w/c 04/05/25

ORDO

Dies	04 SUN	05 MON	06 TUE	07 WED	08 THU	09 FRI	10 SAT	11 SUN
Officium	Dominica II Post Pascha	S. Pii V Papæ et Confessoris	S. Joannis Apostoli ante Portam Latinam	S. Stanislai Episcopi et Martyris	In Apparitione S. Michaëlis Archangeli	S. Gregorii Nazianzeni Episcopi et Confessoris, Eccle.Dr.	S. Antonini Episcopi et Confessoris	Patrocinii S. Joseph Confess. sponsi B. Mariae Virginis
CLASSIS	Semiduplex Dominica minor	Duplex	Duplex majus	Duplex	Duplex majus	Duplex	Duplex	Duplex II. classis
Color*	Albus	Albus	Rubeum	Rubeum	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus
MISSA	Misericórdia Dómini	Sacerdotes tui	Protexísti me	Protexísti me	Benedícite Dóminum	In médio	Státuit ei Dóminus	Adjútor et protéctor
Orationes	2a. S. Monicæ Viduæ	2a. In anniversario electionis et consecrationis episcopi; Hieronymus Seleisi	NA	NA	NA	NA	2a. Die IV infra Octavam Patrocinii St Joseph 3a. Ss. Gordiani et Epimachi Martyrum	2a. Dominica III Post Pascha
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Apostolis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de S. Joseph
Nota Bene

Bonus Pastor

Bonus Pastor, the Good Shepherd, gently yet firmly guides us through life’s complexities, patiently leading us back whenever we stray. In Him, we find not only comfort and protection but the fullness of life itself—life freely offered and lovingly redeemed.

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

“I am the Good Shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.”

S. John 10:14

Today, on this Second Sunday after Pascha—Good Shepherd Sunday—the Church lovingly sets before us the image of our Risen Lord as the shepherd who guides, protects, and sacrifices Himself for the flock. Amidst the profound uncertainties and trials confronting both the Church and the world today, we are called urgently to listen anew to the voice of our Shepherd and to follow faithfully His divine leading.

A Time of Testing and Transition
Our Holy Mother Church presently faces a moment of extraordinary importance. The death of Pope Francis has ushered in a solemn period of discernment, prayer, and anticipation, as the College of Cardinals gathers in conclave to elect a new successor of Peter. This conclave takes place not merely amid the usual complexities of ecclesiastical governance but in an hour marked by confusion, doctrinal crisis, moral ambiguity, and profound global upheaval.

Within the Church, confusion reigns, not least due to widespread dissent from timeless moral teachings, liturgical abuses, and the spread of a doctrinal ambiguity that has wounded many souls. Moreover, there is the unsettling reality of declining vocations, empty seminaries, and parishes deprived of shepherds who embody Christ’s truth and charity. As Dom Prosper Guéranger prophetically noted, “When shepherds fail to lead, confusion spreads among the flock.” Today, we acutely feel this pain.

Simultaneously, the world itself seems plunged into deepening crises—cultural turmoil, ideological assaults on the family, a widespread rejection of natural law, relentless attacks upon the sanctity of life, and aggressive promotion of ideologies fundamentally opposed to the Gospel. We have witnessed events such as the recent Black Mass scandal at the Kansas Capitol, the ongoing conflict concerning parental rights in education in England, and relentless efforts to impose an ideology alien to human dignity and Christian morality.

In such circumstances, what is the call of Christ, our Good Shepherd, to His flock?

Hearing Again the Shepherd’s Voice
Beloved brethren, Christ declares, “I know mine, and mine know me.” These words call us urgently back to intimate communion with our Shepherd, whose voice is unmistakably clear, resonant, and compelling. His voice speaks truth amid falsehood, clarity amid confusion, peace amid chaos, and mercy amid brokenness.

St. Augustine profoundly reminds us:

“In times of distress, Christ’s voice is our only certainty. He alone is faithful. Amid confusion, listen for Him alone, lest you be led astray by false shepherds and hirelings.” (Tractate 47 on John)

In these days leading up to the conclave, we must collectively redouble our prayers and sacrifices, asking the Holy Spirit fervently to provide the Church a true shepherd after the heart of Christ—a shepherd courageous enough to confront error, compassionate enough to bind wounds, and humble enough to lead by serving rather than being served.

Facing Our Current Crises
The Church’s crises—doctrinal, moral, and pastoral—will not be solved merely by human diplomacy, compromise, or superficial unity. True unity, dear brothers and sisters, is always unity in truth. As St. Gregory the Great warned his flock:

“False shepherds promise peace by compromising the truth; but true shepherds guard the flock by clearly proclaiming the Gospel, even when unpopular.” (Homilies on Ezekiel)

We must demand from our leaders—and from ourselves—an unwavering fidelity to the perennial teachings of Christ. Only thus can we effectively confront cultural currents hostile to the Gospel and provide clarity for souls confused by pervasive modernist ideologies.

Let us also remember the prophetic witness of those who courageously defend the faith in challenging times. Recent courageous voices—whether confronting the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, gender ideology in schools, or erroneous celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice—remind us of our duty as Christians: to proclaim the truth boldly, lovingly, and without compromise.

A Call to Renewed Trust and Holiness
Good Shepherd Sunday summons each of us personally to greater holiness, discernment, and courage. The Church’s future depends not merely upon the election of a worthy Pope but equally upon our personal fidelity to Christ’s voice. The renewal we long for begins within our own hearts, within our homes, and within our parishes.

As we pray fervently for the Cardinals in conclave, let us also renew our own baptismal commitments, rededicate ourselves to Eucharistic adoration, frequent Confession, and daily prayer—especially invoking the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, who herself lovingly guides souls toward her Son, the Good Shepherd.

Vocations: Raising Shepherds for Tomorrow
Finally, let us fervently pray for holy vocations to priesthood and religious life. May God grant us shepherds who mirror Christ’s self-sacrificing love, who defend Christ’s truth without hesitation, and who are willing to lay down their lives daily for the flock entrusted to them.

Conclusion
Beloved, Christ is indeed our Good Shepherd. His presence remains unwaveringly certain, even amid stormy seas and dark valleys. With confidence, let us heed His voice, follow His steps, and trust that His providence will never fail His flock.

In union of prayer for the conclave, for the Church, and for our world,

I remain your humble servant in Christ, ⬆️

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

1. Liturgical Duration and Character
Paschaltide encompasses the fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost. It is marked by exuberant joy, expressed liturgically through frequent Alleluias, the recitation of the Regina Caeli, and specific liturgical prayers emphasizing Christ’s victory over sin and death.

2. Liturgical Colors
White vestments—symbolizing purity, joy, and victory—are used throughout Paschaltide, underscoring the joyful character of Christ’s Resurrection. Gold may also be appropriately incorporated to highlight the festivity.

3. Alleluia and Suppression of Penitential Elements
Throughout Paschaltide, the Alleluia, omitted during Lent, returns and is abundantly employed, notably at Mass, Vespers, and Lauds. Similarly, penitential prayers (such as the Psalm 42 at Mass and certain petitions within the Divine Office) are omitted or adjusted during this period.

4. Paschal Candle
The Paschal Candle, solemnly blessed and lit at the Easter Vigil, remains prominently displayed near the altar throughout the season, symbolizing the presence of Christ, the risen Light of the World. It is lit for all solemn liturgies until Ascension Thursday, after which it is ceremonially extinguished following the Gospel.

5. Regina Caeli
From Easter Sunday to Trinity Sunday, the antiphon Regina Caeli replaces the Angelus prayer, highlighting Mary’s joyous participation in the Resurrection. It is recited or chanted thrice daily, traditionally accompanied by the ringing of church bells.

6. Asperges Me Replaced by Vidi Aquam
The penitential sprinkling rite (Asperges Me) is replaced by the joyful sprinkling rite (Vidi Aquam), recalling the life-giving water flowing from the risen Christ. This ritual emphasizes baptismal renewal and the abundant grace poured forth by the Resurrection.

7. Low Sunday and Mystagogical Focus
The Sunday following Easter (Dominica in Albis or Low Sunday) particularly emphasizes the renewal of baptismal grace, as catechumens historically wore their white baptismal garments until this day. Liturgical texts reflect these baptismal themes prominently.

8. Rogation Days and Minor Litanies
The Rogation Days—Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday before Ascension Thursday—introduce penitential processions and special litanies, subtly moderating the season’s joy with petitions for God’s blessing on crops, harvest, and community welfare.

9. Ascension Thursday
On Ascension Thursday, the Paschal Candle is ceremonially extinguished after the Gospel, symbolizing Christ’s visible withdrawal from the disciples. The extinguishing emphasizes the shift from Christ’s physical presence to awaiting the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

10. Pentecost Vigil
The liturgy of the Vigil of Pentecost closely resembles the Easter Vigil, featuring extended readings, prophecies, and prayers invoking the Holy Ghost. The baptismal font is again blessed, emphasizing the continuity between the Resurrection, baptism, and Pentecost.

11. Octave of Pentecost
Paschaltide concludes with Pentecost, celebrated with a full octave that reinforces the importance of the Holy Ghost’s role in the life of the Church. Liturgical red vestments signify the Holy Ghost’s fire and zeal.

Conclusion
Throughout Paschaltide, the liturgy intentionally emphasizes joyous solemnity, baptismal renewal, and the presence of the risen Christ. These distinct liturgical practices unite the faithful more intimately with the mysteries celebrated, deepening both spiritual joy and doctrinal understanding. ⬆️

---

San Mateo – Rizal PH. Holy Week & Easter

---

The Nature of the Liturgy in Paschaltide

According to Traditional Commentators

In the venerable Tridentine Rite, Paschaltide—the liturgical period extending from Easter Sunday to Pentecost—is celebrated as the Church’s richest and most jubilant season. Traditional liturgical commentators such as Dom Prosper Guéranger, Fr. Nikolaus Gihr, Leonard Goffine, and Dom Benedict Baur emphasize the distinctive character, theological richness, and spiritual significance of this holy season.

The Triumph of Resurrection Joy
Paschaltide is fundamentally marked by joy—the triumphant joy of Christ’s Resurrection. Dom Prosper Guéranger, in his monumental work The Liturgical Year, highlights how the liturgical celebrations during these fifty days encapsulate the glorious mystery of Christ’s victory over sin and death. The Church invites the faithful to a spiritual rejoicing that echoes the eternal victory of the risen Savior. Thus, the liturgical prayers, vestments (white signifying purity and triumph), chants, and ceremonies all exude profound joy.

The Liturgical Significance of the Alleluia
Characteristic of this liturgical season is the repeated and jubilant use of the Alleluia. According to Fr. Leonard Goffine, the Alleluia embodies both praise and a cry of triumph. This acclamation, silenced throughout Lent, returns with vigor, symbolizing that the penitential fast has blossomed into spiritual joy. The Alleluia is proclaimed extensively throughout Mass and the Divine Office, permeating every celebration, highlighting that the Church’s heart sings ceaselessly of Christ’s victory.

Mystagogical Catechesis
Dom Benedict Baur explains that Paschaltide, historically, was the privileged time for mystagogical catechesis—a period dedicated to the deepening of faith for newly baptized Christians. The liturgical texts, especially those of Sundays following Easter, provide a theological reflection and gradual unfolding of baptismal grace. For instance, the readings and prayers of Low Sunday (Dominica in Albis) explicitly recall the baptismal themes of renewal, purification, and entrance into Christ’s resurrected life. Thus, the liturgy becomes an ongoing catechesis on the mysteries just celebrated in Holy Week.

Paschal Candle: Christ’s Illuminating Presence
Fr. Nikolaus Gihr stresses the profound symbolism of the Paschal candle prominently displayed and lit during Paschaltide liturgies. This candle, blessed and solemnly lit at the Easter Vigil, symbolizes Christ, the Light of the World. Its presence in the sanctuary, lit during all solemn Paschaltide celebrations, continuously reminds the faithful of Christ’s abiding presence among His people. It signifies that Christ, the risen Savior, now enlightens humanity’s darkness and confusion.

The Renewal of Baptismal Promises
Paschaltide also maintains a strong baptismal emphasis through repeated reminders of baptismal commitments. Guéranger observes that in traditional parishes, the liturgy regularly refers to the faithful as newly born in Christ (“neophytes”). Baptismal imagery permeates the Paschal liturgy, encouraging a continual renewal of the faithful’s spiritual rebirth. Traditional liturgical prayers frequently petition God for perseverance in the graces first bestowed at Baptism, making Paschaltide a practical season of renewal and recommitment.

The Marian Dimension of Paschaltide
Notably, traditional commentators like Goffine and Guéranger highlight the significant Marian aspect of Paschaltide liturgies, especially in May, traditionally dedicated to Mary. Mary’s presence at the Resurrection and in the Upper Room at Pentecost is a frequent subject of meditation. Liturgical commemorations and Marian devotions emphasize her joy and maternal intercession during these fifty days, underscoring her pivotal role in salvation history.

Preparation for Pentecost
Traditional commentators unanimously identify a crescendo of anticipation in the liturgy as it approaches Pentecost. Dom Benedict Baur notes the liturgical shift as Paschaltide matures, with a gradual intensification in prayers, hymns, and scriptural readings concerning the Holy Spirit. This progression underscores the intimate link between the Resurrection and the descent of the Spirit, completing the Paschal mystery. Thus, the Church’s prayer becomes an earnest plea for spiritual renewal, echoing the Apostles’ prayerful expectation in the Upper Room.

Conclusion
In summary, traditional commentators teach that Paschaltide in the Tridentine Rite is marked by profound joy, rich mystagogy, baptismal renewal, Marian devotion, and eager preparation for Pentecost. It is a season where the liturgy is uniquely vibrant, unfolding step-by-step the glorious mystery of Christ’s Resurrection, celebrated not merely as historical remembrance, but as a dynamic reality transforming every faithful soul. ⬆️

Missalettes (Dominica II Post Pascha)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

---

Bacoor, Cavite – “Happy Easter!”

---

Spiritual Reflection: Good Shepherd Sunday (Second Sunday after Pascha)

“I am the Good Shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.” (John 10:14)

On this second Sunday after Pascha, traditionally known as Good Shepherd Sunday, the Church directs our gaze toward the tender and vigilant care of Christ, our divine Shepherd. In the beautiful rhythm of the liturgy, the risen Lord is revealed as the Shepherd who not only laid down His life for His sheep but now triumphantly gathers, guides, and sustains them with abundant life.

The Good Shepherd’s Sacrifice and Victory
The image of Christ as the Good Shepherd is both comforting and deeply profound. He is not merely a caretaker or a hired guardian; rather, He is intimately bound to His flock. He knows each of His sheep by name, understands their needs, and loves them unto death. His goodness is demonstrated most profoundly in His willingness to lay down His life freely for us, His wayward sheep. Yet, His laying down of life was not defeat but a divine victory. In rising again, He gathers us securely into the safety of His resurrection life.

The Shepherd’s Voice and the Call to Holiness
“I know mine, and mine know me.” Central to this Sunday’s liturgy is the emphasis on the mutual recognition between Christ and the faithful soul. The Good Shepherd speaks, and His sheep recognize His voice amidst the noise and confusion of the world. But do we truly hear Him? The liturgical celebration invites us to reflect deeply on whether we remain attentive and responsive to His call. His voice echoes clearly in the Scriptures, in the teachings of Holy Mother Church, and in the gentle promptings of grace urging us toward deeper holiness. To recognize His voice requires silence, humility, and obedience.

Christ’s Loving Guidance Amidst Trials
Dom Prosper Guéranger reflects beautifully that Christ’s shepherding is gentle yet strong, guiding the flock securely through the turbulent waters and rugged terrains of life. Even amid trials, suffering, or personal loss, we find consolation in knowing that Christ, our Shepherd, leads us through every valley of darkness. He never abandons His flock. Rather, He guides it confidently toward the green pastures of eternal life.

A Call to Priestly and Religious Vocations
Traditionally, Good Shepherd Sunday has been dedicated to praying fervently for priestly and religious vocations. The Church urgently needs shepherds who reflect Christ’s sacrificial love, fidelity, and zeal for souls. On this day, let us renew our prayers for holy priests and consecrated souls—men and women who will selflessly serve the flock entrusted to them, mirroring Christ, the Good Shepherd.

Our Response to the Good Shepherd
This Sunday’s liturgy gently but insistently asks us: how have we responded to the love and care of the Good Shepherd? Have we listened attentively to His voice calling us back to the fold when we have strayed? Have we allowed Him to heal our wounds, reconcile us, and nourish us with His grace, especially in the sacraments, most profoundly in the Holy Eucharist?

Let this Good Shepherd Sunday be an occasion of renewed trust, devotion, and gratitude to Christ, our risen Shepherd. Let us resolve again to listen more closely, follow more faithfully, and trust more deeply in Him, who alone can lead us safely home.

“I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10)

Prayer:
O Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, grant that we may always recognize and respond to Your voice. Keep us steadfast in Your flock, lead us into the abundance of Your grace, and draw more souls to labor faithfully in Your vineyard. You who live and reign forever and ever. Amen. ⬆️

---

A sermon for Sunday

by the Revd Dr Robert Wilson PhD (Cantab), Old Roman Apostolate UK

Good Shepherd Sunday

But you were as sheep going astray: but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.

Today is the Second Sunday after Easter, also known as Good Shepherd Sunday because the readings for this Sunday focus on the theme of Christ the Good Shepherd. The image of Christ as the Good Shepherd has often been portrayed in rather sentimental ways, but the biblical basis suggests a very different interpretation.

In the Old Testament the image of the shepherd is associated with that of a ruler. God is the true shepherd of Israel and his people are the sheep of his pasture. Perhaps the most famous image of this is Psalm 23 “The Lord is my shepherd”. King David had himself originally been a shepherd. The true leader of Israel was portrayed as a true shepherd, while the bad leader was a false shepherd. The prophet Jeremiah denounced the false shepherds who destroyed the sheep of God’s pasture (Jeremiah 23). The prophet Ezekiel denounced the leaders of his own time as false shepherds, but looked forward to a future messianic leader who would be the true shepherd who would regather Israel. “I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.” (Ezekiel 34:23).

Jesus, as the fulfiller of the hopes of Israel, saw himself as the true shepherd of his people. He had compassion on the multitude who were sheep without a shepherd, in other words leaderless without a leader (Matthew 9: 36). He sent his disciples to preach and heal in his name as sheep among wolves (Matthew 10: 16). He assured them that they were the little flock, the faithful remnant of Israel, to whom the kingdom had been given (Luke 12:32). He justified his fellowship with social outcasts with the Parable of the Lost Sheep, in which the true shepherd seeks out and finds the sheep that was lost (Luke 15). In the same way Jesus saw his mission as directed to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

It was to this theme that St. Peter speaks in today’s epistle when he refers to the sheep who have gone astray, but who have now been converted to the shepherd and bishop of their souls. But what was the context that led St. Peter to write his epistle? The epistle was written from Rome to Christians in Asia Minor. It was written during the reign of the Emperor Nero at the time of the first great persecution of Christians after the fire of Rome. It had been rumoured (not without good reason) that the Emperor had started the fire himself to further his own agenda for rebuilding the city. Nero tried to deflect attention from himself by fastening the blame upon the Christians, a group that the Romans were gradually starting to recognise as distinct from Judaism, and that were generally disliked for their isolation from society. The Roman historian Tacitus, in recounting the event, refers to Christianity as a “pestilent superstition”. In other words, received opinion was that, even if the Christians were not responsible for the fire of Rome, they still deserved to be punished. St. Peter himself would later be martyred by Nero, but before his martyrdom he wrote this great epistle to the Christians in Asia Minor. Perhaps some of them had recently escaped from the persecution in Rome, but St. Peter warned them that they were still likely to face persecution. It was better that they suffered for well doing, than for ill doing.

During Jesus’ ministry Peter had strongly protested against Jesus’ redefinition of his messianic role in terms of reversal, repudiation, suffering and death. However, after Jesus’ resurrection Jesus entrusted Peter with the care of his flock, and said that he would also, like his Master, suffer death (John 21). It seems that it was with this in mind that Peter wrote this epistle. He said that Christ had fulfilled his role as Good Shepherd not by violence, but as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, who was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who when he was reviled, did not revile: when he suffered he threatened not, but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly: who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed.” Confronted by a world filled with violence, he took the evil upon himself and somehow subsumed it into good.

He was the true shepherd, whose rule was very different from the kingdoms of this world. The rulers of this world based their authority on force and violence. But they were hirelings who cared only for themselves and advancing their own interests and nothing for their sheep. The Good Shepherd gave his life for the sheep. Those entrusted with authority in the Church should follow the example of the Good Shepherd. They should not be lords over God’s heritage, but rather be what a later successor of St. Peter, Pope Gregory the Great, called the Servant of the Servants of God. St. Gregory states that “he, by despising death, hath shown us how to do the like; he hath set before us the mould wherein it behoveth us to be cast. Our first duty is, freely and tenderly to spend our outward things for his sheep, but lastly, if need be, to serve the same by our death also… And some there be who love the things of this world better than they love the sheep; and such as they deserve no longer to be called shepherds….He that taketh a shepherd’s place, but seeketh not gain of souls, that same is but an hireling; such an one is ever ready for creature comforts, he loveth his pre-eminence, he growth sleek upon his income, and he liketh well to see men bow down to him.”

Let us pray that we will not be led astray by false shepherds in our own time, but rather follow the example of the Good Shepherd, who came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. ⬆️

---

St. Monica/Second Sunday after Easter

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Monica, as well as commemorating the Second Sunday after Easter. St. Monica was the mother of St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the greatest minds of antiquity and also one of the most significant and influential figures in the history of the Church. Though St. Monica was a Christian, her husband Patricius was a pagan and of a violent and abusive temperament. They had several children, most notably St. Augustine. St. Monica instructed him in the Christian religion and he was enrolled as a catechumen. When he fell seriously ill, he desired baptism, but when his health suddenly improved he put it off.

St. Augustine was an intellectually brilliant, but unstable child. He found the simple faith of his mother was too unsophisticated for him and instead became a Manichean. Manicheanism was a syncretistic religion that taught a Gnostic dualism and radical separation between the physical and spiritual world. The spiritual world was good, whereas the material world was evil. Hence, the way to obtain salvation was release from the material world into the spiritual realm. Augustine had also taken a concubine, as was the custom at the time. She subsequently bore him one son. St. Augustine was academically bright and pursued a career as a teacher in rhetoric, first in Carthage, then in Rome and finally in Milan. His mother, St. Monica, followed him to Milan, understandably concerned about the behaviour of her son.

By this time he had started to have doubts about Manicheanism. The belief that the material world was evil had previously seemed to him to be the best explanation of the problem of evil and suffering in the world. But he gradually became convinced that the Neo-Platonist philosophy of Plotinus that evil was a privation of goodness made more sense than Manicheanism. At the same time, he was impressed by St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan and increasingly drawn to Christianity. But he was still living with his concubine and though, as he later said, he prayed for chastity, he also put off acting on his prayers. One day this tension came to a head in a garden in Milan. He heard a child’s voice saying, “Tolle lege”, pick up and read. Opening the Pauline epistles he turned to the words in the epistle to the Romans, “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for lusts thereof.” He had finally found the answer to his conflict between his rational acceptance of a higher philosophy and his worldly passions. The love of God poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit gave the divine grace not only to think about what is good, but actually to do it. He had found much wisdom in the books of the Neo-Platonists, but there was no message of salvation through the Word made flesh. He finally determined to be baptised, to put away his concubine and abandon his secular career. St. Monica died at Ostia soon afterwards, her hopes and prayers for her wayward son being finally fulfilled.

Concerning his mother St. Monica’s death, St. Augustine wrote “We did not think that hers was a death which it was seemly to mark with repining, or tears or lamentation, seeing that she died not sorrowfully, nor at all as touching her best and noblest part. This we knew, because we knew that her life had been, her faith unfeigned, her sure and certain hope. And then, nevertheless, I remembered again what thine handmaid was used to be, her walk with thee, how godly and holy it was, and with us so gentle and long suffering; and that it was all gone away from me now. And I wept, over her and for her. And if any man will make it blame for me that I wept for a little while, when I saw lying dead before my eyes my mother, who had wept over me so many years, that she might see me live, I say, if any man will make it blame to me, I pray him not to sneer at me, but rather (if his charity be so great) himself to weep over my sins before thee, Who art a Father to all them to whom thy Christ is a brother”.

While it would be true to say that Christianity has placed more emphasis on the role of celibacy than Judaism, it still affirms the importance of the vocation of the wife and mother. This is especially important to note at the present time when the Christian doctrine of marriage is under attack from so many quarters. It is a strange paradox that the Christian Church is widely criticised both for the exaltation of virginity (which it is said has in the past imprisoned women in the cloister and denigrated female sexuality) but also for speaking of marriage as a specific vocation for women (which it is said has confined them in the home and restricted their opportunity to have a career of their own). It seems that in the eyes of many of its modern critics Christianity cannot win, for it is criticised both for teaching about virginity and also for teaching about marriage. Perhaps it is not Christianity that is confused but the modern critics themselves. A hundred years ago G. K. Chesterton said that twenty thousand women took to the streets and said that they would not be dictated to and proceeded to become stenographers. This is even more pertinent today than it was then, as both women and men are viewed not as made in the image of God but as primarily economic units who can be controlled and manipulated for commercial purposes. The reason why governments and commercial agencies hate the married family, as they also dislike celibacy, is because people with a specific vocation whether to marriage or to celibacy are more difficult for them to control. That is why they seek to denigrate people and organisations that they cannot control because they see them as a threat and challenge to their own pride and vanity.

Ultimately, our disagreement with our governments over the relation between the human person and the state can be traced back to the contrasting attitudes between the biblical and the pagan view of humanity. In paganism the state was the ultimate authority, whether the city state in Greece or the person of the Emperor in Rome. By contrast, in the Bible since human beings were made in the image of God, governments were seen as a necessary evil rather than the ultimate authority. That is why when the Bible tells the story of the origins of the people of Israel it speaks not of kings and queens and rulers, but of husbands and wives, patriarchs and matriarchs, of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel (the Israelites later had a monarchy and rulers but they were seen as a necessary evil to preserve the civil peace rather than the ultimate authority). Since they saw their origins and the handing on of their traditions as a matter for families and communities rather than governments they had a much higher view of marriage and the human person than their pagan counterparts.

Let us seek to follow the example of St. Monica in continuing to uphold the Christian understanding  of marriage in our own time and place. ⬆️

---

Bratislava – Slovakia. Easter

---

Feasts this week

Sunday, May 4 – Second Sunday after Easter (Good Shepherd Sunday)
Class: Semi-Double
Liturgical Color: White
Gospel: John 10:11–16 – “I am the Good Shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.”
Commemoration: St. Monica, Widow
Significance: This Sunday presents Christ as the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep. It is a cherished theme of Eastertide, drawing the faithful into deeper trust in Christ’s care and sacrificial love.

Monday, May 5 – St. Pius V, Pope and Confessor
Class: Double
Liturgical Color: White
Significance: Dominican Pope (1504–1572), reformer of the Roman Rite, promulgator of the Tridentine Missal (1570), and spiritual force behind the victory at Lepanto. Canonized for his fidelity to doctrine and liturgical purity.

Tuesday, May 6 – St. John Before the Latin Gate
Class: Double
Liturgical Color: Red
Significance: Commemorates the Apostle John’s miraculous preservation when plunged into boiling oil in Rome. His survival led to his exile on Patmos and the vision of the Apocalypse.

Wednesday, May 7 – St. Stanislaus, Bishop and Martyr
Class: Double
Liturgical Color: Red
Significance: Bishop of Kraków, martyred during Mass by King Bolesław II for denouncing royal corruption. A patron of Poland and exemplar of episcopal courage.

Thursday, May 8 – Apparition of St. Michael the Archangel (Monte Gargano)
Class: Greater Double
Liturgical Color: White
Significance: Celebrates St. Michael’s 5th-century apparition on Mount Gargano in Apulia, affirming angelic guardianship over the Church. Inspired one of the oldest pilgrimage shrines in the West.

Friday, May 9 – St. Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor
Class: Double
Liturgical Color: White
Significance: The “Theologian” among the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory (329–390) was a master orator and defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy against Arianism.

Saturday, May 10 – St. Antoninus of Florence, Bishop and Confessor
Class: Double
Liturgical Color: White
Significance: Dominican friar and Archbishop of Florence, remembered for his deep charity, administrative integrity, and pioneering work in moral theology.

Sunday, May 11 – Solemnity of the Patronage of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Class: Greater Double (often observed as Double of the I Class locally)
Liturgical Color: White
Proper Sunday: Third Sunday after Easter (superseded)
Significance: Instituted by Pope Pius IX in 1847 and fixed to the Third Sunday after Easter, this feast honors St. Joseph as the universal patron of the Church. The Mass Adjútor et pròtector noster emphasizes Joseph’s role as guardian of the Holy Family and protector of Christ’s Mystical Body. ⬆️

---

Give Me That Old-Time Religion: Welcoming Visitors

How everyone can help grow an ORA mission—faithfully, prayerfully, and together

Old Roman Apostolate (ORA) missions don’t grow like modern brands. We don’t rely on advertising campaigns or quick-fix trends. Our chapels don’t measure success by numbers or social media followers. We grow differently—because we’re not just building organizations. We’re building up the Body of Christ.

Every mission begins with a few: a priest offering Mass, a handful of people praying, someone putting on the coffee, someone cleaning the floors, someone welcoming a stranger. Quiet faithfulness, lived day by day, is what makes a mission flourish. And every baptized person has a part to play.

If you’re part of an ORA chapel—or want to be—here are twelve ways you can help the mission grow, deepen, and bear fruit.

1. Be grateful for what came before
Even if your mission is new, someone prayed before you arrived. Maybe they didn’t see fruit—but their faith helped till the ground. Honour their part in the story. Start with thanksgiving, not complaints.

2. Be present where God has placed you
You’re here for a reason. Maybe it’s temporary, maybe lifelong—but while you’re here, this chapel is your spiritual home. Get involved. Show up. Build with others. This is how God grows His Church.

3. Embrace the beauty of tradition
Don’t be afraid to love the old ways. ORA chapels are intentionally “old-fashioned”—because we believe that what the Church has always done still works. The traditional Latin Mass, the rosary, incense, chant, silence, icons, confession—all of it points to Christ. That’s why we preserve it, love it, and share it.

4. Support the daily rhythm
Even if you can’t attend daily Mass or prayer, support the rhythm. Offer your day in union with it. Pray the Angelus at noon. Help keep the chapel clean and beautiful. Missions don’t grow through one-off events, but through steady daily worship.

5. Expect slow, personal growth
Most people don’t convert in an instant. They come once… then disappear… then come again. Keep praying. Keep loving. Keep inviting. Don’t rush it. One soul is worth it all.

6. Let worship shape your witness
The best thing we offer the world is the worship of God. We don’t come to be entertained—we come to adore. When others see that, it leaves a mark. Every time you sing with heart, kneel with reverence, or pray with attention, you’re helping evangelize—whether you know it or not.

7. Be part of the welcome
You don’t have to be an extrovert to be welcoming. Just notice people. Smile. Say hello. Offer a hymn book. Sit near someone new. Small gestures help people feel at home. And always pray before Sunday: “Lord, send someone we’re not expecting—and make us ready to receive them.”

8. Let love overflow
Service—feeding the hungry, offering hospitality, visiting the sick—must flow from our life at the altar. When people see us serving without asking anything in return, they glimpse Christ. Be generous, and be clear about why: “We do this because we love Jesus, and He loves you.”

9. Don’t focus on numbers
It’s easy to get discouraged when the pews aren’t full. But faithfulness matters more than fame. God sees. Show up. Offer what you can. Trust the rhythm. The Lord brings growth in His time.

10. Be part of the plan
Every mission has a plan, and you can help. Ask what’s coming up. Offer to help. Suggest an idea. But also accept when the answer is: “Not yet.” We grow best when we work together, patiently, prayerfully.

11. Live visibly, not fearfully
Wear a crucifix. Make the sign of the Cross before meals. Invite someone to Mass. Be unafraid to show that you are a Christian. Most people won’t come to faith through a debate—but they will notice your peace, your reverence, your joy.

12. Use your gifts for the mission
Everyone has a role. Can you sing? Cook? Fix things? Organize events? Welcome visitors? Share your faith? Pray for others? The Holy Spirit has already given you what the mission needs—offer it back. God will do more with it than you can imagine.

Let God surprise you
Missions grow when ordinary people say yes to extraordinary grace. You might think you’re just helping in the kitchen or holding a baby at Mass—but you’re part of something eternal. You’re helping build up the Church.

There’s no need to invent anything new. The old-time religion—the faith of the apostles, the Mass of the saints, the tradition of our fathers—is still the best way forward. And in a noisy, restless world, ORA missions offer something quietly powerful: depth, reverence, joy, and Christ Himself.

You are not just attending a chapel. You are the mission. Keep showing up. Keep praying. Keep loving. And trust: God will bring the harvest. ⬆️

Baptism and the Citizenship of Heaven: A Primer for Traditional Catholics

Introduction
Baptism is the foundation of the Christian life and the gateway to eternal life. For the traditional Catholic, it is not merely a symbolic ritual or entrance into a community, but a real, supernatural incorporation into Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church. It confers upon the soul a new identity: that of a citizen of heaven (Phil. 3:20), with all the rights and responsibilities this entails.

1. A New Birth into Divine Citizenship
Christ declared: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Baptism is this rebirth, making the soul a living member of the Civitas Dei (City of God), a term drawn from St. Augustine’s great work De Civitate Dei. The baptized are no longer aliens or strangers but “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).

St. Leo the Great exhorted the newly baptized:

“Christian, recognize your dignity. You have become a partaker in the divine nature; do not return to your former base condition by sin.”
(Sermo 1 de Nativitate Domini, PL 54, 192)

The character of baptism indelibly marks the soul, configuring it to Christ. The Council of Florence declared:

“The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual, and of all punishment due to sin… The character is a spiritual sign distinguishing the faithful from the unbaptized.”
(Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, 1439)

2. Rights of the Baptized
Baptism confers real spiritual privileges:

• Adoption as sons of God: “You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15)
• Participation in the other sacraments, which build upon the baptismal foundation
• Membership in the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ: “By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13)
• The indwelling of the Holy Trinity, whereby the soul becomes the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19)
• Spiritual kinship with Christ, making us “co-heirs” with Him (Rom. 8:17)

St. Gregory of Nazianzus described baptism as:

“God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift… the gift of adoption, the destruction of sin, the renewal of the soul, the garment of light, the holy seal indelible, the chariot to heaven, the delight of Paradise.”
*(Oratio 40, In Sanctum Baptisma)

St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed that by baptism, “a man becomes a member of Christ and incorporated in His Body, the Church” (Summa Theologiae III, q. 69, a. 1).

3. Obligations of the Baptized

The baptized are bound to live as citizens of heaven, reflecting their new identity. This includes:

• Sanctity of life: “Be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:16)
• Fidelity to the commandments: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt. 19:17)
• Public profession of the faith: “Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father” (Mt. 10:32)
• Defense of the Church: Baptized persons are called to be spiritual soldiers in Christ’s army (cf. 2 Tim. 2:3)

Tertullian taught:

“We are not born Christians, we become Christians. No one is born in the Church; he is made a member by baptism.”
(Apologeticus, XVIII)

St. Ambrose emphasized the seriousness of the baptismal vow:

“See how many are the effects of baptism: the forgiveness of sins, the gift of grace, the adoption as sons, and the obligation to live righteously.”
(De Mysteriis, c. 7.35)

4. The Baptismal Character and the Church Militant
Baptism leaves an indelible character on the soul, a mark that both configures and commissions. It is a seal of Christian identity and service. Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943), described baptism as the “first sacrament of incorporation into Christ,” making us “soldiers of Christ”—a title explicitly conferred in the traditional rite of Confirmation but rooted in baptism.

Pope Pius X’s Catechism explains:

“The baptismal character is a spiritual mark imprinted on the soul which consecrates the baptized person to Christian worship.”
(Catechism of St. Pius X, On Baptism, Q. 21)

This character also enables the baptized to act in the name of Christ in worship and witness. It is why baptism is never repeated—the mark is eternal.

5. Baptism and Membership in the Church
The necessity of baptism for salvation is a dogma of the faith. The Council of Trent declared:

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”
(Session VII, Canon 5 on Baptism)

St. Cyprian’s dictum remains binding:

“He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother.”
(De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, VI)

Baptism incorporates the soul into the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. The Fathers and Councils are unanimous: outside the Church, there is no salvation—not by exclusion, but because the Church is the ark of salvation, and baptism is the entry point.

Conclusion
Baptism is not a symbolic washing but a supernatural rebirth, an incorporation into Christ, and a commission to holiness and apostolic witness. The baptized are not merely individuals with private faith—they are citizens of heaven, marked and empowered for eternal life, but also bound to fight for the truth and live in fidelity. Their lives must reflect their divine adoption, their ecclesial identity, and their heavenly homeland. ⬆️

In the words of St. Augustine:

“Let us rejoice and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ Himself. Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ.”
(In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus 21, 8)

---

Liturgical Lace and the Forgotten Rubrics of the Roman Rite

A Decorative Accessory or a Symbol of Rank?
The use of lace in the Roman Rite has long divided opinion. Often derided as frilly excess or defended as glorious festal ornament, liturgical lace remains a point of contention in many communities working to restore the traditional liturgy. While the Church has never forbidden lace outright, it has always regulated its use. Lace is not a matter of personal taste—it is a matter of rubrics, symbolism, and tradition.

As Abbé Caron explained in his 1846 Manuel des Cérémonies, albs trimmed with lace may be worn by priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but only at Solemn Masses, and never during the Masses of the Dead, in Passiontide, or at low-ranking Masses¹. J.B. O’Connell, writing over a century later, reinforces that lace is merely an accessory and should never dominate the garment. It must not be too deep, both out of sobriety and because lace historically signified rank, as seen in the lace rochet of prelates².

Rank, Restraint, and Roman Austerity
Historically, lace was modest in its use. Caron describes lace albs as “trimmed,” not engulfed in lace³. Adrian Fortescue confirms that priests should wear only a narrow band of lace at the hem or sleeves⁴, not elaborate panels. O’Connell warns against misuse because lace traditionally marked hierarchical distinction⁵. The Sacred Congregation of Rites itself makes this point clear in decree no. 4154, which links lace directly to the rochet of bishops⁶.

Milholland is more direct: lace “should not be used except by prelates,” and even then sparingly⁷. For priests and deacons, only the lightest edging was permitted⁸. Today’s ubiquitous, machine-made, non-linen lace often ignores this historical discipline and symbolism. Worse still, it often violates the material requirements for the alb, which must be entirely linen according to both tradition and canon law⁹.

The Sacred Congregation of Rites on Lace
Decree no. 3804, often cited by liturgists, responded to a question about whether Canons celebrating solemn Mass on great feast days could wear lace from the cincture downward. The reply was restrained: Tolerari posse—“It may be tolerated”¹⁰. This was not an enthusiastic endorsement. And despite later writers who expanded the permission to all clergy, Canonist Fr Charles Augustine warned that the privilege applied only to Canons and that its wider application should be doubted¹¹.

Thus, while not strictly forbidden, wide lace was never made normative, and the Church never encouraged its liberal use. The broader principle is this: lace is tolerated for festal solemnity and rank—not everyday use.

When is Lace Prohibited?
The traditional Roman Missal presumes the use of a plain, all-linen alb¹². Building on this, liturgical authors identify several times and rites when lace must not be used: Lent, Passiontide, Masses for the Dead, penitential processions, Ember Days, Rogation Days, vigils, and weekdays outside feasts¹³. The appearance of a folded chasuble is a visual reminder: the season is penitential, and so lace is out of place.

Conclusion: The Abuse of Festal Signifiers
Overusing lace deprives it of its symbolic meaning. Just as cloth of gold vestments are reserved for the highest solemnities, so too lace should remain rare and festal. There is no shame in wearing a plain linen alb. If it was sufficient for countless saints and martyrs, it is surely sufficient today.

Adrian Fortescue rightly cautioned against mistaking late baroque excess for genuine Romanity:
“Skimpy chasubles, gold braid, and lace are not Roman; they are eighteenth-century bad taste.”¹⁴

To be truly Roman is to value sobriety, dignity, and restraint. These are not aesthetic preferences—they are the rubrics of the Church’s worship. ⬆️

¹ Augustine Pierre Paul Caron, Manuel des Cérémonies Selon Le Rite De L’Église De Paris (Paris: Librairie d’Adrien le Clerc et Cie, 1846), 9.
² J.B. O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass (Bruce Pub. Co., 1964), 170.
³ Caron, Manuel, 9.
⁴ Adrian Fortescue et al., The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (Burns & Oates, 2009), 32.
⁵ O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass, 170.
⁶ S.R.C. 4154.
⁷ Milholland, Ceremonial for the Use of Catholic Churches in the United States of America (H.L. Kilner & Co, 1894), 135.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass, 170.
¹⁰ S.R.C. 3804.
¹¹ Fr Charles Augustine, Liturgical Law: A Handbook for the Roman Liturgy (Herder, 1931), 51.
¹² O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass, 170.
¹³ L.J. Lawrence, The Book of Ceremonies (Bruce Pub. Co., 1943), 22; Lester Kuenzel, A Manual of the Ceremonies of Low Mass (Pustet, 1920), 24.
¹⁴ Adrian Fortescue, The Vestments of the Roman Rite (Paulist Press, 1915), 30.

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

The Pope Is Dead. Long Live the Papacy

April 21, 2025

With the death of Pope Francis, the Church stands at another solemn crossroad in her earthly pilgrimage. As the world reacts with a mixture of mourning and media spectacle, faithful Catholics are called not only to pray for the soul of the deceased pontiff, but to reflect on the meaning of the papacy itself—and the damage that has been done to it over the past twelve years.

A Pontificate Marked by Ambiguity
From the earliest moments of his reign, Pope Francis established a tone that was more improvisational than doctrinal. His infamous “Who am I to judge?” remark in 2013 set a precedent for rhetorical ambiguity that would characterize much of his papacy. While many sought to interpret such remarks charitably, the consistent result was confusion among the faithful, scandal among unbelievers, and division among bishops¹.

The tone was not incidental. Francis’s style of governance often bypassed established structures, encouraged informal power blocs, and relied on carefully selected advisors who shared his progressive theological sympathies. Men like Fr. James Martin, S.J., became unofficial spokesmen for an inclusive Catholicism that bore little resemblance to the deposit of faith².

Amoris Laetitia and the Crisis of Doctrine
The apex of this confusion was reached with the publication of Amoris Laetitia in 2016. Ostensibly a reflection on marriage and family, the document’s now-notorious footnote 351 opened the door to Holy Communion for those living in adulterous unions—without repentance or amendment of life. This marked a rupture not merely in pastoral practice, but in doctrinal integrity. The result was a breakdown of sacramental discipline and a global divergence in episcopal application³.

To suggest that such division was a sign of synodal vitality, as some attempted, is to misunderstand the nature of the Church’s unity. Truth cannot contradict itself across diocesan borders. What one bishop cannot permit in Poland cannot be celebrated in Germany without fracturing the universal mission of the Church⁴.

Scandal, Rehabilitation, and Silence
In addition to doctrinal confusion, the Francis pontificate will be remembered for a puzzling silence regarding clerical abuse and corruption—except where the narrative suited the pope’s allies. The early rehabilitation of Cardinal McCarrick, later exposed as a predator, revealed the inner contradictions of a pontificate that claimed to champion transparency while consolidating unaccountable power. Those who raised concerns—from whistleblowers like Archbishop Viganò to ordinary laity—were dismissed or ignored.

The Vatican’s alignment with globalist agendas, from ecological manifestos to migration activism, further eroded confidence in the spiritual mission of the papacy. More than once, the Successor of Peter seemed to act more as an NGO director than a guardian of souls⁵.

The Papacy Endures
Yet the Church does not rise or fall with one man. The office of Peter is not a cult of personality, but a divine institution. It is possible—indeed necessary—for faithful Catholics to distinguish between the man and the office. We pray for the repose of Pope Francis’s soul, but we do not paper over the confusion he caused. Truth requires both charity and clarity.

The ancient cry, “The King is dead. Long live the King,” speaks to this paradox. The pope is dead. Long live the papacy. It is Christ who sustains the Church, and it is Christ who will call forth a successor. Let us pray that the next pope will not merely restore doctrinal clarity, but reestablish confidence in the sacred trust entrusted to Peter and his successors.

Oremus pro Pontifice defuncto. Oremus pro Ecclesia. ⬆️

¹ Pope Francis, interview aboard return flight from Rio de Janeiro, July 2013.
² Fr. James Martin, S.J., was appointed to the Vatican Dicastery for Communication in 2017, despite public advocacy that contradicted the Catechism’s teachings on homosexuality.
³ Amoris Laetitia, footnote 351, 2016.
⁴ Cardinal Gerhard Müller and Cardinal Raymond Burke were among those who publicly requested clarifications via the Dubia, which were never answered.
⁵ See Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ (2015) and involvement with the UN’s Global Compact on Migration.

---

We’re All Sedevacantists Now
Sorting the Tribes After a Papal Death

With the death of Pope Francis, every Catholic is momentarily a sedevacantist in the literal sense: sede vacante, the chair of St Peter is empty. But that moment of factual agreement conceals an ecclesiological battlefield. The crisis of modern Catholicism is, at heart, a crisis of the papacy—its meaning, its limits, and its relation to Tradition.

What one makes of a papal death is never neutral. For some, it’s the end of a golden era. For others, the chance to reset a derailed institution. For others still, a confirmation that the chair has been empty in spirit—or jurisdiction—for decades.

Here is a survey of the major Catholic camps, and how each navigates this moment of sede vacante.

Novus Ordo Modernists and Synodalists
Charismatics, Sant’Egidio, Jesuits, Synodal Way and Amazonian Synod participants

These Catholics treat Vatican II as a moment of irreversible evolution. For them, the Church is not so much the guardian of revealed truths, but a living organism that discerns truth through time. The Pope is not primarily a monarch or judge, but a symbol of communion and a listener to the “signs of the times.”

Synodalists in Germany and beyond openly celebrate this understanding. Irme Stetter-Karp, president of the German lay Central Committee, said bluntly: “The Church must change or it will perish.”¹ Cardinal Hollerich of Luxembourg, general relator of the Synod, described the Church’s traditional moral teaching on sexuality as “no longer correct.”²

Movements like Sant’Egidio hailed Pope Francis for prioritizing interreligious dialogue and social justice over doctrine. The Charismatic Renewal—particularly in Latin America—found in him a Pope open to spontaneous liturgy, prophecy, and spiritual experimentation.

Now that the See is vacant, these Catholics are energized. They do not long for restoration, but for acceleration. The vacancy is an opportunity to elect a Pope who will consolidate and extend the Francis legacy—or exceed it.

Novus Ordo Conservatives
Opus Dei, Community of St Martin, Communion & Liberation

These kinds of groups accept Vatican II, but want it read through the lens of continuity. They defend hierarchical structures, moral norms, and papal authority—but have struggled during Francis’ pontificate to reconcile obedience with discomfort.

Fr. Jean-Baptiste Arnaud of the Community of St. Martin, in private correspondence, confessed: “We suffer in silence, hoping for a Roman clarity that never arrives.”³ A 2022 Opus Dei bulletin encouraged members to remain “serene, faithful, and focused on prayer, not public complaint.”⁴ Communion & Liberation tried to reconcile Francis’ apparent doctrinal ambivalence with John Paul II’s anthropology by stressing personal encounter and conscience.

These Catholics were often critical of Amoris Laetitia, but explained it away. They winced at papal support for synodal heterodoxy, but remained loyal. With the papal death, they sigh—praying for a successor who resembles Benedict XVI or Cardinal Sarah.

Their ultramontanism is real but conditional. The Pope is Peter—unless he sounds like Luther.

Traditional Catholics in Full Communion
FSSP, ICKSP, Adorers of the Royal Heart, Summorum Pontificum communities

These Catholics live liturgically in the pre-conciliar Church, while maintaining canonical communion with post-conciliar Rome. They accept the legitimacy of the modern Popes but quietly oppose the substance of their theology. For them, Tradition is not a treasure to be reinterpreted but received whole.

After Traditionis Custodes, which sought to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass, many of these Catholics felt betrayed. A superior of the FSSP remarked during a clergy retreat: “We are treated as tolerated, not loved.”⁵ And yet, they remain within the canonical fold, swearing obedience, avoiding public criticism, and hoping for a turn of the tide.

Bishop Dominique Rey of Fréjus-Toulon, sympathetic to Tradition, expressed the hope that “a Church open to the riches of its liturgical past will be stronger in the future.”⁶

Now that the See is vacant, they do not deny Francis was Pope—but they pray fervently that the next Pope will be liturgically and doctrinally restorative. In practice, they live like Benedictines under Nero—loyal to Rome, but at odds with its tone.

Traditional Catholics Estranged from Rome
Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Old Roman Apostolate (ORA), SSPX Resistance, independent clergy

These groups recognize the papacy in principle but reject the post conciliar Popes in practice as compromised in their governance and teaching. They invoke theologians like Cajetan and John of St Thomas to justify resistance without rupture.

The SSPX refers to the crisis as “an abnormal state of necessity.” Bishop Fellay stated: “We recognize the Pope, but we do not follow him into error. We pray for his conversion.”⁷ The Old Roman Apostolate (ORA) frames its estrangement as a doctrinal and juridical safeguard. As its Primus, Archbishop Lloyd stated during a 2024 visit to Manila: “We desire reconciliation, but only with truth. The Chair of Peter must speak with the voice of Tradition—or it speaks in vain.”⁸

This camp lives in estranged loyalty. They speak of the “eclipse” of authority—not its destruction. The papal vacancy now is real—but it was, for them, long preceded by a vacuum of truth.

Sedevacantists
SSPV, CMRI, Bishop Dolan, Most Holy Family Monastery, Fr Cekada’s adherents

Sedevacantists argue that the modern Popes have lost office due to manifest heresy. They reject the New Mass, Vatican II, and the postconciliar magisterium in total. Most cite the canonical maxim that a public heretic cannot hold ecclesiastical office. For them, the vacancy began with Paul VI or John XXIII.

The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) states unequivocally: “There has been no Pope since Vatican II. The Catholic Church cannot be led by modernist heretics.”⁹ Bishop Daniel Dolan once preached: “We do not reject the Pope. We simply observe that we have none.”¹⁰

Francis’s death is irrelevant to them—he was not Pope yesterday, and he is not Pope today. The conclave is, in their view, an invalid election in a false Church. Their position is absolute: the throne is empty, and Rome has lost the Faith.

Sedeprivationists
Bp Donald Sanborn, Institute of Our Lady of Good Counsel (Italy), Mater Boni Consilii

A more nuanced variant of sedevacantism, sedeprivationism (the Cassiciacum Thesis) holds that postconciliar claimants to the papacy were validly elected materially but lacked formal authority due to public heresy. They are like Popes-elect who never accepted office rightly. Their “papacy” is defective but not null in every sense.

Bp Donald Sanborn writes: “The Novus Ordo Popes are popes materialiter, but not formaliter. They occupy the office in a legal sense, but are blocked from exercising it because of modernist errors.”¹¹ The Institute of Our Lady of Good Counsel calls this “a mystery of suspended authority” awaiting resolution by divine intervention or miraculous conversion.

They reject communion with Rome, but also reject total sedevacantism. The vacancy is spiritual, not canonical—and it now becomes total with Francis’s death. But they await no conclave. Their hope is in divine correction, not human election.

Conclusion: A Vacant Chair, a Divided Church

As the world watches for white smoke, the Catholic Church remains fragmented—not just by rite or liturgy, but by fundamentally divergent understandings of what the papacy is.

Some believe it is the engine of renewal. Others, a bulwark of tradition. Still others, a throne now abandoned. At this moment of sede vacante, one thing is clear: while every Catholic may acknowledge the chair is empty, they do not agree on what must fill it—or who has authority to say.

In truth, we have all become sedevacantists. But only for a day. What we are tomorrow depends on what we believe the Church is—and whether Peter still has the keys. ⬆️

¹ Irme Stetter-Karp, address to the Synodal Way assembly, Frankfurt, March 2023.
² Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, interview with KNA, February 2022.
³ Fr Jean-Baptiste Arnaud, private letter (Community of St. Martin archive, 2022).
⁴ Informative Bulletin, Prelature of Opus Dei, March 2022.
⁵ FSSP District Superior, clergy retreat remarks, Bavaria, 2021 (notes on file).
⁶ Bishop Dominique Rey, Chartres Pilgrimage homily, June 2022.
⁷ Bishop Bernard Fellay, Interview with DICI, 2017.
⁸ ORA Primus, address to Manila clergy, December 2024.
⁹ CMRI, “On the Vacancy of the Holy See,” position paper, 2020.
¹⁰ Bishop Daniel Dolan, Sermon on the State of the Church, 2015.
¹¹ Bishop Donald Sanborn, On the Material Papacy, 2018.

---

The Pope We Need: A Vision from the Old Roman Apostolate

With the death of Pope Francis, the Church stands at a crossroads. The College of Cardinals prepares to elect his successor in a time of profound crisis: doctrinal confusion, moral collapse, liturgical decline, and a loss of supernatural vision among the faithful. For the Old Roman Apostolate (ORA)—which has long laboured in fidelity to the perennial magisterium, while remaining in filial expectation of reconciliation with Rome—this is not merely a moment of transition, but a call to restoration.

What kind of man should wear the shoes of the fisherman in such a time as this? The ORA does not propose a name, but a profile—a vision of the kind of pope the Church needs now.

A Confessor of the Faith, Not a Manager of Decline
The Church requires a man who governs not by consensus or public approval, but by apostolic conviction. He must speak and act not as a diplomat or administrator, but as a confessor of the Catholic Faith. His voice must be clear, paternal, and unafraid to contradict the spirit of the age. He must see himself not as the steward of a declining institution, but as the guardian of a supernatural reality that cannot be measured by worldly metrics.

A Man Formed by the Perennial Magisterium
The ideal pontiff must be formed by the unbroken teaching of the Church, especially as expressed in the teachings of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, and the papal magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council. He must reject the false dichotomy between truth and mercy, and proclaim the immutable moral law in all its integrity. He must resist the modernist tendency to blur doctrine and pastoral care into ambiguity and contradiction. He must know that true compassion begins in truth.

A Liturgical Restorer, Not a Liturgical Tolerator
The future pope must restore the sacred liturgy as the centre of Catholic life. He must recognize the Tridentine Roman Rite—particularly in its pre-1955 form—as the authentic expression of the Roman Church’s lex orandi. The liturgical rupture of the twentieth century must be healed not by permission but by re-establishment. The Novus Ordo must be reformed in the light of tradition, not imposed in hostility to it.

A True Pastor of Souls and Father to Clergy
The next pope must understand the moral and spiritual devastation afflicting clergy and faithful alike. He must be a man of deep personal prayer, ascetic discipline, and supernatural charity. He must act to remove corrupt bishops, restore seminary formation to fidelity, and inspire the priesthood by his own example of humility and courage.

A Reformer in Justice, Not in Public Relations
The next pontiff must not merely lament clerical abuse—he must act. He must end the culture of secrecy, favoritism, and rehabilitation of predators. He must be willing to name names, correct past failures, and proclaim that justice is the foundation of mercy. He must abandon the optics-driven strategies of recent decades and govern in truth.

A Witness to the Kingship of Christ
The Church is not a chaplain to secular ideologies, nor a platform for globalist diplomacy. The pope must reaffirm the Social Kingship of Christ, and call nations and rulers to submit to His law. He must repudiate religious indifferentism and syncretistic gestures that suggest equality between Christ and false religions. Ecumenism must not come at the cost of truth. Fraternity must flow from faith, not replace it.

A Reconciler of the Faithful in Exile
The next pope must recognize that groups such as the ORA and SSPX have not separated themselves from the Church, but have preserved those treasures that recent decades have sought to suppress. He must offer them not coercion or reintegration under compromise, but true reconciliation grounded in justice and doctrinal clarity. He must understand that the Ecclesia militans includes those who resisted while others surrendered.

A Marian, Eucharistic, and Supernatural Pope
Finally, the pope we need must be a man of Mary. His pontificate must be marked by reparation, Eucharistic reverence, and the recovery of the supernatural character of the Church. He must pray as the saints prayed, think as the Church has always taught, and live as Peter lived: not for self-preservation, but for the Cross.

Whoever is elected in the coming conclave, the Old Roman Apostolate stands watchful, prayerful, and ready. Ready to cooperate with a restoration of the Church. Ready to speak truthfully if the crisis deepens. Ready to reconcile when reconciliation is possible.

And above all, ready to serve the Bride of Christ—wounded, yet glorious—until He comes. ⬆️

---

The ORA prays for a pontiff who will be:

• A confessor of the Faith, fearless and clear in doctrine
• Formed by Thomistic theology and pre-conciliar magisterium
• A restorer of the sacred liturgy, especially the pre-1955 Roman Rite
• A man of discipline, justice, and supernatural charity
• A reformer who will name and remove corrupt bishops and clergy
• A father who will welcome and reconcile the faithful remnant, including the ORA
• A pope who proclaims Christ’s kingship over nations, not just individuals
• Marian, Eucharistic, and ascetical in his personal holiness

Such a pope would be misunderstood by the world—but would be a true successor of Peter, ready to suffer for the Truth and rebuild the Church from its ruins. ⬆️

---

The Pope We Don’t Need: A Warning from the Old Roman Apostolate

As the cardinals gather to elect the next successor of St. Peter, many Catholics—faithful yet wounded—pray not only for the right man, but that the wrong man will not be chosen. The Old Roman Apostolate (ORA), which exists to preserve the Faith, restore the sacred, and await reconciliation with Rome grounded in truth, offers this warning: not every candidate would be a gift from God.

In an age where confusion is called accompaniment and novelty mistaken for renewal, the Church must resist the temptation to elect a pope who flatters the world, manages decay, or deepens the rupture of the last century. From our vantage as both observers and guardians of tradition, here is the kind of pope the Church cannot afford.

A Pope of Ambiguity and Compromise
We do not need another pope who speaks with studied imprecision, who buries dogma under vague appeals to pastoral nuance, or who avoids clarity in the name of dialogue. A pope who cannot say “yes” and “no” with fatherly authority but prefers to “open processes” is not a shepherd but a facilitator of confusion. The world has had enough of this. Souls are lost in the fog.

A Pope Who Sees Tradition as a Threat
We do not need a pontiff who fears the Church’s past—who sees tradition as rigidity, faithful Catholics as enemies, and the ancient liturgy as dangerous nostalgia. Such a man would continue the punitive ideology of Traditionis Custodes, deepening division and exiling those who have kept the faith. The Church needs healing, not further liturgical scorched earth.

A Globalist Chaplain in Papal White
We do not need a pope who behaves as a mascot for secular ideologies, offering moral approval to climate policies, migration agendas, or technocratic utopias while silencing the supernatural voice of the Gospel. The Church is not an NGO. A pope who turns the Vatican into a think tank for global policy will trade the Keys of Peter for a seat at the UN.

A Manager of Decline, Not a Father of Renewal
We do not need a man of consensus, spreadsheets, and synodal slogans. The next pope must be a father and reformer, not a corporate caretaker. If he sees the papacy as a role to be balanced between factions, or a public brand to be managed through optics and press conferences, he will govern nothing and transform no one.

A Protector of the Guilty and a Persecutor of the Faithful
We do not need a pope who shields abusers, rehabilitates predators, or enables corruption in the episcopate, while simultaneously punishing traditional seminarians, priests, and religious who simply desire to live the Faith. Such a man would perpetuate the grave scandal of inverted justice: protecting wolves while hunting sheep.

A Pope Who Refuses to Say Christ Is King
We do not need a pontiff who fears proclaiming the social reign of Christ. One who bows to religious pluralism, who equates the Gospel with merely human fraternity, or who avoids conversion language in the name of interfaith coexistence, is no apostle, but a neutral diplomat. We need Peter, not Pilate.

A Pope Who Silences the Prophets and Scorns the Faithful Remnant
We do not need a man who mocks those who “look backwards,” who calls faithful Catholics names, who disbands traditional religious orders while praising dissenters and innovators. A pope who treats the surviving remnant of Catholic identity as problematic is not building unity—he is destroying the Church’s immune system.

In short, the pope we do not need is one who continues the experiment of aggiornamento—an effort that has left the Church disfigured, humiliated, and demoralized. We do not need more synods, slogans, committees, or charades of reform. We need truth, holiness, sacrifice, and clarity.

The ORA stands not in opposition, but in vigilance. We pray that the Lord will spare His Bride further trial by elevating not a man of the world, but a man of God.

The Church deserves a father, not a facilitator.
A confessor, not a campaigner.
A pope, not a populist.

---

The Church must not be burdened again with a pontiff who:

• Speaks in ambiguities that foster heresy and moral confusion
• Treats tradition and its adherents as threats
• Behaves as a chaplain to globalist ideologies, not as Vicar of Christ
• Acts as a manager of decline, rather than a reforming father
• Protects predators while persecuting the faithful
• Avoids proclaiming Christ as King in order to appease the world’s religions
• Mocks faithful Catholics and suppresses sacred liturgy
• Continues the post-conciliar experiment that has devastated vocations, belief, and moral witness

Such a pope would not heal the Church—he would prolong her humiliation, deepen confusion, and alienate the very Catholics most willing to fight for her renewal. ⬆️

---

The Brogue in the Sistine Chapel: Pope Francis Is Dead, But the Reckoning Begins

At 9:47 a.m. on Easter Monday, the words “con profondo dolore” echoed through the chapel of the Casa Santa Marta. Cardinal Kevin Farrell, speaking Italian with a pronounced Irish brogue, confirmed what had occurred two hours earlier: Pope Francis “è tornato alla casa del Padre.” The successor of Peter was dead.

But even before the funeral rites have concluded, a different reckoning has begun.

An Irish Camerlengo and the Shadow of Scandal
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, born in Dublin and raised in the United States, now finds himself at the centre of the Church’s most sensitive transition. As Camerlengo, he has sealed the Pope’s apartments and is tasked with overseeing the funeral and the conclave. The tabloid quip—“Interim Pope is a bloke called Kevin from Dublin”—is not far off in tone, if not in theology.

Farrell is not without controversy. Once a rising star in the Legionaries of Christ, he later distanced himself from the disgraced founder Fr Marcial Maciel, claiming to have met him “only two or three times”¹. Similarly, he denies knowledge of the abuses committed by his former housemate, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, despite years of proximity and friendship. That claim was publicly challenged this week by a former Legionary, Robert Nugent².

Nevertheless, Farrell’s Vatican career has skyrocketed. In less than a decade he has moved from Bishop of Dallas to Prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, to Camerlengo, President of the Vatican’s Supreme Court, and administrator of the Holy See’s pension fund³.

The Triumvirate at the Altar
On Easter Monday, Farrell stood flanked by two other titans of the Francis era: Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, and Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, the Pope’s chief of staff. These three men represent the power centre of Francis’s Vatican—and, many would argue, its most serious failures.

Parolin, architect of the controversial Vatican-China accord⁴, has been accused by Cardinal Joseph Zen of “shameless lies.” His tenure coincided with disastrous financial decisions, including the purchase of a former Harrods warehouse for £120 million⁵. Peña Parra, meanwhile, admitted under oath in a London court that he authorised a $5 million fictitious invoice. When pressed, he did not deny dishonesty, merely saying: “I accept that”⁶.

A Church in Disarray
The challenges awaiting the next pontiff are unprecedented in living memory. The Church faces:

• Doctrinal confusion: on questions of divorce, remarriage, homosexuality, and the Latin Mass.
• Structural dysfunction: a Vatican increasingly ruled by fiat and opaque decision-making.
• Moral catastrophe: a legacy of cover-ups, financial mismanagement, and unrepentant predators.

Under Pope Francis, abuse cases multiplied not because of fresh revelations, but because the Vatican appeared unwilling to act. Most shockingly, Fr Marko Rupnik—a priest accused by multiple nuns of spiritual and sexual abuse—was protected by Francis even after his expulsion from the Jesuits⁷. The Vatican communications office continued to promote Rupnik’s artwork until the Pope’s death.

Synodality or Soft Autocracy?
Francis projected a populist image and spoke often of the poor and marginalised. But his leadership was often marked by contradictions. He denounced traditional Catholics attending the Tridentine Mass, but did not grant the reforms demanded by progressives. He championed synodality while removing bishops without due process. His theology was sometimes more pastoral than precise—and therein lay the confusion.

Today, a simple catechetical question—“Can a same-sex couple be blessed?”—yields no consistent answer. So too the status of divorced-and-remarried Catholics. In some dioceses, anything goes; in others, nothing is permitted. The clergy are demoralised, the faithful disoriented.

The McCarrick Legacy and the Conclave to Come
The spectre of McCarrick—once the Church’s master fundraiser—haunts the upcoming conclave. Many who benefited from his largesse remain in voting positions. The failure to root out his network during Francis’s reign is a wound yet unhealed. Farrell’s prominence, and Parolin’s ambitions, are unlikely to escape scrutiny.

And then there is the burden itself. Who would want this throne? The last conclave gave us a Pope who said “Buona sera.” The next may give us a man who says simply, “Non accetto.”

The story of St Philip Benizi, who fled a conclave in 1271 and hid in a cave to avoid election, may yet feel prophetic. This time, hiding in a cave might not be an act of humility—it might be an act of survival. ⬆️

¹ Farrell’s statement about Maciel: widely reported in post-2006 interviews, notably in US Catholic media.
² Robert Nugent video (April 2025) alleges Farrell’s repeated contact with Maciel and prior knowledge of McCarrick’s conduct.
³ Vatican announcements: Farrell appointed Prefect (2016), Camerlengo (2019), later responsibilities added through motu proprios.
⁴ The 2018 China-Vatican agreement, renewed in 2020 and 2022, allowed state control over bishop appointments.
⁵ The Knightsbridge property scandal emerged via Italian and British court records; Parolin defended the investment in multiple interviews.
⁶ Peña Parra testimony, High Court of Justice, London (2024), admitted to signing fictitious invoices.
⁷ Rupnik case detailed by multiple Vatican sources and confirmed in Jesuit press releases; no laicization occurred.

---

The Legacy of Pope Francis: A Church in Tension

The death of Pope Francis on April 21, 2025, has occasioned a wave of reflection across the Catholic world. Catholic World Report gathered nine Catholic scholars and commentators in a symposium to evaluate the late pontiff’s legacy¹. The result is not a unified verdict, but a portrait of a Church torn between affection and anxiety, marked by a papacy that was, by design or by default, one of tension.

A Pontificate of Paradox
Several contributors—most notably theologian John M. Grondelski—highlighted what they saw as an enduring ambiguity in Pope Francis’s governance of the Church². The papacy, once a clarifying voice amidst confusion, was under Francis often a source of it. Doctrinal statements appeared to shift depending on audience and context; dubia went unanswered³; bishops contradicted one another without correction⁴. The result, many argue, was a sense of pastoral direction without doctrinal orientation. In this sense, Pope Francis became the embodiment of the very tension that has gripped the post-conciliar Church: a desire to meet the modern world with mercy, yet often without the moorings of clarity⁵.

The Pastor of the Peripheries
Yet Francis was not without his admirers. Robert Fastiggi’s contribution to the symposium offered a defense of the Pope as a misunderstood pastor, a man animated above all by the desire to show the love of Christ to those on the margins—geographical, social, and spiritual⁶. His critics, Fastiggi implies, misread his looseness of language as looseness of doctrine, failing to understand that Francis operated on the level of encounter, not definition.

This defense, however, raises a deeper concern: can a pope operate in a realm of intuition and ambiguity when his very office exists to confirm the brethren in the faith⁷? Can the Church sustain a magisterium of implication, where doctrinal conclusions are suggested rather than stated?

The Limits of Papal Media Culture
Larry Chapp’s essay astutely addresses the modern context in which the Francis pontificate unfolded: the age of digital media and instant reaction⁸. Never before has a pope been so accessible, and never before has that accessibility so obscured. In striving to speak to all, Francis was heard as saying everything and nothing—his off-the-cuff interviews and ambiguous footnotes (notably in Amoris Laetitia) generating conflicting interpretations that were rarely resolved⁹.

In a media ecosystem that rewards outrage and eschews nuance, the papal preference for metaphor and anecdote risked becoming fuel for division rather than unity¹⁰. As Chapp notes, the Church must now grapple not only with the content of the magisterium but with its mode of delivery.

An Ecological Legacy
Matthew Ramage’s contribution to the symposium focused on what may prove to be the most enduring legacy of Pope Francis: his ecological teaching, particularly *Laudato Si’*¹¹. For many, the encyclical marked a profound theological reflection on creation and the moral implications of environmental degradation. But even here, the tension is present: the language of integral ecology, while celebrated in secular circles, was often received with skepticism among faithful Catholics wary of ideological greenwashing¹².

A Church in a Precarious Transition
Perhaps the most sobering voice in the symposium is Jayd Henricks, who writes of a Church now poised between potential renewal and further fragmentation¹³. The next pontificate, he suggests, must reckon with the ambiguities left unresolved: the authority of bishops’ conferences, the interpretation of Vatican II, the meaning of synodality, and the nature of the Church’s evangelizing mission.

In short, the legacy of Pope Francis is not yet settled. It is a living tension—between proclamation and compromise, between tradition and adaptation, between mercy and truth.

A Word from the Margins
Traditional Catholics—those long relegated to the ecclesial margins—will see in the symposium a quiet vindication. For over a decade they warned of the doctrinal drift, the inversion of the Church’s pastoral hierarchy (from the sanctification of the faithful to the affirmation of the alienated), and the dangers of a personality-driven papacy¹⁴. And yet they grieve, too—not for the man alone, but for the papacy itself, which has come to reflect the very disorientation it is meant to resolve.

The next pontiff will inherit not only Francis’s initiatives but also the contradictions they contain. He will need the courage to clarify, to prune, and to restore—not in a spirit of triumphalism, but with the serenity that truth brings. For it is not ambiguity that evangelizes, but clarity in charity, grounded in Christ who is the same yesterday, today, and forever¹⁵. ⬆️

¹ “The Reign of Pope Francis in Retrospect: A Catholic World Report Symposium,” Catholic World Report, April 22, 2025.
² Ibid., John M. Grondelski, who critiques Francis’s “deliberate ambiguity.”
³ See the unresolved 2016 dubia submitted by Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner regarding Amoris Laetitia.
⁴ Cf. divergent episcopal guidelines on divorced-and-remarried Catholics receiving Communion, e.g., Buenos Aires vs. Philadelphia.
⁵ Theological concern about “pastoralism” unmoored from doctrine has been addressed by Cardinal Müller and others in recent years.
⁶ CWR Symposium, Robert Fastiggi.
⁷ Cf. Luke 22:32 – “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
⁸ CWR Symposium, Larry Chapp.
⁹ Amoris Laetitia (2016), fn. 351.
¹⁰ See George Weigel, The Next Pope, for discussion on the performative crisis of modern papal communication.
¹¹ Laudato Si’ (2015), Pope Francis.
¹² See critiques by theologians such as Fr. Thomas Weinandy and Bishop Athanasius Schneider on anthropocentric overtones.
¹³ CWR Symposium, Jayd Henricks.
¹⁴ Cf. Ross Douthat, To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism (2018).
¹⁵ Hebrews 13:8 – “Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever.”

---

Cardinal Stella’s Critique Signals Deep Divisions Ahead of Conclave

In a surprising intervention that underscores deepening divisions within the Vatican hierarchy, Cardinal Beniamino Stella delivered pointed criticisms of Pope Francis’s legacy during a pre-conclave assembly, unsettling many within the College of Cardinals. Known previously as a loyal ally of Francis, Stella’s recent comments mark a dramatic shift, highlighting significant contention surrounding the late pontiff’s reforms, particularly the increased role of laypersons in Church governance.

Concerns Over Lay Governance
Cardinal Stella voiced profound concerns regarding the expansion of lay participation in ecclesiastical governance under Pope Francis. He particularly criticized measures that separated governance from the ordained ministry, thus enabling lay men and women to assume high-ranking positions traditionally reserved for the clergy. Notably, the cardinal highlighted the controversial appointments of laypersons to lead key Vatican dicasteries, such as the influential Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Stella argued these appointments represent a concerning departure from established ecclesiological norms and have contributed to doctrinal confusion and weakened ecclesial authority.¹

A Fractured College of Cardinals
Stella’s comments, described by a fellow cardinal as “by far the worst” criticisms of Pope Francis expressed in recent discussions, reveal profound tensions within the College of Cardinals.² The stark reversal by Stella, whom Pope Francis elevated to cardinal in 2014, signals deeper underlying frustrations with the pontificate among prelates previously considered moderate or aligned with Francis’s reformist vision. These tensions now openly manifest as the cardinals approach the crucial task of selecting a successor.

Advocating a Return to Tradition
In addition to his critiques, Cardinal Stella has notably advocated for Cardinal Pietro Parolin, current Vatican Secretary of State, as Francis’s successor. Stella praised Parolin’s diplomatic experience, moderate stance, and institutional fidelity, suggesting that Parolin would offer a corrective balance, restoring order and doctrinal clarity perceived as disrupted by Francis’s pontificate.³ Stella’s explicit endorsement of Parolin highlights a strategy among traditional-minded cardinals seeking a less turbulent, more institutionally stable papacy.

Implications for the Upcoming Conclave
As the College of Cardinals prepares to gather for the conclave beginning on May 7, 2025, Stella’s intervention sharply delineates the competing visions for the Church’s future. The deepening divide over governance, doctrine, and pastoral strategy is now more evident than ever. The forthcoming election will not merely choose a new pontiff but will significantly shape the Church’s trajectory, either consolidating Francis’s reforms or reverting to a more traditionalist model advocated by Stella and like-minded cardinals.

Given the intensity of recent discussions, the upcoming conclave promises not only a test of unity among the cardinals but also a defining moment in determining the direction and legacy of Pope Francis’s contested papacy. ⬆️

¹ America Magazine, “Cardinal Stella’s Criticism of Francis’s Governance Reforms,” April 30, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.

---

The Haste of Power: Cardinal Zen’s Challenge and the Opening Moves of a Sede Vacante

The death of Pope Francis early on April 21st has plunged the Church into its time-honored rhythm of mourning and anticipation. As per tradition, the College of Cardinals now bears the solemn duty of preparing for the conclave that will elect the next pope. Yet before the incense of the Requiem has even cleared, controversy has arisen—not over doctrine or diplomacy, but over something as simple, and as revealing, as a clock.

In a communique issued by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, the first session of the General Congregations was summoned for 9:00 AM the next day—barely 24 hours after Pope Francis’ passing¹. While the timing may seem administratively efficient, it has not gone unchallenged. Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong, the venerable voice of conscience from the Chinese periphery, issued a rare public rebuke of the decision. His concern is not merely logistical but emblematic: *“How are the old men from the peripheries supposed to arrive on time?”*²

Zen’s complaint, delivered through journalist Diane Montagna, touches a nerve. It is not just about flights and frailty. It is about whether the voices from the margins—elder statesmen, often inconvenient witnesses—are being effectively excluded from the initial deliberations of the post-Francis Church. The letter from Cardinal Re does include a kind notice that cardinals over 80 are not obligated to attend, but Zen presses the issue with clarity: *Do they have the right to do so—yes or no?*²

This is more than rhetorical. Under Universi Dominici Gregis, the apostolic constitution governing papal elections, cardinals over the age of 80 do not vote in the conclave but retain full rights to participate in the General Congregations³. These gatherings are not mere formalities. They are moments of discernment, correction, and—when necessary—resistance.

The General Congregation met on April 22 in the Synod Hall as planned. But of the 252 members of the College of Cardinals, only about 60 were in attendance⁴. That figure represents less than a quarter of the body entitled to participate in the discussions shaping the next pontificate. While travel and logistics are unavoidable factors, the speed of the summoning rendered meaningful participation by many cardinals—especially those elderly or from distant parts of the world—effectively impossible. It is precisely the concern raised by Cardinal Zen.

Initial reports from the meeting indicate that it focused on organizing Pope Francis’s funeral, which is scheduled for Saturday, April 26, and planning for the upcoming conclave⁵. The Pope’s body will lie in state from April 23 to April 25 in St. Peter’s Basilica. Uniquely, he will be buried at Santa Maria Maggiore, rather than alongside his predecessors in the Vatican crypt⁶.

Zen’s frustration remains poignant. For a Church that speaks often of “accompaniment” and “listening to the peripheries,” the swift summoning of a conclave apparatus that makes little room for the elderly or distant is telling. It suggests an ecclesiology more in love with process than with people. And it reveals, perhaps unintentionally, a desire among certain power-brokers to limit interference from those who might challenge the trajectory of the last decade.

Indeed, one cannot help but wonder if Zen’s question is not only about rights of presence, but about rights of witness. In this moment of flux, when the Church stands between shepherds, what voices will be welcomed to speak? What perspectives will be heard? And who decides?

The broader implication is chilling: that the Vatican bureaucracy may seek to move with such speed as to outpace the conscience. In the early hours of a sede vacante, procedural haste risks appearing as political maneuvering. And Cardinal Zen, ever the prophetic thorn, is reminding the world that the Church is not simply a government in mourning—it is a body, mystical and frail, whose memory and future alike depend on fidelity, not expediency.

To some, this may seem a tempest in a thurible. But to those who know the Church, and who love her deeply, this is a signal flare—that even in death, questions of integrity, representation, and power endure. Zen has asked: Do the old men from the peripheries have the right to be heard? It is a question that every Catholic, and every cardinal, should be asking too. ⬆️

1. Letter from Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re to the College of Cardinals, 21 April 2025. Summoned electors to the first General Congregation on 22 April at 9:00 AM.
2. Diane Montagna (@dianemontagna), “EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong is challenging the decision…,” X, 21 April 2025.
3. Universi Dominici Gregis (1996), §§7, 19. While only cardinals under 80 may vote in the conclave, all cardinals may participate in the General Congregations.
4. “60 Cardinals Gathered for First Meeting Tuesday Morning,” Aleteia, April 22, 2025.
5. “Cardinals Meet After Death of Pope Francis to Plan Funeral,” Reuters, April 22, 2025.
6. “Pope’s Funeral Set for April 26, Body to Lie in State at St. Peter’s,” AP News, April 22, 2025.

---

“Conclave Watch”: Survivors Demand a Clean Break with Francis’s Legacy of Abuse Mismanagement

As the College of Cardinals gathers in Rome ahead of the May 7 conclave to elect a new pope, survivors of clerical sexual abuse are sounding an alarm that cannot be ignored. For all the gestures of reform during the late Pope Francis’s pontificate, victims and advocates charge that his legacy on abuse was one of failure, selective justice, and repeated betrayal.

The upcoming conclave, they insist, must mark a definitive break. Nothing less than the Church’s moral credibility is at stake.

An Era of Reforms That Protected the Powerful
Pope Francis’s defenders point to notable measures during his reign: the abolition of the “pontifical secret” in abuse cases, the 2019 motu proprio Vos estis lux mundi, and the laicization of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. But for survivor groups, these were often reactionary or selectively enforced. Beneath the rhetoric of zero tolerance, they say, lay a dangerous pattern: preferential treatment for the well-connected and leniency toward ideological allies.

Survivors and Catholic reform organizations have cited multiple high-profile cases where Pope Francis either protected accused clerics or acted only after public outrage made inaction untenable:

• Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard publicly admitted in 2022 to abusing a 14-year-old girl in the 1980s, yet retained the privileges of the cardinalate under Francis’s watch¹.
• Fr. Marko Rupnik, accused of sexually and spiritually abusing multiple women, was initially shielded by the Vatican, expelled from the Jesuits for disobedience, and later incardinated into a diocese².
• Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, convicted in 2022 for sexually abusing seminarians, was given a Vatican post during his investigation and received lenient treatment from Francis³.
• Fr. Mauro Inzoli, convicted in civil court for abusing boys, was initially defrocked by Benedict XVI, but reinstated to ministry by Francis in 2014—only to be removed again after scandal⁴.
• Fr. Julio César Grassi, a high-profile Argentine priest convicted of abuse, benefited from a legal report commissioned by then-Cardinal Bergoglio defending his innocence⁵.
• Cardinal Juan Barros of Chile, accused of covering up abuse, was initially defended by Francis as a victim of “slander” before the pope reversed course and accepted his resignation⁶.
• Roger Vangheluwe, Belgian bishop and admitted abuser of two minors, was not laicized until 2024—over a decade after confessing⁷.

These cases reflect what many now see as the deep structural flaw of Francis’s approach: symbolic progress paired with tactical obstruction when reputations or internal loyalties were on the line.

“Conclave Watch”: Survivors Demand a Break with the Past
In response, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has launched an initiative titled Conclave Watch, scrutinizing the voting cardinals for any past complicity or inaction. SNAP has described Francis’s legacy on abuse as a “preventable catastrophe”⁸.

Ending Clergy Abuse (ECA), an international coalition, has joined SNAP in demanding that the next pope:

• Enforce a universal, binding zero-tolerance policy
• Laicize all convicted or credibly accused clergy
• Publicly release the names of such clergy worldwide
• Establish independent lay oversight of episcopal actions
• Include survivors in Church decision-making and safeguarding bodies⁹

Both groups have condemned the Vatican’s 2024 directive reasserting that publishing lists of “credibly accused” clergy violates canon law¹⁰—a move they view as deeply regressive and contrary to the principles of justice and prevention.

The Old Guard Lurks
The presence of figures like Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne, sanctioned by Francis in 2019 and accused of concealing abuse in Peru, has further outraged victims¹¹. Though too old to vote, Cipriani’s involvement in pre-conclave meetings underscores what critics call a persistent clerical culture of impunity.

Survivors also warn that many cardinals under consideration for the papacy have troubling records. “If one of them emerges wearing white,” said a SNAP spokesperson, “it will be a betrayal dressed as tradition.”

Toward a Purified Church
This conclave will either mark a watershed moment—or a recommitment to evasion. Without meaningful reform, the Church risks repeating the cycle of abuse and denial that has shattered countless lives.

Survivors—many of whom still hold to the faith despite its failings—are watching. And this time, they are not alone. ⬆️

Footnotes
¹ The Guardian, “French cardinal admits abuse of 14-year-old,” Nov 2022
² Le Monde, “Vatican knew of Rupnik abuse for years,” Sep 2024
³ AP News, “Argentine bishop convicted, remains under Vatican protection,” Mar 2022
⁴ National Catholic Reporter, “Francis reversed defrocking of convicted Italian priest,” 2014
⁵ Associated Press, “Report defending Grassi commissioned by Bergoglio,” 2010
⁶ Crux, “Pope admits grave error in Barros case,” Apr 2018
⁷ Reuters, “Belgian bishop laicized years after abuse confession,” Sep 2024
⁸ SNAP Network, “Survivors mourn the tragedy of Francis’s papacy,” Apr 2025
⁹ ECA Coalition, “Statement on conclave and future reform,” Apr 2025
¹⁰ The Pillar, “Vatican condemns publication of abuse lists,” May 2024
¹¹ Crux Now, “Cipriani’s presence at pre-conclave draws criticism,” Apr 2025

---

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them: Vatican II, Bergoglio, and the Darkening of the Visible Church

The image above is a sobering icon of our times. Just as the human body darkens in death, so too has the outward structure of the Catholic Church darkened—corrupted by error, weakened by compromise, and disfigured by betrayal. What was once radiant with the clarity of divine truth now appears enshrouded in shadows. This is no mere crisis of leadership. It is the fruit of a deeper revolution: the false council of Vatican II.

A Revolution, Not a Renewal
For sixty years, we have been told that the Second Vatican Council was a “pastoral” update, a “springtime” of the Church. In reality, it was a radical break from the perennial faith. The council’s ambiguous language, novel emphases, and deliberate silences created a platform for heterodoxy to flourish under the guise of aggiornamento. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was deconstructed. The rights of Christ the King were subordinated to humanist ideals. The mission of the Church was reinterpreted through the lens of dialogue rather than conversion.

What was once clear became murky. What was once firm became negotiable. The Catholic Church, once the luminous city on a hill, was made to walk hand in hand with the world it was meant to convert.

The False Mercy of Modernism
Among the most destructive consequences of this revolution has been the rise of a counterfeit mercy. It tolerates sin in the name of compassion. It redefines doctrine in the name of “pastoral care.” It refuses to call souls to repentance, lest anyone feel judged. Yet the mercy of Christ does not excuse sin—it heals it. It does not leave the sinner in darkness—it calls him to the light.

This modernist “mercy” is a mask for relativism. It is indifferent to truth, allergic to discipline, and contemptuous of tradition. It is the same false mercy that now permeates catechesis, confessional practice, ecumenical efforts, and episcopal priorities across the Catholic world.

Jorge Bergoglio: The Mature Fruit of Apostasy
If Vatican II was the seed, the pontificate of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is its bitter harvest. He has not created the crisis. He has revealed it.

In his words and actions, Francis advances the very spirit that emerged from the council’s ambiguities: a spirit of rupture, accommodation, and doctrinal novelty. Under his leadership, the Roman Church has become a playground for theological experimenters and moral revisionists. Synodality has replaced magisterial clarity. Pachamama idols have replaced penitential processions. The Gospel is presented not as a call to conversion but as a vague endorsement of human fraternity.

Francis has praised the atheistic, called the unrepentant “saints,” and blurred the lines between mortal sin and grace. His endorsement of civil unions, his refusal to affirm the Church’s teaching on intrinsically disordered acts, and his promotion of figures openly hostile to Tradition cannot be reconciled with the duties of the Vicar of Christ. The confusion and scandal that mark his pontificate are not accidents—they are his program.

The Danger of Compromise
Some, sensing the decay, now seek to reclaim tradition—but only within the limits of the post-conciliar framework. They defend the Latin Mass while defending the council that made its suppression possible. They speak of reverence, while refusing to name the root of the irreverence. They are not enemies, but they are deluded. To preserve the appearance of unity, they sacrifice the integrity of truth.

These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing—well-meaning, perhaps, but ultimately keeping souls bound to a poisoned tree. The Church cannot renew herself on the foundation of contradiction. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The only path forward is the one Christ Himself laid down: fidelity to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Cling to Tradition, Cling to Christ
The true Church cannot change. Her teaching cannot evolve into its opposite. Her liturgy cannot be replaced by innovations alien to the faith of our fathers. Her mission cannot be traded for the world’s approval. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And His Church—when faithful—is His unspotted Bride, radiant with holiness and truth.

The Traditional Latin Mass, the perennial magisterium, the catechism of Trent, the condemnations of liberalism and indifferentism—these are not relics. They are lifelines. They are the light in the gathering storm. They are the means by which souls remain united to Christ amid the darkness that now covers much of the Church’s visible structures.

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them (Matthew 7:16). The fruits of Vatican II and its heirs are confusion, collapse, scandal, and apostasy. The fruits of Sacred Tradition are clarity, sanctity, order, and grace.

Let those with eyes to see, see. Let those with ears to hear, hear.

Stand apart from the darkness. Stand with the true Church. Stand with Christ. ⬆️

---

ARE TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS IN COMMUNION WITH ROME?
The Short Answer Is: Yes — With Eternal Rome.

What does it mean to be “in communion with Rome”?
To be in communion with Rome means to share the same Catholic Faith, sacraments, and submission to the authority of the pope as exercised in fidelity to the Deposit of Faith. But we must distinguish two senses of “Rome” in our time:

• Eternal Rome: the unchanging guardian of Sacred Tradition, Scripture, and the infallible Magisterium.
• Modernist Rome: those post-conciliar tendencies and actors that depart from the Church’s perennial doctrine, discipline, and worship.

So are Traditional Catholics in schism?
No. Traditional Catholics are in full communion with Eternal Rome, the Rome of Saints Peter and Paul, the Councils and Popes who upheld the Faith “everywhere, always, and by all” (St. Vincent of Lérins). Their fidelity is not to a shifting human agenda but to the unbroken Tradition of the Church.

But doesn’t communion require obedience to the current pope?
Yes—but with an important distinction. As the First Vatican Council teaches:

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles.”
—Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4¹

True obedience is not blind submission to novelty but supernatural assent to the Faith handed down. When papal or episcopal actions contradict Tradition, Catholics must resist not in rebellion, but in fidelity. St. Paul did this publicly when he opposed St. Peter “to his face” for giving scandal (Gal. 2:11).

Do Traditional Catholics reject the pope?
No. They acknowledge the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, pray for him, and uphold the divine institution of the papacy. But they reject errors—even from churchmen—when such errors endanger souls. As St. Cajetan wrote:

“It is imperative to resist a pope who openly destroys the Church.”²

Is resisting the pope justified?
Yes—when the Faith is at stake. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

“If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”³

This principle was affirmed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who declared:

“We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith… but we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which showed themselves clearly in the Second Vatican Council.”⁴

What about the Latin Mass and traditional sacraments?
Traditional Catholics uphold the immemorial rites of the Church, including the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional forms of the sacraments. These are not museum pieces—they are the means by which saints were formed and the Faith preserved.

To ensure the continuity of valid Holy Orders, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops in 1988 using the traditional rite, stating:

“We are not in schism… We are simply continuing what the Church has always done.”⁵

These bishops were not created to form a new Church but to safeguard the Catholic priesthood and sacraments during a time of unprecedented crisis.

Are Novus Ordo Catholics out of communion?
We do not judge souls. However, those who knowingly promote or persist in doctrines, liturgies, or moral teachings that break with Tradition may find themselves materially separated from the faith of the Church. Communion is not a mere legal status—it is a unity of Faith.

So what is true communion with Rome?
It is communion with the Church of all time—with the martyrs, the saints, the councils, the unchanging liturgy, and the doctrines that cannot evolve or be contradicted.

As Pope Pius XII warned:

“No one can presume to change, in the name of a supposed progress, the substance of the Faith.”⁶

Traditional Catholics are not rebels. They are the faithful sons and daughters of the Church, standing on the firm rock of Tradition—not as dissenters, but as guardians. ⬆️

FOOTNOTES
¹ Pastor Aeternus, First Vatican Council, ch. 4, Denzinger 1836
² St. Cajetan, Apologia pro Libello, in Opera Omnia
³ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.33, A.4
⁴ Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration, Nov. 21, 1974
⁵ Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Sermon of Episcopal Consecrations, June 30, 1988
⁶ Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950), para. 30

---

China Appoints Bishop During Sede Vacante: Vatican Authority Undermined Again

A Chinese diocese has once again bypassed the Holy See in appointing a bishop—this time during the most constitutionally sensitive moment in the life of the Church: the sede vacante. Just over a week after the death of Pope Francis, a government-recognised Catholic community in mainland China has unilaterally named a new bishop in a move widely viewed as a direct violation of both canonical norms and the spirit of the controversial 2018 Vatican-China agreement.

Xinxiang ‘Elects’ a Bishop Without Rome
On April 30, 2025, the Diocese of Xinxiang—an unrecognised diocese in the eyes of Rome, but a functioning ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the eyes of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association—announced the “election” of a local priest as its new bishop. This took place despite the fact that the diocese already has an underground bishop in communion with Rome and that the universal Church is currently without a pope. In canon law, all episcopal appointments must be confirmed by the Pope, and during a sede vacante, new bishops may not be lawfully nominated, let alone consecrated, without express provision from the College of Cardinals or the Dean of the College acting with universal jurisdiction .

The move is the latest in a growing pattern of unilateral Chinese state actions that flout Rome’s authority and highlight the weaknesses of the Holy See’s secretive agreement with Beijing.

A Pattern of Disregard: The Shanghai Precedent
In April 2023, the Chinese government installed Bishop Joseph Shen Bin in the Diocese of Shanghai without Vatican approval. The Holy See only learned of the appointment through media reports and, under pressure, issued a belated recognition of Bishop Shen three months later, citing “pastoral concern” for the faithful in China. The decision was deeply criticised by Cardinal Joseph Zen and other prelates, who argued that it signaled Rome’s submission to the Communist Party’s religious policy and betrayed faithful Catholics who have suffered for their loyalty to the Pope .

The Vatican’s acquiescence then may have emboldened further infractions, culminating now in the even more provocative appointment during the papal interregnum.

The 2018 Agreement: An Empty Framework?
The 2018 provisional agreement between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China, renewed most recently in October 2024, was presented as a pragmatic attempt to unify the underground and state-sanctioned churches by allowing the Chinese government to propose episcopal candidates, subject to papal approval. However, the terms remain secret, and its practical outcomes increasingly favour the Communist Party’s control over the Church.

Despite the optimism of some Vatican diplomats, observers such as The Pillar’s Ed. Condon and JD Flynn have warned that Rome has effectively ceded decision-making authority, with China unilaterally advancing its appointments while the Vatican merely reacts post facto—when it reacts at all .

Underground Catholics: The Forgotten Faithful
The underground Church in China—those communities that refuse to register with the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association—continues to suffer state harassment, imprisonment, and marginalisation. The Xinxiang appointment comes amid heightened surveillance of underground bishops and priests, many of whom remain detained or disappeared. These faithful Catholics, who have resisted decades of pressure to sever communion with the Pope, now find themselves abandoned by the very see they have sought to uphold.

As Cardinal Zen has repeatedly emphasised, this strategy “legitimises a schismatic Church” and rewards those who cooperate with state control, while ignoring the heroic witness of those who have paid the price for fidelity to Rome .

The Road Ahead: What Will the Next Pope Do?
The latest development in Xinxiang underscores a deeper crisis: Rome’s waning ability to govern the Church in China, coupled with the increasing assertiveness of the Chinese state in shaping ecclesiastical life according to Party lines. With the papacy vacant, this moment marks a decisive challenge for the next pontiff. Will he affirm the primacy of Peter in ecclesiastical appointments or continue a path of quiet acquiescence to geopolitical pressures?

Observers within the Curia have expressed concerns that the next pope must either revise the agreement entirely or risk becoming a symbolic figurehead while the Communist Party asserts de facto jurisdiction over the Church in China. In the meantime, each uncanonical appointment chips away at the unity and universality of the Catholic Church.

Conclusion
What happens in China does not stay in China. As episcopal authority becomes increasingly subject to political interference, the fundamental Catholic principle that bishops are successors of the apostles, chosen and sent by Christ through His Vicar, stands in jeopardy. The Xinxiang appointment is more than a regional matter—it is a test of whether the Catholic Church still believes in the primacy of Rome in a world of competing sovereignties. ⬆️

1. The Pillar, “Chinese diocese ‘elects’ new bishop despite sede vacante,” April 30, 2025.
2. AP News, “Vatican learned of Shanghai bishop’s installation through media,” July 2023.
3. Time Magazine, “Cardinal Zen: Vatican betrayed Christ,” November 2023.
4. The Pillar, “How Rome lost the Vatican-China deal,” 2024.
5. Time Magazine, ibid.

---

Why Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle Is NOT the Right Choice for Pope

As the world’s cardinals prepare to enter conclave on May 7 to elect a successor to Pope Francis, attention has turned to a number of prominent figures. Among them is Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, often described as “the Asian Francis” for his humble demeanor, focus on the poor, and openness to dialogue. A natural communicator and a popular figure in many global Catholic circles, Tagle is frequently tipped as a frontrunner.

But in this hour of crisis for the Church—marked by doctrinal confusion, ecclesial disintegration, and a crisis of credibility in the West—charisma alone cannot be the chief criterion for the papacy. The next pope must be a man of theological clarity, administrative strength, and firm commitment to the perennial Magisterium. On this front, Cardinal Tagle raises serious concerns.

Limited Administrative and Diplomatic Experience
Tagle’s pastoral career in Manila endeared him to many, but his brief tenure at the helm of a major curial office is insufficient preparation for the administrative burdens of the papacy. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (2019–2022), and later as Pro-Prefect of the restructured Dicastery for Evangelization under Praedicate Evangelium, Tagle never faced the kind of entrenched bureaucratic and financial dysfunction that characterizes the Roman Curia today. By contrast, predecessors like Pope Benedict XVI had decades of curial experience and doctrinal authorship, while Pope John Paul II had a proven administrative and political track record as Archbishop of Kraków under Communist rule.

Tagle’s appointment was widely seen not as an endorsement of his governance abilities, but as an attempt to “Francis-ize” the evangelization apparatus of the Vatican, turning attention from doctrinal formation to accompaniment and affective listening. He has no clear record of reform or oversight on financial, disciplinary, or canonical fronts.

Support for the China Deal and the Compromise of Martyrs
Perhaps no issue better illustrates the weaknesses of Cardinal Tagle’s approach than his quiet support for the Vatican’s 2018 secretive agreement with the Chinese Communist Party concerning the appointment of bishops. While Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin publicly defended the deal as a step toward unity, it has coincided with the persecution of the underground Church, the arrest of faithful clergy like Cardinal Zen, and the effective destruction of the heroic witness of decades of Chinese Catholic martyrs.

Tagle, of Chinese-Filipino descent and considered a diplomatic bridge with Asia, has been conspicuously silent on these injustices. He has served as a liaison between the Vatican and the Patriotic Church, promoting “inculturation” while never condemning the imprisonment of underground Catholics or the ongoing desecration of churches in the mainland. A future pope must be a defender of the persecuted, not a negotiator with their persecutors¹.

Pre-Cardinalate Record: Missed Moments of Moral Leadership
Even before his cardinalate, Tagle’s leadership in the Philippines drew criticism for its ambiguity in moments that demanded clarity. During the heated national debate over the 2012 Reproductive Health (RH) Law—which promoted state-sponsored contraception—the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) took a strong oppositional stance. Yet Tagle, then Archbishop of Manila, was perceived by many as hesitant and overly conciliatory. Critics faulted his failure to mobilize diocesan resistance or to issue a clear moral condemnation. Instead, he emphasized “pastoral accompaniment” and avoided polarizing rhetoric, saying the Church must be seen as a “sacrament of salvation, not of damnation”².

His handling of the clergy abuse crisis also raises concerns. Though not accused of cover-ups, Tagle’s public response was notably mild. Unlike bishops who implemented robust safeguarding programs or demanded civil investigations, Tagle preferred institutional statements of sorrow and forgiveness. Victims’ groups called for greater transparency and decisive reforms, but these were not forthcoming under his tenure.

Finally, critics in Manila have pointed to administrative indecisiveness. His leadership style—deeply consultative and reluctant to assert authority—often delayed crucial diocesan reforms. In a city where the Church faces poverty, corruption, and growing secularism, this preference for consensus was seen by some as pastoral inertia rather than prudence.

Ambiguity in Doctrine and Moral Teaching
Tagle’s record at global synods reflects a preference for affect over clarity. At the 2015 Synod on the Family, he was among those who pushed for a pastoral opening to Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics—a position later ambiguously endorsed in Amoris Laetitia, leading to worldwide confusion. Cardinal Raymond Burke and three other cardinals felt compelled to issue dubia to Pope Francis to clarify whether the Church still upheld the objective indissolubility of marriage³.

Tagle has also shown sympathy for programs promoting a “welcoming” posture toward LGBTQ+ individuals without sufficient doctrinal framing. In 2020, he supported efforts by the Filipino Church to “accompany” LGBT Catholics, yet he has not forcefully upheld the Church’s perennial teaching on the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts (CCC 2357) or the non-negotiability of the family founded on man and woman. In an age of gender confusion and moral collapse, the Church cannot afford a papacy rooted in ambiguity.

Progressivism and the Risk of Further Polarization
Tagle’s rise to international prominence was largely sponsored by Pope Francis, who elevated him to a series of Vatican roles and described him as “a man of the poor.” But such endorsement also ties him closely to a pontificate many see as divisive. The Francis papacy, for all its pastoral tone, has provoked deep confusion and growing division. Cardinals openly criticized Francis’s legacy during the pre-conclave meetings this week, with some calling for a return to doctrinal clarity and less politicization of the papal office⁴.

Were Tagle to be elected, many traditional Catholics—already marginalised under the Francis era—would see it as a continuation of a modernist trajectory. Latin Mass communities would likely remain under suspicion. Efforts to clarify Catholic doctrine in the face of secularization would remain muted in favor of a soft, pastoral tone that fails to challenge the world.

A Different Path Is Needed
The Church needs a pope who can unite, not fragment, the Body of Christ; who speaks not just gently, but clearly. The Catholic faith is not merely a sentiment but a truth revealed by God and entrusted to the Church. While Tagle’s personality may attract media goodwill and inspire some faithful, his record suggests a lack of firmness, clarity, and resolve—the very virtues needed now.

A man who cannot name error, who declines to confront evil, who elevates accompaniment above doctrine, may serve the world well—but not the Chair of Peter. ⬆️

Footnotes
¹ AsiaNews, “Vatican-China Agreement and the Martyrs of Today,” 2023.
² College of Cardinals Report, “Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle,” 2024.
³ Letter of the Dubia Cardinals to Pope Francis, 2016.
⁴ The Times (UK), “Cardinals attack Pope’s liberal legacy in pre-conclave talks,” April 30, 2025.

---

Conclave 2025: Reform or Restoration? Commentators Weigh the Future of the Church

As the Catholic Church prepares for the 2025 papal conclave, set to begin on May 7, debate intensifies over what direction the next pontificate might take. With 135 cardinal-electors—most of them appointed by Pope Francis—many expect continuity. Yet key voices in the Church and Catholic media suggest the next pope may be less predictable than the current Vatican establishment presumes.

The Reformers and the Ratzingerians
The progressive camp is rallying behind Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, with La Croix noting that “his ability to speak the language of mercy while avoiding doctrinal confrontation has made him a favorite among many of the Francis-created cardinals.”¹ Yet traditionalists are not without hope. Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary and Cardinal Willem Eijk of the Netherlands are both seen as “quietly orthodox men of principle,” according to Damian Thompson.²

Edward Pentin, speaking on The World Over, remarked: “There is real concern even among some moderates that another Francis-style papacy could push the Church further into fragmentation. The next pope needs to be a unifier, but not at the cost of truth.”³

Global Voices, Local Confusion
This conclave will be one of the most geographically diverse in Church history. Cardinals will vote from 71 countries, an intentional shift by Pope Francis to decentralize the College of Cardinals. But with decentralization comes theological divergence. “It is hard to know what the centre of gravity is anymore,” said John Allen.⁴

Some African and Asian cardinals are expected to push back against what they see as “Western moral confusion.” Cardinal Robert Sarah, though too old to vote, remains an ideological reference point. As Fr. Raymond de Souza observed, “There are many voting cardinals who share Cardinal Sarah’s critique of secularism and moral relativism—even if they lack his visibility.”⁵

The Abuse Reckoning
Survivors of clerical abuse are calling for a pope with a clear record on reform. Anne Barrett Doyle of BishopAccountability.org stated, “The last conclave produced a pope who talked the talk. This one must elect a man who acts.”⁶ Cardinals like Sean O’Malley of Boston, though not papabile, may play a decisive role in shaping discussions around credibility and transparency.

Speculation, Satire, and the Dolan Distraction
In a bizarre twist, former President Donald Trump joked that he should be pope, then publicly endorsed Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. “He’s a strong man. He’d bring strength back to the Church,” Trump told Time Magazine.⁷ While largely dismissed as political theater, it highlighted the conclave’s growing visibility—even in secular geopolitics.

Unknowns and Expectations
Though Francis stacked the college in his image, many commentators stress that papal conclaves often surprise. “Remember 1978,” cautioned Dr. Matthew Levering. “Neither John Paul I nor John Paul II were obvious frontrunners.”⁸ Even Pope Benedict’s election was shaped by the pressure of the moment more than years of speculation.

As one anonymous Vatican official told The Pillar, “There’s no guarantee the next pope will be Francis II. He might be Benedict XVII—or someone entirely unexpected.”⁹

Conclusion
The 2025 conclave is shaping up as a test not only of ecclesiastical priorities but of the very identity of the Church in the 21st century. Will the cardinals choose a man of continuity, or a restorer of order? One thing is clear: the world will be watching—and praying. ⬆️

¹ La Croix International, “Cardinal Tagle, papabile of mercy and inclusion,” April 2025.
² Damian Thompson, The Spectator, “Why Traditionalists Still Have Hope in This Conclave,” April 27, 2025.
³ The World Over, interview with Edward Pentin, April 25, 2025.
⁴ John Allen, Crux Now, “The Global Wild Card: What the 2025 Conclave Means for the Church,” April 2025.
⁵ Fr. Raymond de Souza, National Catholic Register, “Cardinal Sarah’s Influence Beyond the Vote,” April 24, 2025.
⁶ Associated Press, “Abuse Survivors Demand Accountability From Next Pope,” April 26, 2025.
⁷ Time Magazine, “Trump Endorses Cardinal Dolan as Papal Candidate,” April 25, 2025.
⁸ Dr. Matthew Levering, cited in Catholic World Report, “Lessons From Past Conclaves,” April 2025.
⁹ The Pillar, “Inside the Conclave: Cardinals Speak Off the Record,” April 29, 2025.

---

A Return to Reality: UK Supreme Court Reasserts the Definition of Woman

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling on April 16, 2025 marks a decisive and overdue reassertion of biological truth in public law. By affirming that the term woman in the Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to adult human females—those born biologically female—the Court has not only sided with the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) but also set a precedent with far-reaching implications for transgender rights and sex-based protections across the United Kingdom¹.

The Background
The case arose from a legal challenge by FWS against the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. That Act sought to ensure 50% female representation on public boards and included transgender women—those born male but possessing a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)—within the definition of woman. FWS rightly challenged this as exceeding the Scottish Parliament’s competence and undermining the Equality Act’s foundation in biological sex. The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in their favour².

Why This Matters
At stake is far more than quotas. The ruling has significant legal consequences for:

• Single-sex spaces, such as women’s shelters, hospital wards, and prisons;
• Sex-based protections in employment and education, especially for vulnerable women;
• The integrity of law itself, which cannot be bent to accommodate ideological claims without sacrificing clarity and justice.

By affirming that legal categories must align with biological realities, the Court has established a rare bulwark against postmodern unreality.

Gender Ideology: A False Gospel
From a Catholic perspective, this case illuminates the dangerous anthropology that underlies gender ideology. As Pope Benedict XVI warned in his 2012 address to the Roman Curia, the rejection of the natural order of man and woman is not merely a philosophical error, but a revolt against the Creator Himself. “The defence of the family,” he stated, “is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears”³.

The idea that a man can become a woman is not just biologically false—it is spiritually corrosive. It is, in St. Paul’s words, “the lie”⁴: a refusal to acknowledge the truth of creation and an attempt to reimagine the human person without reference to God.

A Moment of Clarity
This ruling is not a panacea. The cultural and legal confusion surrounding sex and identity will not vanish overnight. But the Supreme Court’s judgment offers a welcome point of clarity—a reminder that reality can be defended, even in high places.

Supporters of the ruling include J.K. Rowling, who contributed £70,000 to support FWS’s legal challenge⁵. Predictably, organizations such as Amnesty International have condemned the decision as exclusionary. But truth is not determined by fashion, and no rights are built on falsehood.

Toward Restoration
This is not the end, but a beginning. Catholics must speak clearly. The Catechism teaches that “everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity”⁶. The ruling from the UK’s highest court affirms the natural law already written in our hearts and confirmed by divine revelation.

Let us be grateful for this moment of truth. And let us use it—pastors, parents, teachers, and faithful citizens alike—as a chance to speak the truth in love, and to call our confused age back to the reality of God’s good design. ⬆️

¹ For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, [2025] UKSC 14.
² Ibid., para. 48–53.
³ Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia, 21 December 2012.
⁴ Cf. Romans 1:25 – “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”
⁵ The Guardian, “Critics of trans rights win UK supreme court case,” 16 April 2025.
⁶ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2333.protection agency and statutory oversight body.

---

“Groomed: A National Scandal” — Channel 4 Documentary Sparks National Reckoning

Channel 4’s powerful new documentary Groomed: A National Scandal, aired on Wednesday 30 April 2025, has provoked a wave of political and public soul-searching across the United Kingdom. The film, directed by acclaimed documentarian Anna Hall, exposes once again the state’s repeated failures to protect vulnerable children from organised sexual exploitation—and the culture of silence that enabled it.

Survivor Testimony and Systemic Betrayal
The documentary presents harrowing testimonies from five adult survivors of grooming gangs, who recount the abuse they suffered in childhood at the hands of predatory networks of mostly South Asian men. Their stories reveal not only the horrors of abuse, but the devastating negligence—and in some cases, complicity—of the very institutions charged with their protection.

Victims describe how authorities, particularly social workers and police, routinely ignored warnings, dismissed victims as “promiscuous,” and failed to pursue known perpetrators. One especially damning segment details the collapse of Operation Augusta, a Greater Manchester Police investigation that had identified nearly 100 suspected abusers before being inexplicably shut down¹.

A Culture of Cowardice and Denial
As the documentary makes clear, the failure was not due to lack of information, but a failure of will. Grooming was allowed to persist, many believe, because of fears of being accused of racism. Indeed, Labour MP Jess Phillips has now publicly admitted that a culture of silence prevailed for “multicultural reasons,” saying “we didn’t speak up because we were afraid of being called racist”². Such acknowledgments, while overdue, underscore the damning nature of the revelations.

Filmmaker Anna Hall, whose previous work has documented abuse and institutional failure, has called for the urgent establishment of an independent Child Protection Authority, echoing the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA)³.

Political Fallout: Starmer Under Fire
The political reverberations have been swift and fierce. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who served as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from 2008 to 2013, is facing renewed scrutiny over his past role in prosecutions—or the lack thereof. Many now ask what he knew, when he knew it, and why so little was done. Critics argue that the DPP’s office was well aware of the grooming gang phenomenon and failed to act with urgency.

In the wake of the documentary, Starmer attempted to defend his record, stating that his government is now committed to “delivering truth and justice” for abuse victims⁴. But for many, his remarks are too little, too late. Survivors have expressed frustration that years of obfuscation and bureaucratic delay have cost countless children their safety, dignity, and futures.

Unmasking the Political Taboo
The documentary has cracked open a deeply uncomfortable truth: that political and institutional leaders, across parties, chose ideological sensitivity over the safety of children. As one commentator noted, “The fact that this scandal was suppressed to protect a narrative about multicultural harmony is itself an indictment of modern political cowardice.”

Conservative MPs, meanwhile, have accused Labour of a “cover-up,” pointing to evidence that councils in Labour-controlled areas were complicit in downplaying the scale of abuse. The documentary’s timing—just before local elections—has added a layer of political tension to an already incendiary topic.

A Moment of National Examination
Groomed: A National Scandal may well prove to be a turning point in Britain’s long and shameful history of looking the other way. As survivors bravely recount their stories, and as evidence of institutional neglect mounts, the public mood is shifting. Anger, long simmering, is turning to demand.

If nothing else, Hall’s documentary makes one thing clear: there can be no healing without truth—and no justice without repentance from those in power. ⬆️

Footnotes
¹ The Guardian, “Groomed: A National Scandal Review,” April 30, 2025.
² UnHerd, “Jess Phillips’s Grooming Gangs Admission Comes Far Too Late,” April 30, 2025.
³ Yorkshire Post, “Channel 4 Documentary Hears Testimony of Child Sexual Exploitation,” April 30, 2025.
⁴ The Guardian, “Starmer: Labour Is Delivering Justice,” April 30, 2025.

---

“Best Decision You’ll Ever Make”? Religious Double Standards and the NHS Muslim Network

In early 2024, a taxpayer-funded body within the UK’s National Health Service released a guide declaring that converting to Islam would be “the best decision you ever make.” This document, titled New Muslim Guidance, was published by the NHS Muslim Network and circulated to NHS staff across the country. More than a pastoral support resource, it offers a detailed roadmap for religious conversion, explains Islamic rulings on modest dress and social conduct, and encourages converts to downplay family objections and assert Islamic practice in the workplace¹.

The guide informs staff that “everyone is born Muslim,” and describes conversion (shahada) as a simple declaration of faith—though “some family members and friends may not initially have a positive reaction.”¹ Converts are advised to tell others “only when you’re ready” and to seek out a “trusted friend” to help them navigate the transition.¹ The document further encourages religious assertion in the workplace, stating: *“You don’t shake hands with members of the opposite sex for religious reasons.”*¹ Women are told they are religiously “obliged to wear loose-fitting modest clothing covering all parts of the body aside the face, hands and feet.”¹

The same NHS Muslim Network launched the #NHSRamadanChallenge, encouraging non-Muslim NHS staff to fast during daylight hours “to show allyship” with Muslim colleagues. NHS England Chief Strategy Officer Chris Hopson endorsed the initiative, stating: *“I am pleased to be taking part in the NHS Ramadan Challenge, to show my allyship to all our Muslim colleagues.”*² Flyers with his endorsement were sent across NHS networks.

According to the GB News report, “staff are guided through how to navigate Christmas and Easter with their families as a new Muslim,” including encouragement to withdraw from seasonal customs such as Secret Santa or pub gatherings, which “do not align with keeping a halal diet.”¹ The guide reassures converts that even if colleagues and patients are unsettled by new forms of modest dress, they should “try to stay positive,” because they are “doing it for God and it’s a wonderful thing.”¹

This raises fundamental questions: Is the NHS still committed to religious neutrality? Can other faiths expect equivalent institutional affirmation? And what happens when public sector DEI frameworks become vehicles for religious proselytism?

Christian Workers: Punished for Their Faith
In stark contrast to the NHS’s active support for Islamic identity and conversion, Christian staff have repeatedly faced disciplinary measures or dismissal simply for manifesting their faith:

• Mary Onuoha, a Catholic nurse, was forced out of her job at Croydon University Hospital for wearing a small cross necklace. An employment tribunal in 2022 ruled she had been harassed and victimised, noting that other faith symbols (like hijabs or turbans) were permitted³.
• Sarah Kuteh, a senior nurse, was dismissed from Darent Valley Hospital in 2016 for offering to pray with patients during routine assessments. Despite testimonials from patients in her defence, the courts upheld her dismissal⁴.
• Dr Richard Scott, a Kent GP, faced a formal NHS investigation for offering to pray with patients. Though he eventually settled the case, he was required to take a course on professional boundaries⁵.
• Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood, Catholic midwives in Glasgow, lost their Supreme Court case in 2014 after refusing to supervise abortion procedures. The court ruled their managerial roles left no room for conscience-based exemption⁶.
• Sara Spencer, a student midwife, was suspended from NHS placement in 2021 for expressing pro-life views in a private Facebook group. Though cleared, she was warned against further religious expression⁷.

These Christian professionals were not asking colleagues to fast, dress differently, or convert. They were disciplined simply for living consistently with their faith.

Faith or Favouritism?
According to GB News, the NHS Muslim Network is sponsored by top civil servants, including Chris Hopson, who said he was “proud to be the executive sponsor” of the group.¹ The guide and its authors—Haleema Dagia, Riaz Patel, and Shahal Shiekh—were reportedly praised for producing a document that “aligns to the NHS People Promise.”¹ Meanwhile, other religious staff networks, such as the Christian or Jewish networks, have not released equivalent conversion guides, nor have they received comparable executive advocacy.¹

More worryingly, the NHS continues to partner with figures linked to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)—a body under official non-engagement by the UK government since 2009 due to historic concerns about extremism.¹ Former MCB head Zara Mohammed was featured as a speaker at multiple NHS Muslim Network events, including World Hijab Day.¹

Even Muslim chaplains have expressed concern. Dr Shakeel Ramsey, an NHS Muslim chaplain, told GB News: “No one can convert anyone except God… Even the Prophet, peace be upon him, could not convert his uncle.” He described the NHS Muslim Network’s guide as contrary to Islamic spirit, warning: *“It is damaging… Maybe a tradition somewhere, but it is not the spirit of Islam.”*¹

Conclusion: Equal Treatment, Not Ideological Capture
The issue is not whether Muslims should be welcome in the NHS—they are, and they should be. The issue is whether any religion should enjoy institutional promotion under the guise of inclusion. NHS leaders now endorse religious fasting, prayer, and modest dress for one faith—while Christian employees are disciplined for quietly wearing a cross or offering a prayer.

This is not diversity; it is discrimination. And it reveals what happens when secular institutions are captured by the ideological machinery of DEI: certain identities are promoted, others are policed.

If the NHS is to maintain public trust, it must reassert its neutrality—not by silencing all religion, but by ensuring that one faith is not elevated above all others. ⬆️

¹ GB News Report, “NHS staff are being taught how to convert to Islam,” by Nick Dunning, April 2024. Transcript accessed via internal archive.
² NHS Muslim Network, “Ramadan Challenge Flyer,” 2023.
³ “Nurse victimised for wearing cross at work was unfairly dismissed,” The Guardian, 5 January 2022.
⁴ “UK Nurse Fired for Praying with Patients,” Christianity Today, 5 June 2019.
⁵ “Christian Doctor Punished for Praying with Patients Reaches Settlement,” Decision Magazine, 3 October 2022.
⁶ “Catholic midwives lose battle over abortion duties,” The Guardian, 17 December 2014.
⁷ “Student midwife suspended from training over pro-life beliefs,” The Times, 18 March 2021.
⁸ “Government ‘will not engage’ with Muslim Council of Britain,” BBC News, 11 March 2009.

---

Is Protestantism a Sixteenth-Century Secularizing Heresy Seeking Justification?

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century is often hailed as a theological awakening—a retrieval of authentic Christian faith from beneath the alleged accretions of medieval Catholicism. Yet, from another vantage point—one grounded in ecclesial history, patristic theology, and the visible fruits of Christian tradition—Protestantism may be more accurately described as a politically charged rupture, even a secularizing heresy, that sought justification for its separation from the historical Church under the guise of reform.

In the five centuries since its inception, Protestantism has produced an extraordinary fragmentation. Conservative estimates suggest the existence of over 30,000 distinct Protestant denominations worldwide, each advancing its own interpretation of Scripture, ecclesial authority, and theological method. This centrifugal tendency stands in stark contrast to the enduring unity—despite profound cultural, historical, and linguistic diversity—of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. These two communions, the progenitors and rightful inheritors of the patristic era, have preserved the essential structures of apostolic faith, sacramental life, and liturgical worship for nearly two millennia¹.

Despite the vicissitudes of history—ranging from persecution and schism to geopolitical upheavals—the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have maintained recognisably continuous ecclesial identities. Their shortest liturgies contain a far greater concentration of scriptural readings, patristic allusions, and theological exposition than is typically encountered in contemporary Protestant services, many of which prioritise affective experience and subjective interpretation over doctrinal continuity and sacramental worship².

Today, Catholicism and Orthodoxy together represent nearly 65% of the world’s Christian population. More significantly, they constitute the core of the Christian theological, liturgical, and spiritual tradition—a heritage shaped not by private interpretation but by ecclesial discernment and the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the centuries. Their saints, martyrs, confessors, and doctors of the Church are not merely historical relics, but enduring witnesses to divine truth, whose lives continue to form and inspire Christian conscience, doctrine, and discipline³.

By contrast, many Protestant communities—especially in their modern, liberalised forms—have succumbed to secularisation, subjectivism, and relativism. Doctrinal stability has given way to theological experimentation; sacramental life has been reduced or abandoned altogether; moral teaching, once rooted in natural law and divine revelation, has become indistinguishable from contemporary ideological trends. The result is not ecclesial vitality but increasing fragmentation, liturgical minimalism, and doctrinal instability—developments that suggest not a return to apostolic Christianity but a capitulation to modernity⁴.

A common misconception perpetuated by some Protestant polemicists is that Catholic and Orthodox Christians “worship” Mary, the saints, or images. In reality, both communions affirm the communion of saints—a doctrine that acknowledges the unity of the Church across time and space, including those in Heaven and those still on earth⁵. Prayers directed to the saints are not acts of worship, but requests for intercession, just as one might ask a fellow believer to pray for them. Similarly, veneration of icons and relics is not idolatry but honour shown to those who reflect the image of Christ, especially those who bore witness to Him through martyrdom or heroic sanctity⁶.

The witness of the patristic era is central to evaluating these claims. The early centuries of the Church, far from being a monolithic moment of doctrinal unanimity, were a period of organic development, in which the theological, liturgical, and ecclesial life of the Church matured under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Fathers of the Church, though diverse in background and emphasis, collectively articulated and defended the apostolic faith against heresy and paganism. Their writings, conciliar definitions, and catechetical teachings were not inventions but clarifications—elucidating doctrines already present in nucleo in the apostolic deposit⁷.

What emerges from the patristic corpus is not a loose collection of theological opinions but a coherent, recognisable regula fidei, handed down and embodied in the life of the Church. It is this living tradition—textual, sacramental, and communal—that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have preserved with remarkable fidelity. While the Reformers often appealed to the Church Fathers, their usage was selective and frequently anachronistic, abstracting patristic insights from the ecclesial context in which they were conceived and lived⁸.

This raises a fundamental question: Is Protestantism best understood as a legitimate theological reform, or as a secularising rupture from the historic Church—a heresy that justified its separation by appealing to a distorted vision of Scripture and history? The Reformation, for all its rhetoric of sola Scriptura and sola fide, did not emerge in a vacuum of piety or pure doctrinal concern. It unfolded in a context deeply entangled with rising nationalism, political autonomy from Rome, and the humanist individualism of the Renaissance. In this light, Protestantism appears less as a return to apostolic Christianity and more as a movement aligned with the early currents of secular modernity⁹.

In contrast, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to bear the marks of ecclesial stability, sacramental coherence, and theological depth. They have not reinvented themselves to suit the age but have, in continuity with the Fathers, resisted the encroachments of secular ideologies upon the sacred. Their theology is not subject to the caprice of individual interpretation but is safeguarded by a living magisterium and liturgical tradition, which serve as bulwarks against error¹⁰.

In conclusion, to assess Protestantism merely as a reform movement is to overlook its historical rupture, theological innovations, and long-term secularising trajectory. To describe it as a heresy is not a matter of polemic, but a sober recognition of its departure from the unity, tradition, and authority of the apostolic Church. The evidence—historical, theological, and spiritual—demands reflection not merely on what Protestantism protested, but on what it rejected: the visible, sacramental, apostolic Church, which remains, in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the enduring witness to the faith once delivered to the saints. ⬆️

¹ Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost (London: Burns & Oates, 1865), 184–186.
² Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), 213–217.
³ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, trans. Laurence Shepherd (Dublin: Gill & Son, 1870), Vol. I, Intro.
⁴ Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies (London: Sheed & Ward, 1938), ch. 5.
⁵ Augustine, City of God, XXII.8; cf. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. Patrick Lynch (Rockford: TAN Books, 1955), 318–321.
⁶ John Damascene, On the Divine Images, I.16; cf. Second Council of Nicaea, 787 AD.
⁷ John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1845), ch. 5.
⁸ Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1950), 7–9.
⁹ Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, trans. A.V. Littledale (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1956), ch. 2.
¹⁰ Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896), in The Papal Encyclicals 1878–1903, ed. Claudia Carlen (Raleigh: McGrath, 1981), 393–397.

---

---

Reform’s Breakthrough: Britain’s Local Earthquake and What It Means for the Church

By any metric, Reform UK’s performance in the May 2025 local elections and the Runcorn & Helsby by-election is historic. With a razor-thin victory overturning a 15,000 Labour majority in Runcorn, over 125 council seats claimed across England, and the mayoralty of Greater Lincolnshire wrested from the Tories, the political establishment has been shaken¹. But behind the headlines and Farage’s triumphalism lies a deeper truth: Reform’s rise is not just a protest vote. It is a symptom of Britain’s moral, cultural, and political fatigue—and it has spiritual implications the Church cannot ignore.

The End of Managerial Politics
Since the Blair years, Westminster has been dominated by what might be called the politics of administration. The parties differ in rhetoric but converge on technocracy: open borders, DEI orthodoxy, climate legislation without democratic consent, and the slow erosion of public Christianity. The average voter, alienated from this consensus, has watched their towns decline, their culture derided, and their concerns ignored. Reform UK’s message—however crudely delivered—speaks to this disaffection with remarkable clarity.

This is not a return to ideology; it is the revolt of the governed. The electorate is not demanding utopia. They want a political class that acknowledges national identity, upholds basic order, and tells the truth. In the vacuum left by the retreat of Christian moral authority, populism fills the void—not because it offers beatitude, but because it acknowledges pain.

The Quiet Revival Beneath the Surface
This political unrest coincides with a quieter, more surprising shift: a revival of Christian faith, especially among Generation Z. According to a 2025 Bible Society–YouGov report, belief in God is rising among young people in Britain—particularly young men and ethnic minorities—while older generations continue to drift into secularism². This quiet revival is not yet reflected in church attendance, but it is unmistakable in spiritual hunger.

In this context, Reform’s surge may be less a break with religion than a cry for meaning. For many, it is a gateway—not to ideology, but to metaphysics. The state has failed, the elites have lied, but Christ still saves. If the Church can meet this generation with courage and clarity, there is hope. But if it remains silent, others will fill the void—with nationalism, paganism, or technocratic despair.

A Protestant Populism
Reform UK’s rhetoric is unmistakably Protestant in tone: a straightforward appeal to common sense, moral outrage, and anti-elitism. Farage and his allies echo Luther more than Burke—direct, unfiltered, often careless, but resonant. And therein lies both the opportunity and danger.

The opportunity is this: Reform UK reveals a hunger for reality, for truth spoken plainly, for the naming of good and evil in a culture where such categories have been dissolved. The danger is that, without the anchor of the Faith, the movement will remain reactive, at risk of drifting toward libertarianism, civil religion, or racial nationalism.

The Church cannot remain neutral. Neither Labour’s cultural nihilism nor the Tories’ limp centrism has served the common good. If Reform UK opens a door to national repentance and renewal, then clergy and laity must be ready to walk through it—not as party operatives, but as witnesses to a better way.

Benedict Option or Boniface Option?
Too often, Catholics in Britain are told to retreat, to focus on internal renewal while the world burns. But now is not the time for retreat. Reform’s rise and the “quiet revival” show that large swathes of the population still care—about family, borders, decency, and truth. The Church must step forward with confidence, not to baptize party politics, but to preach Christ crucified as the only true foundation for national regeneration.

Reform has advanced; now the Church must respond. Let us not repeat the mistake of 2016—failing to see in the populist wave a divine summons. This is not merely a political moment. It is a kairos: a moment of judgment and opportunity.

Let the shepherds speak. Let the laity rise. Let the Church be seen not as a manager of decline, but as a herald of the Kingdom. ⬆️

Footnotes
¹ Reform UK won the Runcorn and Helsby by-election by six votes on May 2, 2025, overturning a 15,000 Labour majority. The party also gained over 125 council seats and secured the Greater Lincolnshire mayoralty with a 40,000-vote lead (Sources: The Guardian, May 2, 2025; AP News, May 2, 2025).
² Bible Society and YouGov’s “Quiet Revival” report (April 2025) indicates rising belief in God among Gen Z, with significant increases among young men and ethnic minorities. Decline continues among Baby Boomers and the unchurched middle class (Bible Society / YouGov, April 2025).

---

A Quiet Revival? Grace in the Ruins or a Culture War Mirage?

The Church in Britain has long seemed like a hollow cathedral—beautiful in memory, barren in attendance, and battered by scandal and irrelevance. But in the last few months, something unexpected has happened: hope. In hushed voices and viral videos, on TikTok and in Catholic parishes, across Pentecostal storefronts and traditional chapels, the same question is being asked: Is this the beginning of a revival?

The numbers suggest something is stirring. A recent joint study from the Bible Society and YouGov—titled The Quiet Revival—revealed that monthly church attendance in England and Wales has risen by 50% over six years¹. In raw terms, this means 2 million more people are attending church each month than in 2018. And while elderly churchgoers are returning in greater numbers too (up 30% among over-65s), the most dramatic surge is among the young.

Church attendance among 18–24-year-olds has quadrupled, from 4% in 2018 to 16% in 2024². Bible sales in Britain have jumped 87% in five years³. Young men are leading the charge: 21% now attend church regularly—nearly twice the rate of their female peers⁴.

A new viral video, viewed hundreds of thousands of times, interprets this as a sign that Gen Z is rejecting atheism, wokeness, and Islam in favour of a “masculine Christianity” rooted in tradition. Its tone is at times triumphant, angry, and deeply political. And while it rightly celebrates the raw data and laments the failures of liberal Christianity, it also reveals the limits of a revival framed through the lens of cultural combat.

Signs of Renewal
The report shows more than just numeric growth. It shows spiritual seriousness. Young people are not attending church as social clubs or heritage centres. They are praying: 40% of 18–24s say they pray monthly. Over half have engaged in spiritual practices in the past six months. And 19% of them read the Bible weekly outside of church⁵.

More than 1 in 3 young adults say they “definitely” believe in God or a higher power—decisively rejecting the nihilism of New Atheism that once captivated their parents’ generation. Even more striking: 34% of non-churchgoing 18–24s say they would attend church if a friend invited them⁶. The field is white for harvest.

And it is not just the “native” British. Among 18–54-year-olds, 32% of churchgoers are now from ethnic minority backgrounds—up from 19% in 2018⁷. Nearly half of Black British 18–34s now attend church monthly. The churches growing fastest—Pentecostal, Catholic, Evangelical—are among the most ethnically diverse and most doctrinally serious.

A Revival in Spite of the Establishment
The liberal mainline is not experiencing this growth. Far from it. In 2018, Anglicans made up 41% of churchgoers; in 2024, just 34%. Among 18–34s, Anglicans now represent only 20%, down from 30%⁸. Meanwhile, Catholics now comprise 41% of Gen Z churchgoers, and Pentecostals 18%. These are not churches flying rainbow flags. They are churches that preach sin, grace, salvation, and sometimes tongues of fire.

This revival has bypassed the bishops who tried to market faith with diversity audits and drag-liturgies. It has bypassed Justin Welby’s failed Anglicanism. And it has ignited in the very places the liberal establishment had written off: immigrant parishes, black Pentecostal storefronts, online Catholic catechists, and ordinary churches bold enough to preach Christ crucified.

The Temptation of the Culture War Frame
And yet, while this revival deserves our gratitude and careful stewardship, the narrative that now surrounds it carries dangers.

A recent viral video analyzing The Quiet Revival data frames this entire movement as a response to “Islamic immigration,” “woke feminism,” and “national collapse.” Christianity, we are told, is returning because the Left has overplayed its hand and young men want purpose and hierarchy. Perhaps. But the Gospel is not a byproduct of decline. Christ is not a culture war consolation prize.

The video speaks often of masculinity, nationhood, and conservatism. It speaks less often of Jesus Christ. It is easier to critique liberalism than to model sanctity. It is easier to lament Welby than to imitate Francis of Assisi. The Church’s renewal must not be built on resentment, but on repentance.

Masculine Christianity or Christlike Manhood?
That young men are returning to church is a blessing. For decades, Christianity in the West has been presented as soft, managerial, and risk-averse. Now, many men are discovering a faith that calls them to self-mastery, sacrifice, and spiritual fatherhood.

But masculinity in Christ is not about dominance or tribal victory. It is about laying down one’s life. It is Joseph silently guarding the Virgin. It is Peter crucified upside down. It is Jesus washing the feet of the unworthy. If we want a masculine Christianity, let it be cruciform.

What Kind of Revival Do We Want?
There are two revivals competing for Britain’s soul. One is political and reactive, framing faith as a tool to rescue national identity. The other is spiritual and sacramental—framing faith as the path to heaven, holiness, and union with Christ.

The first may pack pews for a while. The second is the one that saves.

Yes, a revival is happening. The statistics don’t lie. The churches that held the line, that did not conform to the age, are being filled again. But this movement must be bathed in prayer, not pride. It must produce saints, not influencers.

Let it not be a cultural rebound, but a true spiritual renewal. And let the Church be ready to receive these seekers with humility, clarity, and courage.

The fields are ready. Now we must sow the truth, water it with grace, and pray for a harvest worthy of the Kingdom of God. ⬆️

1. Bible Society & YouGov, The Quiet Revival (2025).
2. Ibid. Church attendance among 18–24s increased from 4% (2018) to 16% (2024).
3. The Times, “Bible sales rise 87% as Gen Z turns to faith,” 27 April 2025.
4. Church Times, “Dramatic growth in young people attending church,” 11 April 2025.
5. The Quiet Revival, 2025.
6. Ibid.
7. Baptist Times, “The Quiet Revival,” April 2025.
8. The Times, “Catholics Outnumber Anglicans Two to One Among Gen Z Churchgoers,” April 2025.

---

Catechesis in Ruins — Why Catholics No Longer Understand Marriage

Ask the average Catholic couple what marriage is for, and you will not hear “the procreation and education of children.” More likely, you will hear something about love, companionship, or self-fulfillment. These are good things. But they are not the essence of marriage. And the reason so few Catholics understand that is tragically simple: no one is teaching them.

In the past, young Catholics received formation in marriage by osmosis. Families were large and extended; children witnessed marriage in its joys and sorrows. The catechisms were clear. Priests taught with confidence. And seminarians were steeped in Thomistic theology and canonical clarity. Even pre-Cana was not needed—marriage was understood in the marrow of Catholic life.

Today, that infrastructure is gone. Most diocesan marriage preparation programs speak more about communication styles and feelings than about sacramental doctrine or canon law. The language of rights and duties has been replaced by the language of mutual growth and self-actualization. Theology of the Body, often cited but rarely understood, has become a catch-all justification for emotionalized, therapeutic visions of love that bear little resemblance to the magisterium of Pope Pius XI or XII¹.

Meanwhile, catechesis for children is often thin or entirely silent on the nature of marriage. The Baltimore Catechism, with its direct answers and hierarchical clarity, has been replaced by vague discussion and moral relativism. Adult converts often learn more about marriage from secular therapy than from the RCIA program.

The result is catastrophic. When annulments are granted on the basis that a person “did not understand what they were consenting to,” the problem is not just personal—it is institutional. If even practicing Catholics do not know that marriage is indissoluble, procreative, and publicly binding, then the Church herself is failing in her duty to teach.

It is time to recover a counter-revolutionary catechesis—clear, ordered, and traditional. Young Catholics need to be told what marriage is before they try to live it. Priests need to preach it from the pulpit. Marriage prep must begin with doctrine, not dialogue. And the Church must have the courage to say: if you do not intend to enter into a lifelong, procreative bond, you are not ready for marriage.

Without this catechetical renewal, canonical reforms and tribunal reforms will mean nothing. A generation formed in ambiguity cannot build families on the truth. ⬆️

Footnotes
¹ Cf. Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 1951; Casti Connubii, 1930; and the Sacra Romana Rota decree, AAS, Jan. 20, 1944.

---

From Asceticism to Sentimentalism: The Eclipse of Christian Discipline in the Age of the Therapeutic

It is a matter of historical record—and increasingly, of personal observation—that the pastoral discipline of the Church has undergone a profound transformation over the centuries, particularly accelerating in the last six decades. While certain accommodations were introduced gradually over time for prudent and charitable reasons, one cannot ignore the unmistakable trend: a trajectory away from the heroic demands of sanctity and toward a diluted conception of the Christian life, one that hesitates to speak plainly of sin, obligation, or the arduous path of self-denial¹.

Such a shift is not unique to Catholicism. It may be observed, mutatis mutandis, across the broad spectrum of Christian confessions. Yet within the Catholic Church, which uniquely bears the weight of divinely revealed truth and the full deposit of faith, the consequences of this pastoral reorientation are particularly grievous².

The present moment reflects not merely a change in external discipline, but an anthropological revolution—one which privileges subjective experience and the avoidance of suffering over the objective demands of divine law³. This revolution, long in preparation, has accelerated under the influence of modern psychological theory, therapeutic culture, and an uncritical embrace of secular assumptions about human well-being⁴. The result is a pastoral approach that often resembles more the gentle pity of sentimentalism than the robust charity of the Cross⁵.

A telling feature of this development is the near-total inversion of moral emphasis. The Fathers, Doctors, and spiritual writers of the Church’s first eighteen centuries invariably began from the rights of God and the duties of man. The Law of Christ—summed up in the command to take up one’s cross daily—was treated as the inviolable norm for Christian life⁶. Suffering was not merely tolerated; it was welcomed as a means of purification, of conformation to Christ, and of participation in the redemptive economy⁷.

The manuals of ascetic theology, as well as the penitential practices of earlier ages, testify to an ecclesial mindset that cultivated what might be called a spiritual athleticism—a readiness for mortification, long penances, and even martyrdom⁸. These were not the preserve of a spiritual elite but the normative expectations placed upon all the faithful. Indeed, the early Church’s treatment of the traditores—those who, out of fear, renounced the faith under persecution—is illustrative. While schismatic rigorists such as the Novatianists erred by denying any possibility of reconciliation, even the orthodox Church imposed long and public penances, sometimes extending for decades, and withheld full sacramental participation until death⁹. Such severity was not born of cruelty, but of a profound reverence for the integrity of faith and the seriousness of apostasy¹⁰.

Contrast this with the prevailing pastoral philosophy today. One suspects that, were a modern confessor to encounter such a soul, he would be more likely to reassure than to admonish. He would speak of trauma, psychological mitigation, and the need for self-compassion. He would doubtless affirm the penitent’s dignity and offer support—but he would be far less likely to prescribe penance, or speak of tears, or exhort the soul to heroic reparation¹¹. The traditional doctrine of mortal sin might be quietly suspended in favour of an assumed diminution of culpability. And the result, though well-intentioned, would be to deprive the soul of the very medicine it most needs.

This transformation is not a product of doctrinal development. Indeed, one of the most cunning features of the modernist pastoral revolution is its careful avoidance of explicit dogmatic contradiction. From the pontificate of Pius IX through to Benedict XVI, the Magisterium has consistently reaffirmed the immutability of dogma¹². Unable to alter the content of the faith, pastoral innovators turned instead to the domain of praxis, particularly by exploiting the elastic categories of psychology and subjective experience¹³.

By shifting the weight of moral discourse from the objective law to the interior dispositions of the individual, it became possible to retain the dogma in theory while neutralizing its application in practice. Thus, while the Church continues to affirm the indissolubility of marriage, the annulment process in many Western dioceses has effectively become a mechanism for de facto Catholic divorce¹⁴. Similarly, while the liturgy remains, in principle, a participation in the heavenly worship of Christ, it is treated in many places as a therapeutic gathering oriented toward psychological consolation and emotional validation¹⁵.

This paradigm—sometimes cloaked under the banner of “accompaniment” or “pastoral sensitivity”—finds its anthropological root in a new and disproportionate sympathy for human suffering. That sympathy, when rightly ordered, is a fruit of Christian charity. But when it supplants the call to conversion, it becomes a parody of mercy. It leads not to transformation, but to stagnation. It whispers, You are enough, when the Gospel commands, Be ye perfect¹⁶.

The great pastoral danger of our time, then, is the replacement of ascetical realism with sentimental indulgence. The saints did not become saints by therapeutic self-soothing, but by cruciform discipline, by assiduous fidelity to prayer and penance, and by embracing the trials permitted by Providence¹⁷. The modern Church, by contrast, appears increasingly reticent to ask the faithful to suffer at all. The muscular spiritual tradition of the Church has been replaced, in many quarters, with a kind of doctrinal muscle relaxant—a sedative that dulls the edge of divine law, and leaves souls spiritually flaccid¹⁸.

Yet one must proceed with caution. The answer to this malaise is not a return to unthinking rigorism. The Church has always recognized degrees of culpability, and her moral tradition, from Augustine to Aquinas, accounts for ignorance, duress, and weakness¹⁹. These are real dimensions of human action, and must be handled with prudence and justice. The solution, therefore, is not to annihilate pastoral flexibility, but to restore the balance between truth and compassion, between moral objectivity and human fragility. It is the equilibrium that marked the golden centuries of Christian civilization²⁰.

Such a restoration cannot be achieved through bureaucratic reform or synodal process. It must begin with the conversion of hearts—particularly among priests, bishops, and religious, but also among the laity. It must begin with a rediscovery of the spiritual and moral vision that once animated Christendom. And above all, it must begin with a recovery of confidence in the Cross: not merely as a symbol of love, but as the pattern of life for all who follow Christ.

Until that recovery takes place, the Church will continue to bear the contradiction of being doctrinally faithful yet pastorally decadent—formally proclaiming the high demands of the Gospel, while practically excusing their absence.

But in the end, all shall be judged—not by the standards of popular psychology, nor by the metrics of institutional comfort, but by the terrible and beautiful justice of Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain and who demands from His disciples the same self-emptying love.

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” (Matt. 16:24) ⬆️

¹ See Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, trans. A.V. Littledale (London: Harvill Press, 1956), ch. 1–2.
² Cf. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896), on the visible unity and indefectibility of the Church.
³ Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century, trans. Fr. John P. Parsons (Kansas City: Sarto House, 1996), ch. 30–31.
⁴ Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).
⁵ Josef Pieper, The Concept of Sin, trans. Edward T. Oakes (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), esp. pp. 57–64.
⁶ St. Augustine, Enchiridion, ch. 66; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II–II, q. 186, a. 5.
⁷ St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 55.2; St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 5–6.
⁸ Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard, The Soul of the Apostolate, trans. A Monk of Our Lady of Gethsemani (Trappist, KY: Abbey of Gethsemani, 1946), ch. 8–9.
⁹ Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 5; Cyprian of Carthage, On the Lapsed.
¹⁰ Pope Innocent I, Ep. 6, PL 20:495–502, on the necessity of discipline for the sake of salvation.
¹¹ Cf. Fr. Servais Pinckaers, The Sources of Christian Ethics, trans. Sr. Mary Thomas Noble (Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1995), pp. 389–395.
¹² Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 4; Pius X, Lamentabili Sane (1907); John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993), §25–26.
¹³ Benedict XVI, Light of the World, trans. Michael J. Miller and Adrian J. Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), ch. 7, where he speaks of the crisis of pastoral relativism.
¹⁴ Edward Peters, Annulments and the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions (Ann Arbor: Ascension Press, 2004), ch. 4.
¹⁵ Catherine Pickstock, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), ch. 1.
¹⁶ Cf. Matt. 5:48; see also St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Christian Mode of Life.
¹⁷ St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, ch. 3–5.
¹⁸ Peter Kwasniewski, True Obedience in the Church: A Guide to Discernment in Challenging Times (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2020), ch. 5.
¹⁹ St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I–II, q. 76, a. 1–2; Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, ch. 11.
²⁰ Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe (London: Sheed & Ward, 1932), ch. 4.

---

The Real Legitimate Pope Has Come Forward? Abdullah Hashem declares himself the heir of Christ…

… and Muhammad, and Peter—wrapped in a black beanie and armed with bad theology. What his claims reveal about our age of spiritual confusion.

In what might be one of the more bizarre turns in the modern swirl of internet religion, a man named Abdullah Hashem—also calling himself Aba al-Sadiq—has declared himself the rightful successor not only of Muhammad, but also of Jesus Christ, Simon Peter, and, curiously, the Pope. “I am the true and legitimate pope,” he proclaims in a video now making the rounds online. “I am the proof upon the Christians. I am the son of the Muslims through my father and the son of the Christians and the Jews through my mother.”¹

This self-styled redeemer—draped in esoterica and wrapped in a black hipster beanie—has triggered both alarm and fascination across the internet. Though some have branded him the Antichrist, Abdullah has publicly denied the charge, instead pointing the finger at someone else. Or rather, at something else: the United States of America.

Yes, in a video laced with apocalyptic imagery and conspiratorial flair, Abdullah declares that America, with its military might, democratic institutions, and secular media, is not just corrupted, but the Antichrist itself. He draws from Daniel’s vision of the fourth beast and various loose readings of Islamic and Christian prophecy to paint a picture of the U.S. as the ultimate spiritual deceiver—“the great iron beast that tramples on the nations.”²

But Abdullah doesn’t stop at geopolitics. He builds a personal theology that merges elements of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, held together by a tangled doctrine of succession. In his narrative, religious truth has been passed down not through the Church or the ummah, but through a hidden chain of prophets and “comforters”—ending, unsurprisingly, with himself.

This theological syncretism is dizzying. He acknowledges Jesus as Messiah and God incarnate, but simultaneously affirms Muhammad as the Comforter promised in the Gospel of John—a claim historically made by Islamic apologists but rejected by every credible scholar of the New Testament.³ He then spins this into an idiosyncratic argument that Muhammad succeeded Peter, not merely in leadership but in divine appointment.

In Abdullah’s world, the papacy is vacant—except for him. The prophets have returned—embodied in him. The Antichrist walks among us—speaking English and singing the national anthem. And to crown it all, he wears not a tiara but a black beanie.

And here lies the most surreal symbol of this spectacle. The black beanie, he explains in a separate video, is not a fashion statement, but a deliberate rejection of the turban traditionally worn by Muslim scholars. In his view, the turban has become a mark of hypocrisy and clerical elitism, so he dons the beanie in solidarity with the working man. It is, he says, “a reminder that God is above us” and a symbol of humility. Yet in the same breath, he places himself at the summit of prophetic succession, the true leader of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.⁴

Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity has done the most thorough takedown of these claims to date, exposing both the theological incoherence and historical errors in Abdullah’s message.⁵ The core issues, however, go far deeper.

A Theology of Contradiction: Unpacking Abdullah’s Claims
Beneath the theatrics lies a theology in total collapse. Abdullah’s worldview presents not a synthesis, but a collision of doctrines. Here are six of his principal claims—and why they are theologically impossible.

1. “Muhammad is the Comforter Jesus promised.”
In John 14:26, Jesus states: “But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.” The Comforter, or Paraklētos, is the Holy Spirit, not a human prophet. Jesus further declares that this Comforter “dwells with you and shall be in you” (John 14:17)—something only the indwelling Spirit can fulfill. Pentecost, not the 7th century, is the fulfillment of that promise (Acts 2). To identify Muhammad as the Holy Spirit is to commit both Christological and Pneumatological error.⁶

2. “Jesus appointed Peter, and Muhammad succeeded him.”
Christ does not require a successor, for He is eternally living and continually interceding (Hebrews 7:24–25). Peter is appointed not as a new messiah but as a vicar, under Christ’s own kingship (Matthew 16:18–19). The idea that Muhammad inherited this Petrine authority is unattested in both Christian and Islamic sources.⁷ No hadith, no Qur’anic verse, and no patristic text make this claim. It is entirely fabricated to serve Abdullah’s universalist self-image.

3. “I am the true and legitimate Pope.”
According to canon law and sacred tradition, the Pope is:

• A baptized, validly ordained bishop;
• Elected by the College of Cardinals;
• The Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter.

Abdullah is none of these. To claim the papacy while rejecting the sacraments, the episcopate, and communion with the Church is not reform but usurpation.⁸

4. “The United States is the Antichrist.”
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, the Antichrist is described as “the man of sin… the son of perdition” who exalts himself as God. Similarly, 1 John 2:22 defines the Antichrist as he who denies the Father and the Son. Revelation 13 presents a deceiving individual, not a nation. Nations may become corrupt, but they are not personified fulfillments of eschatological prophecy.⁹

5. “St. Paul reversed head covering practices, proving Christianity is corrupt.”
Historical sources show that first-century Jewish men did not wear head coverings universally. The practice of the yarmulke developed in later rabbinic Judaism, especially after the Talmudic period. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 addresses liturgical decorum in Corinth, not a universal dress code. He never states that God rejects women’s prayers without head coverings.¹⁰ Abdullah’s interpretation is historically illiterate and theologically dishonest.

6. “The beanie is a sign of humility.”
Abdullah claims the beanie symbolizes solidarity with the working poor and rejection of clerical elitism. But symbolism is hollow without substance. The true sign of humility is not headgear but obedience to truth, service to others, and submission to the Church.¹¹ A man who crowns himself prophet and pope while wearing a fisherman’s hat is not humble—he is posturing.

Conclusion: The Crown and the Beanie
Abdullah Hashem is no Antichrist—but neither is he a prophet, pope, or teacher. His teachings are not just incorrect—they are mutually contradictory, built on distorted Scripture, fabricated traditions, and self-mythology.

He is, however, a sign of the times. In an age where ecclesial authority is questioned and theological formation neglected, figures like Abdullah arise to exploit the confusion. They speak with certainty—but not with truth.

The true Pope is not the loudest voice on YouTube. The true prophet is not self-proclaimed. The true Church is not built on charisma, but on the Rock. As Catholics, we must remain vigilant—not just against false doctrine, but against the seductive theatre of false prophets with microphones, manifestos, and beanies. ⬆️

Footnotes
¹ From Abdullah Hashem’s public video declaration (see transcript excerpt, Capturing Christianity, 2025).
² Daniel 7:7 is cited frequently in Abdullah’s videos as a description of the U.S., though traditional exegesis identifies this as the Roman Empire.
³ Cf. John 14:26, 15:26; mainstream New Testament scholars (e.g. D.A. Carson, Craig Keener) universally reject the “Muhammad as Paraclete” theory.
⁴ Abdullah Hashem, “Why I Wear the Beanie,” 2025.
⁵ Cameron Bertuzzi, “Exposing the Antichrist Claim,” Capturing Christianity, 2025.
⁶ See CCC §689–690 on the Holy Spirit; also Acts 2 and Patristic affirmations of Pentecost as fulfillment.
⁷ No reference to Peter is found in the Qur’an; Islamic tradition does not posit any link between Peter and Muhammad.
⁸ Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), Can. 332 §1; Catechism of the Catholic Church §880–882.
⁹ 2 Thess 2:3–4; 1 John 2:18, 22; Revelation 13:13–14.
¹⁰ Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (1999), p. 243–246; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP, 2007), p. 409–412.
¹¹ Cf. Philippians 2:5–8; John 13:14–17; and St. Benedict’s Rule, ch. 7 on humility.

---

⬆️

---

Archbishop Mathew’s Prayer for Catholic Unity
Almighty and everlasting God, Whose only begotten Son, Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd, has said, “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd”; let Thy rich and abundant blessing rest upon the Old Roman Apostolate, to the end that it may serve Thy purpose by gathering in the lost and straying sheep. Enlighten, sanctify, and quicken it by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, that suspicions and prejudices may be disarmed, and the other sheep being brought to hear and to know the voice of their true Shepherd thereby, all may be brought into full and perfect unity in the one fold of Thy Holy Catholic Church, under the wise and loving keeping of Thy Vicar, through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who with Thee and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth God, world without end. Amen.

⬆️

---

Old Roman TV

OLD ROMAN TV Daily Schedule Lent 2025: GMT 0600 Angelus 0605 Morning Prayers 0800 Daily Mass 1200 Angelus 1205 Bishop Challoner’s Daily Meditation 1700 Latin Rosary (live, 15 decades) 1800 Angelus 2100 Evening Prayers & Examen ⬆️

⬆️

---