My Immaculate Heart Will Triumph

08/09/2026

Ten Catholics from the Bandaria parish in the Indian Diocese of Udaipur were denied bail again this week and remain incarcerated three months after being arrested and charged with wrongful restraint, illegal conversion, rioting, attempted murder, and breach of peace, after defending their Mass site from a group of Hindus who forced their way inside during Mass.

Father Arvind Amliyar, the pastor of Bandaria parish, in the Rajasthan state, told UCA News that the 10 faithful were denied bail again on August 6.

Back in May, these Catholics tried to stop a mob of 13 Hindu activists, who accused the faithful of attempting to “convert” the local population, from forcing their way into the parish substation and disrupting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

After a scuffle ensued, the Hindu activists stood outside the police station, demanding that the parishioners be charged.

While the Catholics also attempted to file a formal complaint at the police station, they refused to accept it and ultimately charged the parishioners.

“We are disappointed,” Fr. Amliyar told UCA News. “It is very unfortunate that our people are languishing in prison for over three months.”

Bishop Devprasad John Ganawa of Udaipur stressed that if the police continue to act partially toward the Hindus, “every Christian praying in a church can be accused of religious conversion and put behind bars.”

- Sign of the Cross: Indian Catholics remain jailed for defending parish from Hindu mob during Mass
FUULL ARTICLE AT LINK IN THE COMMENTS

08/09/2026

It’s been a troubling week for those who hoped for permanent reform from the government and its health organizations which were behind the development of mRNA gene therapies — mendaciously touted as “vaccines” — and then instituted tyrannical vaccine mandates across the land.

“While everyone was focused on Fauci, MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) was hit with two MAJOR betrayals,” declared Nicholas Hulscher, epidemiologist and administrator at the McCullough Foundation.

Dr. Erica Schwartz, was confirmed on Wednesday as the new director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) by the Senate.

“She recently called mRNA injections ‘safe and effective.’ She’s also responsible for mandating flu shots, smallpox shots, and anthrax shots on U.S. forces while she was working in the military,” noted Hulscher. “She’s called the ‘Queen of Vaccine Mandates,’ and now she’s in charge of the CDC.”

Just hours later, “the FDA approved Moderna’s new mRNA flu injection despite 75% of participants suffering adverse reactions,” said Hulscher.

In the testing that led up to the drug’s approval, the mRNA group experienced 4 times more severe systemic reactions compared to the traditional flu shot groups, he explained. “So it was way more dangerous.”

“This is a deep, deep disappointment,” said Hulscher. “MAHA has again been betrayed.”

“Let’s be real. The only people that will take this are those that believe men can be women, and their poor abused children,” said Harry Fisher, a paramedic who has been outspoken concerning the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

“As a medic I’ll be waiting for the additional fallout and will let you know what I witness,” he added.

- LifeSiteNews: FDA approves Moderna’s dangerous mRNA flu shot, ‘queen of vaccine mandates’ new CDC head
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK IN THE COMMENTS

08/09/2026

The traditional Catholic world is divided.

The SSPX. The FSSP. The sedevacantists. The interregnum proponents.

Each group agrees on the essentials of the faith but disagrees on a small but significant number of questions concerning papal authority and the Second Vatican Council.

Father David Nix joins John-Henry Westen to explain each position fairly and urge traditional Catholics to resist the bitter infighting that has become all too common.

The divisions are real. The disagreements are serious.

But Fr. Nix argues that the shared belief in the faith, morals, and traditional liturgy far outweighs the differences.

Charity must accompany theological debate. Pursuing truth does not require treating one another as enemies.

Trad wars with Fr. Nix: SSPX vs FSSP vs Sede vs Interregmunist at LifeSite

08/08/2026

In his masterpiece on the changes in the Catholic Church in the twentieth century, Iota Unum, the Swiss-Italian philosopher Romano Amerio characterised the postconciliar disunity in the Church as being produced by:

'𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟, 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬.'

This renunciation of authority, Amerio claims, has itself bought forth “uncertainty and flux regarding the law.”

Such uncertainty has led to the dissolution of the integral rule of law itself – the principle that all members of the Church are accountable to publicly promulgated laws and that crimes against those laws will be judged and punished by the public authorities.


St Thomas Aquinas famously defined law in the Summa Theologiae as, “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”

If any of these four essential elements is absent then the law is null and void.

Therefore, laws which are contrary to the natural law (not ordinances of reason for the common good), such as the legalisation of abortion or divorce, are not valid laws at all but acts of violence.

Similarly, laws which are systematically unenforced, reveal that the political authority is not treating them as ordinances and are therefore also null and void.

For example, in Great Britain it is technically still illegal and an act of treason to call for the abolition of the monarchy.

There are, however, all sorts of pressure groups instituted over many decades to do precisely that, while the topic of abolishing the monarchy is routinely discussed in the national press and broadcast media.

None of these organisations or people engaged in these activities have been charged with treason or any other crimes. The law is therefore a dead letter.

The transformation of the Catholic Church initiated by Pope John XXIII became immediately apparent in the Church’s jurisprudence. As several of his biographers have noted, the leitmotif of his pontificate was the “medicine of mercy.”

In his opening address to the Second Vatican Council in 1962, he famously proclaimed:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐬. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐍𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬, 𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

As sweet and tender as such statements (echoed by all of his successors) may have sounded to modern audiences, what they implied was a renunciation of the integral rule of law in the Church, and have been implemented as such.

As soon as John XXIII seemingly announced that he was not enforcing the law, which, as Roman Pontiff it was his duty to maintain, then its status as an ordinance came into question


The papal mode of government since John XXIII has no longer been one of governing the Church according to the rule of law, demanding that Her members accept and profess the doctrine of the Holy See, and punishing transgressors to defend the common good and the unity of faith.

Rather, the postconciliar popes have sought to invite people to the faith as one amongst many which they can freely adopt that will be good for them, and often even transgress without sanction.

Paul VI issued his Credo of the People of God in 1968, yet he never required anybody to subscribe to it.

The great Catholic apologist, Frank Sheed wrote in 1968:

𝐃𝐨𝐠𝐦𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭; 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐓𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐫, 𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫. 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 “𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐚” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 “𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜” 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬.

A major related obstacle to the rule of law in the Church is modern ecumenism.

Now we have “degrees of communion” with “ecclesial communities” like Protestant sects.

As Pope Leo XIV proclaimed at Ecumenical Vespers in January in Rome: “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!”.

It is hard to see how there can be Catholic social unity alongside such statements and actions which vitiate the Church as a visible unity.

Thus, the legal revolution followed a new ecclesiology.

- The Two Cities Podcast: The SSPX and Lawlessness in the Catholic Church
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK IN THE COMMENTS

08/08/2026

Reflecting on the “evolution” of Eucharistic reverence, Pope Benedict XVI noted,

𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘰. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘺. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘶𝘵, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘶𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴.


This quotation condenses the fundamental theoretical issues surrounding the practice of Communion in the hand, the very problems this article addresses, among which the most vital question is: do we really know this for a fact?

Was there truly no Communion on the tongue until the ninth century?

Was its emergence merely the result of a new development, while the standard norm across the entire Church had been for lay faithful to receive the Blessed Sacrament in their hands?

I doubt that this was actually the case, for two primary reasons.

The first reason, the true argument, is one that proponents of Communion in the hand generally fail to grasp.

Because they implicitly or explicitly assume that unfolding the essence of Church doctrine, and thus understanding the true nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, required time for a certain “development” to take place, during which entirely new elements emerged.

In reality, they do not believe that the Church understood the meaning of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Blessed Sacrament from the very first moment, and approached it accordingly from the very beginning.

Yet, because the Apostles understood the Mass from day one, they understood it to mean exactly what the Church would later teach about it.

They also understood the priesthood itself.

Consequently, from the very dawn of the Church, a distinction existed between the ordained and the laity, not only in the administration of the sacraments in general, but also in matters concerning the Most Holy, namely, the handling of the Blessed Sacrament.

Therefore, I doubt that the touching of the Blessed Sacrament by unordained faithful could ever have been the norm, rather than a deviation from it; in other words, that it was a legally permitted default practice.

According to current scholarly consensus, the section of the Liber Pontificalis that attributes the prohibition of laymen touching the sacred vessels to Pope Sixtus I is a sixth-century compilation (dating to around 530).

Even if this is true, the fact that such a decree could be compiled around 530 from earlier texts – and, moreover, that it carried authority – inherently proves that a widespread and normative practice of Communion in the hand is an impossibility.

A regulation that ran directly counter to theological and liturgical evidence and practice could never have emerged at the very heart of the Holy Mother Church.


Furthermore, if in the first half of the sixth century a pope, or a decree circulated under papal authority, forbade the laity from even touching the sacred vessels, how reasonable is it to assume that this same prohibition did not apply to the contents of those vessels?

Why would anyone consider the vessels holier than what they contained?

This is especially true given the beautifully resonant reasoning the author of the decree attached to it:

𝘐𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘶𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥’𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦, 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘏𝘪𝘮; 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘏𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘶𝘦.

And how far we still are at this point from the ninth century, when the “novelty” of Communion on the tongue supposedly appeared!

- New Liturgical Movement: Communion in the Hand: Ancient Norm, Humanist Myth, or Protestant Rebellion?
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK IN THE COMMENTS

08/07/2026

The liturgical reform that followed the Second Vatican Council had a twofold characteristic: it appeared as an extremely profound metamorphosis, which explains the immediate opposition it faced (for example, from Cardinal Ratzinger, since 1966), and it transformed the entire Catholic worship – Mass, sacraments, blessings – leaving nothing intact (when elements of the traditional liturgy remained – such as certain prayers – the reformers did not hesitate to subject them all to some kind of transformation, however small, as if it were a matter of principle).

Thus, although Paix Liturgique is particularly interested in what has changed in and with the new Mass, since its essential project consists of making the traditional Mass increasingly known, loved, and defended, it nonetheless considers it necessary to take into account the overall context of this reform, which aimed to be total.

The faithful attached to the traditional Mass deserve this, as their Christian life leads them to participate in other ceremonies besides Mass: baptisms, confirmations, funerals, priestly ordinations...

And there too, they experience a great unease.

To enable them to express this correctly, we have deemed it appropriate to provide them with some elements of analysis in this letter and those that will follow.


𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧: 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥.

We will focus our study on the baptism of children, in order to compare the respective traditional ritual with that in the new form

(1). In the latter, baptism is clearly a longer ceremony than the old one, in which discourse takes center stage, including in the ceremony a liturgy of the word to which is added what, for all intents and purposes, is a homily

(2). At the same time, the message conveyed is clearly weaker, at least on one point: the aspect of the fight against the devil, which strongly characterizes the old ceremony and which, in practice, is diminished in the new ceremony, which is manifested in particular by the disappearance of exorcisms proper and of rites with exorcism value.

It is as if the drafters of the new baptismal rite no longer had a very firm faith in the doctrine of original sin.

Original sin would then be nothing more than the contamination of souls coming anew into the world by a totalized influence of all past, present and future sins.

The new theologians prefer to speak of “sin of the world”, as is the case with Fr. André-Marie Dubarle, OP, or Fr. Gustave Martelet, SJ, in Libre réponse à un scandale. La faute originelle, la souffrance et la mort, Fr. Jean-Michel Maldamé, OP, etc.


𝐀 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞

In the traditional ritual of Paul V, the formulas are fixed, ceremonial, and accompanied by ritualized gestures:
- exsufflation (expelled evil spirit, infused Holy Spirit);

- repeated signs of the cross;

- tasting of salt (exorcised and exorcising salt, salt of wisdom, announcement of the Eucharistic food);

- two exorcisms proper;

- laying on of hands and imposition of the stole (taking power in the name of Christ over the child who was held captive by the devil);

- the rite of Ephpheta (saliva on the nostrils and ears of the baptized, to open their senses to the things of God);

- obligatory anointings with the oil of catechumens (oil of salvation; which corresponds, in fact, to another type of exorcism);

- the transition from the purple stole of penance, which is used throughout the preparatory ceremony, to the white stole of joy, for the baptism proper.


The new baptism, however, is preceded by a welcoming formula that evokes a secular gathering:
"The celebrant greets those present, especially the parents and godparents."

An analysis of various national versions reveals that it is even suggested that if the priest knows them, he may call them by their names.

Here, the possible variations are also numerous, with that a-ritual effect already mentioned in previous letters.

For example, the preliminary questions are these:
"What name do you give your child? - N. What do you ask of the Church of God for your children? - Baptism."

But it is specified that: "In the dialogue, the celebrant may use other words [...] In the second response, the parents may also use other words: for example, Faith, or The grace of Christ, or Entry into the Church, or Eternal life" (these being mere examples, this is equivalent to saying that the priest "may admit spontaneous responses from the parents").

The readings offer several options, the universal prayer also presents several alternatives, and there are admonitions that the priest can modify according to his judgment.

Several formulas for blessing the water are also possible, at the priest's discretion.

Also at the priest's discretion, there may be either an imposition of hands or an anointing with the oil of catechumens.

Exorcisms have been reduced to a single prayer, with two formulas to choose from, the scope of which is smaller and which we will discuss later.


𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲.

In the traditional form, baptism is presented as an infusion of divine life within the context of an explicit struggle against the power exercised by the devil because of original sin; in the new rite, this perspective appears very little.

In the ritual of Paul V, the priest, wearing a purple stole, after questioning the child about the request for baptism and recalling the twofold commandment of charity as the foundation of Christian life, blows three times on the child's face and pronounces these words:
"Depart from him, unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete."

Then, he makes the sign of the cross on the child's forehead and heart.

Later in the ceremony, after the first exorcism and the threefold renunciation of Satan, his works and pomps, the priest will also make the sign of the cross with the oil of catechumens, the oil of combat, on the chest and between the shoulders.

The laying on of hands – a sign of the authority that breaks "all the chains with which Satan had bound him" – and the exorcism over the salt, which follow, are in the same vein as the movement initiated by the first exorcism.

In the new ritual, the preparatory ceremonies are shorter, but more than their brevity, it is the meaning given to them that, in contrast to the old ritual, draws our attention.

After questioning about the request for baptism, the priest, wearing a white stole (or one of festive color) from the beginning, makes the sign of the cross on the child's forehead and proclaims:
"It is with great joy that the Christian community receives you.

In His name, I mark you with the sign of the cross, and, after me, your parents (and godparents) will also mark you with the same sign of Christ the Savior."

This is followed by the entrance and a procession while a hymn of choice is sung; Psalm 84 is suggested – in the Vulgate, 83, but throughout the world, Psalm 100 (99) Iubilate Deo, omnis terra / Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth, a psalm of praise par excellence, or another of similar tone, is also suggested.

The impression one gets is that the person to be baptized enters fully into the Church and that, therefore, joy immediately prevails, as if Satan's mark on the soul of the person to be baptized and his power over it were something insignificant.

The contrast is quite clear with the dramatic tone that characterizes the entire first part of the celebration according to the traditional ritual, which nevertheless acknowledges, from the very beginning, the joy of the new life inaugurated by baptism (the prayer preceding the imposition of salt is an example of this:
"so that, marked by the sign of your wisdom, the baptized person may be free from the infection of all evil passions and animated by the fragrance of your commandments, he may serve you joyfully in your Church").


Finally, the difference between the two rituals lies especially in the exorcisms.

There, it is considerable:

In the traditional ritual, the two exorcisms themselves are particularly explicit: " I exorcise you, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father † and of the Son † and of the Holy Spirit †, go away, depart from this servant of God: it is the same God who commands you, cursed one, the same one whose feet walked on the sea and whose right hand sustained Peter as he attacked. Therefore, cursed demon, accept your sentence and give honor to the living and true God, give honor to his Son Jesus Christ and to the Holy Spirit, and leave this servant of God..." The exorcism then concludes with the tracing of the sign of the Cross: "And this sign of the Holy Cross † that we trace on his forehead, you, cursed demon, never dare to violate." And the second exorcism: "I exorcise you, unclean spirit, in the name of God † the Father Almighty, and in the name of his Son Jesus † Christ, Our Lord and Judge, and by the power of the Holy Spirit †; depart from this creature of God..."


In the new ritual, there is a prayer that precedes the celebration of the sacrament.

It is not an exorcism per se, by which the minister of Christ, in his name, commands Satan to depart, but rather a prayer by which God is simply asked to deign to generically "expel the power of Satan from us," and thus the baptized person may be, in a more veiled or diffuse tone, "snatched away from the darkness."

The first formula (in the Portuguese version, since there may always be variations in text and even meaning depending on the language):
"Almighty and eternal God, who sent your Son into the world to expel from us the power of Satan, the spirit of evil, and to transfer man, snatched from darkness, to the admirable kingdom of your light, we humbly ask that this child, freed from original sin, may become a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and a temple of your glory."

The second formula:
"Almighty God, who sent your only begotten Son to give to man, enslaved by sin, the freedom of your children, we humbly implore your mercy for this child: through the death and resurrection of Christ, free him now from the stain of original sin, and, as he will experience the temptations of the world and struggle against the snares of the devil, strengthen him with the grace of Christ himself and continually guide him on the path of his life."


It is true that, just as in the Mass, the consecration, considered individually, contains within itself the reality of the sacrifice that other prayers, such as those of the offertory in the traditional Mass, merely make explicit, so too in baptism, the infusion of water accompanied by the words of baptism contains the entire meaning of the sacrament, including the expulsion of the demon, which the exorcisms of the traditional rite also intend to make explicit.

This does not, however, preclude the fact that the suppression of this explicitness necessarily has consequences for the faith of the faithful.

…And not only in relation to faith. Fr. Jean-Régis Fropo, who was a priest in the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon between 2005 and 2014, drew the attention of Church authorities in France and Rome to the deficiencies present in the baptismal ritual of May 15, 1969, regarding the fight against the devil.

According to him, there are certain cases of demonic possession of children and baptized adults whose explanation can be found in the inadequacy of this new ritual in matters of exorcism.

In any case, similar reasons to those that lead to preferring the traditional Mass to the new Mass – namely, insufficiencies present in the new liturgy regarding doctrinal expression – also lead many parents, when they must baptize their children, to opt for the traditional form.

Now, since 2007, this is a clearly recognized right for them.

- Senza Pagare: The impoverished ritual of child baptism
ARTICLE LINK IN THE COMMENTS

08/07/2026

“𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔, 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒆𝒍𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖, 𝑰 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒐𝒘 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒅𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚. 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒔. 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒇𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒔. 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒅𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒏𝒐 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒔𝒆. 𝑯𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓, 𝑰 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅.”

𝑳𝒆𝒐 𝑿𝑰𝑽, 𝑱𝒖𝒏𝒆 12, 2026, 𝑪𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑰𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒔, 𝑺𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝑰𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑪𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓.


Four weeks after Leo’s impassioned speech to illegal immigrants on the Canary Islands of Spain, 60,000 young Moroccan military age men from a 99% Muslim country stormed the beaches of Ceuta, Spain.

The massive invasion was captured on social media as the young men rampaged throughout the town, burning cars, looting stores, breaking into houses, attacking citizens, creating chaos, terror and mayhem.

They weren’t fleeing a war torn country.

Nor were they were victims of climate change. Nor were they victims of drought or poverty.

In fact, many claimed that they left behind jobs in Morocco.

Which prompt the following serious questions to the traveling Minstrel of Migration, Robert Prevost aka Leo XIV.


Leo, Do you bow down to the ravaging invaders who climbed apartment balconies and broke into homes?

Leo, Do you bow down to the ravaging invaders who burned cars?

Leo, Do you bow down to the human traffickers that organized that invasion?

Leo, Do you bow down to the Ceutans who are trapped in their homes too terrified to leave?

Leo, Do you bow down to the ravaging invaders who are stealing and destroying property?

Leo, Do you bow down to the Muslim invaders shouting “Allahu Akbar” as they taken over the Ceuta streets?

Leo, Do you bow down to the invaders that completely overwhelmed the Spanish police and military with violence in the streets of Ceuta?

Leo, Do you bow down to the invaders who assaulted Ceuta’s residents?

Leo, Do you bow down to the ongoing muslim invasion of Europe?


Leo’s rabid and relentless crusade for open borders and mass illegal immigration in Spain just detonated in their faces.

Leo is leading the charge to bless immigrants, moralize illegal immigration and browbeat governments into accepting the full scale Muslim invasion of Catholic Spain and Europe.

Tens of thousands of military age men surged across in a single day, overwhelming a Spanish city, leaving bodies floating in the water, and forcing the Spanish army into the Ceuta streets to restore order.

It appears that Leo’s migrant messaging that the Holy Spirit would “open borders and break down walls” tragically floundered in Ceuta with at least 72 deaths during the invasion by sea.

This same Vatican that condemns a preference for national sovereignty as a “grave sin” and brands every border a “wall of indifference” (except the Vatican 37 foot wall) has now watched the consequences of that theological policy collide with reality on the shores of Ceuta, Spain.

This ongoing civilization experiment continues to fail spectacularly.

The question left is whether anyone in Rome has the spine to admit their own catastrophic misjudgment and role in the chaos.

Apparently, not.

- YoreChildren Newsletter(Substack): The MINSTREL OF MIGRATION: "The Rain in Spain" falls mainly on Leo's Refrain.
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK IN THE COMMENTS

08/07/2026

Back in 2023, all orthodox Catholics of good will heard the news of His Excellency, Bishop Paprocki’s condemnation of heresy in one of the most prominent American journals, First Things.

This was ostensibly a condemnation of Cardinal McElroy’s brazen challenge to Catholic moral theology in two pieces at America—a connection underlined by Bishop Paprocki’s quoting verbatim from the cardinal’s first article.

Nevertheless, His Excellency did say shortly thereafter (on Raymond Arroyo) that he did not want to name names, but had European cardinals also in mind.


𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞

Faithful Catholics compare today’s bishops with the saintly bishops of old and they find the former woefully lacking in manly courage. They do not seem to act like men of God should – with zeal, filled with faith and charity.

I am willing to hazard that there are many orthodox bishops out there.

But it seems to me that most of those orthodox bishops are cowardly.

They think of themselves as “vicars of the Roman Pontiff” (a concept that Vatican II condemned in Lumen Gentium 27), and they are afraid to excommunicate and issue the anathema, as did the saintly bishops of old.

Thanks be to God, this crisis has had one silver lining – it is separating the men from the boys in the episcopate.

We thank God for Bishop Paprocki, as well as for Archbishop Cordileone who excommunicated the aiders and abetters of child murder and who was supported by over sixteen other bishops, and for Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who has been continually willing to act like a man of God – with courage and conviction – despite being unceremoniously sacked by Pope Francis.


𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

But if there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Vatican II crisis it’s this: more talking, statements, and documents do almost nothing to stop the heretic wolves from scattering the flock.

Therefore, I respectfully propose to all bishops the same proposal that the Trad movement has been asking for since 1965: the charitable anathema.

At OnePeterFive we aim to resource and promote the work of our Trad godfathers in the Faith.

It was Cardinal Ottaviani who asked all bishops to condemn heresy in 1966, heartily cheered by Archbishop Lefebvre.

When Dietrich von Hildebrand met with Paul VI in the summer of 1965 – even before the Council ended – he begged Paul VI for the same thing – the charitable anathema.

But the Pontiff thought it “was a bit harsh” and decided against it.

- One Peter Five: Bishops against Bishops: the Proven Solution (First Wednesday Reminder)
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK IN THE COMMENTS