full communion. Traditionalist communities elsewhere (such as those under the Fraternity of Saint Peter or diocesan Latin Masses) offer alternatives aligned with Rome. The situation highlights deeper tensions in the Church over liturgy, doctrine, and obedience.

As of July 2026, reconciliation seems distant. History shows that bridges can be built, as with the 2009 lifting of excommunications, but repeated episcopal consecrations without mandate have escalated the divide.

The SSPX saga underscores the enduring challenge of balancing fidelity to Tradition with unity under the successor of Peter. Catholics on all sides pray for healing, even as positions harden.

 References

- Wikipedia: Society of Saint Pius X (updated entries on 2026 events).

- EWTN News: Vatican confirms excommunication of SSPX bishops (July 2026).

- Britannica: Society of St. Pius X entry.

- Vatican Press: Decree from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (July 2, 2026).

- AP News and other reports on the July 1 consecrations.

Note: This post is for informational purposes and does not constitute canonical advice. Consult your local bishop or reliable Church authorities for personal guidance.

Gay Pride Mass at Stonewall

 

Gay Pride Mass at Stonewall: The Smell of the Sheep and the Medicine of Mercy

In the heart of New York City’s Greenwich Village, where the Stonewall Inn stands as a landmark of resistance and identity for the LGBTQ+ community, a Catholic Mass was celebrated amid Pride celebrations. For many Catholics, the optics can seem jarring—rainbow flags, secular Pride events, and the ancient liturgy sharing the same space. Questions arise: Is this appropriate? Does it compromise the Church’s teaching? Yet as I reflect on it, two things come immediately to mind: the smell of the sheep and the unmistakable example of Jesus eating with sinners.

Pope Francis has often spoken of pastors who carry “the smell of the sheep.” It is a vivid image of a Church that does not remain distant or antiseptic, but one that goes out to where people actually are—flawed, searching, wounded, and sometimes far from the ideal. The Good Shepherd leaves the ninety-nine to find the one lost. He does not wait for the sheep to clean itself up perfectly before approaching. He draws near first.

Jesus Himself modeled this scandalous closeness. The Pharisees grumbled because He ate with tax collectors and sinners. They saw compromised optics; He saw souls in need of mercy. “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick,” He said. Time and again, Christ’s ministry was marked by table fellowship with those society judged most harshly. He did not begin with condemnation but with presence, healing, and invitation to conversion. The Church exists to continue that mission.

This brings us to the heart of why such a Mass matters, even when it invites criticism. Pope Francis captured it powerfully in Evangelii Gaudium (2013), paragraph 47:

> “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

The Church is not a museum for saints but a field hospital for the wounded. In a world full of division, isolation, and moral confusion, the Mass at Stonewall represents an attempt to bring the medicine of the Eucharist precisely where people may feel most alienated or most in need. It is an act of accompaniment—meeting people in their reality rather than demanding they achieve perfection before entering the door.

Critics will rightly note that the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage has not changed and cannot change. Mercy without truth is sentimentality; truth without mercy is harsh legalism. The genius of the Catholic approach is to hold both in tension: clear doctrine paired with radical, personal outreach. Ministering to those who experience same-sex attraction does not mean endorsing every aspect of Pride culture. It means witnessing to the dignity of every person made in God’s image, offering the sacraments as strength for the journey, and trusting the Holy Spirit to lead hearts toward holiness over time.

The field hospital does not ask the bleeding soldier for his papers or demand he recite the full catechism before bandaging his wounds. It stops the bleeding, nourishes the body, and then begins the deeper work of healing and conversion. That is the logic of evangelization. That is the logic of the Incarnation—God entering our messy reality rather than calling down from afar.

As Catholics, we are called to be both faithful to revelation and generous in mercy. Events like the Pride Mass at Stonewall test that balance. They may look messy. They may invite misunderstanding. But they also echo the Lord’s own table fellowship and Francis’s call for a Church that smells like the sheep—close to the people entrusted to her care.

In the end, the Eucharist is not a reward for arriving at the destination. It is food for the journey. May more souls, whatever their struggles, find nourishment there, encounter Christ in His mercy, and be drawn ever closer to the fullness of life He offers. 

That is the purpose of the Catholic Church: to seek the lost, heal the wounded, and proclaim the Gospel to every person—starting right where they are.

Should the St. Michael Prayer Be Said After Mass?

Should the St. Michael Prayer Be Said After Mass? A Deep Dive into History, Liturgy, and Spiritual Warfare

In many Catholic parishes today, especially those with a traditional bent or a strong emphasis on spiritual combat, you will hear the familiar words after the final blessing and dismissal: “Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle…” The congregation kneels or stands, united in invoking the great Archangel’s protection. For some, this practice feels like a natural extension of the Mass — a powerful send-off into the world. For others, it raises questions: Is this appropriate? Does it belong after the liturgy? Was it ever officially part of the rite? And in an age of renewed focus on the devil’s activity, should we revive or expand this devotion?

This blog post explores the full context of the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel, its rich history, the liturgical principles governing devotional prayers in relation to the Mass, the reasons it was once recited after Low Mass, and a balanced examination of the pros and cons of continuing or reintroducing the practice today. We will draw on official Church documents, papal teachings, historical accounts, and theological reflections to provide a thorough, non-polemical analysis. Whether you are a proponent of the prayer, a skeptic, or simply curious, this examination aims to inform and edify.

 The Origins and History of the Prayer to Saint Michael

The Prayer to Saint Michael did not emerge in a vacuum. Its roots lie in the turbulent late 19th century, a period marked by political upheaval, secularization, and threats to the Church’s temporal and spiritual independence.

Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878–1903), one of the most intellectually formidable pontiffs of modern times, authored the prayer. Born Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci in 1810, Leo XIII was deeply concerned with the Church’s position in a rapidly modernizing world. He issued landmark encyclicals on social justice (Rerum Novarum), the nature of the state, and the errors of modernity. But one specific threat loomed large: the loss of the Papal States and the Pope’s temporal sovereignty.

In 1884, Pope Leo XIII issued instructions for what became known as the Leonine Prayers. These were a series of devotional prayers to be recited after Low Mass (the simpler, spoken form of the Traditional Latin Mass without singing or full ceremonial). The initial set, ordered in 1884, included three Hail Marys, the Salve Regina (Hail Holy Queen), and a versicle and collect. The primary intention was to seek God’s help for the independence of the Holy See amid conflicts with the Italian government following the Risorgimento.

The Prayer to Saint Michael was added to these Leonine Prayers in 1886. According to longstanding tradition — supported by accounts from those close to the papal court — Pope Leo XIII experienced a disturbing mystical vision after celebrating Mass. Various reports describe him collapsing or standing transfixed, pale and shaken. In the vision, he reportedly overheard a conversation between Satan and Our Lord, in which the devil boasted that, given enough time (often cited as 100 years), he could destroy the Church. St. Michael then appeared to drive back the forces of evil. Horrified, the Pope composed the prayer as a direct response.

The full original prayer composed by Leo XIII was significantly longer than the version commonly used today — roughly ten times the length in some accounts. The short form that became standard reads:

> Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

This prayer was mandated to be recited after every Low Mass worldwide. It was never incorporated into the text or rubrics of the Mass itself but was an obligatory devotional addition immediately following the conclusion of the liturgy. The Leonine Prayers, including the St. Michael invocation, served dual purposes: thanksgiving to God and petition for the Church’s protection against earthly and spiritual enemies.

In 1930, Pope Pius XI modified the intention of the Leonine Prayers, shifting the focus from the Papal States (whose independence was partially restored by the 1929 Lateran Treaty creating Vatican City) to “tranquility and freedom to profess the faith… restored to the afflicted people of Russia,” reflecting the rise of Soviet communism.

The practice continued universally until the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council. In 1964, Pope Paul VI’s instruction Inter Oecumenici suppressed the obligation to recite the Leonine Prayers after Mass. This was part of a broader effort to simplify the rites, emphasize the integrity of the liturgical action, and align practices with the renewed understanding of the Mass as the central act of worship. The suppression meant the prayers were no longer required; however, private or voluntary recitation was never forbidden.

Pope St. John Paul II played a key role in reviving interest. In his 1994 Regina Coeli address, he explicitly encouraged the faithful: “Even if today this prayer is no longer recited at the end of the Eucharistic celebration, I invite everyone not to forget it, but to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world.” Pope Francis has similarly promoted it, particularly in the context of the Rosary and protection against division in the Church.

Today, the prayer enjoys a resurgence in many places, especially amid heightened awareness of spiritual warfare, cultural secularism, and scandals within the Church. It is frequently prayed after Novus Ordo Masses, in Traditional Latin Masses (where the older rubrics allow more flexibility), and in personal devotion.

 Why Was It Said After (Low) Mass?

The placement after Low Mass was deliberate and tied to both practical and theological reasons.

Practical Reasons: Low Mass was the most common form of daily celebration — quiet, spoken, without choir or elaborate ceremony. Adding prayers afterward did not disrupt the flow of a sung High Mass. The congregation was already kneeling or in position, making communal recitation natural.

Theological and Spiritual Reasons: The late 19th century saw aggressive attacks on the Church — politically from unification movements and philosophically from liberalism, materialism, and atheism. Pope Leo XIII viewed these as manifestations of deeper demonic forces. Reciting the prayer immediately after receiving the Eucharist equipped the faithful for the “battle” awaiting them outside the church doors. The Mass nourishes; the subsequent prayer arms.

It also served as a form of exorcistic and protective supplication. St. Michael, as the leader of the heavenly armies (Revelation 12), is invoked to restrain evil spirits “who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.” This echoes the Church’s ancient practice of using sacramentals and invocations against the devil.

Importantly, these prayers were not part of the Mass proper. They followed the Ite, Missa Est (Go, the Mass is ended) and the blessing. The liturgy concluded, and then a devotional exercise began. This distinction is crucial for understanding later debates.

 Liturgical Rules on Devotional Prayers During, After, or Before Mass

The Catholic Church has always distinguished carefully between the sacred liturgy (the official public worship of the Church, regulated by strict rubrics) and popular devotions (pious practices that complement but do not replace the liturgy).

Key documents outline these principles:

- Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 1963): Emphasizes that devotions should harmonize with the liturgy, be derived from it, and lead people back to it. No. 13 states that popular devotions are “highly recommended,” provided they align with liturgical norms.

- General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM): The current Ordinary Form’s governing document stresses the integrity of the Mass. Additions or changes by individual priests are prohibited (GIRM 24). After Communion, a period of sacred silence or a hymn is envisioned (GIRM 88). The dismissal truly ends the liturgical action.

- Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (2001, Congregation for Divine Worship): This is the most detailed modern guide. It warns against mingling devotions within the Mass itself, as this can obscure the distinct natures of liturgy and piety. However, it explicitly allows devotions immediately before or after Mass (e.g., Rosary, Stations of the Cross, or prayers like the St. Michael invocation), provided they do not confuse the faithful or extend the liturgical rite artificially.

- Inter Oecumenici (1964): Suppressed the obligation of Leonine Prayers but did not ban voluntary use.

In the Extraordinary Form, the older rubrics permitted greater flexibility for prayers after the conclusion. In the Ordinary Form, the consensus among liturgists is that devotional prayers should follow the final blessing and dismissal, and preferably after the priest has processed out or the recessional hymn concludes, to preserve the clarity that the liturgy has ended.

Bishops have authority over public practices in their dioceses. Some explicitly permit or encourage the St. Michael Prayer after Mass; others prefer silence or other devotions to avoid any perception of “adding to” the rite. Priests may not insert it before the dismissal without violating rubrics.

 Pros of Saying the St. Michael Prayer After Mass

1. Spiritual Warfare Awareness: In an era of moral confusion, family breakdown, and Church crises, the prayer reminds believers that evil is real and active. It fosters vigilance without paranoia.

2. Communal Bond and Continuity: It connects modern Catholics to the piety of their ancestors. Many older faithful recall it fondly as part of their formation.

3. Papal Endorsement: Recent popes have encouraged it. John Paul II and Francis saw value in invoking St. Michael amid contemporary battles.

4. Protection and Thanksgiving: Following the Eucharist — our greatest weapon — the prayer sends the faithful forth fortified. It has an exorcistic character that many find powerful.

5. Flexibility: When done after the dismissal, it respects liturgy while enriching devotion. Parishes report it as a simple, unifying practice that takes less than a minute.

6. Evangelical and Catechetical Value: It teaches about angels, the devil, and the Church Militant — topics sometimes neglected in modern catechesis.

 Cons and Objections

1. Liturgical Purity: Critics argue that any regular communal addition risks blurring the boundary between liturgy and devotion. The Mass should stand on its own as the Church’s highest prayer. Ending with a petition to a saint (rather than directly to God) can feel like a tonal shift from the Eucharistic climax.

2. Historical Contingency: The prayer was tied to specific 19th-century crises. With the obligation removed, mandating or heavily promoting it may impose a particular devotion on diverse congregations.

3. Practical Issues: In sung Masses with processions, it can create awkward logistics. Some parishioners feel pressured to stay when they need to leave promptly.

4. Risk of Superstition or Imbalance: Overemphasis on demonic activity without equal stress on Christ’s victory can foster fear rather than hope. The Eucharist itself is the primary protection.

5. Pastoral Division: In polarized Church environments, reviving it can become a flashpoint between “traditional” and “progressive” factions, distracting from unity.

6. Rubrical Clarity: Some liturgists insist the priest should not lead it from the altar after dismissal, to avoid implying it is an extension of the rite.

 A Balanced Perspective: Should It Be Said?

The Church does not require the St. Michael Prayer after Mass today, but neither does she prohibit it when done properly. The most harmonious approach seems to be voluntary communal recitation after the full conclusion of the liturgy — post-dismissal, post-recessional if any — as a cherished devotion. Pastors can encourage it without mandating it, respecting the conscience and needs of the faithful.

Ultimately, the question is not merely rubrical but spiritual. The battle against evil is real (Ephesians 6:12). The Eucharist equips us; devotions like this sustain us in the daily fight. Whether recited privately, in small groups, or communally after Mass, the prayer remains a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the Church Militant.

Catholics should discern with their pastors, study the liturgy’s beauty, and embrace whatever fosters deeper love for Christ and His Church. St. Michael stands ready — may we call upon him wisely and confidently.

I personally have no issue with the prayer being said after Mass. St. Michael is my confirmation saint, so I have a bias.  

May St. Michael defend us all in battle. Amen.

 References

- Prayer to Saint Michael. Wikipedia (historical summary).  

- Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (2001), Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  

- Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), Vatican II.  

- General Instruction of the Roman Missal.  

- Accounts from Our Sunday Visitor, Catholic Times, and papal addresses by John Paul II (1994) and Francis (2018).  

- Kevin Symonds, Pope Leo XIII and the Prayer to St. Michael (detailed historical study).  

- Various diocesan guidelines and liturgical commentaries (e.g., PrayTell Blog, Musica Sacra Forum discussions).  

Spy Wednesday - Betrayal Everywhere

Spy Wednesday, also known as Holy Wednesday, is the Wednesday of Holy Week in the Christian liturgical calendar. It commemorates the day when Judas Iscariot conspired with the chief priests and elders to betray Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver. From that moment, Judas began seeking an opportunity to hand Jesus over to His enemies, acting like a "spy" among the disciples by feigning loyalty while plotting in secret. This event is recorded in the Gospels, particularly Matthew 26:14-16, where Judas asks, "What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?" and they pay him the silver. The day invites solemn reflection on betrayal, hypocrisy, and the contrast between true discipleship and hidden treachery.

The thirty pieces of silver hold deep significance. This sum was the standard price for a slave in ancient Israel (Exodus 21:32), underscoring the profound undervaluation of Jesus—the Son of God—by those who rejected Him. It fulfills Old Testament prophecy from Zechariah 11:12-13, where the prophet describes receiving thirty pieces of silver as wages for shepherding God's people, only to be told to throw this "magnificent price" to the potter in the house of the Lord. In the New Testament, after the betrayal, Judas returns the silver in remorse, and it is used to buy a potter's field for burying foreigners (Matthew 27:3-10). This small, almost insulting amount highlights the cheapness with which sin treats the priceless gift of salvation. It serves as a warning: how often do we "sell out" our relationship with Christ for fleeting worldly gains, comfort, or approval?

Judas's betrayal was not a surprise to God but was prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures centuries earlier. Psalm 41:9 declares, "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me." Jesus Himself quoted this during the Last Supper to indicate that Scripture must be fulfilled in the actions of one who shared intimate fellowship with Him (John 13:18). Other psalms, such as elements in Psalms 69 and 109, further echo the desolation and replacement that would follow such treachery. These prophecies reveal God's sovereign foreknowledge while emphasizing the tragedy of a trusted companion turning against the Lord for personal motives.

The kiss of Judas (Matthew 26:48-49), by which he identified Jesus to the arresting crowd in the Garden of Gethsemane, adds another layer of betrayal. A kiss, in that cultural context, was a sign of affection, respect, and friendship among disciples and rabbis. To pervert this intimate gesture into a signal for violence and arrest exemplifies the depths of hypocrisy. Some interpretations draw a parallel here to modern distortions of God's design for human relationships. Just as the kiss twisted a holy sign of communion into an act of disloyalty, so too does embracing same-sex relations represent a betrayal of God's created norms for sexuality and marriage as revealed in Scripture (Genesis 1-2; Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 1:26-27). It exchanges the natural order established by the Creator for something contrary, much like Judas exchanged loyalty for silver. True love and fidelity to God mean aligning with His will, not redefining it to suit personal desires or cultural trends.

In our own time, betrayal of Christ and His Church can take subtler forms. Recently, some Catholics and Protestants have attacked Pope Leo XIV for his Palm Sunday comments that God "does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war" but rejects them, citing Isaiah 1:15: "Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood." The Pope emphasized Jesus as the King of Peace who cannot be used to justify violence, particularly amid ongoing conflicts. Critics have accused him of being overly political or naive, yet his words echo the consistent biblical call to peace and justice while condemning bloodshed. Attacking the Holy Father in this way—especially during Holy Week—mirrors the spirit of Judas: turning against the visible head of the Church while claiming fidelity to Christ.

Finally, we see a more everyday form of betrayal in the behavior of some who treat the Mass casually. Those who arrive late to the Eucharistic celebration and leave early, showing little reverence for the re-presentation of the Lord's Sacrifice, resemble Judas at the Last Supper. Judas was physically present with Jesus during that sacred meal, yet his heart was elsewhere; he did not fully value the intimacy and gift being offered. Similarly, treating the Mass—the source and summit of our faith—as something to squeeze into a schedule or rush through dishonors the Lord who is truly present in the Eucharist. It signals a lack of care for the "importance of the Last Supper with the Lord," reducing the divine encounter to a mere obligation rather than a profound act of worship and communion.

As we reflect on Spy Wednesday, let us examine our own hearts. Are we, like Judas, harboring secret betrayals—whether through sin, compromise with worldly values, or indifference to the sacred? Or are we striving to be faithful disciples who remain with Jesus, even when the path leads to the Cross? May this day draw us closer to Christ, who was betrayed so that we might be redeemed. Let us resolve to value Him above all "pieces of silver" this world offers and to stand in fidelity to His teachings and His Church.

Cardinal Cupich: One Rite

Cardinal Blase Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago, published a column in mid-January 2026 on ChicagoCatholic.com (Liturgy: Tradition, reform, unity - Cardinal Blase J. Cupich - Chicago Catholic - Chicago Catholic), reflecting on remarks by Cardinal Arthur Roche and emphasizing the need for liturgical unity in the Roman Rite. In the piece, he argues that the liturgy is inherently living and adaptive, calling for ongoing reform in response to cultural changes over time. He praises this dynamism as essential to the Church's mission and unity, drawing on historical precedents like Pope Pius V's efforts to standardize liturgical practice. Cupich explicitly states that "there must be only one rite" in the Roman (Latin) Church to preserve ecclesial unity, aligning this with Pope Francis's directives in Traditionis Custodes and the broader post-Vatican II liturgical vision.

 The Positive Aspects: Tradition as Living and the Roman Rite as One Rite

One of the strongest elements in Cupich's column is his affirmation that tradition is not static but living. He highlights how the liturgy evolves with the passage of time and shifts in culture, ensuring it remains relevant and expressive of the Church's faith in every era. This resonates deeply with Catholic teaching on living tradition, as articulated in documents like Dei Verbum from Vatican II, which describes tradition as a dynamic transmission of revelation through the Church's life. Cupich's emphasis here underscores that authentic tradition involves organic development, not rigid preservation of every historical accretion. He portrays reform not as rupture but as purification and renewal, allowing the liturgy to better reflect the Church's self-understanding as a pilgrim people gathered around the Eucharist.

Equally compelling is his insistence that the Roman Rite is fundamentally one rite. This echoes Pope Benedict XVI's earlier framework in Summorum Pontificum (2007), where he described the pre- and post-Vatican II forms of the Mass as the "Extraordinary" and "Ordinary" Forms of the same Roman Rite. Cupich builds on this by stressing unity: despite variations in expression, the Roman Rite remains a singular liturgical tradition rooted in the same theological core—the paschal mystery of Christ. By affirming "one rite," he promotes a vision of harmony within diversity of expression, where the Church speaks with a unified voice in worship. This can foster a sense of belonging for Catholics across different preferences, reminding us that the liturgy unites rather than divides when oriented toward the same Christ.

These points are valuable contributions to ongoing discussions about liturgy. They remind readers that the Church's worship has always adapted—think of the gradual incorporation of vernacular elements, musical developments, or architectural changes over centuries—while preserving essentials like the Eucharistic prayer, sacraments, and scriptural foundations.

 The Negative Aspects: Targeting the Extraordinary Form Without Balanced Praise

However, the column's tone and focus reveal significant shortcomings. While Cupich celebrates ongoing reform and the need for one rite, he directs his critique primarily at the Extraordinary Form (the 1962 Missal, or Traditional Latin Mass). He echoes Cardinal Roche's references to Pius V's standardization, implying that allowing two forms undermines unity and that the post-Vatican II reform better fulfills the Church's call to renewal. The piece frames acceptance of the reformed liturgy as essential for preserving Church unity, with little positive acknowledgment of the Extraordinary Form's own gifts.

This selective emphasis is problematic. If both the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form are legitimately two expressions of the one Roman Rite—as Benedict XVI taught and as Cupich implicitly nods to—why not praise both? The Extraordinary Form offers profound treasures: its emphasis on reverence, silence, Gregorian chant, ad orientem orientation, and the sense of transcendence that draws many to deeper prayer. It has nourished saints, fostered vocations, and provided a rich spiritual patrimony for countless Catholics. Dismissing or sidelining it in favor of the reformed rite risks portraying one form as deficient or outdated, rather than complementary.

A more balanced approach would celebrate how both forms enrich the Church. The Ordinary Form highlights active participation and communal dimensions, aligning with Vatican II's call in Sacrosanctum Concilium for "full, conscious, and active participation." The Extraordinary Form excels in contemplative depth and historical continuity. Praising both would better reflect the "mutual enrichment" Benedict XVI envisioned, where each form learns from the other—perhaps incorporating more silence and chant into the Ordinary Form, or more vernacular accessibility into celebrations of the Extraordinary Form. Instead, the column's focus on reform as necessary and the need for "only one rite" (seemingly prioritizing the Ordinary Form) can feel like a subtle targeting of the Extraordinary Form, contributing to perceptions of marginalization among its adherents.

 Addressing Misinterpretations on X Regarding Eastern Rites

Some posts on X (formerly Twitter) have claimed that Cupich's call for "one rite" attacks the Eastern Catholic Rites, suggesting he seeks to impose uniformity across the entire Catholic Church and erase legitimate diversity in rites like the Byzantine, Alexandrian, or Syriac traditions. This is a misreading of the column. Cupich's context is explicitly the Roman (Latin) Rite, not the sui iuris Eastern Churches. He references Pius V's efforts to standardize within the Western tradition and ties his argument to preserving unity in the Roman Rite amid discussions of post-Vatican II reforms and Traditionis Custodes. The Catholic Church comprises 24 sui iuris Churches with distinct rites, and nothing in Cupich's piece suggests suppressing Eastern liturgies. Claims of an attack on Eastern Rites appear to stem from broader frustrations with liturgical restrictions but do not align with the text's clear scope.

 Conclusion: Toward Greater Unity Through Mutual Respect

Cardinal Cupich's column rightly celebrates tradition as living and the Roman Rite as one, offering a timely reminder of the Church's adaptive vitality and call to unity. Yet its emphasis on reform while critiquing the Extraordinary Form without equivalent praise misses an opportunity for genuine dialogue. If both forms are truly one rite, the Church would benefit from leaders who highlight the strengths of each, fostering mutual enrichment rather than competition. This approach would heal divisions, honor the faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form, and better reflect the richness of Catholic worship.

In an era of polarization, affirming the living nature of tradition while embracing both forms could model the unity Cupich seeks—one rooted in love for the same Eucharist, the same Lord.

 Sources

- Liturgy: Tradition, reform, unity - Cardinal Blase J. Cupich - Chicago Catholic - Chicago Catholic

- Gloria TV summary and excerpts from Cardinal Cupich's January 21, 2026, column on ChicagoCatholic.com (via Free Republic post dated January 26, 2026).

- Michael Haynes (@MLJHaynes) X post (ID 2015785066975166798, January 26, 2026) quoting Cupich: "there must be only one rite as a means of preserving the unity of the church."

- Related X discussions (e.g., @ZealousLawrence clarifying context to the Roman Rite, not Eastern Rites).

- Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (2007) and accompanying letter, on the two forms of one Roman Rite.

- Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), on liturgical reform and noble simplicity.

- Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes (2021), on the unique expression of the Roman Rite's lex orandi.

- Archdiocese of Chicago website (chicagocatholic.com) for Cupich's published writings (contextual reference).

The Day of Penance: January 22 – A Call to Prayer and Reparation for the Protection of Unborn Life

The Day of Penance: January 22 – A Call to Prayer and Reparation for the Protection of Unborn Life

Every year on January 22, the Catholic Church in the United States observes a solemn day dedicated to prayer and penance. Officially known as the Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection of Unborn Children, this observance is mandated across all dioceses in the country. 

It serves as both a remembrance of a tragic chapter in American history and an ongoing spiritual commitment to defend the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

 The Historical Context

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, effectively legalizing abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy nationwide. This ruling led to the tragic loss of millions of unborn children and caused deep wounds to countless women, men, families, and communities. For nearly five decades, it established a regime of abortion on demand across the United States.

A pivotal shift occurred on June 24, 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, returning the authority to regulate abortion to the states. While this decision marked a significant victory for the pro-life cause, the work is far from complete. Many state laws and policies remain permissive or even expansive toward abortion, and federal challenges persist. The need for prayer, advocacy, and healing continues urgently.

 Why a Day of Penance?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM, no. 373) explicitly designates January 22 (or January 23 if the 22nd falls on a Sunday) as “a particular day of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life and of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion.”

This is not merely a day of commemoration but one of active penance—a time for Catholics to acknowledge the gravity of abortion as a grave offense against human life and God's gift of creation. Penance here involves personal and communal acts of reparation, seeking forgiveness for societal sins while imploring God's mercy and conversion of hearts.

Pope Saint John Paul II captured this urgency powerfully in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae:

> “A great prayer for life is urgently needed, a prayer which will rise up throughout the world. Through special initiatives and in daily prayer, may an impassioned plea rise to God, the Creator and lover of life, from every Christian community, from every group and association, from every family and from the heart of every believer.”

 How Catholics Observe This Day

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) encourages a range of prayerful and penitential practices. These include:

- Attending Mass, often the special “Mass for Giving Thanks to God for the Gift of Human Life” (with white vestments) or the “Mass for the Preservation of Peace and Justice” (with violet vestments, emphasizing penance).

- Fasting and abstaining from meat as acts of self-denial.

- Praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet, a decade of the Rosary, or offering a Prayer for Life before the Blessed Sacrament.

- Making small sacrifices, such as giving up media/entertainment for the day or dedicating time to acts of service for others.

- Participating in local events like prayer vigils, rosary rallies, or the National Prayer Vigil for Life.

Many join initiatives like the 9 Days for Life novena leading up to January 22, which unites hundreds of thousands in focused prayer and penance.

Resources from the USCCB and Respect Life programs provide liturgical texts, suggested readings, action guides, and pro-life prayers to deepen participation.

 A Day of Hope Amid Sorrow

January 22 invites reflection on the sacredness of every human life as a gift from God. It calls us to grieve the past, repent where needed, and rededicate ourselves to building a culture of life. Even after the overturning of Roe, the battle for hearts, laws, and support for mothers and families continues.

On this day, Catholics are reminded that true change begins with prayer—united, persistent, and humble. Through penance, we seek healing for those wounded by abortion and grace for a society that fully cherishes every unborn child.

As we observe this Day of Penance, may our prayers rise as an “impassioned plea” to the Creator and Lover of Life, trusting in His mercy and power to transform hearts and restore justice.

For more information and resources, visit the USCCB's dedicated page: https://www.usccb.org/january-22.

Let us pray and act, today and every day, for the legal protection of unborn children and the healing of all affected by abortion.

The Roman Rite & Other Latin Rites

The Roman Rite stands as the most widespread and influential liturgical tradition in the Catholic Church, serving as the foundational rite of the Latin Church. Its history spans nearly two millennia, evolving from the earliest Christian gatherings in Rome to the structured forms used today. 

This blog post explores the origins and development of the Roman Rite, the adoption of Latin as its liturgical language, and two significant parallel Latin liturgical traditions: the Ambrosian Rite in Milan and the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo. These rites highlight the rich diversity within the Western liturgical family while underscoring the unifying role of the Roman Rite.

 The Origins of the Roman Rite: From Apostolic Times to Early Development

The Roman Rite traces its roots directly to the apostolic era, emerging from the Eucharistic celebration instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. Early Christians in Rome, the capital of the empire, gathered in house churches for the "breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42), combining the synagogue-style service of readings and prayers with the Eucharist. The liturgy was simple, centered on Scripture, preaching, prayers, and the Eucharist, reflecting Jewish roots while incorporating distinctly Christian elements.

In the first two centuries, the Roman community used Koine Greek, the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean and the language of the New Testament. Evidence from early sources, such as the letters of St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) and the writings of St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD), describes a structure recognizable in outline: readings from the prophets and apostles, a homily, prayers, the kiss of peace, the offering of bread and wine, thanksgiving (eucharistia), and communion (the Eucharist).

A key early document often associated with Roman liturgical practice is the Apostolic Tradition, attributed (though debated in modern scholarship) to Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD), a presbyter and theologian. This text provides one of the earliest detailed Eucharistic prayers (anaphora) and ordination rites, showing a developed structure including thanksgiving for creation, redemption, and the institution narrative. While not exclusively Roman, it reflects practices in the Roman church during the third century, emphasizing continuity with apostolic tradition amid persecutions and theological disputes.

The transition from Greek to Latin marked a pivotal moment. Greek dominated initially because many early Christians in Rome were from the East or spoke Greek as a lingua franca. However, as Christianity spread among Latin-speaking populations in Italy and North Africa, Latin gradually entered the liturgy.

 The Adoption of Latin: A Gradual Shift in the Third and Fourth Centuries

Latin's rise as the language of the Roman liturgy was practical and pastoral. Pope Victor I (c. 189–199 AD), originally from North Africa, is credited with introducing Latin elements alongside Greek, marking the beginning of bilingual use. By the mid-third century, Latin gained prominence as the everyday language of the Western Roman population.

The decisive shift occurred in the fourth century. Under Pope Damasus I (366–384 AD), the liturgy became predominantly Latin. Damasus, a key figure in standardizing Roman practices, commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin (the Vulgate), facilitating Latin's liturgical dominance. This period saw the Roman Canon (the fixed Eucharistic Prayer) take shape in Latin, with early forms attested in the writings of St. Ambrose of Milan around 390 AD.

By the late fourth century, the liturgy in Rome was fully in Latin, though some Greek elements (like the Kyrie eleison) persisted. Latin was not merely vernacular speech; it developed into a stylized, sacral form—ecclesiastical Latin—with archaic elements, Hebraisms, and rhetorical flourishes suited to worship. This ensured universality as Christianity spread across Western Europe.

The fifth and sixth centuries solidified the rite under popes like Leo the Great (440–461 AD) and Gregory the Great (590–604 AD). Gregory reformed the liturgy, refining chants (Gregorian chant) and fixing the Roman Canon. The rite spread through missionary activity, particularly under Charlemagne (8th–9th centuries), who promoted Roman uniformity across the Frankish Empire, blending Roman elements with local Gallican customs.

 Medieval Standardization and the Council of Trent

The Roman Rite evolved through medieval additions: more elaborate ceremonies, feasts, and the influence of monastic traditions. By the 11th century, it had much of its enduring form, including the solemn high Mass with incense, candles, and choral singing.

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) responded to Protestant Reformation challenges by standardizing the rite. In 1570, Pope Pius V promulgated the Roman Missal, codifying the form largely based on earlier Roman books, with minor local adaptations suppressed except where usage predated 1370. This Missal governed the liturgy for centuries, ensuring unity.

In the 20th century, the rite saw renewal. The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) introduced reforms for greater participation, leading to the ordinary form (promulgated 1969–1970). The extraordinary form preserves the 1962 edition, both expressions of the same Roman Rite.

 The Ambrosian Rite in Milan: A Distinct Western Tradition

While the Roman Rite dominated the West, exceptions persisted. The Ambrosian Rite, centered in Milan, is one of the most prominent. Named after St. Ambrose (bishop 374–397 AD), it serves about five million Catholics in the Archdiocese of Milan and surrounding areas.

The rite's origins predate Ambrose, likely drawing from early Western practices with Gallican influences. Ambrose, a key defender against Arianism, shaped its hymnody (including the Te Deum attributions) and antiphonal chanting. The rite survived pressures for uniformity, including from Charlemagne, who sought Roman dominance, and the Council of Trent, thanks to figures like St. Charles Borromeo.

Characteristics distinguishing it from the Roman Rite include:

- A different liturgical year structure, with unique seasons and feasts.

- Longer offertory rites and antiphons.

- Distinct chant style, resembling Eastern modalities with melismas.

- Processional customs, like the crucifix facing the celebrant.

- Unique vestments and colors in some contexts.

- Greater emphasis on Christ's role and Eastern-like elements.

The Ambrosian Rite maintains Latin primarily, with vernacular options post-Vatican II, preserving its identity while in full communion with Rome.

 The Mozarabic Rite in Toledo: The Ancient Hispanic Tradition

The Mozarabic Rite (also Hispanic or Visigothic Rite), centered in Toledo, represents Spain's ancient liturgical heritage. Used across the Iberian Peninsula until the 11th century, it developed during the Visigothic Kingdom (5th–8th centuries), reaching its peak in the 7th century under figures like St. Isidore of Seville.

After the Muslim conquest (711 AD), Christians under Islamic rule (Mozarabs, meaning "Arabized") preserved it. It declined during the Reconquista as Roman uniformity advanced, but Toledo retained pockets. In 1495–1502, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros revived and printed editions of the Missal and Breviary, establishing its use in Toledo Cathedral's Mozarabic Chapel, where it continues today (post-Vatican II reformed).

Key features include:

- Rich, variable prayers with multiple options.

- Unique chant (Mozarabic chant), distinct from Gregorian.

- Extended prefaces and variable Eucharistic prayers.

- Strong emphasis on Scripture and patristic influences.

- Historical ties to Visigothic councils standardizing Catholic practice after Arianism.

It remains a living witness to Iberian Christianity's depth.

 Conclusion

The Roman Rite's journey—from Greek beginnings to Latin dominance, through medieval flourishing and Trent's codification to modern forms—reflects the Church's adaptability and unity. Alongside it, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites enrich the Latin tradition, showing legitimate diversity. These rites, preserved with papal approval, remind us of the Church's catholicity: one faith expressed in varied beautiful forms.

Here are videos/livestreams of each Rite so you can cherish the awesomeness and beauty of the Latin Rite: 

 Ordinary Form  

 Extraordinary Form  

 Mozarabic Rite  

 Ambrosian Rite

 Sources

- Britannica articles on "Traditional Latin Mass," "Mozarabic chant," and related entries.

- Wikipedia entries on "Ambrosian Rite," "Mozarabic Rite," "Liturgical use of Latin," and "Hippolytus of Rome" (for historical overviews; cross-referenced with primary sources).

- New Liturgical Movement articles on Roman Rite history and Ambrosian Rite explanations.

- Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) entries on "Ambrosian Liturgy and Rite" and "Mozarabic Rite."

- Adoremus Bulletin series: "A Short History of the Roman Rite of Mass" by Fr. Uwe Michael Lang.

- Sacerdotus.com article on the role of Latin in the Roman Rite.

- Liturgical Arts Journal posts on Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites.

- FSSPX News explanations of Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites.

- Vatican documents and historical references to popes like Damasus I and Gregory the Great.

Cardinal Roche Allegedly Supports Traditionis Custodes

Cardinal Roche's Leaked Consistory Text: A Strong Defense of Traditionis Custodes

In the ongoing liturgical debates within the Catholic Church, few topics generate as much passion as the status of the Traditional Latin Mass (also known as the Extraordinary Form or the 1962 Missal). On January 7-8, 2026, Pope Leo XIV convened an extraordinary consistory of cardinals in Rome to discuss key issues facing the Church, including evangelization, synodality, the Roman Curia, and the liturgy. While the liturgy was ultimately not selected as a formal discussion topic due to time constraints, a previously undisclosed two-page report prepared by Cardinal Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, was distributed to the attending cardinals. This document, which mounted a robust defense of Pope Francis's 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, has since been leaked and published by various Catholic media outlets, sparking renewed controversy.

 Background on Traditionis Custodes

Issued on July 16, 2021, Traditionis Custodes significantly restricted the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Roman Rite, revoking the broader permissions granted by Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Pope Francis cited concerns over division in the Church and a perceived link between attachment to the older form and rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Roche, as the primary enforcer of the document through subsequent clarifications like the Responsa ad Dubia (2021) and other directives, has consistently defended its implementation.

The leaked text from the January 2026 consistory reaffirms this position. Dated January 8, 2026, the report emphasizes that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform, approved by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, represents the faithful implementation of the Council's decrees. It describes the reform as being "in full harmony with the truest sense of tradition" and serving as a "lofty way of serving tradition" to guide the Church forward.

 Key Points from the Leaked Document

The report portrays the continued use of the 1962 Missal as a limited concession rather than a promotion of an alternative rite. It explicitly links Traditionis Custodes to the goal of ecclesial unity, stating that Pope Francis permitted restricted use of the older Missal while "point[ing] the way toward unity in the use of the liturgical books promulgated by the holy popes Paul VI and John Paul II, in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."

A particularly pointed passage ties the liturgical question to acceptance of Vatican II: the post-conciliar books are presented as having "guaranteed the fidelity of the Council’s reform." The document argues that Traditionis Custodes was written precisely "so that the Church may raise, in the variety of so many languages, one and the same prayer capable of expressing its unity."

Critics of the leak note that the text frames the 1962 Missal as a "tolerated exception" rather than a liturgical treasure to be preserved indefinitely, reinforcing the idea that the Ordinary Form (post-Vatican II Mass) is the normative expression of the Roman Rite's prayer law (lex orandi).

Although the report was distributed for reflection, it was not formally debated during the consistory. An anonymous cardinal described it to media as "quite negative about the Traditional Latin Mass," highlighting the ongoing tensions surrounding the issue.

 Broader Implications

This leaked document arrives amid persistent discussions about the future of Traditionis Custodes under Pope Leo XIV. Previous leaks (such as 2025 revelations about the 2020 bishop consultation) had already questioned the original rationale for the restrictions, suggesting that many bishops did not support them and warned of potential harm. Cardinal Roche's text appears to double down on the need for unity through the post-conciliar liturgy, even as traditional communities continue to grow, particularly among younger Catholics.

The episode underscores the deep divisions in the Church over liturgy, tradition, and the legacy of Vatican II. For supporters of Traditionis Custodes, the report is a reaffirmation of papal authority and conciliar fidelity. For its critics, it represents an ongoing effort to marginalize the ancient rite despite its enduring appeal.

As the Church navigates these waters, the leaked text serves as a reminder that liturgical questions remain far from resolved.

Here is the English text:

LITURGY 

Card. Arthur Roche 

1. In the life of the Church, the Liturgy has always undergone reforms. From the Didachè to the Traditio Apostolica; from the use of Greek to that of Latin; from the libelli precum to the Sacramentaries and the Ordines; from the Pontificals to the Franco-Germanic reforms; from the Liturgia secundum usum romanæ curiæ to the Tridentine reform; from the partial post-Tridentine reforms to the general reform of the Second Vatican Council. The history of the Liturgy, we might say, is the history of its continuous ‘reforming’ in a process of organic development. 

2. Saint Pius V, in facing the reform of the liturgical books in observance of the mandate of the Council of Trent (cf. Session XXV, General Decree, chap. XXI), was moved by the will to preserve the unity of the Church. The bull Quo primum (14 July 1570), with which was promulgated the Roman Missal, affirms that «as in the Church of God there is only one way of reciting the psalms, so there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the Mass» (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missae celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat). 

3. The need to reform the Liturgy is strictly tied to the ritual component, through which – per ritus et preces (SC 48) – we participate in the paschal mystery: the rite is in itself characterised by cultural elements that change in time and places. 

4. Besides, since “Tradition is not the transmission of things or words, a collection of dead things» but «the living river that links us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are ever present” (BENEDICT XVI General Audience, 26 April 2006), we can certainly affirm that the reform of the Liturgy wanted by the Second Vatican Council is not only in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition, but constitutes a singular way of putting itself at the service of the Tradition, because the latter is like a great river that leads us to the gates of eternity. (ibid.). 

5. In this dynamic vision, “maintaining solid tradition” and “opening the way to legitimate progress» (SC 23) cannot be understood as two separable actions: without a “legitimate progress” the tradition would be reduced to a “collection of dead things” not always all healthy; without the “sound tradition» progress risks becoming a pathological search for novelty, that cannot generate life, like a river whose path is blocked separating it from its sources. 

6. In the discourse to the participants in the Plenary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (8 February 2024), Pope Francis expressed himself thus: 

«Sixty years on from the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the words we read in its introduction, with which the Fathers declared the Council’s purpose, do not cease to enthuse. They are objectives that describe a precise desire to reform the Church in her fundamental dimensions: to make the Christian life of the faithful grow more and more every day; 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 reinvigorate that which serves to call all to the bosom of the Church (cf. SC 1). It is a task of spiritual, pastoral, ecumenical, and missionary renewal. And in order accomplish it, the Council Fathers knew where they had to begin, they knew there were particularıy cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy» (Ibid.). It is like saying: without liturgical reform, there is no reform of the Church.» 

 

7. The liturgical Reform was elaborated on the basis of «accurate theological, historical and pastoral investigation» (SC 23). Its scope was to render more full the participation in the celebration of the Paschal Mystery for a renewal of the Church, the People of God, the Mystical Body of Christ (see LG chapters I-II), perfecting the faithful in unity with God and among themselves (cf. SC 48). Only from the salvific experience of the celebration of Easter, the Church rediscovers and relaunches the missionary mandate of the Risen Lord (cf. Mt 28, 19-20) and becomes in a world torn by discord, a leaven of unity. 

8. We ought to also recognize that the application of the Reform suffered and continues to suffer from a lack of formation, and this urgency of addressing, beginning with Seminars to «bring to life the kind of formation of the faithful and ministry of pastors that will have their summit and source in the liturgy (Instruction Inter œcumenici, 26 September 1964, 5) 

9. The primary good of the unity of the Church is not achieved by freezing division but by finding ourselves in the sharing of what cannot but be shared, as Pope Francis said in Desiderio desideravi 61: 

«We are called continually to rediscover the richness of the general principles exposed in the first numbers of Sacrosanctum Concilium, grasping the intimate bond between this first of the Council’s constitutions and all the others. For this reason we cannot go back to that ritual form which the Council fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform, approving, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and following their conscience as pastors, the principles from which was born the reform. The holy pontiffs St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II, approving the reformed liturgical books ex decreto Sacrosancti Ecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, have guaranteed the fidelity of the reform of the Council. For this reason I wrote Traditionis custodes, so that the Church may lift up, in the variety of so many languages, one and the same prayer capable of expressing her unity. [Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969) in AAS 61 (1969) 222]. As I have already written, I intend that this unity be re-established in the whole Church of the Roman Rite.» 

10. The use of liturgical books that the Council sought to reform was, from St. John Paul II to Francis, a concession that in no way envisaged their promotion. Pope Francis-while granting, in accordance with Traditionis Custodes, the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum-pointed the way to unity in the use of the liturgical books promulgated by the holy Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. 

Pope Francis summarised the issue as follows (Desiderio desideravi 31): 

» […] If the liturgy is ‘the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed, and at the same time the font from which all her power flows, (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10), well then, we can understand what is at stake in the liturgical question. It would be trivial to read the tensions, unfortunately present around the celebration, as a simple divergence between different tastes concerning a particular ritual form. The problematic is primarily ecclesiological. I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document that expresses the reality of the Liturgy intimately joined to the vision of Church so admirably described in Lumen gentium. […]». 

Rome, 8.01.2026

This is the controversial text (in English) on the liturgy that was given to the cardinals at the first consistory of Leo XIV | ZENIT - English

 Sources

- https://blog.messainlatino.it/2026/01/concistoro-relazione-completa-card-grech.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=concistoro-relazione-completa-card-grech

- LifeSiteNews, "BREAKING: Leaked consistory texts reveal cardinal's defense of Latin Mass restrictions," January 13, 2026.

- Infovaticana, "Roche’s Document on the Liturgy Revealed," January 13, 2026.

- The Catholic Herald, coverage referenced in multiple reports (summary of cardinal's testimony on the document being "quite negative about the Traditional Latin Mass").

- Wikipedia entry on Traditionis Custodes (for historical context, updated as of 2025-2026 events).

Cardinal Roche’s consistory document on the Traditional Latin Mass revealed

Report: Dicastery prefect defends Pope Francis’ document restricting Latin Mass at Vatican meeting with cardinals - CatholicVote org

This is the controversial text (in English) on the liturgy that was given to the cardinals at the first consistory of Leo XIV - ZENIT - English

Vatican liturgist urges U.S. Church to follow Pope Francis’ guidelines on Mass | Catholic News Agency

Nuncio in Britain says pope won't overturn restrictions on old Latin Mass | USCCB

"Mass of All Ages" and "Traditional Latin Mass": Well-Meaning but Inaccurate

The Titles "Mass of All Ages" and "Traditional Latin Mass": Well-Meaning but Inaccurate Descriptions of the Extraordinary Form

 Introduction

In Catholic discussions about liturgy, particularly among those who prefer the pre-Vatican II form of the Mass, terms like "Traditional Latin Mass" (TLM) and "Mass of All Ages" are commonly used to refer to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, as codified in the 1962 Roman Missal of Pope John XXIII. These titles express deep reverence and affection for this liturgical expression, highlighting its beauty, antiquity, and continuity with centuries of Catholic worship. They are well-meaning attempts to emphasize the sacredness and timeless value of this form amid modern changes.

However, while motivated by piety, these titles can be historically and theologically inaccurate. The Roman Rite has evolved organically over nearly two millennia, with numerous reforms, additions, and modifications. No single missal edition— including the 1962 one—can claim to be the unchanging "Mass of all ages" or the sole "traditional" one. Moreover, as Popes Paul VI and Benedict XVI taught, there is only one Roman Rite with one essential lex orandi (law of prayer), expressed in two forms: the Ordinary Form (promulgated by Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form.

This article explores these issues in depth, drawing on historical development, papal teaching, and liturgical theology. It aims to foster greater understanding and unity within the Church, recognizing the legitimacy of both forms while clarifying misconceptions.

 The Evolution of the Roman Rite: A History of Organic Development and Change

The Mass did not emerge fully formed but developed gradually from the apostolic era. Early Christian Eucharistic celebrations were simple, rooted in the Last Supper and Jewish synagogue practices. By the fourth century, a basic structure emerged: readings, prayers, offertory, Eucharistic Prayer (Canon), and Communion.

The Roman Rite, specifically, took shape in Rome and spread across the Latin Church. Influenced by Gallican (Frankish) elements from the eighth century onward, it incorporated new prayers, ceremonies, and feasts. Pope Gregory the Great (590–604) is credited with significant organization, but the rite continued to evolve.

Medieval developments included expanded introductory rites (Prayers at the Foot of the Altar), offertory processions, and a richer calendar of saints. The invention of printing in the 15th century led to variations, prompting calls for standardization.

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) responded to Protestant critiques by mandating uniformity. Pope Pius V promulgated the first "Tridentine" Missal in 1570 via Quo Primum, restoring ancient forms while incorporating medieval developments. This was not a new creation but a codification, largely based on the Roman Curia's 13th-century practices.

Subsequent popes revised this missal multiple times, adding feasts, adjusting rubrics, and refining texts. The Roman Rite has never been static; it has always balanced continuity with prudent adaptation.

 Major Editions of the Roman Missal

Here is a chronological list of the principal typical editions (official Vatican-approved versions) of the Roman Missal in the Latin Church:

- 1474: First printed Roman Missal (Milan), based on the 13th-century Curial Missal; very similar to later Tridentine forms.

- 1570: Promulgated by Pope Pius V (Quo Primum); the first standardized "Tridentine" Missal post-Council of Trent.

- 1604: Revised by Pope Clement VIII; corrections and additions.

- 1634: Revised by Pope Urban VIII; further emendations, including hymn corrections.

- 1884: Additions under Pope Leo XIII (e.g., new feasts).

- 1920: Major revisions by Pope Benedict XV; rubrical changes and new saints.

- 1962: Typical edition under Pope John XXIII; final pre-Vatican II version, including Holy Week reforms from Pius XII (1955) and new rubrics.

- 1970: First edition promulgated by Pope Paul VI (post-Vatican II); the Ordinary Form.

- 1975: Second typical edition (minor corrections).

- 2002: Third typical edition under Pope John Paul II (further refinements, new saints).

(Pre-1474 sacramentaries like the Leonine (6th century) and Gelasian (8th century) represent earlier stages, but not full printed missals.)

This list illustrates that the "Tridentine" era alone saw multiple editions. Which one is the "traditional" missal?  Which one has the "traditional" formula or rite for the "Traditional Mass?"  The 1570 version lacks later papal additions; the 1962 includes 20th-century changes (e.g., Pius XII's Holy Week reforms). Selecting 1962 as the definitive "traditional" form is arbitrary—it is one snapshot in a long continuum.

The term "Traditional Latin Mass" often implies the 1962 Missal is the unchanging standard, but history shows otherwise. All forms of the Roman Rite are "traditional" in the sense of being handed down, yet none is frozen in time.

 Why "Mass of All Ages" and "Traditional Latin Mass" Are Inaccurate, Though Well-Meaning

These titles embellish the Extraordinary Form to defend its reverence against perceived modern dilutions. "Mass of All Ages" suggests timeless immutability, evoking the Roman Canon's ancient roots (parts dating to the 4th–7th centuries). "Traditional Latin Mass" contrasts it with the "new" Ordinary Form, implying superiority in fidelity to the past.

Yet these are imprecise:

- The Mass has changed significantly over ages—new prayers added, rites expanded or simplified, calendars altered.

- The 1962 Missal is not the Mass of the Fathers (e.g., Gregory the Great) or medieval popes; it includes post-Trent developments.

- Calling only the Extraordinary Form "traditional" implies the Ordinary Form lacks tradition, contradicting papal teaching on continuity.

The true "Mass of all ages" is the one, unchanging sacrifice of Christ, re-presented in varying historical expressions. As theologian Joseph Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) noted, the rite develops while preserving its essence.

 There Is One Mass: The Teaching of Paul VI and Benedict XVI

Pope Paul VI, promulgating the 1970 Missal, emphasized continuity: the new Order of Mass was a renewal, not invention. He described it as preserving the "sound tradition" while adapting to modern needs (Missale Romanum, 1969).

Pope Benedict XVI clarified this profoundly in Summorum Pontificum (2007):

> "The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient use. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (law of belief); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite."

Benedict explicitly rejected speaking of "two rites": there is one Roman Rite, with two forms (ordinary and extraordinary). Both express the same lex orandi, rooted in the one sacrifice of Christ. He wrote: "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too."

There cannot be a "new Mass" in the sense of a different sacrifice; there is one Mass, the eternal re-presentation of Calvary. Liturgical forms may vary, but the essence remains identical.

 The One Roman Rite: Unity in Diversity

Today, the Roman Rite has two legitimate expressions:

- Ordinary Form (Missal of Paul VI, as revised): The usual celebration, often in vernacular, with options for participation.

- Extraordinary Form (1962 Missal): Permitted freely since Summorum Pontificum (though regulated further by later directives under Pope Francis' Traditionis Custodes).

Both are the "Latin Mass" (originally in Latin), part of the one Latin/Roman Rite. Preference for one does not negate the other's validity or holiness. As Benedict hoped, they can mutually enrich each other—e.g., greater reverence in the Ordinary Form, fuller lectionary in the Extraordinary.

The Mass itself is the "Mass of all ages": the unbloody renewal of Christ's one sacrifice, offered from the Upper Room to the end of time.

 Conclusion

The titles "Mass of All Ages" and "Traditional Latin Mass" reflect sincere love for the Extraordinary Form but risk inaccuracy by implying static perfection or exclusivity. The Roman Rite's history is one of faithful development under the Holy Spirit's guidance. There is one Rite, one lex orandi, one Mass—the eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Catholics are called to embrace both forms with charity, recognizing their shared rootedness in tradition. As Benedict XVI urged, let us honor what was sacred to past generations without division.

 Sources

- Pope Benedict XVI. Summorum Pontificum (Motu Proprio, 2007). Vatican.va.

- Pope Benedict XVI. Letter to Bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007).

- Pope Paul VI. Missale Romanum (Apostolic Constitution, 1969).

- Wikipedia. "Roman Missal" and "Tridentine Mass" (for historical editions; cross-referenced with primary sources).

- Fortescue, Adrian. The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (1912).

- Jungmann, Josef. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (1951–1955).

- Fiedrowicz, Michael. The Traditional Mass: History, Form, and Theology of the Classical Roman Rite (2020).

- Ratzinger, Joseph (Benedict XVI). Various pre-papal writings on liturgy (e.g., The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000).

The Mass: The Real Thanksgiving

The Mass: The Real Thanksgiving  

How the Catholic Church Has Been Giving Thanks for 2,000 Years—Since the Night Before Jesus Died

Every November, Americans gather around tables laden with turkey, stuffing, and pumpkin pie to “give thanks.” We trace the holiday back to 1621, when Pilgrims and Wampanoag shared a harvest feast in Plymouth. It’s a beautiful story, and I love the holiday as much as anyone. But whenever I sit in the pew on Thanksgiving morning (or any Sunday, for that matter), I can’t help smiling at a delicious historical irony: the Pilgrims’ thanksgiving was a one-time autumn dinner. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has been celebrating a far older, far deeper Thanksgiving every single day for two millennia. Its name literally means “thanksgiving,” and it began at the Last Supper itself.

That daily, worldwide act of thanksgiving is called the Mass, and its heart is the Eucharist. The very word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek εὐχαριστία (eucharistía), which means “thanksgiving.” So when Catholics go to Mass, we are not primarily going to “get something” or to hear a homily or even to fulfill an obligation (though all those things happen). We are going, first and foremost, to give thanks, exactly as Jesus commanded the night before He died.

This is the real Thanksgiving, and it predates Plymouth by sixteen centuries.

 The Night Thanksgiving Was Invented

On the night He was betrayed, Jesus gathered with His apostles for the Jewish Passover meal. During that supper, Scripture tells us, Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, “This is my body, which will be given up for you.” Then He took the cup of wine, again gave thanks, and said, “This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant. Do this in memory of me.” (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25)

Notice the sequence: He gave thanks twice. The Greek verb Luke and Paul use is εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas)—He “eucharisted.” From that moment forward, the central act of Christian worship would forever carry the name of what Jesus did that night: thanksgiving.

The earliest Christians understood this immediately. St. Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 155 (less than sixty years after the last apostle died), describes the Sunday gathering of Christians this way:

> “On the day we call the day of the Sun [Sunday], all who live in cities or in the country gather in one place… Bread and wine mixed with water are brought to the president of the assembly… Then he takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and he gives thanksgiving (εὐχαριστίαν) at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands… And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings (εὐχαριστίας), all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.” (First Apology, 67)

That is a description of the Mass in the year 155—already called the “thanksgiving,” already centered on bread and wine that have become the Body and Blood of Christ, already the same basic shape we recognize today.

 Why Thanksgiving Is the Essence of the Mass

Most of us think of the Mass in terms of sacrifice (and it is the re-presentation of Calvary), or communion (and it is the moment we receive Jesus Himself). But the Church has always insisted that thanksgiving is the primary note. The Catechism puts it plainly:

> “The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification.” (CCC 1360)

Think about that. Every gift we have—life, breath, family, food, forgiveness, grace, heaven itself—comes from the Father’s hand. How could we possibly repay Him? We can’t. But we can do what children do when they receive a staggering gift: we can say thank you. And the thank you that is worthy of God is the same thank you Jesus offered on the cross: Himself.

That is why the Mass is the perfect act of thanksgiving. In it, Jesus takes our poor thanks (represented by the bread and wine made from creation and human labor) and unites them to His perfect thanksgiving on the cross. He then gives Himself back to the Father—and to us—in the Eucharist. The circle is complete: God’s gifts come down, our thanks go up in union with Christ, and God’s greatest Gift comes back down to us.

 The Four Great Thanksgiving Prayers of the Mass

If you walk into any Catholic church on earth, you will hear four great “Eucharistic Prayers” (the official name for the central prayer of the Mass). Every single one of them is structured as an extended act of thanksgiving. Here’s a quick tour:

1. Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon)  

   Dates back at least to the late 300s and probably earlier. It thanks God for creation, the covenant with Abraham, the exodus, the prophets, and above all for sending His Son.

2. Eucharistic Prayer II  

   The shortest and most commonly used today. Based on an ancient prayer from the third-century document The Apostolic Tradition. It begins: “You are indeed Holy, O Lord… and we give you thanks because you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.”

3. Eucharistic Prayer III  

   Composed after Vatican II but steeped in ancient tradition. “You never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a perfect offering may be made… We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.”

4. Eucharistic Prayer IV  

   My personal favorite. It is one long hymn of thanksgiving for the entire history of salvation: “Father most holy, we proclaim your greatness: all your actions show your wisdom and love… You formed man in your own likeness… When by his own free choice he abandoned your friendship, you did not leave him in the power of death… Again and again you offered a covenant… And when at last the time came, you sent your only Son as our Redeemer…”

Every Eucharistic Prayer ends the same way: the great doxology—“Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, forever and ever”—and the people thunder back, “Amen!” That Amen is our assent to the greatest thank you in history.

 Thanksgiving in the Worst of Times

One of the most astonishing things about the Eucharist is that it has always been celebrated—even when there was nothing else to be thankful for on the surface.

- In the catacombs while Christians were being executed for sport.  

- In Irish “Mass rocks” during the penal years when celebrating Mass was punishable by death.  

- In Nazi concentration camps—priests like St. Maximilian Kolbe smuggling in bread and wine to offer Mass on makeshift altars.  

- In Soviet gulags, where priests celebrated the Eucharist using a fingertip of wine and a crumb of bread, whispering the words of consecration while guards walked past.

Why? Because the Eucharist is not primarily thanking God for pleasant circumstances. It is thanking God for who He is and for what He has already done in Christ. Even when the crops fail, even when the diagnosis is terminal, even when freedom is taken away—Jesus has still died, still risen, still opened heaven. That is enough. More than enough.

St. Paul understood this. Writing from a Roman prison cell, awaiting probable execution, he told the Philippians: “Rejoice in the Lord always. I say it again: Rejoice!” (Phil 4:4). And to the Thessalonians: “Give thanks in all circumstances” (1 Thess 5:18). The Greek verb in both places is the same family as eucharisteo.

 The Pilgrims Knew This (Sort Of)

It’s worth noting that the Pilgrims themselves were steeped in the language of “eucharist.” The 1611 King James Bible they carried rendered Luke 22:19 as “And he tooke bread, and gaue thankes…” The Geneva Bible (their favorite) used “gaue thankes” in the same verse. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer they had grown up with called the Lord’s Supper “The Holy Communion or Eucharist.” They knew the word; they just rejected the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence.

Yet even their famous 1621 harvest feast was consciously modeled on biblical thanksgiving feasts (especially the Feast of Tabernacles) and on the Lord’s Supper. William Bradford’s journal records that they gathered “to rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors… having these things with other victuals and a good company.” Sound familiar? Bread, wine (they brewed beer), fellowship, gratitude to God. It was a beautiful echo of the Eucharist, even if they would have bristled at the comparison.

 A Challenge for This Thanksgiving Week

This year, when you sit down to turkey and cranberry sauce, try weaving the real Thanksgiving into your day:

1. Go to Mass on Thanksgiving morning (many parishes offer beautiful morning Masses). Watch how the priest lifts the host and chalice and hear the same words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper. You are participating in the original Thanksgiving.

2. Before the family meal, pray one of the Eucharistic Prayer prefaces aloud. Eucharistic Prayer IV is especially fitting—it thanks God for the entire sweep of salvation history, right down to the food on your table.

3. Make the ancient Christian table prayer part of your family tradition:  

   “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life… Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the wine we offer you: fruit of the vine and work of human hands, it will become our spiritual drink.”  

   Then let everyone respond, “Blessed be God forever!”

4. At the end of the meal, borrow the doxology: “Through him, with him, in him… all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, forever and ever.” Family: “Amen!”

You will have turned your Thanksgiving dinner into a domestic echo of the eternal Thanksgiving that began in an upper room two thousand years ago.

 The Last Word

The Pilgrims gave us a lovely national holiday. But Jesus gave us the Eucharist—the thanksgiving that never ends, the thanksgiving that feeds the world, the thanksgiving that turns even our weakest “thank you” into something infinite because it is joined to His.

So yes—pass the gravy, watch the football game, enjoy the pie. But never forget: the real Thanksgiving began at sundown on Holy Thursday, when Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and changed history forever.

Every Mass is still that same Thanksgiving.

And every Catholic who steps forward to receive Him is stepping into the longest-running thanksgiving celebration in human history.

Happy real Thanksgiving.  

See you at Mass.