Will Pope Leo accept Cupcake Cupich's resignation or won't he?
Posted on 07/01/2025 4:01:32 PM PDT by ebb tide
Christocentric homilies, the stole and mozzetta, full-signature documents, references to natural law, legal certainty, canon law training, a sober and methodical style, and attentiveness to the liturgy (although the master of ceremonies belongs to a liturgical school that is far from commendable): these are the hallmarks of the new pontificate, just over a month in, that have sparked cautious yet widespread enthusiasm among the more conservative and traditionalist circles of the Catholic spectrum.
Ludwig Müller, a Ratzingerian cardinal not only by formation but also by national kinship, recently stated that Pope Leo would bring “liturgical peace” back to the Church and suggested that one of the first steps in the new Vatican agenda should be to “restore access to the Traditional Mass.”
Raymond Leo Burke, arguably the most representative cardinal of the traditionalist wing—an American like Prevost, but Ratzingerian like Müller, and a longstanding defender of the Traditional Mass—stated during a video address to the conference organized in London by the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales on June 14 that he had explicitly asked Pope Leo to lift the restrictive liturgical measures introduced by Francis through the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which effectively repealed his predecessor’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum.
Progressive Cardinal Zuppi appeared as a guest at the festival hosted by La Repubblica, maybe the most progressive of Italy’s newspapers, where journalist Francesco Merlo said: “I don’t like Pope Leo because he’s too cold—I miss Francis.” Zuppi didn’t respond. Apparently, the Left is allowed to criticize!
It’s hard to believe that the Pope would ignore the requests of his fellow countryman, and there are several reasons for that. First and foremost, one of the new Pope’s stated goals is precisely the internal cohesion of the Church—something he refers to using the word “unity” (even though, theologically speaking, the Church’s unity is rooted in the unity of doctrine. That said, I don’t believe that condemning the heterodox ideas that have infiltrated the Church—a necessary step to restore doctrinal unity—is among Pope Prevost’s priorities, at least for now: please see here, here, here, and here).
Secondly, Burke, along with Dolan, was one of the key popemakers of the last Conclave. The US Catholic traditionalist and the conservative wings joined forces and, in utmost secrecy, pulled the name Prevost out of the hat—a name which, as is now well known, immediately attracted convergence even from the more progressive cardinals.
Many of them already seem disappointed—such as the head of the Italian bishops, Matteo Zuppi, who, the day after the election, told an Italian journalist: “By principle, all popes are always good, because those who make the choices are always somewhat flawed.”
And yet, after meeting with Pope Leo in a private audience with the Italian Episcopal Conference on June 17, Zuppi appeared as a guest at the festival hosted by La Repubblica, maybe the most progressive of Italy’s newspapers, where journalist Francesco Merlo said: “I don’t like Pope Leo because he’s too cold—I miss Francis.”
Zuppi didn’t respond. Apparently, the Left is allowed to criticize! Perhaps Zuppi was expecting different treatment from the Pontiff he believes he helped bring about—most likely by channeling Sant’Egidio-aligned votes toward him during the Conclave. But who can say?
By restoring the role of the Secretariat of State as the official diplomatic body of the Holy See, Pope Leo has, in fact, moved past the embarrassing approach taken by Bergoglio, who often bypassed Parolin in favor of the unofficial diplomacy of Zuppi and the Sant’Egidio Community.
A Lion Pope and Chameleon Bishops?
Much has been said about Burke and Dolan. The American cardinals had a relatively easy time dominating the Conclave scene, thanks in part to the alarming economic shortfall left by the previous administration.
However, while Pope Leo appears to be restoring certain more conservative pontifical symbols and a more doctrinal tone, there is one aspect of his governance that, at least so far, aligns perfectly with Francis’s approach: episcopal appointments.
So far, Pope Leo has appointed several bishops around the world—some of whom are quite controversial. Let’s begin with the appointment of Shane Mackinlay as Archbishop of Brisbane, Australia. A supporter of the female diaconate, his nomination sparked scandal from Monsignor Strickland.
“With deep concern for the faithful of the Church, I feel compelled to address the recent appointment [...]. While we owe filial respect and obedience to the Holy Father in matters properly within his authority, this appointment raises serious pastoral and doctrinal questions.
Bishop Mackinlay has publicly expressed support for the possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate—a position that not only introduces grave confusion but directly challenges the consistent teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church. [...]
The push to redefine the diaconate to include women is not a matter of minor discipline or pastoral adaptation—it is a rupture with the unbroken tradition of the Church and a step toward undermining the very nature of the sacramental priesthood.”
To be fair, Mackinlay is not Pope Leo’s first highly controversial appointment. As early as May 23, Pope Leo had approved (though not directly appointed) Monsignor Beat Grögli as Bishop of St. Gallen, Switzerland—another strong supporter of the female diaconate. The Swiss situation is quite sui generis, in fact: bishops there are elected by the Cathedral Chapter, which then presents the candidate’s name to the cantonal government. If the canton approves, the name is forwarded to Rome, which is then faced with a choice—either accept or reject. In the latter case, it would trigger a protracted conflict with both the local Church and the canton, thereby sparking troublesome diplomatic tensions that the Holy See—especially under Leo’s reign—seeks to avoid.
It is thus impossible to overlook the fact that, alongside the encouraging signs emerging on the liturgical and doctrinal front, a certain opacity persists in the highly delicate area of episcopal appointments. And it is precisely this issue that may prove to be the true litmus test of Leo XIV’s pontificate.
All that remains for Rome is to lay down doctrinal boundaries, which may serve to rein in the heterodox bishop from making statements unwelcome to the hierarchy (a strategy that doesn’t always work). This situation stems from Swiss jurisdictionalism—that political doctrine, born of Protestantism, which advocates not only the separation of Church and State (as in Americanism) but even State control over the Church, particularly in episcopal appointments. The fact remains that the new Bishop of St. Gallen is both problematic and heterodox.
Finally, on 27 June, José Antonio Satué Huerto was appointed Bishop of Málaga (Spain). He is a well-known and controversial supporter of the Fiducia supplicans Document on the blessing of same-sex couples. Notably, Málaga is one of Spain’s largest dioceses and, by all accounts, has a strong traditionalist component.
Some observers close to the Vatican note that these appointments may trace back to decisions already approved under Pope Francis's pontificate, though they had not yet been put into effect until now. In this way, they seek to rule out any direct responsibility on the part of Pope Leo. However, with due reverence and in full awareness of our limitations before the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, we humbly submit that this interpretation risks being more problematic than the issue itself.
First and foremost, the Supreme Pontiff is entirely free to repeal, amend, or suspend any prior decision without being accountable to anyone, since the Pope is subject to no human judgment.
Secondly, the argument that such appointments were made for the sake of internal diplomatic continuity within the Roman Curia appears untenable. Such reasoning would imply that the new Pope sought to maintain a balance with the previous Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops—yet Pope Leo himself, then Cardinal Prevost, held that very position. It’s hard to imagine he would have been constrained by considerations of convenience toward his own prior actions. If, instead, these appointments had been promoted by other influential members of the Dicastery, like the Secretary or others, one would have to conclude that, during his own tenure, the decision-making power of more progressive figures outweighed that of the sitting Prefect—an interpretation that, for now, we are reluctant to accept for its implications.
It is not enough to restore freedom to the Traditional Mass if, at the same time, the episcopal body is allowed to continue being shaped by ambiguous—or worse, heterodox—criteria.
Lastly—and decisively—it must be recalled that episcopal appointments which have not been formally promulgated or made public prior to the death of the Pope who enacted them, lapse by law with the beginning of the Sede Vacante. This is clearly established in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (1996), promulgated by John Paul II and still in force. Chapter IV of that document stipulates that, during the Sede Vacante, the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia lose all authority to address matters requiring the direct or specific intervention of the Pope. Episcopal appointments, being ex audientia Sanctissimi acts, carry no juridical effect without the explicit will of the reigning Supreme Pontiff and must, if deemed appropriate, be renewed or ratified by the new Pope.
In light of this, it is legitimate to conclude—always with the utmost respect and filial obedience to the Successor of Peter—that the ultimate and formal responsibility for any appointment made public during the new pontificate necessarily rests with Pope Leo, in the full and undisputed authority conferred upon him by the munus petrinum.
The Traditionalists’ Strategy: Liturgy First?
It is thus impossible to overlook the fact that, alongside the encouraging signs emerging on the liturgical and doctrinal front, a certain opacity persists in the highly delicate area of episcopal appointments. And it is precisely this issue that may prove to be the true litmus test of Leo XIV’s pontificate.
Cardinals of proven fidelity to Tradition and the perennial Magisterium—such as Burke and Müller, who are held in esteem and gratitude by many of the faithful—now have a historic opportunity to call for not only the safeguarding of the liturgy, but also for greater vigilance over the transmission of the faith through the pastors of the future.
It is not enough to restore freedom to the Traditional Mass if, at the same time, the episcopal body is allowed to continue being shaped by ambiguous—or worse, heterodox—criteria. There is a very real risk that the Traditional Mass, though benevolently readmitted, will be tolerated merely as a free zone—a sort of protected enclave for faithful deemed nostalgic for a bygone era, quietly left to fade away with the passing of generations.
Yet, if we look to recent history, ecclesiastical Freemasonry has never made that mistake: particularly from the reign of Paul VI onward, the neo-modernists first secured university chairs and episcopal appointments, and only afterward changed the liturgical books. For this reason, the cardinals who today sincerely and consistently seek authentic Catholic renewal—not merely an aesthetic or devotional revival—should turn renewed attention to the Dicastery for Bishops, and to a certain extent, also the Secretariat of State, since it is often up to the nuncios to provide names of candidates for the episcopacy in dioceses around the world. That is where the future face of the Church is tangibly shaped. That is where the seeds of tomorrow’s hierarchy are sown.
Cardinals of proven fidelity to Tradition and the perennial Magisterium—such as Burke and Müller, who are held in esteem and gratitude by many of the faithful—now have a historic opportunity to call for not only the safeguarding of the liturgy, but also for greater vigilance over the transmission of the faith through the pastors of the future, sustained by the serene strength of truth.
Tradition is not preserved merely by celebrating well; it is passed on by choosing well. And Rome, once again, is the place where this can either take place—or be prevented.
Ping
I am now optimistic about the Catholic Church’s future...
I would encourage the Pope’s MAGA brother to join FR and provide us with inside information on this Pope’s tendencies...
Will Pope Leo accept Cupcake Cupich's resignation or won't he?
He better not ask him to stay on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.