From Ed Pentin at the National Catholic Register:
Liturgy Sidestepped at Pope Leo XIV’s First Consistory? [With my emphases and comments.]
Cardinals choose evangelization and synodality as key topics, disappointing those who expected the liturgy to be a central theme [’cause it’s only the “fons et culmen”, right? No? Am I wrong?] after recent restrictions on the traditional form of the Roman rite, but the Holy Father later insists the liturgy remains a “very concrete” issue that still needs to be addressed. [Some concrete is more concrete than others.]
ROME — Some cardinals and faithful who have a devotion to the traditional Roman rite have expressed concern that the liturgy appears to be sidelined in the extraordinary consistory currently underway at the Vatican after the cardinals voted to give priority to other issues on the agenda. [What does that say about those cardinals? One the other hand, given who those cardinals probably are, do we really want THEM involved in liturgical discussions?]
In his opening address to the consistory yesterday, Pope Leo XIV reaffirmed to the cardinal participants that they will have the opportunity to “engage in a communal reflection” on four themes already pre-announced to be on the meeting’s agenda. [2+2=…?…3?]
Those topics, he said, were Pope Francis’ 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium “that is, the mission of the Church in today’s world,” Praedicate Evangelium, the late pope’s apostolic constitution reforming the Roman Curia; the Synod and synodality “as both an instrument and a style of cooperation” and the liturgy, “the source and summit of the Christian life.”
But Leo added that “due to time constraints, and in order to encourage a genuinely in-depth analysis, only two of them will be discussed specifically.”
The cardinals were then asked to make clear which two of the four they would want to be specifically debated and, according to Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni, “a large majority” decided the topics would be “evangelization and the Church’s missionary activity drawn from rereading Evangelii Gaudium,” and “the Synod and synodality.” [I just had a flash of an image of hundreds of Korean overly-decorated military unison applauding a pre-determined course.] The Pope later thanked the cardinals for making the choice, adding: “The other themes are not lost. There are very concrete, specific issues that we still need to address.”
Bruni told reporters at a press briefing Wednesday evening that the 170 cardinals taking part were divided into 20 groups, which were then divided into two blocks. Eleven groups consisted of cardinals in Rome including curial cardinals and those who have concluded their service and are no longer electors. The remaining 9 groups were cardinal electors of local churches (archbishops and bishops of dioceses), cardinal electors who are nuncios and cardinal electors who have concluded their service but remain electors due to being under the age of 80.
Bruni said that “for reasons of time,” the cardinal secretaries of the second block had the job of reporting back the decision of the cardinals. “They had three minutes to explain the work done within the groups and the reasons that led to the choice of the two themes.” [three minutes… is this serious?]
The Holy Father had made clear in his opening address that it was his preference to hear back from the second block as he does not usually receive advice from those cardinals. “It is naturally easier for me to seek counsel from those who work in the Curia and live in Rome,” he said.
But the decision not to make the liturgy a key theme was disappointing to some cardinals and traditional faithful.
The liturgy has long been a particularly sensitive issue, and especially to traditional-minded Catholics following recent sweeping restrictions on the older form of the Latin rite during Pope Francis’ pontificate. These faithful experienced the restrictions not as a mere disciplinary change but as a judgment on their fidelity, spirituality and ecclesial belonging, which many have described as deeply wounding and divisive.
The popular Italian traditional website Messa in Latino, wrote Jan. 7 that it had contacted some anonymous but important cardinals who all said they were “discouraged and disappointed” about the relegation of the liturgy as a discussion topic.
In comments to the Register Jan. 8, the website’s editor Luigi Casalini asked: “To whom did the Pope delegate this choice, and according to what criteria were these cardinals of the nine local churches selected in order to remove — in effect — two topics?” He also wondered “why cardinals sensitive to the issue” appear to have “made no attempt to lobby” for the liturgy to be included as a core topic of discussion, “even before the consistory.” [Because that sort of cardinal isn’t like the other sort of cardinal. They don’t instinctively use the tactics of the left.]
The consistory, he added, “appears to be in perfect continuity with the Synods and the thought of Francis” — [Hence] a reference to how recent synods were silent on the traditional liturgy.
Speaking to journalists Wednesday, Bruni tried to offer some reassurance. “The other two themes will still be addressed in some way, because mission does not exclude the liturgy,” he said. “On the contrary, in many ways it does not mean exclusion. It means that they will still be addressed within the others or in some other way.” [In other words, it isn’t going to be discussed. This VatiSpeak is getting worse.]
He added: “As the Pope said and as he noted in both his opening and closing speeches [on Wednesday], the themes cannot be separated from each other, because in mission and evangelization there is liturgy.” [You need a microscope to spot it in modern notions of mission and evangelization… but I assure you, it’s in there! In some way or another.]
Casalini said he was looking ahead to the two free discussions today to see “whether the topic of the liturgy will be taken up again.” [I think I’ll go back to playing chess now.]
Loading ...
The “three minutes” report smacks of “group exercise” nonsense and “team building” events that I’ve run into on numerous corporate training sessions. It makes one feel like he’s back in middle school. It’s embarrassing that this is what the cardinals are doing. Why were they only given 2 days? Where did that arbitrary time limit come from?
In this non-answer about the liturgy, I think we have received our answer. Unfortunate, but not surprising.
Is it too soon to nominate this one for the 2026 “Nothingburger of the Year Award”?
There’s two things here:
A) Do we want cardinals to discuss liturgy or not? It is either good or bad that they don’t, we can’t have it both ways.
B) I’m a bit surprised at people expecting some kind of huge earth-shaking happening out of this. It’s a consistory, Leo has repeated many times that he wants to listen to what different people (in this case, the cardinals) have to say about different issues before he makes decisions, so that’s what this is. That’s what the three minutes and the no documents thing is about, IMO. If the groups have to write documents, the whole exercise turns into document writing instead of actual discussion (and the writing of documents that we all know, by the very nature of study groups, that are indigestible balls of nothing). If the groups have whatever time they want to present conclusions, secretaries WILL ramble. I sit in the pews every Sunday, I know how it often sadly is when a clergyman has a captive audience. Short time limits force people to be short and sweet and straight to the point. I also think it very noteworthy that Pope Leo made a point of wanting to hear specially from those cardinals he doesn’t have at hand every day in Rome; he wants to hear specially from those “on the field” so to speak, and that’s encouraging.
I think a change of chip is necessary. Yes, Francis used all these “collegiality” events as smokescreens for his own ends and goals. I don’t think this is in any way, shape or form what Pope Leo intends, and I don’t think the meeting is “rigged”… between other things because he’s not delegating the power to decide on them. There is no document. There is miles of distance between this and that failed attempt at manipulation that went so badly for Francis he stopped doing consistories (cfr. in just one point, the Kasper speech with his theology on knees vs. Radcliffe’s meditation –I’ll take ten Radcliffes any day over one Tucho or Kasper).
To quote the late great Father Trinchard when asked if we need Vatican III. He replied no we need Trent II.
I see all these discussions like the adults speaking on Peanuts with Charlie Brown.
In other words, the deck chairs were nicely arranged, but no real movement was made to keep the boat from sinking.
A charitable construction is that the Cardinals pushed back and yet he recognizes it’s an important issue — and he will deal with it on his own, underscored by his “very concrete” comment.
I am very curious about what they want to discuss when they say that want to discuss “synodality,” since they are already synodalizing.
I am intrigued about how they can avoid talking about liturgy while talking about “evangelization and the Church’s missionary activity.”
“… many ways it does not mean exclusion…”
And yet it still does
And just when you thought there was nothing left to synodalize there apparently is…
The talk about evangelizing should be short since Leo said it’s about being attractive not proselytizing.
Our topics are two: Synodality, Evangelization – and also Liturgy. Three topics…
Perhaps some good Cardinals want Synodality to be a topic so they can collectively say “Please stop all this nonsense?”
Disappointed, but not surprised that they nibbled around the edges with “safe topics” (c.f. the comment about the deck chairs being arranged) while ignoring what is the core of our Faith (fons et culmen indeed), without which the margins fall apart. The majority of high hats sitting in that room are happy with the status quo. They want us to go away. PF didn’t even bother to hide his contempt for traditionally-minded people, so I’ve personally heard (to me!) belittling comments regarding preference for the classic rite. He appointed most of them. Did we REALLY expect anything different? Just leave your envelope at the door in the basket as you leave.
In the case of concrete…are we considering the ancient Roman formulation which has stood the test of centuries, nay millennia, or the current “Quickcrete” which falls apart in a much shorter time. TC is a fumbling attempt to swing an upholstery tack hammer at the foundation of the Coliseum whilst the NO is constantly ripping open bags from the big orange store and pouring it into the holes propping up the flagpole flying the ensign of the current ‘normative’ rite.
I am with Dantesque on this, who put it so much better than I.
That said, I think Pope Leo is a man who thinks before he speaks and acts, which I greatly appreciate and admire. I think he is faithful and pastoral. It is far too early to judge him and label him, but I must say, so far, I find him to be exactly the kind of pope we need – faithful, dignified, humble, and wise.
Personally, I think His Holiness *will* address the TLM issue, and that it will be sooner than later. I fully trust he will do so in a pastoral and faithful manner. To me, a member of a Novus Ordo parish whose sister parish has a TLM on the Sunday schedule (yes, we all get along beautifully, too!), the obvious and equitable answer is to make the TLM a Rite of the Church, as are the other 23 Rites of the Church, from Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, and all the rest. Its seminarians can be trained and formed in the TLM, and they would be expected to remain faithful to the teaching of the Church with obedience to the Pope.
I expect this may not please you, Father, nor perhaps your readers. But we should not be enemies, but a loving Catholic family. The backbiting and bitterness needs to stop, and I think this solution would go a long way to restoring that.
Peace and all good to all here.
1. Three minutes avoided bloviating.
2. Rome wasn’t built in a day, so the fact that the consistory was actually an opportunity to listen to people outside the C9 or C6 is a good thing.
3. If he really wants to hear from the periphery (instead of posing as if he cared), he’ll hear soon enough from those who love the perennial truth and liturgy of the Church.
4. I take the lack of final document as evidence that he really wants to listen.
For Brian D. Boyle – to cement (hur hur) the terminology around concrete, quickcrete isn’t correct. RAAC is (reinforced aerated autoclave concrete) – the cheap kind. Hope this solidifies (I’ll get my hat now…) the constructive (…) discussion.
Anyway. It’s not just about the liturgy. Liturgy forms the spiritual thinking, which is lacking.
I get Chiara’s point about making it a separate Rite – which I respectfully disagree with, as the Roman Rite is one Rite. It’s a battle over the soul and ethos of the Western Church. And in some barren areas, there just aren’t enough priests (even for all the NO rite Masses supposedly on offer), and there won’t be even the few left after another five years.
The dearth of priests is the critical issue in some areas, and there is no plan, other than rearranging the deckchairs. Souls will be lost whilst Rome dithers.
It is important to note that there are not “23 Eastern Rites”, but 23 Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.
A sui iuris Church, for Catholics, is an autonomous particular church with its own hierarchy, territories, and jurisdiction.
A Rite is the liturgical patrimony which pertains to one or more Churches. The Byzantine Rite is shared among the “Greek-Catholic” churches, and uniformly for the Eastern Orthodox as well, though they may get prickly at being lumped-in that way.
We have seen new examples of this spring up during our lifetimes, as the Eritrean Catholic Church was erected a few years ago, and the Anglican Ordinariate structure, which has developed from the Anglican Use, and there is some controversy over what to call its “Rite” today, but the official books seem to be going with “Divine Worship”.
With the shrinkage in the Opus Dei jurisdiction, it is not clear if “cleaving off” new jurisdictions will be a lasting solution for anything or anyone, but then again, the Latin Church is huge. Really huge.
Sure, it would be great if a majority of Cardinals had interest in the TLM, but they don’t. Given that they don’t, I’m speculating it’s a blessing in disguise that they didn’t focus on liturgy because we may not have liked what was said. If Pope Leo wants to move ahead with some action to change Traditionis Custodes I imagine he would first create occasions like this where Cardinals felt like there were opportunities for consultation because that helps the prelates accept whatever Pope Leo eventually decides. Perhaps the goal of the consistory was just to take the temperature on the liturgy. If the goal is a Motu Proprio on the TLM, the pope didn’t necessarily need impetus from the Cardinals on the topic but just a chance to get a sense of potential obstacles or verify an absence of strong feelings. Mission accomplished? Trying to be optimistic here.