Sunday, August 30, 2026
Saturday, August 29, 2026
Friday, August 28, 2026
EWTN deletes scandalous Fulton Sheen video
Ninth Circuit Wants to Shut Down ™️ Catholic Shrines
 |
| Yep, them again. |
[Fox] A legal battle over a nearly century-old cross tradition and longstanding Nativity display in the historic heart of Los Angeles could threaten generations of Mexican-American traditions and leave religious monuments across the country vulnerable, an attorney representing local merchants fighting to preserve the displays told Fox News Digital.
"If the cross and nativity were taken down, it would just be the first step in unraveling the vibrant community cultural celebrations, a lot of which have their roots in Mexican-American Catholic history and really decimating this tight-knit community," Andrea Butler, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the merchants, told Fox News Digital Thursday in an interview.
A cross has stood at the head of Olvera Street since 1929, when the original was raised to celebrate Los Angeles' 148th birthday, while a life-size Nativity is displayed each December as part of the community's traditional Las Posadas celebration.
 |
| And these are the ones that are obvious. How many are Marrano? Why all the Mormons? |
AMDG
Thursday, August 27, 2026
Russia Censors Bergoglio’s Gay Stuff
AMDGGO RUSSIA!!! They're not putting up with it 🇷🇺 Somehow it is more satisfying that they censored the book instead of preventing the publication of it. 😂
A biography of the Pope has been censored in Russia.
This year, the Russian publishing house Alpina Publisher released Pope Francis’s autobiography, *Hope*. As noted by the Primus Versus bookstore, parts of the text in the book have been blacked out.
Censorship was applied to Francis’s words regarding the welcoming of homosexual* and transgender* individuals into the Church and their right to baptism. Also censored were references to the *Fiducia Supplicans* declaration—signed by the Pope in December 2023, which allowed priests to bless people in same-sex couples—according to Belarusian theologian Natalia Vasilevich.
*The movement is banned in the Russian Federation.
Credit: t.me/ostorozhno_novosti
Sunday, August 23, 2026
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Saturday, August 15, 2026
When Will the COVID-Era Bishops Be Held Accountable?
 |
| Were you smart enough to take saline there, Soupy? |
The Progressives Have Lost and They Know It
Napoleon’s Retreat from Russia by Adolf Northen, 1854
By Caminante Wanderer*
One of the most significant historical events of the past century was the collapse of Communism. In 1991 the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Yet the ideology on which Soviet Communism rested had already collapsed in the 1970s under Brezhnev and had definitively sealed that decline under Andropov from 1982 onward. In those years no one still believed in the Soviet paradise—not even the apparatchiks. Nevertheless the machinery continued to run until 1991, directed by a committee of highly aged functionaries who resisted the inevitability of reality. Between the death of legitimacy and the death of the system lay twenty years. That is a historical regularity: systems survive their own legitimacy by roughly fifteen to twenty years. They continue to move like the light of a star that has long since gone out.
Exactly the same thing is happening today with progressivism inside the Church—and, in my view, in the West as a whole. It was an experiment that lasted a shorter time than the Soviet Union, yet it has already failed. We now find ourselves in a kind of Brezhnev phase, waiting for the neo-modernist old men, products of the most unedifying manifestations of the spirit of the Council, to leave the stage. The baby boomers will die in the not-too-distant future, and the light of that extinguished star, the Second Vatican Council, will cease to shine. It will go out and disappear from the horizon of the Church. Of course residues will remain, and their removal will be laborious, yet the light will inevitably be extinguished.
What I am saying here is not a prophecy. “I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son” (Amos 7:14). I am merely an observer of reality. And the signs of the decline of this system appear to me unmistakable. I wish to name two of them that are easy to recognize.
The first concerns the priesthood. The Catholic Church cannot do without priests. If they disappear or are finally transformed into something else, the Catholic Church itself ceases to exist. Precisely into this danger many bishops have led the Church—and continue to lead it—through the formation they impart in their depleted seminaries. The solution to this tragedy does not consist in building parallel structures. The solution is called hope and patience—two fundamental virtues in times of crisis.
The seminaries are emptying, and the priests are aging in nursing homes because they themselves, as children of this system, refused to be priests. By that I mean that they refused to exercise their munera, their priestly offices. They refused to sanctify, to teach, and to govern. Instead they wanted to be community animators and agents of social change—encouraged in this by the highest ecclesiastical authorities. They despised the dignified celebration of the sacraments and turned them into a cheap and vulgar spectacles. They stopped proclaiming Catholic doctrine and taught sociology instead. They devoted themselves to a dialogue-oriented synodality. They refused to be what they were. Now they are dying—for nature is relentless—and with them their caste dies as well.
What normal young man, whose intellect and whose drives are in balance, would want to give up his life and all the pleasures the world offers in abundance in order to become an insignificant clown—like those boomer priests we encounter daily when they make fools of themselves on social networks? Their days are numbered. The future belongs to the priests who grew up in the new millennium. They have a different view of things and will gradually change the situation—if only for reasons of institutional survival.
Only a few days ago Archbishop Cordileone said: “Young people love tradition, and that is a movement that can no longer be stopped.” This year only 26 priests were ordained in the entire Federal Republic of Germany. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter alone ordained just as many priests in the same year; if one adds the other traditional institutes, the number is significantly higher. And it becomes still substantially higher if one includes those who can be described as “classical.”
Precisely for that reason the outbursts of Cardinal Arthur Roche last week are nothing other than the swan song of a dying system. As the journalist Damian Thompson wrote: “I don’t want to be rude, but he is an old, poisonous toad, bitter that his influence had already begun to wane before the death of Francis.” Reality speaks an all-too-clear language, and they know that reality. Yet like Brezhnev and Andropov they will continue to keep the system artificially alive until death finally carries them off.
We have said that systems survive their legitimacy by fifteen to twenty years. Here I recognize the second sign: the mitred boomers know that they are losing their legitimacy at a rapid pace. That is why they act as they do—at least in Argentina.
A few days ago we pointed out that the bishops are worried. The reason for their worry is the reality that is becoming ever clearer before their eyes. That the Archbishop of Buenos Aires instructed his education department to investigate which priest had celebrated a Mass in Latin at a Catholic school in the city is an unmistakable sign of desperation. It is a measure typical of the Soviet regime when it realized that its narrative was beginning to crack and therefore persecuted Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sinyavsky, or the musicians Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya—solely because they had given Solzhenitsyn refuge. (The religious sisters who made the Mass possible will no doubt be punished by Archbishop García Cuerva just as the priest who celebrated it will be.)
The regime had lost its inner cohesion. Its narrative was exhausted, its framework was collapsing. Therefore all that remained to it was the violence of decrees and persecutions in order to maintain itself. Exactly that is what the bishops are doing today toward priests and groups of the faithful who resist their modernist narrative: they persecute them with decrees and banishments.
A system that is sure of its legitimacy does not need to issue decrees against priests because they celebrate the Mass in Latin, or against laypeople because they write a blog. These are not signs of strength. They are the reflexes of a body that knows it has lost its legitimacy and that death awaits it.
How else is one to explain that the president of the Argentine Bishops’ Conference—synodal among the synodals—has locked the comments on his X account? Or that the press office of the same institution deletes every critical comment on its Instagram account? Quite simply because they are dominated by the fear that the faithful might realize that they—like the king in Andersen’s fairy tale—are naked.
It is only a matter of patience. It will take time, yet nature is relentless. I myself will probably not live to see the collapse of the progressive system. I shall have to content myself with having fought against it all my life—provided God grants me the grace to be able to do so to the end. But the generation of today’s children will experience it.
Not so very long ago I held a far more apocalyptic view. That was due both to my age and to the authors who formed me—all of them witnesses to the decline of the West. Today I am no longer so certain that we are not free rather standing on the threshold of a new flowering. And in this I do not look forward, as a prophet would—which I am not—but backward.
When after the victory of the Cross in the first centuries that world collapsed under the barbarian invasions and the emerging Europe lay in ruins, two unexpected events changed everything. From the “far West,” as Toynbee called it, missionaries streamed from the small and forgotten island of Ireland onto the continent and rekindled the embers of Christianity—the peregrinatio pro Christo. A little later Charlemagne succeeded in ordering the political and administrative chaos left behind by the invaders.
When the sleepy and sensual Catholicism of the sixteenth century was torn apart by the Reformation, the Council of Trent came onto the scene, which—with all its lights and shadows, like everything human—breathed new life into the Church. And after the devastations of the French Revolution, after its ideas had spread across all of Europe under Napoleon, an unexpected missionary awakening arose. Numerous new religious communities were founded and revived what the revolutionaries had long considered dead.
Why, then, should we assume that it will be different in our time?
*Caminante Wanderer is an Argentine philosopher and blogger.
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Wikicommons
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
Thursday, August 13, 2026
Friday, August 7, 2026
Thursday, August 6, 2026
Clash over the Liturgical Question with Progressive Dictats
Edit: it’s a wonder that the manifest arrogance and narrow-mindedness of liturgical vandals like Grillo and the Bologna School, isn’t repaid with indifference or contempt by the laity and the publishing houses that impose their malaise on a captive laity.
By Don Mario Proietti*
As a lover of Korean drama series (K-dramas), I must confess that the controversy surrounding the liturgy has taken on the pace of a multi-season show. First, Cardinal Arthur Roche announced in an interview what Leo XIV would not do, presenting future liturgical discipline as if it were already definitively settled.
Immediately afterward, the liturgist Andrea Grillo spoke up to reinforce this reading. He called on the faithful to go through the "grieving process" for Summorum Pontificum and described the use of the old Missal as carrying a schismatic dynamic.
At this point, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone enters the stage. He does not claim to know the Pope's mind better than his Prefect, but he urges caution and points out the pastoral consequences of the restrictions. He asks whether an overly strict discipline might push some faithful away from full communion with Rome.
Then comes the appearance of Cardinal Cupich, who calls for liturgical controversies not to be conducted too publicly or divisively almost as if the real problem were talking about them, rather than the wound inflicted by the debate itself.
Now Andrea Grillo re-enters the scene. He does not limit himself to defending Roche's position. Rather, he targets Cordileone directly, accusing him of serious theological errors, questioning his professional qualifications, and ultimately even linking his position to the temptation of schism.
The series has apparently been renewed for another season.
The liturgist's new article already bears a revealing title: "A Cordileone Alone Is Not Enough to Preserve Tradition."
The author is not content merely to discuss the Archbishop's reflections. He dismisses them as a collection of platitudes, attributes grave errors to Cordileone, claims he "has not studied enough theology," and goes so far as to declare that his position undermines episcopal authority and exposes him to the temptation of schism.
The Archbishop, by contrast, had expressed himself far more reservedly. In light of the certainty with which Roche had anticipated the Pope's future decisions, he merely remarked that he did not know how precisely the Prefect actually knew the mind of Leo XIV.
He did not claim an unrestricted right to celebrate according to the former Missal. Rather, he posed a pastoral question: Could ongoing restrictions move some faithful to join communities that are not in full unity with Rome?
At the same time, he stated that generous access to the traditional liturgy must go hand in hand with unqualified assent to the Church's teaching and the Second Vatican Council.
This position is not schismatic. It corresponds precisely to the attitude of a shepherd who has the consequences of ecclesial decisions in view. A norm may pursue a certain intention; however, a bishop must also ask what fruits it produces among the people entrusted to his care.
Grillo does the exact opposite. The pastoral question is reinterpreted as a doctrinal error. Concern for the faithful is declared complicity with traditionalism. The risk that some might distance themselves from Rome is interpreted as proof of a schismatic tendency already inherent in their liturgical devotion.
The intellectual framework is constructed in such a way that it cannot be refuted. If the faithful remain silent, the discipline has worked. If they suffer, they are too attached to the past. If they leave diocesan parishes, they prove their inclination toward schism.
Every possible reaction confirms the original diagnosis. When a theory is always right, it has usually stopped perceiving reality.
The weakest point of the article concerns the relationship between the 1962 Missal and the Second Vatican Council.
Grillo claims that it is impossible to accept the Council while desiring that liturgical form, since Sacrosanctum Concilium demanded the reform of the Roman Rite. From this he derives an absolute opposition: either the Council or the former Missal.
Yet Traditionis custodes itself shows that this equation does not hold. The document grants the bishop the authority to authorize the use of the 1962 Missal, while requiring him to ensure that the groups in question do not call into question the validity of the liturgical reform, the teaching of the Council, or the papal Magisterium.
Current ecclesiastical discipline thus explicitly distinguishes between the permitted use of the former Missal and a rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Grillo declares impossible what canon law continues to explicitly provide for.
The same is evident when he describes the traditional rite as clerical, lacking active participation, and suited to turning the faithful into "museum pieces."
However, liturgical participation cannot be reduced to the number of spoken words or external actions. Sacrosanctum Concilium describes it as conscious, active, and fruitful, connecting it to the formation and interior disposition of the faithful. At the same time, the Council decrees that the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites, and calls for the faithful to be able to sing or say in Latin the parts of the Ordinary that pertain to them.
The real problem is not that Grillo has the right to criticize a bishop. A theologian may, of course, do so.
Rather, the problem lies in the disciplinary nature of his criticism. Archbishop Cordileone is not treated as a shepherd raising a question of pastoral prudence. Instead, he is portrayed as pastorally irresponsible, insufficiently trained in theology, and dangerously close to schism.
The resulting message is hard to miss. Anyone who dares to question the pastoral effectiveness of Traditionis custodes risks being categorized outside the bounds of a "proper" understanding of the Council.
The question asked is not answered; instead, the one who asked it is discredited.
Grillo's concluding sentence reveals this mindset with particular clarity: "Whoever loves tradition has no choice."
For an ecclesial culture that speaks incessantly of listening and discernment, that is a remarkable formulation.
Ideology does not accompany reality; rather, it informs reality that it has no alternative. It does not listen to what young people are searching for, but dictates what they ought to be searching for. It does not examine whether a particular discipline actually preserves ecclesial communion, but simply equates communion with its own solution.
Cordileone did something far simpler and, at the same time, far more episcopal. He looked at the faithful, at the danger of losing them, and at the spiritual longing showing itself among the younger generations.
Grillo, on the other hand, looked at his paradigm and scolded the bishop because the facts refused to yield willingly to it.
This clash does not prove that there is a centrally coordinated direction. Rather, it reveals something deeper: a cultural milieu in which various individuals use the same language, defend the same mental framework, and react immediately as soon as an episcopal voice brings the discussion back to its concrete pastoral consequences.
Ideology does not primarily fear opposition. It fears the shepherd who knows his flock.
For real people with their faith and their wounds have the most unpleasant habit of not behaving according to the categories designed for them.
*Don Mario Proietti is a priest of the Congregation of the Missionaries of the Precious Blood (CPPS). He was born on October 22, 1965, and ordained to the priesthood on May 26, 1991. He is the rector at the Abbey of San Felice in Giano della Umbria, where he carries out pastoral work. Since 2025, he has contributed regularly to the Catholic platform UCCR and his blog "Tra cuore e sapienza" ("Between Heart and Wisdom"). His articles primarily deal with ecclesial and theological topics, including liturgy, the priesthood, Church reforms, the Second Vatican Council, as well as questions of pastoral care and Church life.
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Corrispondenza Romana
Trans: Tancred
AMDG
Monday, August 3, 2026
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