1. Your Excellency, in recent years you have repeatedly described the current “synodality” as a subversive act against the hierarchical-sacramental office of bishops and priests, even as a Protestantisation or Anglicanisation of Church governance based on a misapplied universal priesthood of the baptised. What, then, does “synodality” truly mean in the authentic Tradition of the Church, and have you expressed your concerns regarding this synodal office?
«In the time of the Church Fathers, a synod was a local assembly of the Church, consisting mainly of bishops, convened to clarify matters and guide the Church. Since the last Council, it has served as a means by which bishops from all over the world are involved in the governance of the universal Church and advise the Pope on certain issues. They took place every three years and were exclusively assemblies of delegated bishops from around the world. Synods, such as those convened by Pope Francis, have never existed in the history of the Catholic Church. They undermine the episcopal office. I have no contact with the Synod Secretariat. That would be pointless anyway.»
2. You have stated that the synodal process has produced a flood of documents, commissions, and intermediate steps without fostering supernatural life in souls, and that it aims to reshape established doctrine on marriage, homosexuality, the role of women, and ecclesiastical authority. In light of the ongoing implementation phase ahead of the 2028 assembly, do you see any correction under the present pontificate, or is the course confirmed?
«Unfortunately, I do not see that. I also see no benefit for the Church in this process – rather, I see more harm. In my view, the process contributes nothing to a genuine spiritual renewal of the Church. In this respect, it is a mirage. Yet while a mirage dissolves into thin air – and with that, the comparison ends – the synodal process undermines the sacramental governance of the Church. For it is not about consulting bishops, but about laypeople jointly assuming governance with the bishops. This is touted as a new revelation, though the discernment of the Spirit is nothing new – it has been practised since time immemorial.»
3. At the extraordinary consistory in January and June 2026, liturgy was conspicuously absent from the agenda, despite the Pope having recently spoken of being «formed through the rites». Why, in your assessment, was the liturgical question once again shelved just as the ordinations of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X were imminent?
«Because they want to play it safe and do not wish to change anything in Traditionis Custodes. The latter document is based on a lie, for in the survey conducted beforehand, the world’s bishops did not want stricter measures; rather, the majority were satisfied with Summorum Pontificum.»
4. In our previous interview, you described the post-conciliar liturgical reform as a rather violent, provisional restructuring that entailed great losses in prayers, bodily postures, and orientation, and you insisted that the old and the new rite should simply exist as rites without being turned into ideological battlegrounds. Given that the consistory entirely avoided the topic, what concrete steps would you urgently recommend to the Holy See and the bishops so that the traditional Latin Mass may flourish once more as a living treasure rather than a restricted exception?
«I believe we should take the criticism of the liturgical reform seriously and re-examine the question. The cardinals should do this as soon as possible within the framework of a consistory, rather than avoiding the issue. Ignoring the criticism and pretending that everything is fine is no solution.»
5. Young people continue to be drawn to the traditional Latin Mass – on account of its theocentric orientation, its silence, its reverence, and its solemnity. You have observed that spiritual hunger is real, and that restricting the older form under the banner of «unity» has healed nothing. Five years after Traditionis Custodes and following the most recent consistory: do you sense a pastoral or theological rethink at the highest level, or has the marginalisation of the old rite simply become institutionalised?
«Unfortunately, yes. But there will be a backlash. Grassroots movements from below cannot be stopped from above. They also demand a response from the hierarchy. «No answer is a bad answer.»»
6. You previously judged the episcopal consecrations planned by the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X for 1 July 2026 without papal mandate as a schismatic act that ruptures visible unity. These consecrations have now taken place. How do you assess the current spiritual situation of the Fraternity and its affiliated faithful? Has support for the Priestly Fraternity in Switzerland or elsewhere grown precisely because many Catholics feel that the prevailing liturgy and preaching no longer nourish them?
«As I have already said: ignoring a grassroots movement – particularly among young people – is a very bad idea. The Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X is not the solution, and we should not drive disaffected faithful – those dissatisfied with the liturgical reform or what they often experience in parishes – into its arms. The Fraternity is schismatic and will remain merely another Christian denomination. It has produced Williamson, who has already validly consecrated other bishops at his own discretion. That shows where it leads.»
7. You have made it abundantly clear that Islam – not merely radical Islamism – is by nature anti-Christian and incompatible with the Western understanding of freedom and the secular state, and that large-scale Islamic immigration without conversion will ultimately determine which civilisation endures. How do you evaluate the Church’s current public discourse on migration, its emphasis on hospitality and neighbourly love in light of the demographic and religious realities you describe, and what realistic pastoral and political stance should Catholic leaders adopt?
«It is not the Church, but politics, that must solve this problem sensibly. The Church preaches neighbourly love. It should not advise politicians on how to tackle the migration issue. In politics, migration policy in recent years up to the present has been shaped by left-wing ideology; in the Church, moralism dominates the migration question. Many in the Church also lean to the left. Pope Francis was the most prominent example of this.»
8. In your most recent commentary (originally published on your website and widely circulated), you ask whether the Petrine Office is in decline. You point to the increase in informal audiences, spontaneous interviews, media appearances, and encounters with celebrities, such as the 40-minute private audience of Pope Leo XIV with the «godmother of punk», Patti Smith, and argue that it is now the Pope’s personality rather than the office itself that is at the centre. What prompted you to write this article now, and in what way does the meeting with Patti Smith exemplify a broader pattern you have traced since John Paul II?
«It was the meeting with Patti Smith – which lasted nearly three-quarters of an hour – but also the image of the Pope behind the wheel of a Ferrari and other things I describe in my article that led me to reflect on this. Indeed, there are many examples that deserve criticism. Generally speaking, our time lacks a sense of the objectivity of the office. Everything is personalised by the media. Yet the office is more important than the person with their individual traits – which one may like or not, as long as the office-holder simply does his (official) work well.»
9. You write that popes, in the exercise of their office, have become «all too human», that image consultants need images, and that private preferences and photo opportunities have taken the place of authoritative doctrine, prayerful discernment, and the clear condemnation of heretical positions. To what extent does this media-oriented, activist style of the papacy actually undermine the dignity and authority of the Chair of Peter, and why do you consider it more damaging than mere personal style?
«I have answered this question extensively and essentially in my contribution. In my responses here, I have already hinted at much of it. Generally speaking, I have the impression that popes spend too little time in prayer, reflection, study, leadership, and so on. They are constrained by a schedule of audiences, greetings, liturgical celebrations, and travels. John Paul II was almost always travelling. Yet the Curia needs the pope’s presence and leadership. Others have filled this gap. Now I have the impression that, due to the high bar set by John Paul II, there is almost a compulsion to travel – or the impression that a pope must show himself everywhere. For me, it is enough if he teaches the faith and stands firm like a rock in the storm – not like a wandering dune, as Cardinal Meissner polemically remarked.»
10. You invoke the words of the Baptist: «He must increase, but I must decrease», and emphasise that popes are only friends and representatives of the Bridegroom, not the Bridegroom Himself. How would a return to this self-effacement look in the daily exercise of the Petrine Office: fewer audiences for celebrities, fewer travels, clearer doctrinal statements, a different relationship with the College of Cardinals?
«It sounds strange: more doctrine, less (informal) talking; more silent leadership of the Curia, fewer public audiences and fewer travels; more dignity of the office, less personal style. Speak in doctrinal, prescribed formats rather than expressing personal opinions and impressions; pray with the people and celebrate the liturgy. Fewer ambiguous images; fewer lifestyle pictures; no time wasted on matters irrelevant to the doctrine and governance of the Church; kneeling and silence, more time in prayer, to turn the world upside down quietly and speak only when it is crucial for the course of events. Refrain from commenting on matters not within the Church’s competence. Adhere to protocol and not try to score points through constant violations of it; not to undermine the office in order to become all the more popular through trivial, protocol-violating details exaggerated by the media.»
12. When you consider the overall picture of the Church today, where do you see the most urgent point of conversion and renewal for the Church in the West, and what gives you hope that the gates of hell will not prevail against it?
«The gates of hell will certainly not prevail against the Church. The Lord is always there. As for reform: the unity of the Church lies in the unity of faith. The Pope must always uphold this faith, expose and condemn heresies and abuses, and depose heretics – especially bishops – from their office. He should not subject the Church to an even greater bureaucratisation through a flood of procedures and documents. He should teach the simple Gospel, proclaim Jesus Christ, and nothing else – such as the climate. Jesus Christ is the solution. That is what we must offer the world. Perhaps some will now think I am presumptuous because I offer advice to the Pope from the sidelines without truly knowing his life. The truth is: I am merely trying to answer the questions put to me to the best of my knowledge and conscience.»
