LEO AND FRANCIS CANONISE EACH OTHER

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

"Diabolical disorientation" or cognitive dissonance, call it what you will - to a disinterested observer (if there exists any such entity) it would seem the Catholic Church has gone bonkers. 

The man she calls 'Pope Leo XIV' is a self-identified idolater and Communist sympathiser who's just virtually canonised - for the third time - the man Catholics called 'Pope Francis', who died after a 'pontificate' riddled with heresies, in a hospital lift without the sacraments. And Robert Prevost (his real name) is only returning the compliment paid him even before his 'election by 'Pope Francis': "he's a saint". 

Prevost has confirmed Jorge Bergoglio's policy on sodomy, but as less important an issue than Freemasonic ideas like "justice" and "freedom". It's only "formalized" blessings of sodomites which are not allowed by the Holy See apparently, not sodomy itself.

Such instances of self-delusion are only the tip of a treacherous iceberg but they're readily explained by attending just one Novus Ordo "School Mass" at Sacred Heart, Hastings, New Zealand. The pretentious Spanish Mission-style church has (thank God) recently been adorned with the tabernacle which should of course have been front and centre from its opening in 1996. 

Today after an inordinately lengthy liturgy, a teacher explained to the children how "special" the tabernacle now makes the church. She did not explain that Jesus Christ their Saviour is now really and substantially present there, at last. She didn't show them how to genuflect. And when their Lord and God was brought down upon the altar (a Cranmer table) and exposed for their adoration by the pious, Indian priest, the school staff stayed, to a woman, on their feet.

The fact is, the New Mass invented after Vatican II fails to teach and explain the Catholic religion. It's an agonisingly apostate illustration of the law of "Lex orandi, lex credendi" (we pray as we believe). And yet the Traditional Latin Mass, which contains and demonstrates the whole of the Catholic creed, is actively resisted and rejected by the conciliar, counterfeit cult. In Sacred Heart, Hastings that's patently obvious in the parish priest's refusal to place an advertisement in the parish newsletter for a monthly Latin Mass celebrated - in a funeral parlour - by the Society of St Pius X.  

The story below goes a long way towards explaining the phenomenon of exclusion of the Latin Mass, with its popularity among men, its big families and generous contributions to the parish purse, by the conciliar cultists. 


 

Mother Miriam isn't afraid to tell it like it is

The dying parish - in New Zealand it's called 'merging' 

From Hunter Swogger at Catholic Culture:

 

Alex Begin is a veteran of the liturgy wars. For the better part of four decades in Michigan and Canada, he has been behind the most successful traditional Catholic movement the world over. Prior to last summer’s crackdown, the Archdiocese of Detroit was home to twenty-eight Latin Masses, and had so thoroughly impressed previous Archbishop Allen Vigneron that he sent the following laudatory reply to the infamous survey preceding Traditionis Custodes:

 

[The liberation of the Latin Mass] has given us a remarkably successful approach to resolving the contention that existed in the Church about the status of the Extraordinary Form. The discipline it has put in place is bearing much good fruit, especially in the lives of the faithful and in restoring ecclesial peace… By my lights Summorum Pontificum has been a remarkable success.

According to Leo he's in heaven but according to Cardinal Tucho Fernandez, he's still here

 

Mr. Begin has seen the TLM thrive in a variety of situations, dioceses, and countries. There is, however, one specific scenario that has portended trouble: the dying parish given a suddenly thriving Latin Mass.

In 2004, a dying Detroit parish became the first to offer the TLM since 1970. The immediate success of the old liturgy, both in the quantity and youth of those attracted, sent shockwaves through the archdiocese. An obvious boon, the situation seemed beyond sensible critique, and within years, Latin Masses were getting started all over the archdiocese.

But in 2012, coinciding with the appointment of a new pastor, the “inner circle” of long-time parishioners began agitating against the ascendant TLM. They insisted that the TLM community hadn’t been giving enough “time, talent, and treasure” to the parish. When evidence was provided showing that the TLM community had brought in approximately two-thirds of the parish revenue, the inner circle demurred. “No matter what we did, no matter what we showed them, it was never enough,” Begin explains.

The animosity from the “inner circle” and parish leadership eventually drove over half of the TLM community away. But the dwindling attendance affected the “inner circle” at this Detroit parish not at all; there was no reckoning or come-to-Jesus moment; there was seemingly no self-reflection or attempt to win back the souls who had fled. Rather, the “inner circle” considered the departure of these families to be addition by subtraction. “They were happy that we were leaving,” recalls Begin. “They considered it a success.”

Soon after, the parish was merged; today, it is functionally shuttered, with no regular Masses on offer. This is the story of a group of Catholics in a dying parish who, when presented with an unexpected lifeline, positively chose to cast it off. They would rather the parish die with them.

For my brethren in the Diocese of Saginaw, this tale echoes bitterly. The only TLM in all mid-Michigan was recently cancelled for months on the flimsiest of pretexts; the cherished, irreplaceable Catholic community shattered. But it was not due to a draconian bishop’s decree, nor was it at the hands of an overreaching Roman bureaucrat. Rather, the attack originated internally, with the dying parish’s “inner circle” lashing out at the ascendant TLM. 

Nearly 200 souls have been driven away, many to parishes outside of the diocese entirely, without the slightest hint of remorse from those responsible. Rather, their feeling is one of relief: they are glad to be rid of the “Bad Apples”—yes, this is how they have been referring to the wave of families who had breathed life into a dying parish. The “inner circle” would rather the parish die with them.

---

This phenomenon is not unique to our neck of the woods; some bishops even referenced this problem in the Vatican’s Summorum Pontificum survey that preceded Traditionis Custodes:

Division and discord do not arise from the use of the EF, but rather from the perception people have of those who attend it. Motivations and tendencies are attributed to people that are not true at all. (Diocese of Savannah, USA, response to question 3).

 

The Bishop of the Diocese of Vannes, France reflected on the difficulties that TLM communities have experienced in integrating into parishes:

This may be their own fault, when they are distrustful of the pastoral direction of the Diocese or the Parish and prefer to live in isolation. But it may also be due to those who are attached to the Ordinary Form, who struggle to understand the specific characteristics and expectations of these faithful, as well as the way they live their faith.

 

Alex Begin points out that dual-rite parishes tend not to have such problems when the Ordinary Form is thriving, particularly when it is celebrated in continuity with the Latin Rite’s liturgical heritage. Rather, it is the dying parishes that resist most stridently the new life breathed into them by ascendant TLM communities.

What is so perplexing about such behavior is that the perpetrators in these parishes tend not to be evil people; in truth, they tend to be some of the most upstanding citizens among us, men and women who genuinely love their parish and who have given untold amounts of time, energy, and resources toward its service. Yet these parishes, and the otherwise decent souls in their “inner circles” seem to become infected with a life-repellant mentality; not a culture of death, precisely, but a Culture of Dying.

The Culture of Dying does not desire destruction, but rather actively resists revitalization. Take, as an example, the stunning recent case of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul in New York, who voted unanimously in the spring of 2023 to refuse new vocations and positively embrace extinction—or, as they termed it, “completion”. They would rather the order die with them—and they have ensured that it will.

---

A beloved elderly relation of mine—a lifelong, earnest Catholic, and certainly holier than I—recently left her longtime parish, in which she had been an embedded figure for decades. When pressed thereafter about what could possibly have prompted her departure, she blurted, seemingly before she could stop herself, “there’s a bunch of young men with beards there all of a sudden.”

It was true. Following the appointment of a new pastor (himself a youngish, bearded man), her parish, which had previously had the demographics of a bingo night, began to transform. Traditional forms of piety returned; liturgical solemnity was restored; and yes, fighting-aged men started showing up to Mass.

The importance of men returning to the Catholic Church can hardly be overstated. It was they who first fled following the implementation of the 1970 Missal; England’s Cardinal John Heenan prophesied as much upon viewing a test-run of the reformed liturgy in 1967:

At home it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel, we would soon be left with a congregation mostly of women and children.

 

 

The NO Mass at Santa Marta, the chapel of 'Pope Francis' - something of a dog's breakfast

Men are the bellwether of religion: the future is black when they flee, and bright when they return. When fathers practice devoutly, children follow. The widely noted reappearance of men in recent years is, indeed, the Church’s surest sign of hope. But when one’s experience of parish life has been, for decades, that of an old women’s club, the return of young men is often not perceived as the triumphant arrival of a cavalry but as the invasion of an enemy force.

We lament that the majority of our parishes are in a state of “managed decline,” but many of those within these parishes—particularly in leadership positions—rather prefer this decline, precisely because it is manageable. Timothy P. Carney, in his incisive 2024 work Family Unfriendly, observes: “The modern mindset that demands independence above all else also demands control and thus abhors whatever seems to have a life of its own. The inert is much more manageable, more fit for rational arrangement, for planning.”

 

another way to revive a dying parish - https://novusordowatch.org/2026/04/canada-hockey-watch-party-in-cathedral/

One can easily control what a dying parish is going to look like, now and into its short future. But one cannot control the composition of a parish that is open to life, for life—even in an age of family planning, eugenic abortion, and IVF—is essentially outside of our domain. A married couple that is radically open to life is intentionally relinquishing control of what their family life will look like and placing it squarely in the hands of Providence.

 

Every single new life forever changes the face of the family and community into which the child is born.

For an aging parish to embrace young people, men in particular, it would necessarily mean embracing a radical change in their lived experience of “church.” It would indeed mean that the parish is going to look, feel, and be irreversibly transformed. This relation of mine has long claimed that she wishes her young descendants practiced the Faith; precisely one does. She laments, in theory, the general decline of Mass attendance she has witnessed throughout her life. And yet, when faced with the choice of a revitalization that requires a dramatic shift in the demographic makeup of her pew mates, she would—in practice—rather the parish die with her.

---

“After me, the deluge.”

—King Louis XV

I proceed with caution, for I sympathize with our old-time parishioners. We are asking them to accept dramatic changes to their experience of parish life at an age when “change” is rightly the last thing they desire. 

I contend that the elderly are perhaps the greatest victims of a modern world that is “chained to the wheel of progress”; that there is little crueler than having created a world in which an octogenarian who was reared on typewriters and rotary-dial telephones is unable to access her bank account without proficiency in QR codes and two-factor authentication.

 

Under ordinary circumstances, it is unfair and unjust to expect the elderly to adapt to sudden changes in their lives. Yet it is plain that the circumstances of our present parishes are far from ordinary and healthy.

 

A complete, healthy human community must necessarily be composed of the entire age spectrum, and in it, we can observe the beautiful design of man as social animal: the children provide the continual infusion of life into the community; the elderly provide the wisdom, guidance, and stability for all who follow; the “young adults” provide the energy and initiative to fight for the protection of both and the common good for all.

 

When the elderly are cut off from a given community, the society loses its grounding, its respect for that which endures. The initiative and energy of the youth become perverted in the pursuit of short-term pleasures and short-term fixes.

 

Lacking the wisdom of the elders and the witness of constancy they provide, the community falls to the idolization of change, variety, and novelty. Elders come to be viewed no longer as pillars but as obstacles, derided for their tendency to be stuck in the mud and generally in the way.

 

It is an inhumane mentality—a product of a “throwaway culture,” as Pope Francis noted—and one of which all who still have the privilege of being considered “young” must be wary.

 

But when it is the youth that are cut off from a given community, the elderly instinct for constancy can become corrupted into a genuine rigidity. Separated from the well-spring of life—those annoying, snot-nosed founts of perpetual renewal known as babies—the elderly can genuinely become stuck in their ways to such an extent that they no longer welcome the young into their realms.

 

The introduction of families to such a parish feels akin to the forced establishment of an indoor playground at a nursing home; the sight of the child at Mass no longer welcomed as a blessing, but resisted as a bane.

 

It is through this lens that the attitudes toward children and families at our parishes begin to come into focus: the complaints of “loud” kids ruining everyone’s “peaceful” Mass experience; the derision of mothers who (for some unknown reason!) “keep standing up and walking around with their kids” during Mass; the disgust at soccer balls left in the lawn after a post-Mass pickup game amongst the teens. The very signs of life itself are considered an affront.

 

There may be an element of gramnesia at play here, the phenomenon of grandparents apparently forgetting just how loud, messy, and difficult child-rearing can be. But I am more moved by a perspective offered recently by another local priest, regarding his age-advanced parishioners who express these seemingly anti-child and anti-family attitudes:

 

None of their children or grandchildren go to Mass. And it eats them up. When they see a homeschool family of 8 arrive for Mass, each kid more devout than the last, it strikes a nerve. They are not happy to see young families at Mass; it pains them.

 

---

“Despise not a man in his old age; for we also shall become old.”

—Sirach 8:7

 

The Culture of Dying is not, to be sure, a universal affliction among elderly Catholics. The TLM communities I’ve known are full of the most gracious, understanding, child-loving elders one has ever met—as are most all genuinely thriving parishes.

 

Many a faithful senior in a dwindling parish would give anything to see a young family at Mass. But the Culture of Dying is no outlying phenomenon either; it is an accurate appraisal of the majority of our parishes.

 

Alas, this is our lot. We did not ask to live at a time in which we will have to fight for the Church to even have a future at all, against the will of her own members. But as we proceed in this holy mission and duty to transmit the Faith to our kin, let us never forget that we too are not immune to the temptations and trappings of the Culture of Dying.

 

We too will likely live to see our own efforts stalled, and another’s flourish. God willing, we too will grow old and be faced with the choice of either taking the ship down with us or handing off the vessel of our life’s work to another, whose manner may differ from ours. May we be willing to receive as grace the new life that God breathes into our families, our communities, and our Church, so that they may thrive well after we pass on from this earthly realm.

 

And most urgently, may we continue to cooperate with grace in the building and strengthening of our local body of Christ, forging a network of domestic churches who lean on each other, strengthen each other, and enable the conditions for the common flourishing of our growing families. Because there is no stronger antidote to the Culture of Dying than a Catholic community that is defiantly alive.

Hunter Swogger is a Catholic husband and father, President of the largest young adult Catholic organization in mid-Michigan, and writer for the Saginaw Confessor.. https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/parish-with-death-wish/

St Peter Canisius SJ, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, please pray for us 

LEO IN COMMUNIST MARCH 1983 - AND MORE

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. 

 

 

It's hard to keep up. Not a week goes by without a further exposé of 'Pope Leo XIV' and his apostasy. Catholics the world over have 'Pope Leo' fatigue. Probably Proddies do too but they'd never get a consensus on the reasons why.

Before he was invalidly elected pope, Cardinal Commie Robert Prevost was on Twitter trashing Trump, criticizing Vance, calling for open borders, promoting COVID vaccines, endorsing stricter gun control and tweeting, after George Floyd: "We need to hear more from leaders in the Church, to reject racism and seek justice."

 

The account was deleted the day he was elected. It's not a good look for a pope and in one sense it doesn't matter, because he isn't one, for reasons to numerous to mention in the intro to a colossally long post, demanded simply because of the deluge of revelations and their enormity. For one thing, at last the Vatican - perhaps sensing their game is up - are admitting the possibility (actually a dead cert) that Pope Benedict XVI never validly resigned the papacy.

"But the hireling whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf catcheth and scattereth the sheep" (Ant, Magnificat, Vespers). Benedict fled from Jorge Bergoglio who was invalidly elected by a college of largely corrupt cardinals. He was a wolf who caught the sheep and then scattered them as prey for his equally invalid successor, Robert Prevost.

Prevost, now revealed as an idolater and a communist, needs to refurbish his image if he's to win over the faithful, get the Vatican's money turned on again, and the next round of synodal, one world church liturgical heresies installed. So is the Trump/Leo spat really a plan to set up the Donald as Super Villain to be vanquished by Pope Prevost, Defender of the Faith(s)?

And a Communist also, so it seems, is 'Pope Leo' 

Leo XIV Joined a Communist March Against Ronald Reagan in 1983

 

“Every so often a single image does the work of twenty speeches.

This week’s image was the old photograph of young Robert Prevost in 1983, marching in Comiso, Sicily, in protest against the Cruise missiles installed under Ronald Reagan. That protest was organized by the Italian Communist Party. The old photograph fits the man now sitting in Rome with unnerving precision. It looks like an early disclosure.

Plenty of men did foolish things in youth. Plenty of old photos deserve to stay old. This one does not. The instincts visible in the background of that march have never really left the stage.

 

The moral vocabulary may be dressed up now in ecclesiastical language. The slogans may be softened into “peace,” “dialogue,” “encounter,” and “the Gospel.” The old left-wing reflex is still there all the same. Suspicion of the West. Suspicion of political realism. Suspicion of force even in the face of aggression. Moral preening in place of judgment. Humanitarian abstraction where Catholic order should stand.

Conservatives who spent the first weeks of this pontificate soothing themselves with the thought that Leo would somehow be a corrective to Francis now have to deal with a problem they cannot laugh away. The old photo has explanatory power. It helps make sense of the present…” Read more: https://open.substack.com/pub/bigmodernism/p/leo-xiv-joined-a-communist-march?r=5mfttc&utm_medium=ios

From John-Henry Westen at Lifesitenews:

 

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — In what is the first official Vatican acknowledgment of an active investigation into the legitimacy of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2013 resignation, the Office of the Promoter of Justice of the Vatican City State has formally confirmed that it is actively carrying out an investigation into a petition to the court alleging the nullity of the resignation.

The Office is the body responsible for conducting criminal investigations for the Tribunal of the Vatican City State (commonly referred to by journalist Andrea Cionci as the “Vatican Criminal Court”).

 

Cionci is a veteran Roman journalist with 20 years’ experience at Italy’s major daily newspapers and the author of the bestselling book The Ratzinger Code (25,000 copies sold and translated into five languages). He has conducted one of the most detailed examinations of Benedict XVI’s renunciation since 2020.

 

LifeSiteNews has received and independently verified the full chain of custody of the official response, including the email from the Promoter’s Office (with attorney Roberto Tieghi), the lawyer’s formal access request dated 26 March 2026, and stamped Vatican receipt copies of the original petition and supplements.

 

In the letter dated March 30, 2026 (Prot. N. 15/25 R.G.P.), Prof. Alessandro Diddi, the Promoter of Justice, rejected a request for access to the investigative file. The rejection was made solely on procedural grounds during an ongoing inquiry, not because the petition was deemed without merit.

 

The letter states explicitly (translated from the original Italian): “… l’Ufficio sta svolgendo indagini e non è, allo stato, possibile prevedere quando si concluderanno” (i.e. “… the Office is carrying out investigations and it is not, at present, possible to predict when they will conclude”).

 

It further notes that access to the dossier is not permitted while the istruttoria (investigative phase) is underway. The signed original bears the protocol number, letterhead, and Diddi’s handwritten signature.

 

This is the first time the Vatican’s criminal investigative office has put in writing that Cionci’s multi-year claims have triggered an active investigation file on the validity of Benedict’s renunciation. Even if the investigation ultimately concludes without public findings, the mere existence of an open criminal case file marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the 2013 resignation.

 

Supported by a team of Latinists, canon lawyers, attorneys, and Church historians, Cionci has produced 1,500 articles, 2,800 podcasts, 185 conferences, and 55 petitions. On June 6, 2024, he filed the original 100-page criminal petition (protocol 116/24) with the Tribunal of the Vatican City State.

 

It was later supplemented by a first formal supplement on 13 February 2025, a second formal supplement on 11 November 2025, and a further complaint in February 2026 regarding the alleged falsification of the Declaratio.

 

The core argument is that Benedict’s Declaratio deliberately or canonically distinguished between munus (the papal office itself) and ministerium (the exercise of that office), rendering the resignation invalid and leaving the See impeded (sede impedita).

 

RELATED: ‘The Benedict Code’ author says late Pope’s Declaratio was not an abdication

Benedict himself employed similar language. In the Declaratio he stated that he was renouncing “the ministry” (ministerium) of Bishop of Rome without explicitly renouncing the Petrine munus. In his final general audience on 27 February 2013 he said he was resigning only “the active exercise of the ministry,” while remaining “in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord” and continuing “in the service of prayer” within “the enclosure of Saint Peter.”

 

His private secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, later described the situation as an “enlarged Petrine ministry” with both an active and a contemplative dimension. However, both Benedict and Gänswein have explicitly rejected the conclusion that these distinctions rendered the resignation invalid or left Benedict still holding the munus.

 

Cionci informed LifeSite that he was personally questioned by Promoter of Justice Prof. Alessandro Diddi as a witness for four hours on 12 April 2025, further confirming the active nature of the investigation.

 

Based on his thesis and consultation with his canon lawyers, Cionci contends that Leo XIV cannot be considered the legitimate Pope by the faithful for the following reasons:

• he was elected by 108 false cardinals appointed by Bergoglio;
• he was elected by 133 electors, which is 13 more than the 120 provided for by the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (which was never derogated by Francis);
• and the discovery of a smartphone on one of the cardinals after the Extra Omnes on May 7.

 

Cionci’s work has drawn public attention among figures in traditional Catholic circles. Among them is Fr. Giorgio Maria Faré, a Carmelite priest with a doctorate in fundamental theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Fr. Faré drew initial inspiration from Dr. Cionci’s research in preparing his first study on the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, published on October 13, 2024, and he participated in three public events organized by Dr. Cionci at the end of 2024.

 

However, their respective positions have since progressively diverged. In particular, Fr. Faré does not share Dr. Cionci’s most recent interpretation of the Declaratio as a canonical “decisio” and explicitly distances himself from the campaign promoted by Dr. Cionci, which includes urging the faithful not to participate in the so-called “una cum” Eucharistic celebrations in which the name of Leo (and Francis in the past) is mentioned in the Canon.

 

Another priest who has stood alongside Cionci is Fr. Fernando Maria Cornet, who holds degrees in theology and patristics from the Pontifical Patristic Institute Augustinianum in Rome. Fr. Cornet has joined Cionci in presentations defending the sede impedita position.

 

RELATED: Italian priest excommunicated, another laicized for declaring Francis isn’t pope

 

The verified March 30 letter confirms the investigation remains open and its conclusion date unknown. Cionci’s supporters see this as concrete evidence that the Vatican can no longer simply ignore the sede impedita question.

The full verified text of the Promoter of Justice’s letter (Prot. N. 15/25 R.G.P.) is available for review. The main part of Cionci’s petition can be found here.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/exclusive-vatican-court-confirms-ongoing-investigation-into-validity-o

 

From Ann Barnhardt's Mailbag:

 

Mailbag: Klassic Kayfabe – According to the script, Trump has turned “Heel” in order to prop up the PERVostian Antipapacy and “rehabilitate an important character that wasn’t being accepted by the audience.”

That Kayfabe was straight out of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment ed) - a WrestleMania V script. But for what purpose?

I had very little interest in following the back and forth between the Vatican and the Whitehouse over the last month, and the Trump v Prevost fight just seemed very odd…until that picture Trump posted of himself as a Christ figure.

 

 https://x.com/i/status/2043746623331680272

 

Watching the “Impromptu” press interview where the Uber driver dropped off Trumps Big Mac Lunch at the oval office made me think, …Kayfabe. But not Kayfabe for the promotion of Trump, who has undergone a change to “Heel” and is now the villain, but for Leo/Prevost’s benefit.

 

Yes, it’s election year and the US Bishops and the Vatican State want the money turned back on. Axelrod visited the Vatican likely to work out the coordination details to turn on the money to the NGO’s. But I don’t think that was the main reason why Prevost and Trump fought.

 

My assessment is that after the release of the book showing Prevost worshiping the demon idol in the garden, he needed a redo of his image. Leo needs to strengthen his image as the “Defender of the Faith(s)” ahead of the consistory in June. The Hero is only as great as the Villain he fights, hence the need to fight a “Supervillain,” ie Trump 2.0.

 

Pope Leo was pitched as the American Pope who could build bridges between the left right, South America and the US , and the Old Church and the new Synodal Church etc. It’s hard to sell that image if there are photos and a book published with Leo/Prevost worshiping a demon.

 

But, if Leo stands up to Trump, the new Boss Villain that everyone loves to hate, and his beta, JD Vance, then Leo could regain the (fake) armour of “Defender of the faith(s)” prior to the consistory.

 

That Kayfabe between Trump and Prevost is unnecessary for the 2026 mid-term election. Big extravagant Kayfabe stories are used for the build up to tournaments (ie WrestleMania V) and the main matches on pay for view. Not side shows like the mid-terms.

 

Kayfabe is used to set up a narrative between the “Hero” and the “Villain” for a big showdown, OR in order to rehabilitate an important character if their character wasn’t being accepted by the audience.

 

My assessment is that they are getting ready to add more prayers to the existing four Novus Ordo Eucharistic Prayers. I think they are preparing to use the drop in the number of priests to claim that the crisis requires that Special Eucharistic Ministers to be allowed to preform some of the sacraments. It would logically follow that (about) three more Eucharistic prayers be added.

Prayer 5, in Latin, for those that like the Latin mass and want the priest facing Ad Orientem.
Prayer 6, for Special Eucharistic Ministers, without the words of consecration (possible using already consecrated hosts).
Prayer 7 for “Priests ordained in other Churches” i.e. Anglican Bishops and Priests (so that would eventually including female Priests).

In order to have the faithful accept the changes, Prevost must be liked and accepted as the defender of the Faith(s).

Just my assessment of where this is going.

 

KAYFABE: kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as “real” or “true,” specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or pre-determined nature of any kind. Kayfabe has also evolved to become a code word of sorts for maintaining this “reality” within the direct or indirect presence of the general public.https://www.barnhardt.biz/2026/04/20/mailbag-klassic-kayfabe-according-to-the-script-trump-has-turned

The three hardest-left, most unsavoury cardinals of the lot

From the American Vaticanista and intrepid reporter Diane Montagna (scroll through for the text in bold):

 

ROME, 15 April 2026 — The Vatican announced this week that Pope Leo XIV will convene his second extraordinary consistory of cardinals on June 26-27, but are these meetings being organized with genuine openness, or are they structured to steer toward a predetermined outcome?

 

An extraordinary consistory, from the Latin consistorium (“standing together”), is among the principal ways cardinals assist the Roman Pontiff through collegial action. Convened at the pope’s discretion, these formal assemblies bring together the College of Cardinals to address “particular needs of the Church” or other serious issues requiring broad consultation (Can. 353 §3).

Traditionally, they follow a structured format centered on a single theme. Typically, they open with a substantive presentation by a distinguished theologian or canonist, providing the basis for an extensive general debate among the cardinals, with the pope presiding. Tailored to the purpose of a consistory, this classical format let the pope hear the cardinals—and the cardinals hear one another—directly and unfiltered.

 

In the span of his 25-year-pontificate, Pope John Paul II convened six extraordinary consistories. Pope Benedict XVI, who officially did not hold any extraordinary consistories, did gather the Sacred College for closed-door meetings (notably in 2006, 2007, and 2010), often alongside ordinary consistories for the creation of Cardinals. Benedict himself indicated, in fact, that listening to “the views expressed by the Cardinals” gathered together at the 2006 assembly helped inform his decision to promulgate Summorum Pontificum.

 

The last extraordinary consistory to be held according to the classical format was in 2014 and brought together the full College of Cardinals to reflect on the family and to lay theological groundwork for the Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015. The meeting became especially notable for a controversial address by Cardinal Walter Kasper, whose “Kasper Proposal” suggested a possible pastoral path for some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

 

The German Cardinal’s proposal prompted significant debate and criticism from other cardinals while also shaping subsequent synodal discussions and influencing the 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

 

Pope Leo XIV’s first extraordinary consistory on January 7–8 departed from the classical model. Instead, it adopted the format used during the 2023–2024 Synod on Synodality. This meant that the 170 Cardinals present spent most of the consistory in the Paul VI Hall, assigned to small, language-based round tables, and engaging in “conversation in the Spirit.”

 

Each Cardinal spoke in turn for three minutes, followed by a period of silence and then a second round of responses. Each table had a designated president and secretary, the latter responsible for compiling a report (in the past, any small-group work saw each table elect its own secretary).

With a total of 20 tables, the assembly was divided into two groups: nine tables of voting cardinals serving in dioceses or as nuncios, and eleven tables composed of non-voting cardinals (over 80) and officials of the Roman Curia.

 

Only the reports from the nine tables of voting cardinals and nuncios were presented to the assembly, while those from the eleven tables of non-voting cardinals and officials of the Roman Curia were submitted to the Pope.

 

Just two forty-five-minute sessions—reserved for free interventions in the presence of the Holy Father—were held in the New Synod Hall, the venue for consistories in the classical format.

 

What is not widely known is that Pope Leo XIV’s first extraordinary consistory was initially planned to follow the classical format. But it was later reconfigured under somewhat mysterious circumstances, with no official explanation as to why the format changed, who was involved in the decision, or who ultimately organized the meeting.

 

Change in Format: Timeline of Events

• Nov. 6, 2025: In a brief email sent to cardinals, the Vatican Secretariat of State said “the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, intends to convene an Extraordinary Consistory on 7 and 8 January 2026. In due course, the Dean of the College of Cardinals will send Your Eminence the relevant letter with further details.

 

With sentiments of profound veneration, Office for the Coordination of Dicasteries [Ufficio Coordinamento Dicasteri], Secretariat of State.”

 

The office, which is unknown even to the Sisters who run the Vatican switchboard and not listed in the pontifical yearbook (annuraio pontificio), is part of the Secretariat of State’s Section for General Affairs, and was initially tasked with organizing interdicasterial meetings; it later assumed a permanent role handling matters concerning the various dicasteries. The office is staffed by Romanian Monsignor Claudiù-Catalin Cartes, and a lower-ranking lay official.

 

Nov. 7, 2025: Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, sent a letter to the cardinals outlining the agenda for the forthcoming consistory.

 

The letter, which I obtained (view the English translation and original Italian below), was sent from the official email of the Dean of the College of Cardinals, the same channel used to summon cardinals to a conclave, communicate details of the general congregations that precede it, or announce the death of a member of the College.

 

The agenda would have required prior papal approval.

| 

According to the letter, the extraordinary consistory was to begin at 4:00 p.m. on January 7. Over the course of the day-and-a-half meeting, the cardinals were to meet with Pope Leo in the New Synod Hall for a total of ten hours—an arrangement consistent with the classical format.

• Dec. 19, 2025: Pope Leo XIV sent a Christmas letter to the Cardinals, announcing the four topics he wished to discuss at the forthcoming consistory.

  In the letter, the Pope wrote: “As already announced last November, from 7 to 8 January 2026, I will be delighted to meet you on the occasion of the first extraordinary Consistory that I have convened. It will be a moment of communion and fraternity, of reflection and sharing, aimed at supporting and advising the Pope in the demanding responsibility of governing the universal Church.”

  The letter neither corrected nor modified the program set out on Nov. 7 by Cardinal Re.

 

The message was transmitted by the Office for the Coordination of Dicasteries, Secretariat of State, with an accompanying note which read: “Most Reverend Eminence, by revered mandate, I am transmitting the letter that the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, has wished to send to all the Cardinals on the occasion of Holy Christmas.”

 

• Dec. 20, 2025 — The Holy See Press Office officially confirmed that Pope Leo XIV would hold an extraordinary consistory on January 7–8, largely reiterating the points outlined in his Christmas letter to the Sacred College.

• Jan. 5, 2026 (afternoon) — The Cardinals received an email containing a revised agenda, significantly different from that sent by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re on Nov. 7. It was sent not by the Dean of the College of Cardinals but by the Office for the Coordination of Dicasteries.

 

The new program indicated substantial changes in times and format, though in terms vague enough that Cardinals would not have known precisely what to expect upon arrival. The Italian original indicated that the program had been updated that same day (view PDF of English translation below). Several cardinals later said they never received the email containing the revised agenda.

 

• What Happened?

  The timeline suggests that the shift occurred sometime between December 19 and January 5—over the Christmas holidays. Vatican sources point to the possibility, or even likelihood, that one or more Cardinals met with Pope Leo XIV during that period, proposing a format more in line with the “synodal Church” envisioned by Pope Francis.

 

Given the distinctly “synodal” style ultimately adopted, some observers have speculated about the involvement of Cardinal Mario Grech, prefect of the Synod Secretariat. Others have raised questions about the role Cardinal Pietro Parolin may have played, given the Secretariat of State’s involvement through its Office for the Coordination of Dicasteries. Others have wondered whether Cardinal Fabio Baggio, who holds several key positions in the Roman Curia, may have had some influence. Multiple sources have also suggested that Michael Czerny, SJ, prefect of the Dicastery for Integral Human Development and known to be on friendly terms with the Pope, may have played a part.

 

• Consistory Press Briefing: No Answers

 
Once the Consistory was underway, Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni briefed reporters but offered little insight into who organized the event or how it was arranged.

• At the Jan. 7 briefing, I asked Bruni how the president and secretary at each table had been chosen. “They were indicated beforehand among the groups,” he replied, to which I asked: “But how were they chosen?” Bruni said: “They were indicated beforehand, as was the composition of the groups of course.”

 

 Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press then asked more directly: “Who organized this thing? Is this something that the Synod office does? And are they all sitting around round tables? Were there iPads? Are they divided among language groups? Can you give us a sense of how this all happened because it’s kind of just come out of the blue? Who put it together? There’s no College of Cardinals office, is there?"

 

“There is,” Bruni responded. 

Pressed further on who organized the meeting, Bruni said: “I’m not providing that information. I am saying this is how it was organized.”

 

Asked who had chosen Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe to deliver the opening reflection, the Vatican spokesman added: “I have no information in that regard.”

 

Meanwhile, requests for a breakdown of the Cardinals, president and secretary present at each table were met with: “I don’t really think it would help in terms of understanding them … I don’t think we’ll be giving that specific breakdowns.”

 

• After the briefing, several journalists continued to question Bruni, one saying: “I feel like I’ve landed on a planet that I haven’t been on. The whole thing seems so weird.” and another asking: “Why can’t we know who organized it?”

 

• Bruni, suggesting he himself might not have full clarity on who organized the event, replied: “I do think that a lot of things were organized, let’s say, rather … well, there were thoughts, and concepts and ideas, and then were given flesh more concretely in recent days.”

 

 “So it was a last-minute rush because of Christmas?” I asked.“I’m not saying anything else … There were very clear ideas, I mean the themes were out, or at least the idea of the themes we had in November, you had in November. Then we had the [Dec. 20] press release and that synthesized some of the themes as well, then someone published the letter [from the Holy Father]. So obviously there was a very clear idea of what they wanted to discuss.”

 

• Hunting for Answers

 

Given the silence, I went looking for answers. On March 26, I spoke with the Dean of the College, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, asking him to explain the shift from the traditional format described in his letter to the “synodal” format reflected in the revised agenda. In his typically strong voice, His Eminence said he was not feeling well that week and was unable to speak.

 

• The same day, I wrote to the spokesman for the Synod Secretariat. Since the January consistory had taken on a “synodal” form, I said I assumed the Secretariat might have played a coordinating role and asked whether he could confirm this, and, if possible, explain how the presidents and secretaries of each table had been chosen.

 

In a gracious reply, the spokesman said he had the same information as journalists, while emphasizing that “The General Secretariat was not involved in the preparation of that important meeting” (emphasis his).

 

• “At a certain point,” he added, “the Holy Father asked Cardinal Mario Grech to introduce the theme on synodality. That’s all.”

  I then called Monsignor Cartes at the Secretariat of State’s Office for the Coordination of Dicasteries. “I understand that your office sent the updated program to the Cardinals on January 5. Given that the consistory was conducted in the style of the Synod on Synodality, who organized it?” I asked.

  “Ah, I can’t talk about that,” he said.

• Finally, I asked the spokesperson for Cardinal Michael Czerny whether, given his positive view of the format and his reportedly friendly relationship with the Pope, he had suggested using it in advance of the consistory.

  “I’m sorry that I’m not able to answer your question,” she replied.

  Recollections May Vary

  Cardinal Czerny was indeed enthusiastic about the new format. In an interview with The College of Cardinals Report after the consistory, Cardinal Czerny described the meeting as a “wonderful experience,” adding: “I think I speak for everyone in saying that it outstripped our expectations.”

  “Certainly, it was more than you can have hoped for from a day-and-a-half meeting. It was encounter, it was dialogue, it us listening to each other and getting to know the Church better, and the Holy Father listening to us. It was a graced, graced time,” he said. “We didn’t express our expectations, but I’m quite sure everyone’s expectations were outstripped.”

• His Eminence added: “It seemed so appropriate to fulfill the wish of the Holy Father the very day after he was elected, when he met with us and said, ‘I want us to continue the dialogue that we’d already begun in the Conclave and in the pre-Conclave meetings.’ And this is what turned out to happen. In that sense, it was also consoling, as if he had been inspired to say that then, and now we were actually doing it.”

  Asked whether he would like to see any changes to the new small-group format, Cardinal Czerny said: “I think our experience universally — I certainly heard no dissenting voice — was that this format was very fine and very suitable.” While acknowledging that “everyone didn’t speak in public,” he said that “everyone contributed and everyone was heard.” Reflecting on what he called its “mixed format,” he said: “I think it turned out to be a very fine format.”

  On whether non-voting cardinals should have been given a more prominent voice, he said that these tables also included voting cardinals from the Roman Curia and that the Holy Father “has other occasions to hear from us, so it’s not a top priority for us to speak, at length in any case.”

• It should be noted, however, that several Curial officials— Cardinal Víctor Fernández, Cardinal Mario Grech, Cardinal Arthur Roche, Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Cardinal José Tolentino, Cardinal Angel Fernandez Artime, Cardinal Fabio Baggio, as well as Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe, either formally addressed the assembly or played a key role.

  Cardinal Czerny told The College of Cardinals Report: “I don’t know what the format will be like next time, but as far as I heard, everyone was very happy with the format that we had, and I don’t think that the older ones felt unheard. For most of them, it was also a new experience to be at the tables and as far as I know, we were happy to be together for the time we had.”

  Yet recollections varied. One Cardinal, in fact, described the meetings to me as “highly controlled,” with reports that, at least on one occasion when a Cardinal tried to intervene after another Cardinal said something he was not in agreement with, he was cut off by the table president, who told him: “No, no, you can’t talk.” Another Cardinal, after experiencing “conversation in the Spirit”, said they were treated like “kindergarteners.”

• Meanwhile, German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller was reportedly so frustrated by the format that he left after one of the first sessions and did not return.

  Cardinal Raymond Burke adopted a measured tone in his assessment of the January consistory. In a sit-down interview with The College of Cardinals Report, he highlighted the “great benefit” of the cardinals meeting together and expressed gratitude to Pope Leo for his commitment to convene such gatherings regularly in the future.

  At the same time, he pointed to ways the format could be improved, noting in particular the drawbacks of the small-group approach compared with the classical structure of an extraordinary consistory.

  He explained that the January consistory combined elements of the format used by Pope Francis during the August 2022 “encounter of cardinals” with the style adopted at the Synod on Synodality. On a practical level, he noted that the small-table arrangement in the Paul VI Hall made it “difficult for anyone with a hearing problem,” given the general noise of simultaneous conversations.

• “There was an email address established where Cardinals can write in at any time,” he said. “Well, that’s effective for communicating a message for the Pope and I trust that all those messages get to him, but on the other hand, it doesn’t contribute to the general discussion among the Cardinals and to the clarification of their own concerns, or of their being alerted to concerns that they simply hadn’t considered that are very important.”

  Noting that the report ultimately depends on the secretary’s ability to capture the full discussion, he said: “As you can imagine, these discussions on a topic like evangelization were very broad. But also there were specific points, and I noted in the reporting of it, that some of those specific points got lost in a kind of desire to give a general report.” (Pope Leo’s recent letter to cardinals on the insights that “emerged from the groups” would have been based on these reports.)

  Cardinal Burke also highlighted problems with the dissemination of the program. “A number of the cardinals at my table didn’t receive the communication of the topics at all, and so we spent a lot of time just explaining to them what the topics were.”

• “There was a problem of organization, that is certain,” he said. “But again, thank God that at least the meeting took place. It was a beginning, and I think now the important thing would be to work on the format.”

  Why It Matters

  Why the traditional format of Pope Leo’s first consistory was replaced at the last minute—and by whom—remains unclear, but the shift is significant.

  The unexplained change from the general discussion format in the New Synod Hall of previous extraordinary consistories to a format of strictly guided table group discussions in the Pope Paul VI Audience Hall, along with very limited opportunities for individual cardinals to address the whole gathering, was a significant shift in the consultative relations between the Pope and the College of Cardinals.

• The new arrangement brings in external controls on the freedom of each cardinal to speak and to be heard and creates a new level of bureaucratic management of communication between the cardinals and the Pope. Whatever the goal of this synodal style, it has the effect of significantly reducing the opportunity for open general discussion and limits the number of cardinals who can be heard.

  
  

  Earlier this week it was reported that Cardinal Re has written to the Cardinals informing them that the next extraordinary consistory will be held on June 26-27, beginning at 9:00 a.m. This is one day earlier than previously anticipated and allows for two full days of sessions without extending into Sunday.

  
  

  The format has yet to be decided. The Cardinal added that further details would be communicated as they become available.

  
  

  Given the nature of an extraordinary consistory as articulated in the Code of Canon Law, its format ought to enable the Pope to listen to the Cardinals unfiltered.

• Whether that principle will, in fact, be borne out in practice remains to be seen.https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/the-unexplained-shift-in-pope-leo#:~:text=He%20added%20that,were%20never%20discussed.

 

St Michael, Archangel, defend us in the day of battle