Cardinal Sarah: Return to Summorum Pontificum

Cardinal Sarah sees the main problem in the liturgical question as the abuse occurring within the Novus Ordo

On August 1, the daily newspaper Il Foglio published an extensive interview with Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect Emeritus of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The interview was conducted by Editor-in-Chief Matteo Matzuzzi. In it, the Cardinal from Africa describes the liturgical dispute as a serious evil. No one can dispose of the liturgy at will. The Cardinal pleads for a return to the line of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum. The liturgy is not a field for personal or ideological conflicts, but a sacred treasure of the Church that must be preserved and celebrated reverently, faithfully, and in a spirit of unity. We document several key passages from the interview.

Excerpt from the article: "A World in Which God is Irrelevant":

Talking about unity when it comes to the liturgy seems difficult. It is a divisive issue in which two opposing camps face each other. On one side are those who defend the use of the Vetus Ordo as an achievement; on the other side, there is an ideologically driven stance that views these Catholics almost as a "sect" that must disappear. The Pope has stated that he wants to thoroughly understand the situation, as well as meet and engage in dialogue with everyone.

In the view of Cardinal Robert Sarah, "it is a tragedy, indeed a real sin, that there is a kind of war over a topic as essential as the liturgy. The liturgy is the source of ecclesial communion, and it is unimaginable that liturgical or more precisely, ritual questions should lead to such sharp confrontation and bitter opposition. No one has power over the rites that have emerged from the centuries-old history of the Church. Rites cannot be arbitrarily abolished, and no one can declare from one day to the next that a particular rite no longer exists.

I am convinced that this question must be addressed seriously by returning to the balanced, pastorally prudent, and theologically sound position of Benedict XVI. He made it possible for both forms of the Latin Rite to coexist, enrich each other, and become known to the holy people of God, so that over time they could decide which form better suits their need for faith, silence, and spirituality.

Some overreactions by those who adhere to the Extraordinary Form can be explained, at least in part, by the serious and widespread abuses in the celebration of the Ordinary Form. To this day, it is often celebrated neither as the Council intended nor as the liturgical reform itself envisions. The liturgy is not the property of the celebrant regardless of whether he is a priest, bishop, or cardinal. The liturgy belongs to God. One enters into it, and no one is its master."

Perhaps, however, the problem lies even deeper. Consider the quality of many homilies, which are often inadequately prepared and rarely touch the hearts and minds of the faithful in a lasting way. Not to mention services in which the reference to the transcendent is frequently just a marginal detail. What should be done?

"I have already partially answered this question. The key lies in liturgical formation: formation, formation, and more formation for bishops, priests, and laity alike. Regaining the sense of the sacred in a secularized society that has pushed God out of its life can only succeed through the proclamation of the truth, through convinced and steadfast catechesis, and through concrete experiences of silence and spirituality within the liturgical celebration.

The reverence due to God and the humility of man himself are fundamental prerequisites for regaining a sense of the sacred and fidelity to the liturgy as the Church intends it to be celebrated. After all, no one would think of entering the Sistine Chapel and correcting Michelangelo's The Last Judgment. The Missal is far more significant, far older, and far more binding than Michelangelo's The Last Judgment. Therefore, no one may correct, delete, add to, or alter anything in the rite as presented by the Church to the faithful. And the faithful have an inalienable right to participate in Holy Masses celebrated according to the will of the Churc and not according to the personal whims of an individual priest."

Introduction/Translation: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Il Foglio (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Secret Agreement Solidifies China’s Control Over the Church

Episcopal Ordinations in China

New Regime-Loyal Bishops for China are Recognized by Leo XIV

With the consecration of Mgr. Duan Yongkun as Coadjutor Bishop of Bameng yesterday, July 29, 2026, the second bishop appointment in Inner Mongolia within a few days has been carried out under the secret agreement between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China.

Earlier, on July 22, Mgr. Chang Yanfeng was consecrated as Bishop of Chifeng. Both appointments follow the same pattern observed since the provisional agreement between Rome and Beijing came into effect in September 2018: Chinese authorities present the decisions as the outcome of their own state process, while the Vatican retroactively frames them as appointments approved by the Pope.

The case of Bishop Duan Yongkun is particularly revealing. The state-controlled Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association officially to this day a schismatic parallel church founded by the communist regime in 1957 under Party control to render the Church "independent" of Rome, reported his appointment merely as "auxiliary bishop" of Bameng, making no mention of either the Pope or the Holy See. This has been the practice since 2018 for all diocesan episcopal appointments concluded on the basis of the secret agreement. Outwardly, the Holy See does not exist for the Chinese authorities; the appointments are presented as unilateral Chinese acts.

The Vatican Press Office, on the other hand, explicitly referred to Duan Yongkun as Coadjutor Bishop with the right of succession. This discrepancy in presentation is by no means a mere terminological subtlety. Rather, it illustrates that both sides are evidently serving different narratives and fail to communicate even fundamental canon law matters in a unified manner. The actual decision-making authority, however, clearly lies with the communist regime in Beijing, to which it was conceded by the Holy See and Pope Francis.

AsiaNews also points out further discrepancies. For instance, the Vatican cites Inner Mongolia as Duan's origin, whereas Chinese authorities explicitly emphasize his family roots in Hebei Province. Given the ethnic tensions in Inner Mongolia, even this seemingly trivial detail carries political significance.

Inner Mongolia is inhabited by Mongols at roughly 18 percent, while the majority population of nearly 80 percent is made up of Han Chinese.

During the Imperial Era, Han Chinese immigration to Inner Mongolia was restricted whenever possible. Following the fall of the Qing Dynasty and the proclamation of the Republic in early 1912, settlement accelerated considerably encouraged by the government in Beijing so that Han Chinese became the majority in the southern regions.

However, the period following the communist takeover in 1949 brought the most significant demographic shift. The settlement of millions of Han Chinese was promoted by the new regime through the establishment of industrial and mining hubs and the founding of new cities. The Mongols were reduced to a small minority.

The ecclesiastical situation in Bameng is also noteworthy. The diocese was created in 1989 through a reorganization carried out by the state's "official church" and was established without papal approval. Its first bishop received episcopal consecration in 1990 without a mandate from Rome. After his death in 2004, the Rome-loyal priest Du Jiang who led the underground Church was secretly consecrated as bishop. It was not until 2010 that the Chinese government officially recognized him, though only within the framework of a state-staged installation in which excommunicated, regime-friendly bishops were required to participate to demonstrate the primacy of the state. These events caused considerable consternation among members of the underground church.

Duan Yongkun's appointment officially takes place at the request of the ailing Bishop Du Jiang. The central impression remains clear: ultimately, Beijing's political directives dictate the decisive framework. The consecration itself was led by Bishop Meng Qinglu, a vice-chairman of the Patriotic Association (unrecognized by Rome). Other consecrators also belong to state-controlled church bodies whose bishops' conference is still not recognized by the Holy See as a legitimate bishops' conference.

The Appointment of the New Bishop of Chifeng

The political dimensions emerge even more clearly with the Bishop of Chifeng, consecrated a few days earlier. Chang Yanfeng was already the head of the local Patriotic Association and was elected as a bishop candidate on March 20, 2026, in accordance with the mechanisms of "self-management" prescribed by the Chinese Communist Party. Only afterward did Pope Leo XIV confirm his appointment under the secret agreement.

Chang's public conduct immediately preceding his episcopal consecration appears especially problematic. At the end of June, he presided over a meeting of church officials during which the new law promoting national unity and the "progress of the Chinese nation" was explicitly welcomed. This law forms a central component of the state policy of Sinicization and is directed specifically against the cultural and linguistic autonomy of ethnic minorities such as the Mongols.

According to the Patriotic Association, church representatives pledged to "consciously respect, study, comply with, and apply" the law, as well as to fully integrate state principles into daily church life and evangelization. The Catholic community of Chifeng committed to actively adapting its pastoral work to the requirements of the "new era" religion and nationalities policy and to fostering state-mandated unity education.

In Inner Mongolia in particular, such declarations carry special weight due to decades of deliberate demographic restructuring through Han Chinese settlement. Mongols now constitute less than a fifth of the population, and their language and culture are increasingly pushed out of public life. Against this backdrop, ecclesiastical support for state Sinicization policies appears to be far more than a mere declaration of loyalty.

Both bishops are of Han Chinese descent; no Mongolian connection is mentioned by state authorities.

The two recent episcopal appointments thus highlight once again the fundamental issue with the secret agreement between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China. While the Vatican points out that the Pope confirmed each candidate, public perception is dominated by state procedures, the role of the Patriotic Association, and the political control of the Church by the CCP regime. The recurring discrepancies between official announcements from Beijing and Rome further underline how opaque this agreement actually remains.

Rather than visibly strengthening the freedom of the Church in China, the agreement reinforces the impression that the Holy See is increasingly accepting and retroactively legitimizing the structures dictated by the communist leadership. The recent appointments in Chifeng and Bameng provide yet another striking example.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: AsiaNews

The Vatican Quietly Corrects a Statement After 26 Years Which the Pope Had Probably Never Said

The Place on the Jordan Where Jesus Was Baptized by John: Here John Paul II Made an Improvised Controversial Statement or Did He?

For more than a quarter of a century, a single sentence from Pope John Paul II’s trip to Jordan was considered a symbol of those post-conciliar inter-religious gestures that remain controversial to this day. Now, the passage in question has been altered on the official Vatican website without any notice. "May Saint John Baptist protect Islam" became "May Saint John Baptist protect this land." The change apparently occurred between October 2025 and April 2026 silently, without an erratum, and without any documented explanation.

The statement in question dates back to March 21, 2000. During his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, John Paul II visited Christ's baptismal site on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River. Following the official program, the Pope spoke a few improvised farewell words in English. The transcription published by the Vatican at the time read: "May Saint John Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan."

It was precisely this formulation that was cited countless times over the past decades as evidence of the controversial direction of interreligious dialogue under John Paul II, a statement that, together with other gestures (most notably the 1986 Assisi meeting), fit into a questionable overall picture. 

Supporters interpreted it as an expression of special esteem for Islam, while critics saw it as a theological overreach, arguing that John the Baptist, as the forerunner of Christ, could not be invoked to protect a religion that only emerged 600 years later and explicitly rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Did the Severely Ailing Head of the Church Say "This Land" or "Islam"?

As has now become known, the text on the Holy See’s website (Vatican.va) reads differently today. It now states: "May Saint John Baptist protect this land and all the people of Jordan." Research using archived web versions confirms as InfoVaticana reports that the change was made only a few months ago.

An analysis of the original recording of the live broadcast strongly suggests that John Paul II did indeed say "this land" and not "Islam." His distinctive accent appears to have led to a mistranscription even back then, the classic risk of improvised remarks. The context of the address also clearly favors this reading, as the Pope had previously blessed Jordan and its people.

However, this brings another question into focus: How could such a consequential mistranscription remain part of official Vatican documentation for over 25 years?

The error was by no means confined to a single webpage. The day after the ceremony, the Vatican Press Office adopted the exact same wording in its official daily bulletin and confirmed it through its Italian translation. L'Osservatore Romano also published the sentence in its English-language weekly edition and later reprinted it in a bound volume on the papal trip. For decades, the problematic phrasing was thus disseminated by multiple official Vatican outlets. It doesn't get more official than that.

That is precisely why the recent correction carries such weight. Historical documents in official archives are not usually modified silently. Changes are typically flagged, dated, and justified. In this instance, the exact opposite happened: the passage was replaced without the intervention being documented or publicly explained. Today, only internet archives make it possible to prove that the wording was altered.

The timing of the correction attracts additional attention. It falls within the very months when renewed discussions were taking place between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) regarding long-disputed issues of the Second Vatican Council, religious freedom, and interreligious dialogue. The controversial Jordan quote has long been a staple of traditionalist critiques of John Paul II’s pontificate.

According to available information, the text passage was not an explicit subject of the official talks. Nevertheless, the temporal overlap remains noteworthy. In the midst of an intense phase of debate over the legacy of John Paul II, one of the most frequently cited examples quietly vanished from the official archive.

Regardless of whether the original transcription was truly due to a hearing error, the incident raises fundamental questions. On one hand, an erroneous sentence was able to retain the status of official papal phrasing for decades, deeply shaping ecclesiastical debate. On the other hand, the same error was finally corrected without transparently documenting the edit.

Who authorized the change after such a long time? What were the motives? Did the responsible Vatican offices verify beyond doubt that John Paul II never made the controversial statement? The opposite scenario would be even more severe. Why is the correction not being communicated publicly? It touches upon a central and highly contentious point of post-conciliar church politics.

The incident brings to mind the numerous spontaneous remarks under Pope Francis, particularly those made to Eugenio Scalfari, the doyen of left-wing Italian journalism and Freemason. Back then, the Vatican was promptly asked for statements to confirm or deny the claims reported by Scalfari. In most cases, nothing of the sort happened—the surest way to manufacture confusion.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: Wikicommons

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Could Ecumenism cost us more than gay priests?

Isis-linked Attack on Christopher Pride Parade in Berlin

On the evening of 25 July 2026, during Berlin’s Christopher Street Day (the city’s main Pride event), a van was driven into a crowd of pedestrians in the Tiergarten park around 10 p.m.

What happened

• The driver, 21-year-old Abdul Ballout (German citizen of Lebanese background), rammed a white van into people near the Pride celebrations.
• He then got out and attacked people with a bladed weapon (described in reports as a machete).
• One woman was killed. Around 29 people were injured, some critically.
• The Pride event and related concert were cancelled and the area evacuated.

The suspect

• Ballout was already known to German authorities. He had prior convictions, including for attempting to join the Islamic State, and had shared ISIS propaganda.
• He had been released from prison in May 2026.
• After the attack he fled. Police launched a large manhunt.
• On 26 July he was located in the Spandau district of Berlin. He attacked officers with a blade and was shot dead by police.

German officials, including Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, have described the attack as an Islamist terrorist attack.

AMDG

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

¿Is Fuentes a Converso?

Do you trust Budgie Niles?

What an odd bird she is.  This divorced blogger was stalking G. Michael Voris for years because an angel whispered that he was going to be her husband.  Eventually, probably seeing the need for cheap legal counsel, he consented to let her come to Ferndale and work at CMTV.   She defended him tirelessly.  She praised him the way Hyacinth Bucket was always talking about her son Sheridan.

When Opus Dei boomer and fellow SSPX hater EMJ exposed Voris' lifestyle in Man Behind the Curtain, it wasn't long before they discovered and published their finding that he was, wait for it.., an anti-Semite!

Well, she probably couldn't bring Jones on the show to yell about the SSPX or tell people he defeated Michael Davies in a debate (funny how Latin Mass Magazine used to give that DVD to new subscribers) Despite the fact that he trains female altar boys, reads at Mass, and distributes Communion, his writing is a painful reminder that she spent a decade and a half pursuing the affection of a gay man.

So, to beat up on the SSPX, she brings on a Freemason and a Sedevacantist.  You can't make this up.

 Isn't it remarkable how people who can't stand each other, will come together to attack Lefebvre and the SSPX?    They make him appear Christ-like with the assaults.

My Support for the Society of Saint Pius X

In recent weeks, the Argentine philosopher and blogger Caminante Wanderer has repeatedly expressed his concern that the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) might no longer be able to find its way back into full communion with the Church due to unauthorized episcopal consecrations, as has happened to various other groups throughout history. At the same time, he emphasizes that the Society is correct in many of its criticisms and honors its commitment to preserving the truths of the faith and the salvation of souls. For this reason, he also gives space to supportive voices and published the following contribution by a Spanish author, which we are documenting.

My Support for the Society of Saint Pius X

By Carmelo López-Arias*

The first traditional Mass I ever attended was in 1982, at the age of eighteen, in a chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). At first, I understood almost nothing. However, with the help of a missal, I gained a clear picture within three days.

Three Significant Encounters

At that time, I read the indispensable Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae by Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci regarding the New Mass.

To resolve the doubts that arose from it, I did not initially turn to priests of the SSPX. Instead, I sought out three prominent figures whose names I will keep private, as the conversations took place in confidence.

I presented them with my questions about the traditional Mass, the New Mass, and the state of the Church. All three were regarded as men of proven orthodoxy and great courage in the public defense of the faith. While they all celebrated the New Mass and none of them celebrated the traditional Mass, we did not discuss the Society itself, as it was not the subject of our conversations.

• The first was a widely known and extremely energetic priest in the battle for the faith in 1970s Spain. I wrote him a letter outlining my doubts and requesting a personal interview. When I received no reply, I wrote to him a second time, ensuring the letter had arrived. I never received an answer.
• The second was a Jesuit who still wore the cassock and enjoyed an excellent reputation as a confessor. He received me, and we were able to discuss the matter thoroughly, calmly, and with complete naturalness. He treated me with great kindness. He did not refute a single one of my arguments regarding the contrast between the traditional and the New Mass. He fully acknowledged the problem but held the view that one must submit to the directives of the Vatican. He bid me a warm farewell without imposing any directives on me.
• The third was a Dominican and one of the most important Thomist theologians of those years. I visited him together with a friend who knew him. He received me at his monastery. His demeanor was marked by great theological depth. From the nature of his answers, it became clear to me that he shared the reasoning of Ottaviani and Bacci. Although he also celebrated the New Mass, he avoided any statement that could be understood as a rejection of the traditional Mass in the sense of the Vatican directives. He bid me farewell with warmth and understanding for my concerns.

Active Collaboration in the SSPX

Following these three encounters, the decision was made to join the Society of Saint Pius X and support it in various ways. This I have done certainly not without shortcomings, but out of conviction to this day.

Then came the year 1986. Like dozens of cardinals and bishops, hundreds of priests, and millions of the faithful around the world, I learned with horror what the Pope was preparing and ultimately carried out in Assisi. Unlike those dozens of cardinals and bishops, those hundreds of priests, and those millions of faithful who preferred to remain silent, I held fast to the decision of resistance alongside the Society of Saint Pius X.

In 1988, I welcomed the decision of the two bishops, Marcel Lefebvre and Antonio de Castro Mayer both of whom passed away in 1991 to perform the episcopal consecrations that incurred their excommunication; an excommunication, moreover, that was neither threatened nor applied then or now against hundreds of bishops who have manifestly deviated from Catholic doctrine and morals.

Through a lecture by Archbishop Lefebvre, I became acquainted with a work that did not originate from the Society but which he strongly recommended: Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century (1985) by Romano Amerio. I contacted the SSPX priest who was managing the publication of this work and became its translator into Spanish, as well as the editor and distributor of the two Spanish editions (1995 and 2003). I know that the work was read and highly esteemed by countless Catholics outside the SSPX, because they recognized the significance and depth of one of the most important books on the Church to appear in the last fifty years.

For many years, I shared an excellent personal friendship with one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, the Spanish-Argentine Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, toward whom I have nothing but words of gratitude and appreciation.

In 2012, Marcel Lefebvre, the excellent biography written by another of the bishops he consecrated, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, was published in Spain. Although I did not directly contribute to this work nor do everything I should have done, to my surprise and completely undeservedly, I received a copy personally inscribed by the author. He passed away in the year 2024.

Special circumstances made it possible for me to gain insight into certain instances of the relations between the Roman authorities and the SSPX. I mention this to recall that mutual disagreements never prevented the Vatican from being clear about the fact that the Society of Saint Pius X is a Catholic institution, even if no canonical status has been granted to it to this day.

Two Remarkable Aspects

I would like to point out two distinct but, to me, significant points.

First: Life has allowed me to become acquainted with various works of Catholic evangelization that arose after and were inspired by the Second Vatican Council. Although I disagree with them on important points, they have helped me recognize the good they contain, as well as their beneficial effect on the Church. I hope that this good will multiply in the near future, and I am convinced that God will bring this about.

Second: The Society of Saint Pius X endeavored twice to be received by Leo XIV. I certainly appreciate some of his words, inclinations, and gestures, and the Society recognizes him as Pope, just as it has recognized all successors of Pius XII. Since Leo XIV refused this audience while granting it to global organizations of non-Catholic or even anti-Catholic religious, ideological, or socio-political orientations, the Society of Saint Pius X found itself compelled to announce the episcopal consecrations of July 1st, which are necessary for its current situation. The Holy Father's attitude on this point seems incomprehensible to me, however much I esteem him in other respects.

Unwanted Silence

The SSPX's announcement for the year 2026 coincided with a health problem on my part, which prevented me over the past months from supporting and collaborating with the Society to the extent that I would have wished.

Precisely in the days leading up to the recent episcopal consecrations, I had to undergo major surgery. Apart from a single SSPX priest whom I asked for prayers at the last moment, I spoke about it with none of my priestly acquaintances in the Society. Before the operation, I wanted to quietly express to God my explicit support for what was to take place on July 1st. For if I had to appear before Him as the sinner, unfortunately terrible in every respect, that I am, I wanted at least to compensate a little by supporting this Catholic reality.

With Mind and Heart

Having successfully come through this trial, I wish to publicly declare my support for the Society of Saint Pius X. I do so in a form that is unusually simple for me. As a writer, I usually avoid the personal, striving instead for the factual and doctrinal rather than the individual.

It has been an undeserved grace of my life to get to know the Society of Saint Pius X and to be allowed to cooperate with it in many ways, though always less than I should have done. My attachment is based exclusively on its Catholic principles in the service of the Church.

That the SSPX has its imperfections goes without saying. I know them very well after nearly half a century of working together. This is the case with every ecclesiastical reality throughout history. For the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is perfect as the source of those four marks named in the Creed, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, but the concrete human expressions striving to realize these marks are not.

Despite its shortcomings, the fidelity of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Catholic Church, its doctrine, its morals, and its sacraments, is just as evident as the injustice it has just suffered.

*Carmelo López-Arias is a Spanish Catholic journalist, translator, and publicist. He works primarily on topics concerning the Church, liturgy, and theology, and became known through his work translating and editing specialized Catholic texts and for digital Spanish-language media; he has also repeatedly commented on issues regarding Tradition, the Second Vatican Council, and ecclesiastical developments.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: SSPX (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG