Cupich Spouts More Sewage
Cupich once again proved why he makes it so hard for the true faithful to muster even a shred of charity for him.
Did I miss the memo about the competition?
The competition among the Novus Ordo hierarchy to see who can be the most insufferable, anti-Catholic enemy of Mother Church?
Up until very recently, Charlotte Bishop Michael T. Martin was leading the pack in this dubious race.
Since his appointment as Bishop of Charlotte in May 2024, Martin has rapidly emerged as a focal point of liturgical conflict. In 2025, he moved swiftly to restrict the TLM in his diocese, announcing that the four parish sites offering the TLM would be consolidated into a single, non-parish chapel in Mooresville—a Protestant building repurposed at significant diocesan expense—thus uprooting traditional communities from their historic and sacred homes.
Of course, that evergreen (or is it ever-rainbow?) favorite in this “competition,” the other Martin—“Rev.” James Martin—was not about to be outshone in the let’s-destroy-the-church stakes. Just last week, he reminded everyone why he remains a heavyweight contender, when he smugly told the world that his meeting with Pope Leo XIV was “encouraging,” since he heard the same message regarding the LGBTQ agenda that he “heard from Pope Francis.” (I guess he should thank the good Pope for boosting his ranking…)
But lo and behold! Both of these contenders underestimated the dark depths to which that archenemy of Catholicism, Cardinal Blase Cupich, could descend!
On September 3 an essay by this prelate of the new religion—masquerading as Catholicism—appeared on the Chicago Catholic website. In it, Cupich once again proved why he makes it so hard for the true faithful to muster even a shred of charity for him. (You can read it here).
Cardinal Blase Cupich’s essay on “Tradition vs. Traditionalism” is a masterclass in modernist doublespeak. Draped in lofty quotations and selective appeals to Newman, he attempts to dress up rupture as continuity and to smear the very Catholics who refuse to bow before the wreckage of post-Conciliar “renewal.” His weapon of choice—the Pelikán slogan about “the living faith of the dead” versus “the dead faith of the living”—is trotted out with the smug assurance of a man who thinks he has won the argument by clever wordplay. But this borrowed aphorism collapses under scrutiny. Tradition is not “dead faith.” It is the very lifeblood of the Mystical Body, sanctified through centuries of liturgical worship, defended by martyrs, and guarded by saints. To suggest otherwise is not merely shallow—it is a slander against the faithful remnant that has preserved Catholic worship against the bureaucratic iconoclasm of men like Cupich.
What Cupich calls “reform” has in fact been disfigurement. Organic development, as taught by St. Vincent of Lérins, does not mean tearing down a Gothic cathedral to erect a concrete bunker in its place. Yet this is precisely what was done under the banner of Vatican II’s “spirit”. The ancient Roman rite was dismantled, Gregorian chant silenced, altars ripped out, sanctuaries vandalized, and the faithful subjected to a fabricated liturgy assembled by committee and riddled with Protestant sensibilities. And now, decades later, Cupich has the gall to claim this catastrophe was a “recovery of truths.” Where are the fruits of this so-called recovery? Empty pews. Dead seminaries. Ignorance of the faith. A near-total collapse of Catholic life in the very dioceses most zealous for reform. These are not the fruits of renewal but of decay.
Meanwhile, the “traditionalists” he derides are the only sector of the Church visibly growing. Their parishes are packed. Their confessionals are full. Their families are large, their young people devout, their vocations flourishing. If this is “dead faith,” then may God give us more of it. The true corpse in this story is the withered husk of the Novus Ordo parish, where banal hymns echo across half-empty pews and no one genuflects because no one believes.
Cupich parrots Pope Francis’ insult about “backwardists,” as though fidelity to the liturgy of countless saints is a sign of spiritual paralysis. But what Cupich calls backward, the Church has always called orthodox. It was not “rigidity” that led the martyrs to endure torture for the Mass; it was fidelity. It was not “nostalgia” that inspired monks to illuminate manuscripts or composers to craft polyphony; it was love for the eternal. The backwardness lies not in turning toward tradition but in pretending that the failed experiments of the 1970s constitute progress.
Cupich’s entire essay reeks of bureaucratic defensiveness. He knows that the grand “renewal” has failed, and so he turns his ire on those who expose the failure by their very existence. Traditional Catholics, by their reverence, their fecundity, their sheer vitality, reveal the hollowness of the post-Conciliar wasteland. And so they must be maligned, caricatured, and suppressed. Cupich’s restrictions on the old Mass in Chicago are not pastoral prudence but ecclesiastical spite. He would rather drive faithful Catholics to the margins than admit that what his generation called “renewal” was in fact betrayal.
The living faith of the Church does not reside in Cupich’s empty slogans or in the barren parishes of his making. It lives in the unbroken Tradition of the Church, in the Mass of the Ages, in the timeless doctrine handed down without rupture. What Cupich despises as “traditionalism” is nothing less than Catholicism itself. His essay is not a defense of reform but a confession of failure.
But, let us look at some of the “highlights” on Cupich’s resume of crimes against Catholicism:
Crackdown on the Traditional Latin Mass
Following the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, Cupich’s lust for persecution could hardly be contained and he imposed sweeping restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in 2021, banning it on key holy days—Easter, Pentecost, first Sundays, Christmas, and Holy Triduum. He actively aligned with efforts to privilege the post-Conciliar Ordinary Form over enduring liturgical heritage.
In 2022, pressure from Cupich reportedly led the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest to suspend all public Masses and confessions at their Chicago shrine.
Controversies Over LGBTQ-whatever Issues
In 2018, Cupich removed Father Paul Kalchik for burning a rainbow Pride flag—an act meant as exorcism—and apparently suggested a psychological evaluation.
He courted more controversy for inviting pro-LGBTQ figures like Bishop Robert McElroy (another contender of Olympic talents) and Father James Martin to speak at diocesan events.
More recently, in 2023, Cupich presided over an LGBTQ Mass near Chicago’s Pride celebrations, appealing for unity—but provoking consternation among traditional Catholics.
Handling of Sexual Abuse Allegations
The archdiocese under Cupich was criticized for still withholding names of abusive priests in religious orders, despite expanding public listings.
Other cases, like those involving George Clements and Michael Pfleger, saw Cupich initiate investigations or remove clergy from ministry, though outcomes and transparency were questioned.
Criticized Governance & Financial Mismanagement
Cupich’s tenure saw widespread parish closures—often in economically vulnerable communities—while investing heavily in high-profile projects like renovating Holy Name Cathedral. Critics pointed to a sense of skewed priorities.
Political & Cultural Flashpoints
He strongly condemned President Trump’s immigration ban in 2017, calling it “a dark moment in U.S. history.”
At the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Cupich delivered the opening invocation, where some conservatives lamented the absence of anti-abortion content.
He also clashed with the Jewish community after Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan spoke at a parish event; Cupich apologized, denouncing the anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Synodality vs Traditional Dissent
Cupich frequently defends synodal reforms as an “ancient reality” and labels synod critics as “fear-mongers,” framing resistance to change as reactionary.
So let us take it from who it is coming: A so-called Cardinal whose record is so tarnished he would make your average Anglican “priest” look Catholic.
Christus vincit!
Christus regnat!
Christus imperat!
ALSO READ:
A Layman’s Guide to Catholic Counter-Revolution
Now Aren’t You the Hypocrite, Archbishop?
The Modernist Gospel of Comfort is Leading You to Hell
Bishop Profanes the Altar of God at Saltillo Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe
Offensive Mass Bible Readings to be “Updated” for Inclusivity in at Least Three Countries
The Gospel According to Aleister Crowley is Alive and Well in Modern Catholicism
Sadly, all the men in your insufferable clergy competition (I think "parasitical" is more apt) are American. If I were pope, I'd reassign them from their cozy digs to places like Iran or Yemen like Paul VI did with Annibale Bugnini.
Have you checked out Dr Anthony Stine's youtube video which was aired yesterday on this subject. He says Cupich has anathemazed himself as Trent pronounced an anathema on liturgical revolutions. I think commentators like us including podcasters should stress on this.
"If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only....let him be anathema."