Has Pope Leo XIV just signalled a change of direction in the Vatican's approach to the liturgy? His latest appointments raise some interesting questions, although perhaps not for the reasons some might expect. Let's dive in 👇 Archbishop Vittorio Viola, who has served as Secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship since 2021, has been appointed Archpriest of St Peter's Basilica, while Bishop Aurelio García Macías, previously the Dicastery's Undersecretary, has been promoted to replace him. At first glance, this might suggest a significant change in the leadership responsible for implementing Traditionis custodes and overseeing the Church's liturgical life. Viola is rumoured to wear the ring of the man who was the architect of the Novus ordo & was called "the violator of Tradition by @RorateCaeli who said "he is the main dangerous ideologically motivated cleric whose final intent is to completely ban the Traditional Latin Mass" But there is an important detail. García Macías is hardly a newcomer. He has worked in the Dicastery since 2015 and served as Undersecretary throughout much of Pope Francis' pontificate. Cardinal Arthur Roche, meanwhile, remains Prefect despite having turned 76 on March 6th. In other words, Leo has changed the personnel at the top without fundamentally changing the institution's leadership. This makes the appointment rather more interesting than a straightforward victory or defeat for either side of the liturgical debate (the one that wants peace & the one that wants war). One of the persistent difficulties of recent years has been the tendency to treat legitimate differences in liturgical sensibility as evidence of ecclesiastical disloyalty. The result has been an increasingly polarised atmosphere in which Catholics who share the same faith and recognise the same ecclesiastical authority can nevertheless regard one another with extraordinary suspicion. Pope Benedict XVI understood that the Church's liturgical tradition cannot simply be divided into acceptable and unacceptable periods of her history, he worked to bridge the divisions of the Council & ensure doctrinal & liturgical continuity. However at the same time we must recognise that fidelity to tradition does not mean rejecting the authority of the Church to regulate her liturgical life. The challenge facing Pope Leo XIV is therefore not merely whether to relax particular restrictions, important though that question is. It is whether he can restore a sense of ecclesial confidence in which legitimate liturgical diversity is no longer regarded primarily as a threat to unity. What seems absolutely clear is that this huge mess was one made and left by his predecessor. García Macías now occupies a position from which he can help shape the practical application of that vision, should the Pope choose to pursue it. Although many traditionalist will be breathing a sigh of relief that Viola is no longer at the DDW, the real test of these appointments will not be the biographies of the men involved, but the decisions that follow. Will Rome approach liturgical questions with greater generosity, consistency and respect for legitimate tradition? Will it distinguish genuine disobedience from faithful Catholics seeking to worship according to forms deeply rooted in the Church's history? Those are the questions I am watching. For now, the appointments suggest continuity in personnel rather than an obvious change of policy. But continuity of personnel need not necessarily mean continuity of approach, particularly under a new Pope. The removal of Viola gives the DDW space to soften its approach or even change direction once Roche finally steps away. What matters is whether the Dicastery's future decisions help heal the divisions of recent years or simply perpetuate them.

I HOPE YOU'RE ALL PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS ONE! The most consequential legacy of the Synod on Synodality may not be yet another prolix Vatican document, but a rewriting of the laws governing who exercises authority in the Catholic Church. To wit the Synod's Canon Law Commission has now published proposals to amend numerous provisions of the Code of Canon Law, addressing everything from the participation of lay Catholics in ecclesiastical governance to the responsibilities of bishops, episcopal conferences and diocesan consultative bodies. ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION NOW? 🤔 Among the provisions under consideration are Canon 228, concerning the eligibility of lay Catholics for ecclesiastical offices, Canon 476, concerning episcopal vicars, and Canon 1421, concerning judges in ecclesiastical tribunals. These are not peripheral administrative matters, they concern the actual exercise of authority within the Church. I think the central theological question is whether and to what extent, the power of governance can be exercised by those who have not received Holy Orders. Catholic teaching has always distinguished the common priesthood of the baptised from the ministerial priesthood, which differ essentially and not merely in degree, as Lumen gentium §10 makes clear, but it does not follow that every ecclesiastical office or administrative responsibility must be reserved to the ordained. Lay Catholics already exercise significant responsibilities within the Church, including in ecclesiastical tribunals and certain offices of the Roman Curia. The real difficulty lies in establishing precisely where legitimate lay participation ends and responsibilities intrinsically connected to the sacrament of Holy Orders begin. This is where the discussion becomes particularly important. If synodality means ensuring that bishops listen more carefully, that qualified lay Catholics contribute their expertise and that ecclesiastical institutions become more accountable, there is much to welcome. But if it obscures the distinction between the authority conferred through Holy Orders and responsibilities that can legitimately be entrusted to the laity, then we are dealing with something considerably more serious than administrative reform. Canon law is not simply an organisational handbook. It gives juridical expression to the Church's understanding of her own nature. The Church cannot alter her divine constitution by changing the wording of a canon. Equally, she should not mistake every historically established administrative arrangement for something divinely instituted. Both principles are important and preserving the distinction between them will be essential if these proposals are to serve the Church rather than generate further confusion. For now, these are proposals, not enacted legislation. Pope Leo XIV has not approved the changes. But the direction of the discussion is unmistakable: the Synod's theological language is moving towards concrete institutional and juridical consequences. The question is whether those consequences will clarify the relationship between baptism, Holy Orders and ecclesiastical governance, or leave Catholics with an increasingly ambiguous understanding of authority in the Church. That is a debate worth having before the legislation is changed, rather than afterwards.

Cardinal Roche is nuts! I give up!! Read the Synod's own Instrumentum Laboris of July 2024. Paragraph 33 describes a synodal Church as one that listens, welcomes and accompanies, specifically acknowledging those who feel excluded from ecclesial life. Paragraph 34 then proposes a ministry of listening and accompaniment, allowing people to approach the Church without feeling threatened or judged. How can a Church that insists upon listening, accompaniment, discernment and the inclusion of those who feel marginalised appear so remarkably unwilling to extend those same principles to Catholics attached to its own liturgical tradition? In the interview he is asked what he thinks when traditionalist Catholics complain that they have been treated unkindly by ecclesiastical authority, his response: "What is your problem? What else is it that you are wanting?" He goes on to suggest that these Catholics generally cannot answer his question and then characterises their aspirations as a desire to return to a Church without the teaching of Vatican II. Rather than examining why otherwise faithful Catholics, including young families and converts, find such spiritual nourishment in the older liturgy, Roche appears to interpret their attachment primarily through the lens of resistance to ecclesiastical authority. He is not fit for office!