Cardinal Roche Defends Traditionis Custodes

[00:00:00] Foreign. [00:00:13] So, as most of us know, last week Pope Leo held an extraordinary consistory, asking all the cardinals in the world to come and discuss various topics of interest to the church and to Pope Leo. And he had four topics that he wanted to be addressed, which was evangelization, sandality, curial reform, and liturgy. And of course, as I mentioned in a previous podcast, there's a lot of discussion among traditionalists. Would the liturgy discussion include discussion about traditional at Mass? Well, in the end, at the beginning of the, of the consistory, I should say, they actually said we're only going to cover two of these. So, so topics. So cardinals vote on which two you think are the best ones and they decide on evangelization standality. So the liturgy discussion was punted for later. [00:01:03] However, Cardinal Roche, who was picked by Pope Francis to basically oversee the liturgy of the Church, he wrote a two page report that he distributed to the cardinals at the consistory. Now, it's hard to know, was this under Cardinal Roche's own initiative? Did he do it by himself? [00:01:29] Or was this something Pope Leo directed him when they thought they were going to cover the liturgy at the consistory? Did Pope Leo tell Cardinal Roche write up a document so that will spur the discussion? Did get things going, kind of get a lay of the Lamb? [00:01:47] It's hard to know. We don't know. [00:01:50] I would suspect it was Cardinal Roche's own doing. I would suspect that he wanted to establish certain talking points. He wanted to establish kind of the ground rules for discussion based upon his own views. Now, it's possible that Pope Leo told him to do this. If so, I would say that's a little disturbing. If Pope Leo asked him to do this and approved what he wrote to be distributed, that would be disturbing, as you will see from when we talk about what he actually wrote. [00:02:19] And so, but we don't know. But it was very interesting to see Cardinal Roche's report, his two page report about the liturgy. [00:02:28] And so I want to talk about that today. But I also want to bring up something Bishop Athanasius Schneider talked about recently in a recent interview about his meeting with the Pope, but his own thoughts for how to move forward with the liturgy in the church. The whole controversy between the traditional Latin Mass and of course, the Novus Ordo. [00:02:49] So first let's talk about the Roche report. I think Father Z called it that. [00:02:53] And okay, so Diane Montagna is the one who leaked this, and I'll put a link to her report on this in the show notes so you can read it for yourself. [00:03:06] But my first thought after reading it was, and like I said, it's just a two page report, it's very easy to read, is this is okay, this is my most charitable take. [00:03:15] This is embarrassing. [00:03:17] I mean, it's embarrassing that a prince of the Church would write something like this. It shows no scholarship whatsoever, no real knowledge of the issues, no real arguments for a certain side. It's just full of cliches and propaganda. [00:03:35] It's repeating talking points. I mean, this is something you would expect to come out of, for example, a political action committee, a maybe the Republicans or the Democrats, they would release when the other side does something, just some talking points. I mean, it really was that shallow. [00:03:55] I think shallow is probably the best word. [00:03:59] There's no attempt whatsoever to really, to use the, the term of the, of the, of the Church of the past 60 years to dialogue. [00:04:10] I mean, we've been told for 60 years we need a dialogue with those we don't agree with, with those who thinks see things separately and dialogue, if it's done properly, I would think it would include understanding the other side, understanding what their viewpoint is, what their arguments are, where they're coming from, and then addressing that. This is not at all what Cardinal Roche does. I mean, there's no attempt whatsoever to actually dialogue and have a discussion with those who promote and defend the traditional Latin Mass. [00:04:48] So that's just kind of my general overview of it. But then I want to look at a couple of the things he says now. He starts off right out of the gate asserting that, just asserting that the liturgy has always been a process reform. His first line is, in the life of the Church, the liturgy has always undergone reforms. [00:05:09] And so he's establishing the idea that, hey, don't freak out people. When the liturgy changes, it always changes. And it somewhat is a, a, it's a very condescending statement towards those who defend the traditional Latin right. If you look at the people who really defend it, the Peter Kwasnskis, the Joseph Shaws, the people like that, they have a deeper understanding of the reforms that the liturgy has undergone over the centuries than Cardinal Roche has. [00:05:38] They have grappled with that, addressed that, learned from it. [00:05:43] And not a single person I know who attends the church on Mass defends it, would claim the liturgy hasn't undergone reform over the centuries. So the fact that he starts with this is a non sequitur. I mean, it really doesn't, it has nothing to do with the real discussion. But he wants to establish like, hey, because the liturgy has always undergone reforms you can't argue with the most recent reforms. It means every reform that we make is legitimate and must be accepted without question, without criticism. And that's just simply a joke. That's not how the history of the liturgy has developed. [00:06:23] And so there, again, it is true, the liturgy has gone under, undergone reforms over the centuries. However, if we look a little deeper, we see that really, the Roman Rite really did crystallize, ossify, come to a very definitive form by the time of St. Gregory the Great in around 600 AD, around the 7th century. [00:06:49] Yet there was. There was a faster process of reform for the first few centuries of the Church, which makes sense because of the fact that they're just figuring it out for the first time. They're trying to decide what works, what doesn't. And so there was much more reform. But by the time of St. Gregory the Great, they kind of figured out this works, the Roman Rite. This is basically the form should be. And so that's what that. That basic form was maintained in the Roman right. Then going forward, yes, there were changes, and, yes, there were localized versions of the different rights, which we're going to talk about here in a second, because it's important, because it undercuts a key argument of Cardinal Roche. [00:07:33] And so we see is, like, there were some developments happen over time. The question isn't, does the liturgy develop over time or reform? I mean, I think develop is a better term. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm just thinking this right now. [00:07:51] I would disagree that the liturgy has reformed over the centuries. I would say it's developed because reform means that it was wrong, something was wrong with it beforehand. And if you look at the changes made to the liturgy over the centuries, in almost every case, they are developments going deeper into something, making adjustment, but not saying, okay, what was before was wrong and needs to be corrected. Because that's really what proponents of the Novus Ordo, like a Cardinal Roche, say. And Cardinal Cupich said this explicitly, like, basically, there was things wrong with the liturgy before Vatican ii and we fixed them. [00:08:32] It's more accurate to say that the liturgy has developed over the centuries. [00:08:38] And so the question is, and this really ties into development of doctrine, I know it's not the exact same thing. Development, doctrine, development of liturgy are different things. However, the. The attitude, the approach is basically the same between both of them. And in fact, they're both abused. Both concepts are abused by many in the Church today. And you see this Cardinal Roche. So, like, they want to abuse development of doctrine. The Progressives do to say that things that were not true before are now true and things that were true before are not true, which is an abuse of the idea of development of doctrine. And development doctrine is a deepening of understanding of doctrine. Likewise, the development of liturgy is a similar process. It's not saying what we did before was just wrong. We need to correct it and fix it and change it and make it the opposite. [00:09:31] It's saying no. Over time, we've realized there are some ways in which we can make some adjustments to the liturgy that will deepen our understanding of the sacred Mysteries, will deepen our entry into the Holy Sacrifice. [00:09:45] That is a true development, that is legitimate. So just because, you know, the Vatican says we're going to change this in the liturgy does not mean it's a valid change in the. Okay, I should probably shouldn't use the word valid because people think I'm saying the Novus or is not valid. I don't think. That doesn't mean it's a good change. That's probably a better way to say it. It doesn't mean it's a prudent change and it should be kept. [00:10:08] The liturgy has. Has changed sometimes, and then they've gone back on it and said, no, that wasn't a good change, particularly the liturgy, the hours. This has happened a lot more than in the Mass. [00:10:19] But Roche himself says that the development, the reform should be a process of organic development. [00:10:25] I mean, that's his quote. He says, a process of organic development. [00:10:29] However, if you look at how the Novus Ordo came into being, nobody serious can say that was a process of organic development, because the process of organic development would happen with the faithful, both lay and clerical faithful, kind of having this idea that we want this to happen, that we feel this would be a deepening of the liturgy of valid change. It's not a committee that gets together and scribbles some notes on a napkin and says, okay, now we're going to make these changes, because, you know, it seems like that'd be pretty cool. It seems like that's something they probably did in the early church, because really, that's what they're trying to argue, that this is. Somehow the Novus Ordo is kind of returning to the other church. But a lot of serious scholarship has shown that's just a joke, because it's really a pick and choose. Let's pick at this little area from the early church liturgy, and we're going to do that, even though it basically, it wasn't even done for very long. And we're going to. But these changes, we're going to ignore those because we don't like them. [00:11:28] And so really, if you. And by the way, if you want to know kind of the history of the Novus Ordo, how it was developed, there's a lot of good research out there, but the easiest thing is just simply watch the Masses of Mass of the Ages documentary Part two, because that goes into it pretty well, and it will kind of like let you know the general outline of what happened, so you can then do more research if you want to. [00:11:52] But the fact is there's no way you could say this is a organic development if you know the history of how the sorrow came about. You know, it was basically committee and a lot of the bishops resisted what they wanted to do, and none of the faithful asked for it. There wasn't a groundswell from the faithful of, okay, we need to make these changes that you're asking for. [00:12:10] Remember the Mass of Vatican ii? That is, the Mass said at Vatican II was a traditional Latin Mass. That was the Mass of the bishops. And so when they. When Sacrosilium Consilium asked for certain, you know, developments in the liturgy, it wasn't. It did not have the intention of what actually happened. So these were not organic development, a process of organic development, as Roche says it should be. [00:12:33] So really, just out of the gates, Cardinal Roche's whole argument kind of falls apart because this idea of continual reform, it's really not reform, it's more development, but also doesn't mean that we change something and things have been changed before. So therefore, you have to accept this change. That's not how it works. [00:12:50] Just the same thing with development of doctrine. Oh, we developed our understanding of this doctrine. So we're going to make these other changes. You have to accept them the other. Another major flaw of this, this Roche report, this, this document that, that Roche wrote for the consistory for the cardinals, is it's. It basically pushes progress as an ideal. It really is a modernist idea. [00:13:14] If you are Catholic, you are charged with receiving what is handed on to you and then handing it on to the next generation without real. Any real changes. [00:13:29] I'm not saying it's completely static. [00:13:32] I'm not saying that. But I am saying, and I do think, for example, the Eastern Orthodox fall into that fallacy a bit. [00:13:38] That being said, it's not our charge to find things to change, which is what progressives do. Like, we need to adapt into the modern world. We need to make these changes. We need to make those changes. We're constantly trying to change things. No, changes should be very slow. [00:13:54] Again, they should be organic. And so. But that's. There is no. I mean, progress is not a virtue in the Church. That's a modern virtue. That's not a Catholic virtue. [00:14:07] This idea that the whole world is on this march of progress, that we're going towards the Omega point of Deschardin or something like that, that's not Catholic. That's not a Catholic understanding of how things are done. [00:14:22] Again, as St. Paul says, we receive what was handed on to us and we hand it on to the next generation. [00:14:27] But what Cardinal Roche says. He says tradition is not the transmission of. Oh, yeah, he quotes Pope Benedict here. It's the most abused quote you see among these people. He says, tradition is not the transmission of things or words, a collection of dead things, but the living river that links us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are ever present. This is somewhat taken from Yaroslav Pelikan, who said, you know, traditionalism is, like, for the dead and tradition is for the living. Or I can't remember the exact quote. I should have looked it up. But somebody in the comments can put the exact quote of Pelicans for me. [00:15:04] But it's this idea of, like, traditionalism is this dead thing that if you know you don't want, you always got to be changing things. Basically, what it does is undercuts tradition completely. Undercuts tradition completely. [00:15:16] And Roche goes on to say, in this dynamic vision, maintaining solid tradition and opening the ways to legitimate progress cannot be understood as two separable actions. [00:15:26] Without a legitimate progress, the tradition would be reduced to a collection of dead things, not always all healthy. [00:15:33] Without the sound tradition, progress risks becoming a pathological search for novelty that cannot generate life. Like a river whose path is blocked, separating from the sources. Okay, this all sounds good, but it's not what they do. [00:15:45] It's not what they do. [00:15:47] There's no question, if you just objectively look at the past 60 years of Catholic life, that it has become a pathological search for novelty. As Cardinal Roche says, there is no question that that's what's happened. [00:16:03] Everything is about change. Everything is about doing things better as we think are better. Everything is about making things relevant, changing. This tinkering, this doing everything we can to make things different than they used to be. God forbid we do something like they did before Vatican ii. [00:16:20] Instead, we have to be constantly tinkering. That's exactly what it is. So even though Cardinal Roche says this in practice, it is basically accepting progress for progress sake, a pathological search for novelty. And it's a rejection of all tradition. [00:16:36] That's really what happens in actual fact. [00:16:40] And this is where we get these inorganic innovations. [00:16:44] I mean, it's pretty clear Roche is just regurgitating, like, political talking points. He's not engaging any dialogue. Like I said, you can't read this and be like, okay, a serious person wrote this. This is something, frankly, like, you read on, like, where Peter is, and written by Mike Lewis. It's not a serious engagement with the arguments. [00:17:04] And in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Cardinal Rochester didn't write this and he had some flunky write it. [00:17:10] That. That really, you know, didn't even rise to a serious level. [00:17:17] Then finally, what Cardinal Roche does is, okay, so he acts like everything, you know, the liturgy is constantly changing, constantly reforming, constantly developing. So we have to always keep up with it and we have to accept every change. And then he goes on to say that basically progress is the ideal. He does not say that explicitly, but he basically argues for progress over tradition, that anybody who would suggest any changes might not be a good idea. They're enemies of progress and they're for dead things. It's. It's. And then, though his final coup, Final, final argument isn't an argument, it's a threat. [00:17:56] It's name calling, basically, what he does. Okay, let me give you a quote. He gives the primary good of the unity of the Church is not achieved by freezing division, but by finding ourselves in the sharing of what cannot but be shared. What he's saying here is this idea of having two forms, rights, whatever you want to call them in the Roman rite, the old one, the new one, that is freezing division. If we keep it like that forever. [00:18:24] It's very much opposed to Pope Benedict's idea of mutual enrichment between the rights. If you remember, when Pope Benedict issued some more pontificam, he had this idea of a mutual enrichment. Now, you could argue, you could critique that idea. Like, you could critique, can the Novus Ordo actually enrich the Traditional Latin Mass. [00:18:44] And if the traditional Mass enriches the Novus Ordo, why not just make it the Traditional Latin Mass? So, I mean, I'm not claiming Pope Benedict is 100% on. I'm on board with what he's saying, what he said, but this is a complete rejection of that, this idea of some more pontifical, of this mutual enrichment between the two rights, the two liturgies. Roche is saying it's a freezing of division that we have to basically all have the same one. [00:19:12] Now, of course, this just flies in the face of actual Church history because one of the things he doesn't mention, in fact, he quotes at one point. I don't think. Let me see if I can find it here. He. He says how Pius V, you know, was moved by the will to preserve the unity of the Church. And he basically made. And he quotes Pius V in out of context, like, there's only one way of reciting the Psalms, so there can ought to be only one right for celebrating the Mass. [00:19:42] The problem with that quote, and if you understand the quote, he's taken out of context, but Pius V isn't saying there should be only one rite in the Church, obviously, you know why? Because he didn't mandate one rite in the Church. First of all, he didn't say anything about the Eastern rites. But on the Western side, he allowed rights that were over 200 years old. They had venerable traditions, so Dominican, the Ambrosian, other rites, he let them continue, which were not identical. So there was never one right under Pius V or before. [00:20:17] And so this idea that we're somehow following St. Pius V by instituting one right in the Roman. In the one Roman rite, just flies in the face of history. It flies in the face of what the Church has always allowed. [00:20:30] So when Cardinal Roche says, you know, you're freezing division, well, you could argue then Pope Pius V froze division because he froze the idea of multiple rights in the. In the row. In the Western Church and of course, the Eastern rites as well. [00:20:48] And of course, what about the Ordinariate today? [00:20:51] That's another right. [00:20:53] Are we. Did we freeze. Did Pope Benedict freeze division when he allowed for that? Of course not. [00:20:58] It's the idea that there's a legitimacy and a multiplicity of rights within the Church, particularly, and even within the Western Church. It does not just the Eastern rites, which, of course, that's a strong argument. Did we freeze division by allowing the Eastern Catholics to continue the Orthodox liturgy, or should we instead force them to practice the Roman Rite? In fact, that goes very much against Vatican 2, because Vatican II actually encouraged the Eastern rites to forego the Latinizations that they had had accrued in their liturgies. The ways they became more like the Roman right, and they're like, no, do your thing the way you're doing it. Was Vatican II saying we're freezing division? [00:21:43] I don't think so. But that's basically what Cardinal Roche is suggesting. He's suggesting people like us who want to keep the Latin the truth Mass are freezing divisions. Then he quotes Pope Francis where he says, I do not see how it's possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the council. Vatican 2, though, it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so and at the same time not accept a liturgical reform born out of sacrosanct. Sacrosanctum Concilium. [00:22:12] And of course, this is just an attack. This is just an ad hominem. This is not really a serious argument. It's like, okay, how can you, you know, you're not recognizable council if you don't accept everything that was happened, that happened since Vatican ii basically in the Church, which we've. We've gone over this, you know, defenders of Latin Mass have, Have been. Beat this drum for decades. And so I'm not going to do it here. But just saying that the liturgical reform that came after Vatican II has problems is not a rejection of the validity of Vatican ii. In fact, I would argue, and many have argued, that the liturgical forms that came after Vatican II were actually a rejection themselves of Vatican ii, that they did not follow what the Council Fathers really wanted. [00:22:58] And so basically, what Roche is saying by including this is simply the idea that if you're for the Latin Mass, you're a schismatic who rejects the Council. [00:23:09] If you're for the Latin Mass, you're a schismatic who rejects a legitimate counsel of the church. Vatican ii, in other words, he doesn't have an argument. He just is trying to threaten Catholics to say, you're really. [00:23:20] We don't really take you seriously. You're not really part of the Church like we are, because of the fact that you like the Latin Mass, that you think it's a legitimate form that should continue to be practiced and celebrated. [00:23:35] To be honest, it's hard to take this document seriously. [00:23:40] It's hard to take it seriously. However, you kind of have to take it seriously. This is like the top liturgy official in the church. [00:23:49] It's distributed to all the cardinals, the most powerful, the princes of the church, those powerful men in the church. [00:23:55] I just hope and pray that most of the cardinals that here's what they did. They got this and they went and they just. They just threw it away because that's really what you need to do. I know people like Cardinal Cupich are going to be like, oh, this is so great, this. And they'll probably think it's intellectual and scholarly because they're a bunch of dummies. [00:24:16] But I hope, and I know the. [00:24:18] The really good cardinals are going to reject it. I'm hoping, though, the average cardinal just sees this for what it is. That's a propaganda piece. It's propaganda piece trying to defend the indefensible. The idea that somehow Catholics celebrating the liturgy, as was celebrated for centuries, is somehow harmful for the Church. It somehow harms unity or doctrine or whatever. [00:24:42] So the truth is, Cardinal Roche, like Cardinal Fernandez, is way out of his depth. I mean, he's way. I mean, he is sinking ship. I mean, it shows he does not have the intellectual firepower to engage in this discussion. And by the way, I'm not saying you have to be a smarty pants to engage in this. If you have the census valium, you're just somebody you know. If you're a, you know, a plumber who attends the Latin Mass, you have more knowledge of it than I'm sure Colonel Roche does. What I'm saying, though, is at their level, at the cardinal, you know, when you talk about the cardinals talking about it, they should have, they should be on at least some level knowledgeable about the discussion. And it's clear Roche is not just like. It's clear when Cardinal Fernandez writes about things about doctrine, he's not knowledgeable. And this is just, you know, Francis appointees. This is what you get. He picked ideological supporters, not people who really engaged in the issues. So, okay, now what I want to transition to is I want to talk about Bishop Schneider, which is so much more fun, so much better to talk about because of the fact that, you know, he is knowledgeable about these issues. And he's a devoutly devout Catholic, deeply faithful. [00:25:54] I think he's a saintly man myself. He did an interview recently for the Confraternity of our Lay of Fatima, a great organization of which I am on the board. [00:26:01] And I, I'll link to the interview in the, in the show notes. And he was asked about various things about this, about the liturgy. [00:26:11] First, you know, just to be clear, he met with Pope Leo last month. And so he didn't reveal what he said there, but you can imagine some of these things he said in the interview he might have said also to Pope Leo. The first thing he did was he said that we really need to get out of the era of dueling modo proprios, because what we had was either moto proprios pontificum, which, which freed the Latin Mass in many ways. [00:26:34] Then we had the mod approprioturgis custodes, which was kind of like the anti summerum pontificam, which kind of rescinded that. And so what Mr. Schneier is saying is don't just simply have Leo do another mod approprio that kind of maybe goes in the middle of those two or somehow goes against whatever. [00:26:52] That's not going to establish a real peace in the Church when it comes to liturgy. What he would like, Bishop Schneider is he would like the Pope to issue an apostate constitution. [00:27:00] Now that is a more serious, more solemn declaration of the Magisterium. [00:27:05] It has more weight behind it and the idea would be that it would rescind Traditionus custodes, of course and it really would, would set a clear path forward for the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. To make it very clear, I mean here's one thing that Bishop Schneider said was he doesn't like the terms extraordinary form and ordinary form because he feels both are ordinary. [00:27:29] They're both ordinary in the like any priest should be able to celebrate both of them or in their ordinary ministry. There should be nothing extraordinary about a priest celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass. It just should be part of, you know, being a priest of the Roman rite. [00:27:44] And so therefore he wants this apostolic constitution to basically establish that in law that a priest can just, I mean he's not saying rescind and take away the Novus Ordo. I don't think he really believes that either. I think he's just simply saying let it be with the full weight of papal, the papal Magisterium that both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo can be celebrated by any priest of the Roman Rite ordinarily doesn't need permission or anything like that. [00:28:20] Now what I thought was interesting though was he was also asked Wyndt was interviewing him from the conference. He asked about this ordinarian because there was a priest, a well respected priest, I don't remember his name now, suggested the idea of ordinariate for Latin Mass. Now to be clear what this is, it's like a critical structure in the church in which it has its own ordinary, its own bishop that would, that the priests and people that ordinary would answer. That's who they're, that they're under. [00:28:53] There exists an ordinary right now it's the Anglican, the, the, the, the ordinary of the Anglican ex Anglicans who have come into the Church. [00:29:03] And what it does is it gives. They have like there's a bishop. [00:29:08] Oh my gosh, I'm blanking on name boy. Everybody in the comments can just put in all the things I'm forgetting. I'm going to remember as soon as I get off here. But there's a bishop in Houston who's over the ordinary. So if you are a priest or even a member of the ordinary, that is your ordinary, not the diocesan bishop in which. The diocese in which you live, but that bishop is your. Is your superior, so to speak. Your or not superior, but your ordinary authority. [00:29:35] So the idea here would be that you would establish an ordinariate for the traditional Latin Mass, and that's where the traditional Latin Mass would be celebrate. Bishop Schneider doesn't like this idea because I think he. As I understand it, he basically thinks it's kind of makes it a separate and unequal situation to use those terms. And it's like you couldn't have then the traditional at Mass in an ordinary diocese in Paris. You'd only have at these ordinariate, just like today with the Anglican Ordinariate, you can only really. I know there's exceptions, but typically these. [00:30:09] These ordinary liturgies are not said. And they might be set at ordinary parishes, but they're not part of the parish life. [00:30:18] They're not part of the parish. The parish priest isn't over them. He doesn't celebrate anything like that. And so that's what would happen here. [00:30:24] So whereas you might celebrate the Latin Mass at a parish, there's really no connection between them, really. You'd set up separate parishes. That's what the most ordinary parishes. They're their own parishes with their own building, their own structure, everything. [00:30:38] And like I said, their own bishop. And what would you do? Would you maybe try to reconcile the Society of St. Pius X and put their bishops in charge of this ordinariate? Maybe. That seems kind of radical, but possibly I would just say. And so Bishop Schneider is not a fan of this, and I understand his points. Personally, though, I think I would support that. I'm not saying it's the ideal situation. I don't think it should be the permanent situation, but I can understand it being a solution to our current crisis in the liturgy, that we make it so that there is a legitimate way in which the traditional Mass can be said and it can be spread. [00:31:18] Right now, we just don't have that. We're under the auspices of any bishop who just decides, I want to get rid of it. Can. I mean, that's what's happened in Charlotte, Knoxville, Detroit, other places. And so it's like there's this. There's like a guillotine. Guillotine Hanging over the necks of traditional Catholics of like, you never know. Tomorrow you might wake up and your bishop just gets rid of your Latin Mass and that's just not a good situation. Yes, I would love it if you simply said, let's just go ahead and make it the ordinary right of the Church. That's not going to happen. [00:31:54] I also think some, some, some more on pontifical might like returning. That might not be the best solution because of what's gone on since then. [00:32:02] I think you would just have a difficulty really starting up Latin Masses. A lot of bishops are too much against it. If you put it though, under somebody else, then the bishop doesn't have to worry about it. It's not their problem. It's not part of their diocese. So even a bishop who is ideologically opposed to the traditional Mass can't do anything about it. If there is a traditional Mass under this ordinariate in the geographical confines of his diocese, he has no authority over it. [00:32:28] And so I do. Now, I know they work together often because sometimes they use, you know, parishes of the diocese. But like you could have ways in which you could be in a Charlotte or a Detroit or something and have a church Mass that, that the bishop can't do anything about. And you know, your bishop also is going to be a supporter of the Church Latin Mass because he's the ordinary bishop of the Church Mass. And so therefore that's what he celebrates and he's always going to defend it. [00:32:54] So I think as a temporary solution, I'm actually more supportive of it than Bishop Schneider. I understand there's some problems with it, but I think it is a way forward that that could work. [00:33:05] So what is it? What's going to happen next? I mean, what's the impact of Cardinal Roche's intervention here? We don't know. The next consistory is in June and it's going to be another two day one. And it's very possible they'll talk about the liturgy there. Personally, I don't think how much will happen in a two day, like basically one and a half day consistory. I think it just would be. Let's talk about a little bit. [00:33:28] But I think long term, the cardinals realize it's an address, it's an addition, it needs to be an issue that needs to be addressed. [00:33:36] So hopefully they're not going to fall for Roche's idiot idiocy, his silly arguments that, like I said, deserve to be in the trash can. [00:33:43] And hopefully they will have a better understanding of the liturgy, how it really has developed over time, how there's always been multiple literary rites within the church, even within the Roman Catholic Church, the Western church. So I think what we need to do then is we need to pray and fast. I always recommend this, but I think it's a good idea. Always pray and fast for the pope and the cardinals. When it comes to the liturgy, really consider the idea of adding a fast, maybe a Friday fast, maybe once a month, maybe once a week, maybe just once. [00:34:17] That's specifically for the promulgation and expansion of the traditional Latin Mass. I think this is a good and holy intention. So I'd ask you to do that, that the traditional Mass would be fully freed. Maybe it would take steps to get to that point, but that would be fully free freed. So. Okay, I'm gonna end there. Until next time, everybody. God love you. And remember the poor.