About Roman appointments

“Every generation of Catholics discovers, often painfully, that the men who govern the Church are not always worthy of their office. Perhaps this is why Jesus chose St. Peter?

“Belloc's famous observation about the Church's astonishing capacity for mismanagement is funny because it exposes an uncomfortable truth. Given two thousand years of corruption, incompetence, scandal and betrayal, how is the Catholic Church still standing?

“Empires have risen and vanished. Institutions far better administered have disappeared. Yet the Church endures, despite the damage inflicted by those entrusted with her care. This is no defence of bad shepherds. Our Lord's warning about millstones was deadly serious. Nor does fidelity demand that we pretend every papal judgement is wise or every bishop beyond criticism. But we make a profound theological mistake when we confuse the failures of the Church's human administration with the integrity of her divine constitution.

“The Church does not endure because her leaders are good. She endures because Christ is faithful. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. He never promised that her bishops would always be impressive.

“Criticise what deserves criticism. Defend what must be defended. But never allow disappointment with the men who govern the Church to become an excuse for abandoning communion with her. Christ did not ask us to trust in the perfection of His shepherds. He asked us to remain faithful to His Church.”

Mark Lambert @sitsio 

Archbishop Cordileone: Church had greater unity under Summorum Pontificum

 

NIWA LIMBU

OCT. 8, 2026

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has said the Church experienced greater unity under Summorum Pontificum than under Traditionis Custodes, warning that restrictions on the traditional liturgy risk reopening old wounds

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has said the Church experienced greater unity under Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum than it does under Pope Francis’s Traditionis Custodes.

In an interview with French Catholic newspaper Tribune Chrétienne on October 8, the Archbishop of San Francisco said the restrictions placed on the traditional liturgy risk repeating wounds caused by the rapid liturgical changes that followed the Second Vatican Council.

“It’s very clear to me that there was more unity in the Church when we were living under Summorum Pontificum than we are now under Traditionis Custodes,” Archbishop Cordileone said.

He recalled the “liturgical wars” that followed the Council, when Catholics were judged and stereotyped according to their liturgical preferences. He said tensions continued into the 1990s before the situation began to “mellow” following the indult permitted under St John Paul II and then the publication of Summorum Pontificum.

Under Pope Benedict’s approach, Archbishop Cordileone said, Catholics attached to traditional worship and those preferring more contemporary forms could coexist peacefully without harsh judgement.

The Archbishop said Pope Benedict recognised that the Church had suffered a “profound wound” through the rupture experienced after the Council, including cases in which rapid and radical liturgical changes had damaged, and sometimes destroyed, Catholics’ faith.

Archbishop Cordileone also explained that Pope Benedict XVI’s proposal to recognise the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite was intended to facilitate what the former Pope called an “internal reconciliation” within the Church’s worship. His Grace said Benedict understood that genuine reconciliation could not be engineered by a committee of scholars drafting a new liturgy, but would have to develop organically through generations of Catholics worshipping according to both forms.

“It has to happen organically,” Archbishop Cordileone said. “Pope Benedict understood that this would take a long time, generations, maybe even centuries, with people worshiping with both forms of the Mass to come to a unified worship in the Church.”

His Grace said Benedict understood that the rapid changes which followed the Second Vatican Council had created a rupture that could not simply be resolved by imposing another reform from above.

“He understood the rupture that had taken place,” Archbishop Cordileone said. “He lived through it. He saw how the faith of Catholics was very seriously challenged, damaged. I’ve heard of cases even destroyed because of very quick, radical changes in the way the liturgy was carried out.”

Archbishop Cordileone warned that Catholics attached to the traditional form of worship had been “stigmatized and marginalized” within the Church, arguing that such treatment risked reopening the wounds Benedict had sought to heal.

“I think that foments division,” His Grace said. “Some people felt alienated from the Church. I fear that that might begin to happen again.”

More: https://advaticanum.com/article/archbishop-cordileone-church-had-greater-unity-under-summorum-pontificum/

“… the left is no longer the left once it has broken with the working classes.”

Guillaume Herblot  @Guigz75116

The Far Left, or the Secession of the Cultural Elites.

French geographer and essayist Christophe Guilluy put it better than anyone: the left is no longer the left once it has broken with the working classes.  

And contemporary far-left activism is not the uprising of the “people from below.” It is the pinnacle of the cultural petite bourgeoisie that has colonized the language of poverty to turn it into a marker of distinction.

The typical profile of the activist and intellectual core is not the factory worker, the suburban office clerk, or the precarious resident of the banlieues. It is predominantly white women, college-educated (bachelor’s plus three years to grandes écoles or equivalent in social sciences, education, culture), urban, hailing from Metropolia. They fancy themselves “close to the people” they claim to defend, but they are the exact sociological and cultural inverse. 

Guilluy speaks of an “almost anthropological rupture” between those who speak about the people and the people themselves. The sociology of the militants and spokespeople is very much upper-middle-class.

• The Mechanism.

Since the 1980s, the dominant left has abandoned the social question. It has replaced the alliance of teachers and workers with a bobo alliance of the metropolises and electorates from immigrant backgrounds in the neighborhoods.  

Result: the working classes of peripheral France (small towns, suburbs, rural areas) have culturally autonomized themselves. They no longer recognize themselves in the narrative produced by intellectual, media, and academic elites. The real people vote elsewhere. The far left, meanwhile, remains trapped in its progressive bubble.

• Colonization of Poverty.

That’s exactly it. We appropriate the words of oppression, domination, and “decolonization” to inject them with priorities that are those of the cultural bourgeoisie: identity issues, migration, gender, radical ecology. The working classes, by contrast, have pragmatic diagnoses (jobs, purchasing power, security, schools, migration regulation). Guilluy sums it up: bobos are “Rougon-Macquart characters dressed as hipsters.” They preserve their position, their real estate assets, the schooling of their children, all while draping themselves in virtue. They practice residential and school avoidance while demanding that others bear the consequences of their “luxury beliefs.”

• The Anthology of Contradictions.

- They defend “the people” but despise those who don’t share their codes (the “redneck,” the “racist” from the periphery).

- They talk of solidarity and diversity while living in socially and culturally homogeneous circles.

- They denounce elites while forming the new cultural elite that has captured education, culture, part of the media, and the civil service.

- They claim to fight capitalism while being the products and beneficiaries of the educational system and the metropolises that concentrate resources.

Guilluy has mapped the schism: on one side Metropolia (the big cities where the progressive cultural bourgeoisie and its electoral allies are concentrated), on the other Peripheria (the ordinary majority, everyday people, multiethnic but culturally autonomous). 

The far left is the discursive armed wing of the former against the latter. It is not a revolution. 

It is a secession of the elites masquerading as the voice of the oppressed.  

The people don’t need to be symbolically colonized. They need us to stop despising them.

BREAKING: Fr. Chad Ripperger silenced by his bishop for a year

Denver Archbishop James Golka has ordered Fr. Chad Ripperger to cease all public ministry — no talks, no preaching, no writing — for one year.

Fr. Chad RippergerYouTube/Screenshot

(LifeSiteNews) — Denver Archbishop James Golka has ordered Fr. Chad Ripperger, the most widely heard living American priest on exorcism and spiritual warfare, to cease all public ministry for one year, LifeSiteNews has confirmed directly with the priest.

The order seems to cover public appearances, online homilies, and writings. Talks already booked are to be cancelled.

Fr. Ripperger was scheduled to speak at the upcoming LifeSite 30th anniversary gala on April 24, 2027. He has notified us that he can no longer honor the engagement. “The Archbishop has asked me to take a break on public speaking,” he wrote. When asked to do a video address or something in writing, he also declined noting that questions on the restriction should be directed to the Archbishop of Denver. Moreover, he noted that the restrictions would be in place for a year – till next September. LifeSite has also learned he has cancelled speaking engagements with at least two other organizations.

LifeSiteNews has contacted the Archdiocese of Denver seeking comment on the nature, reasons, duration, and any Vatican involvement. So far the archdiocese has declined to comment.

Golka, named bishop of Colorado Springs by Pope Francis in 2021 and archbishop of Denver by Pope Leo XIV in February 2026, now holds faculties over Ripperger and the Society of the Most Sorrowful Mother (Doloran Fathers), the public association Archbishop Samuel Aquila received into the archdiocese. There has been no public decree explaining the penalty, no announced finding of heresy.

The silencing follows the largest public exposure any priest has likely ever had with Fr. Ripperger’s recent appearances on the mega talk-shows of Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Sean Ryan.

On April 3, 2026, Ripperger sat with Tucker Carlson for nearly two hours to discuss possession, the occult, politicians and the demonic, addiction, and communism as a psychological twin of diabolic method. The full episode on Tucker’s YouTube channel got more than 3 million views and nearly 94,000 likes. Short clips continue to add millions more.

He went twice to the Shawn Ryan Show, among the top podcasts on Spotify. Episode #285 (March 5, 2026), a four-hour conversation on the mark of the beast and the rise of the Antichrist, has been reported in the 2.5 to 4.1 million view range on YouTube. The July 23 return visit, episode #324, sits around 2.7 million views; a single clip from that hour has passed 640,000. Combined with Spotify audio, the Ryan appearances alone put Ripperger in front of millions of listeners who did not come looking for a diocesan chancery statement.

More: https://x.com/lifesite/status/2112234027746766903?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w

Out of control Synod now defending rejection of divinely founded ecclesiastical hierarchy

Mark Lambert:

I HOPE YOU'RE ALL PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS ONE!

The most consequential legacy of the Synod on Synodality may not be yet another prolix Vatican document, but a rewriting of the laws governing who exercises authority in the Catholic Church. To wit the Synod's Canon Law Commission has now published proposals to amend numerous provisions of the Code of Canon Law, addressing everything from the participation of lay Catholics in ecclesiastical governance to the responsibilities of bishops, episcopal conferences and diocesan consultative bodies.

ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION NOW? 🤔

Among the provisions under consideration are Canon 228, concerning the eligibility of lay Catholics for ecclesiastical offices, Canon 476, concerning episcopal vicars, and Canon 1421, concerning judges in ecclesiastical tribunals. These are not peripheral administrative matters, they concern the actual exercise of authority within the Church. I think the central theological question is whether and to what extent, the power of governance can be exercised by those who have not received Holy Orders. Catholic teaching has always distinguished the common priesthood of the baptised from the ministerial priesthood, which differ essentially and not merely in degree, as Lumen gentium §10 makes clear, but it does not follow that every ecclesiastical office or administrative responsibility must be reserved to the ordained. Lay Catholics already exercise significant responsibilities within the Church, including in ecclesiastical tribunals and certain offices of the Roman Curia.

The real difficulty lies in establishing precisely where legitimate lay participation ends and responsibilities intrinsically connected to the sacrament of Holy Orders begin. This is where the discussion becomes particularly important. If synodality means ensuring that bishops listen more carefully, that qualified lay Catholics contribute their expertise and that ecclesiastical institutions become more accountable, there is much to welcome. But if it obscures the distinction between the authority conferred through Holy Orders and responsibilities that can legitimately be entrusted to the laity, then we are dealing with something considerably more serious than administrative reform. Canon law is not simply an organisational handbook. It gives juridical expression to the Church's understanding of her own nature.

The Church cannot alter her divine constitution by changing the wording of a canon. Equally, she should not mistake every historically established administrative arrangement for something divinely instituted. Both principles are important and preserving the distinction between them will be essential if these proposals are to serve the Church rather than generate further confusion. For now, these are proposals, not enacted legislation. Pope Leo XIV has not approved the changes. But the direction of the discussion is unmistakable: the Synod's theological language is moving towards concrete institutional and juridical consequences.

The question is whether those consequences will clarify the relationship between baptism, Holy Orders and ecclesiastical governance, or leave Catholics with an increasingly ambiguous understanding of authority in the Church. That is a debate worth having before the legislation is changed, rather than afterwards.

@sitsio

The Wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “Men have forgotten God.”

“If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

Revolution burns in France and wider Europe

@larroumecj:

We are at the confluence of two distinct civilizational phenomena leading to revolution:

The first: in a democratic society, as Tocqueville noted, every inequality quickly becomes unbearable because there are only two ways to explain why some people succeed better than oneself: corruption of the system or merit. 

And psychologically, unsurprisingly, we tend to think that those who succeed better than us benefit from a corrupt system rather than being more deserving. 

Democracy is therefore a regime that structurally creates armies of the discontented, except when there is strong economic growth.

Because then one can reasonably bide one's time, telling oneself that in a few years, one will oneself be at the same level as those one envies. 

It has been 15 years since there has been any growth in France.

Younger generations do not believe their situation will naturally catch up to that of the more privileged.

As a result, they no longer have much interest in keeping the system alive. All the more so since, often having no children and not being homeowners, they are subject to none of the traditional conservative forces.

The second: as Schumpeter noted, capitalism, by exploding industrial and agricultural productivity, reduces to a pittance the number of manual jobs. Society thus begins to produce gigantic cohorts of people trained in intellectual professions, even as the economy does not need so many people in those sectors. No matter how much we multiply bullshit jobs, we nevertheless produce a large number of educated and unemployable individuals. (They consider manual jobs not dignified enough.)

These cohorts are structurally revolutionary because they see themselves as an enlightened elite in opposition to the existing system.

France is one of the world's most tertiary economies and has one of the highest percentages of individuals pursuing higher education.

It has had no growth for 15 years.

Kaboom, then?

Not yet, because there is, however, a component of society that has an absolute interest in maintaining the system as it is: retirees.

And they represent a third of the electorate. 

Their role is ambivalent: they prevent destructive revolution just as much as any reform capable of making the system viable. 

This is thus one of the key tasks of politics today: to restart economic growth and redirect wealth toward the active population, while succeeding both in bypassing retirees' blockages and containing the revolutionary impulses of youth.

This is just one of France's many urgent projects in this period of multiple crises.

But with the approaching financial crisis, the debt buffer is coming to an end. The fundamental question of whom and what the French economic machine serves can no longer remain without a satisfactory answer for long.

More from @fpiatov:

A brutal editorial in the conservative Le Figaro. A reckoning with France's political system and its elite.

“A judiciary that is lenient toward criminals but unrelenting toward decent citizens. The incomprehensible privilege of these far-left militias, who destroy, set fires, and kill with impunity. An uncontrolled immigration, in which a portion of the immigrants rebels against the country that took them in. (…) A political class—the various strains of socialism that have governed us for fifteen years—that must be accused of frivolity, blindness, if not even a benevolent tolerance.

Emmanuel Macron's admonishments to a police force that, in his view, does not show enough ‘empathy’ toward those who attack it with screws, cobblestones, or fireworks mortars, will remain an indelible stain in memory. (…)

If the far left, criminals, and looters can turn France completely upside down within a few hours, it is above all because a self-intoxicated technocratic monarchy has systematically leveled all the moral, security-related, cultural, and economic safeguards that hold a society together. Jean-Luc Mélenchon's useful idiots do not just wear the kufiya, but also the necktie.”