Rorate Caeli

Please, Holy See communication officials, make up your minds about the Pope's weekday sermons!

Either the Holy See (the press office? those responsible for archiving the original texts of the Supreme Pontiff? etc) considers the weekday homilies of the current Bishop of Rome unworthy of magisterial qualities - in which case their content should not be made available at all, much less by some chosen excerpts published by Vatican Radio; or they should be accepted in their full quality as words of the Successor of Saint Peter, and their full transcripts should be made available in L'Osservatore Romano and in the Vatican website. We even suggest a new category in the page of Franciscus PP. (in English), "Omelie quotidiane" ("Weekday Homilies"), as a separate category from the more formal "Omelie"(Homilies).

We choose not to believe that the full transcripts are being saved only for for-profit publication by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana (LEV) and authorized publishing houses in other languages!


  1. Anonymous7:26 PM

    Hughie, the current Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Rome.

    Find a hobby.

  2. Grazie al Sismografo per aiutare a diffondere questo appello.

  3. Anonymous8:21 PM

    In light of the worldwide repercussions that followed even from carefully considered statements by Pope Benedict (e.g., the Regensburg address, the comments on condom usage in Peter Seewald's interview-book Light of the World), how can we think it is wise for any Pope, no matter how smart or adept he is at speaking in public, to be giving daily, off-the-cuff homilies? If he (speaking in his second language, mind you) slips up even one time and accidentally says something controversial or goofy, it's worldwide news within the hour.

    For all of the focus leading up to the conclave on correcting the failing institutional structures of the Church, you'd think somebody from the Press Office would try to inform the Holy Father of the risk he's running here, particularly in the wake of the numerous P.R. disasters of the previous pontificate. (Oh wait, the Secretariat of State-run press office, led by the embarrassingly incompetent Fr. Federico Lombardi, is one of the most prominent of the failing institutional structures within the Church today.)

    Incidentally, I think we can understand now why the Holy Father has generally offered his daily Mass privately.

  4. It's not exactly his second language...

  5. It is especially dangerous since this Pope is not the intellectual equal to to his two most recent predecessors, who never would have given off-the-cuff homilies, incidentally. The "fools" comment is a good illustration that may indicate an imprudent rashness and pride on Francis' part.

    If his handlers want to maintain the "Pope Francis is humble" facade, then they will either have to put a end to the daily homilies or stop the leaking of what they contain.

    However, it's doubtful that someone like Pope Francis can be "handled". He's proven to be rather head-strong and stubborn, a bit too set in his ways, and unable to accept the change that his new station has brought about. He sometimes seems to be restraining the work of the Holy Spirit that chose him, via the permissive Will of God, to be pope. Why, he seems to be down right tying the Holy Spirit down be refusing to refer to himself as "Pope"!

    (An intelligent person does not level a criticism against those who could easily turn the same criticism around.)

  6. Both positions are understandable. What is unacceptable, considering that it is the Roman Pontiff who is uttering the words, is the current situation, in which only some excerpts, whose faithfulness to what was said cannot even be ascertained, are made available by Vatican Radio, along with original commentary... Either they should remain in their position as private reflections and not made public at all, or they should be made available fully, as full transcripts.

  7. Many of the problems stemming from the documents of Vatican 11 were caused by the use of obscure and ambiguous language. Cardinal Kasper has now admitted so.

    Any pronouncement by the Church, written or verbal, which leaves people debating its meaning, is deplorable, and would have been better unstated. What is needed is clear orthodox teaching, authoratively and unambiguously pronounced.

    Because of such language the “special case “of Vatican II continues. It has produced, as Marin Mosebach recently put it, “a catastrophe of the gravest proportions. This is no exaggeration.”

    Therefore, the call by Archbishop Schneider for a Syllabus of Errors, with doctrinal value, identifying the errors promoted in the name of the Second Vatican Council, becomes ever more urgent.

  8. A lot of truth in what David Werling has blogged

  9. Anonymous6:30 AM

    I'm Italian and, trust me, Italian is Pope Francis's second language. Benedict's Italian was more accurate, even if his accent was stranger.

  10. What are you all afraid of. Pope Francis speaking on the importance of Vaican II and the importance of its continuation and people going backwards refusing to accept its developments against the drive of the Holy Spirit (indirectly hinting at the schismatic SSPX and others).

  11. No, he's issuing a challenge to 1968 revolutionaries that the times they are a changin'.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!