Clash over the Liturgical Question with Progressive Dictats

Edit: it’s a wonder that the manifest arrogance and narrow-mindedness of liturgical vandals like Grillo and the Bologna School, isn’t repaid with indifference or contempt by the laity and the publishing houses that impose their malaise on a captive laity.

By Don Mario Proietti*

As a lover of Korean drama series (K-dramas), I must confess that the controversy surrounding the liturgy has taken on the pace of a multi-season show. First, Cardinal Arthur Roche announced in an interview what Leo XIV would not do, presenting future liturgical discipline as if it were already definitively settled.

Immediately afterward, the liturgist Andrea Grillo spoke up to reinforce this reading. He called on the faithful to go through the "grieving process" for Summorum Pontificum and described the use of the old Missal as carrying a schismatic dynamic.

At this point, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone enters the stage. He does not claim to know the Pope's mind better than his Prefect, but he urges caution and points out the pastoral consequences of the restrictions. He asks whether an overly strict discipline might push some faithful away from full communion with Rome.

Then comes the appearance of Cardinal Cupich, who calls for liturgical controversies not to be conducted too publicly or divisively almost as if the real problem were talking about them, rather than the wound inflicted by the debate itself.

Now Andrea Grillo re-enters the scene. He does not limit himself to defending Roche's position. Rather, he targets Cordileone directly, accusing him of serious theological errors, questioning his professional qualifications, and ultimately even linking his position to the temptation of schism.

The series has apparently been renewed for another season.

The liturgist's new article already bears a revealing title: "A Cordileone Alone Is Not Enough to Preserve Tradition."

The author is not content merely to discuss the Archbishop's reflections. He dismisses them as a collection of platitudes, attributes grave errors to Cordileone, claims he "has not studied enough theology," and goes so far as to declare that his position undermines episcopal authority and exposes him to the temptation of schism.

The Archbishop, by contrast, had expressed himself far more reservedly. In light of the certainty with which Roche had anticipated the Pope's future decisions, he merely remarked that he did not know how precisely the Prefect actually knew the mind of Leo XIV.

He did not claim an unrestricted right to celebrate according to the former Missal. Rather, he posed a pastoral question: Could ongoing restrictions move some faithful to join communities that are not in full unity with Rome?

At the same time, he stated that generous access to the traditional liturgy must go hand in hand with unqualified assent to the Church's teaching and the Second Vatican Council.

This position is not schismatic. It corresponds precisely to the attitude of a shepherd who has the consequences of ecclesial decisions in view. A norm may pursue a certain intention; however, a bishop must also ask what fruits it produces among the people entrusted to his care.

Grillo does the exact opposite. The pastoral question is reinterpreted as a doctrinal error. Concern for the faithful is declared complicity with traditionalism. The risk that some might distance themselves from Rome is interpreted as proof of a schismatic tendency already inherent in their liturgical devotion.

The intellectual framework is constructed in such a way that it cannot be refuted. If the faithful remain silent, the discipline has worked. If they suffer, they are too attached to the past. If they leave diocesan parishes, they prove their inclination toward schism.

Every possible reaction confirms the original diagnosis. When a theory is always right, it has usually stopped perceiving reality.

The weakest point of the article concerns the relationship between the 1962 Missal and the Second Vatican Council.

Grillo claims that it is impossible to accept the Council while desiring that liturgical form, since Sacrosanctum Concilium demanded the reform of the Roman Rite. From this he derives an absolute opposition: either the Council or the former Missal.

Yet Traditionis custodes itself shows that this equation does not hold. The document grants the bishop the authority to authorize the use of the 1962 Missal, while requiring him to ensure that the groups in question do not call into question the validity of the liturgical reform, the teaching of the Council, or the papal Magisterium.

Current ecclesiastical discipline thus explicitly distinguishes between the permitted use of the former Missal and a rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Grillo declares impossible what canon law continues to explicitly provide for.

The same is evident when he describes the traditional rite as clerical, lacking active participation, and suited to turning the faithful into "museum pieces."

However, liturgical participation cannot be reduced to the number of spoken words or external actions. Sacrosanctum Concilium describes it as conscious, active, and fruitful, connecting it to the formation and interior disposition of the faithful. At the same time, the Council decrees that the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites, and calls for the faithful to be able to sing or say in Latin the parts of the Ordinary that pertain to them.

The real problem is not that Grillo has the right to criticize a bishop. A theologian may, of course, do so.

Rather, the problem lies in the disciplinary nature of his criticism. Archbishop Cordileone is not treated as a shepherd raising a question of pastoral prudence. Instead, he is portrayed as pastorally irresponsible, insufficiently trained in theology, and dangerously close to schism.

The resulting message is hard to miss. Anyone who dares to question the pastoral effectiveness of Traditionis custodes risks being categorized outside the bounds of a "proper" understanding of the Council.

The question asked is not answered; instead, the one who asked it is discredited.

Grillo's concluding sentence reveals this mindset with particular clarity: "Whoever loves tradition has no choice."

For an ecclesial culture that speaks incessantly of listening and discernment, that is a remarkable formulation.

Ideology does not accompany reality; rather, it informs reality that it has no alternative. It does not listen to what young people are searching for, but dictates what they ought to be searching for. It does not examine whether a particular discipline actually preserves ecclesial communion, but simply equates communion with its own solution.

Cordileone did something far simpler and, at the same time, far more episcopal. He looked at the faithful, at the danger of losing them, and at the spiritual longing showing itself among the younger generations.

Grillo, on the other hand, looked at his paradigm and scolded the bishop because the facts refused to yield willingly to it.

This clash does not prove that there is a centrally coordinated direction. Rather, it reveals something deeper: a cultural milieu in which various individuals use the same language, defend the same mental framework, and react immediately as soon as an episcopal voice brings the discussion back to its concrete pastoral consequences.

Ideology does not primarily fear opposition. It fears the shepherd who knows his flock.

For real people with their faith and their wounds have the most unpleasant habit of not behaving according to the categories designed for them.

*Don Mario Proietti is a priest of the Congregation of the Missionaries of the Precious Blood (CPPS). He was born on October 22, 1965, and ordained to the priesthood on May 26, 1991. He is the rector at the Abbey of San Felice in Giano della Umbria, where he carries out pastoral work. Since 2025, he has contributed regularly to the Catholic platform UCCR and his blog "Tra cuore e sapienza" ("Between Heart and Wisdom"). His articles primarily deal with ecclesial and theological topics, including liturgy, the priesthood, Church reforms, the Second Vatican Council, as well as questions of pastoral care and Church life.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: Corrispondenza Romana

Trans:  Tancred 

AMDG

Cardinal Sarah: Return to Summorum Pontificum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Secret Agreement Solidifies China’s Control Over the Church

Episcopal Ordinations in China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Appointment of the New Bishop of Chifeng

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: AsiaNews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: Wikicommons

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Could Ecumenism cost us more than gay priests?

Isis-linked Attack on Christopher Pride Parade in Berlin

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

What happened

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

The suspect

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

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

AMDG

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion