The Dispatch: More from CWR...

2,800 Catholics sign Traditional Latin Mass petition delivered to Arlington bishop

Katie YoderChristine Rousselle   By Katie YoderChristine Rousselle for CNA

Bishop Michael F. Burbidge displays the apostolic letter from Pope Francis appointing him as the fourth bishop of the Arlington Diocese during his installation Mass Dec. 6, 2016 at the Cathedral of St. Thomas More in Arlington. (CNS photo/Ashleigh Buyers, Catholic Herald)

Arlington, Va., Jan 31, 2022 / 13:00 pm (CNA).

Nearly 2,800 supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass have signed a petition addressed to Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington. The organizer tells CNA he delivered that petition to the bishop’s office on Monday.

The document asks Burbidge to lift restrictions he recently imposed on the celebration of the sacraments in the Extraordinary Form.

“In the spirit of the Synodal Path that the church has embarked upon, we humbly ask that you engage in consultations with the faithful of each parish church potentially affected by restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass,” reads the petition, which was originally published online at Change.org on Jan. 14. “And we pray fervently that you might offer permission to allow the Extraordinary Form and other traditional sacraments to continue across the Diocese of Arlington.”

The petition organizer, 36-year-old Noah Peters of Fairfax, Virginia, told CNA that he handed a printout of the signed petition to the receptionist at the Diocese of Arlington’s main office Jan. 31. At the time of its delivery, the petition listed nearly 2,800 signatures from around the world, with 2,551 signatures from the United States, he said.

The vast majority of those, Peters added, featured Northern Virginia addresses.

“I decided to keep signers from outside the diocese because many indicated in the comments that they had family here or otherwise attend Mass here,” Peters told CNA. “For example, one woman said that she drove two hours each Sunday from Maryland to attend a TLM in our diocese, because our Masses are so beautiful and reverent here!”

The Diocese of Arlington is one of the two Catholic dioceses in Virginia. Twenty-one of the diocese’s 70 parishes offer the Latin Mass, one of the highest percentages among U.S. dioceses.

The petition began earlier this month after Burbidge issued a statement concerning the celebration of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form in the diocese. While the bishop did not restrict any of the existing Traditional Latin Masses in the diocese, he said there is to be no “scheduling of new celebrations of the Sacraments (such as baptisms and weddings) in the Extraordinary Form.”

Peters described how he hoped Burbidge would respond to the petition.

“I am hoping and praying that Bishop Burbidge carefully considers the overwhelming response we received and the many comments, which are quite moving,” he said. Along with the petition itself, Peters delivered the comments that Catholics left on the petition.

Those comments, Peters said, showed the impact of the Traditional Latin Mass on Catholics.

“The comments describe, for example, how the TLM has led converts and fallen-away Catholics alike to full communion with the Church; how it has strengthened families; how it has comforted grieving widows; how it has led to many vocations; and how so many in the diocese pray fervently that they might be able to raise their children in a traditional liturgical life,” he said. “There were also numerous comments from people who primarily attend the Novus Ordo but love the TLM for special occasions and see its beneficial fruits within the Diocese.”

Peters discussed why this mattered to him.

“The Traditional Latin Mass is the bedrock of my wife and I’s spiritual life. It gives an amazing depth of meaning and richness to our lives, and we greatly wish to pass it on to our children,” he said. “It has borne amazing fruit within our diocese, in terms of Mass attendance, conversions, and vocations.”

Peters, a lawyer who attends St. John the Beloved in McLean, Virginia, previously shared his personal connection to the Traditional Latin Mass with CNA. In 2020, he converted to Catholicism from Judaism. He said that his first experience seeing the Traditional Latin Mass in 2019 “blew me away,” and that “any doubt about converting went away immediately.” He was married, in the Extraordinary Form, in October.

Besides his own relationship with the Traditional Latin Mass, Peters said that it holds great significance in the Church.

“The TLM has been the lifeblood of the Church, the source and summit of Catholic life, for thousands of years,” he said. “At a time when there has been an enormous, and catastrophic, decline in Catholic belief and vocations across the globe, the growth of the TLM has been a beacon of light and hope.”

“Suppressing the TLM would be enormously damaging to the Church,” he concluded. “We pray for a wise and careful implementation of Traditionis Custodes.”

He stressed that he and the petitioners support Burbidge with prayer.

“I want Bishop Burbidge to know we are praying for him and for the continuation of the traditional Mass and sacraments, and that we greatly appreciate how generous he has been in permitting celebration of the Mass and sacraments in the Old Rite to date,” Peters said.

When Burbidge issued his directive, it came as a response to the “responsa ad dubia” published by the Congregation for Divine Worship in December. Among the things listed in the responsa, the congregation said that, according to Traditionis custodes, sacraments cannot be celebrated using the Rituale Romanum and the Pontificale Romanum promulgated prior to the reforms following Vatican II.

In a letter to bishops accompanying Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis said that the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass “is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the ‘true Church.’”

The pope also claimed that communities dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass had “exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”

The petition says those characterizations do not apply “in any way” in the Arlington diocese.

“Traditional Latin Mass attendees in this diocese are marked by deep reverence and love for the Church and a burning desire to live our Catholic faith as fully as possible, not a sense of disunity and schism,” it reads.

The Diocese of Arlington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Catholic News Agency 4821 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

43 Comments

  1. The bishop should vigorously reiterate what Pope Francis in Traditionis Custodes envisions, that is to eventually bring all Roman Catholics into the exclusive celebration of the Vatican II Mass. The Pope asserts that the liturgy according to the reformed Missal of Paul VI, that is, the conciliar form normally celebrated in the vernacular, is “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” This reverses Pope Benedict’s theological gymnastics of introducing two “forms” of one Roman Rite: one “ordinary” (conciliar) and one “extraordinary” (pre-conciliar). If the lex orandi (law of prayer) is the lex credendi (law of belief), as the venerable old adage goes, the real concern of Pope Francis’s pastoral concern is the legacy of the Second Vatican Council and the contested lex credendi of the Catholic Church. Today, the law of belief of the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II, and the law of prayer should be aligned with this, that is the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council. To stick to the old pre-Vatican II liturgy as the law of prayer while receiving and keeping the Vatican II law of belief is, to borrow the Church’s description of and teaching about the homosexual act, “an objective disorder.”

      • Carl: Think about the nature the Church’s revered linkage between the law of prayer and the law of belief which entails to be aligned and congruent. To suggest otherwise as you appear to advocate is indeed similar to the disordered nature of sodomy. You should read not just Pope Benedict XVI’s addresses on the hermeneutics of Vatican II but read especially more about “the issue behind the issues of Vatican II” (according to John Courtney Murray), the development of doctrine – and consequent discipline – explicated in Dei Verbum 8 drafted by Yves Congar, borrowed from St. John Henry Newman, ratified by the Council Fathers, and cited by Pope Francis in Traditionis Custodes.

      • Emerson, your use of the expression “the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II” is curious. Evolved?

        The whole point of St. Cardinal Newman in his “Development of Doctrine” (whom you cite), articulated at the time of bracket-creep DarwinISM, is to offer the Church’s path of development as not being open-ended evolution. See below. As for the Novus Ordo, the dilemma is that things done under this label since 1965 did NOT follow the Second Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium) which you cite. Valid, but problematic at best…and, some say, the actual rejection of the real Council of the Documents.

        Pope Benedict’s “theological gymnastics” (your extravagant hyperbole) was a skilled and pastoral effort toward what we all want, a unified liturgical prayer, that is, with an extraordinary form and an ordinary form of the SAME Latin rite. And with the latter form to be better aligned with what the Council itself retained of the former (in your words, “the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council”).

        Newman’s contribution to doctrine assures that development does not “evolve” into mutation: “I venture to set down seven notes of varying cogency, independence, and applicability to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay, as follows: [Abbreviated here] There is no corruption if it retains: (1) One and the same TYPE; (2) the same PRINCIPLES,(3) The same ORGANIZATION;(4) If its beginnings ANTICIPATE its subsequent phases, (5) Its later phenomena PROTECT and subserve its earlier [!]; (6) If it has a power of assimilation and REVIVAL; and (7) A vigorous ACTION from first to last…”.

        The current QUESTION, with regard to the liturgy of the perennial Church, is whether abruptly abrogating/amputating the extraordinary form really serves development, or disrupts it. Overreach? Maybe even theological gymnastics!

        Offering a comparison, Olson then notes that the devolution of sexual morality from binary complementarity to gender theory (with sodomy as one variant) is a discontinuity—a mutant evolution not unlike the hermeneutics of discontinuity.

      • As the hermeneutic of discontinuity – usually wrongly contrasted with hermeneutic of continuity – is mentioned here. It is best to go back and read the Dec. 22, 2005 speech of Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia setting out his proposed interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. This needs to be properly set because this has been misused by many conservative Catholics in the wrong way, that is, as not meant by the Pope Emeritus. The proper contrast and juxtaposition in viewing the teachings of Vatican II vis a vis the previous 21 ecumenical councils, he declared, is that of between the hermeneutic (that is, the interpretation and understanding) of discontinuity and the hermeneutic of reform. It is not, as many promoters of the old pre-Vatican II mass hold, between the hermeneutic of discontinuity and continuity. The then Pope emphasized that Vatican II is best understood and applied through the lens of the hermeneutic of reform. Significantly the substantial part of the speech dwelt on the nature of reform as consisting in both continuity and discontinuity. In understanding and living the Vatican II mass as the fruit of the liturgical reform mandated by the Council, both the elements of continuity and discontinuity obviously are applied.
        It’s best to read the full speech:
        https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html

        • Agreed, up front, it is not a dichotomy. But somewhere in his writings, Emeritus Pope Benedict writes of “a hermeneutics of discontinuity within (!) continuity.” The ideology of “paradigm shifts” has no place in the Magisterium of the perennial Church.

          THIS is what Benedict means when he writes–in the link you supply–that continuity and discontinuity occur “at different levels”. And this is why he also explains clearly, it seems to this reader:

          “Here I shall cite only John XXIII’s well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic [reform, not deform] when he says that the Council wishes ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion”. And he continues: ‘Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us…’. It is necessary that ‘adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness…’ be presented in ‘faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…’, retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).

          • Some would say that the DICHOTOMY is not between earlier and current formal teachings, but between these teachings as dogma and what is enabled in practice.

            A split between Faith and Morals, as in the opening-wedge of the ghostwriters’ Amoris Laetitia (2014/2015), Chapter 8 and fn. 312, regarding the new category of “irregular” relationships (previously fornication and adultery). And, about which the “dubia”, to which the response is silence…

            Catholic morality and Natural Law are not explicitly denied, but apparently only SUSPENDED selectively in new objective categories (the Catechism maintains objective categories while also recognizing mitigated subjective culpability). Will relator-general Cardinal Hollerich’s synodal “synthesis” of 2023 pretend to harmonize such real contradictions (say, by not rejecting the German deconstructions, and others)? This by again responding inclusively with selective silence? And all within a broad “participation” in the wraparound synodal process—the unanimity of sensus filelium?

            Some recall the doctrine of Monothelitism—and the muddling Pope Honorius I who after his death was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople. “It was for the ‘imprudent economy of silence’ that he was condemned.” Today, both silence and the cryptic “realities are more important than ideas” (Evangelii Gaudium, 2013) possibly VERSUS a now much less important (?) consistency between actions and moral truths (ideas?) that are absolute (Veritatis Splendor, 1993; Faith and Reason, 1998)?

            In the above opening comment—”some would say”—this writer is not qualified to actually say all this stuff. But nor is this writer qualified to refute it. Who am I to judge?

        • Agreed – we must read Benedict’s address carefully. When we do, we see his use of hermeneutic terminology as you say: “Discontinuity” and “reform.” But two paragraphs later, Benedict makes clear that he defines the hermeneutic of reform as ‘renewal of the continuity.’

          VCII’s “reform,” according to Benedict, is “renewal in the CONTINUITY [Emphasis of caps added.] of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always REMAINING THE SAME,…”[Caps added for emphasis.]

          Benedict asks: “Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

          “Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

          “On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

          “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.”

          It is reiterated that Benedict saw one hermeneutic bearing fruit, while the other caused confusion. Clearly Benedict saw confusion resulting from ‘discontinuity’ and fruit from the ‘renewal of continuity’ (reform).

          You may find some interest in distinctions drawn between Ratzinger and Guardini in re liturgical eschatology: Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2020): 521–563.

          • Thank you all above for grappling with the papal address. I hope you now understand – taking the hint from that speech and apply that with the Mass – why many Catholics have difficulty receiving the liturgical reforms of the Council especially with the Vatican II Mass. The Pope Emeritus’ answer in the speech is clear. It is because they wrongly see the reformed Mass with the lens of the hermeneutic of – and as one of – discontinuity and rupture. This is a false reading held by lovers and promoters of the old pre-Vatican II Mass, which obviously includes those petitioning the Arlington diocese which this above article reports. BXVI corrects this and refers to the correct and proper hermeneutic of reform that should be held by all Catholics to receive and implement the Council and its reforms. In this, he elaborates that reform contains both the newness and innovation introduced by Vatican II and its continuity and fidelity to tradition. Most Tridentine Mass adherents do not mention reform but rather falsify it to mean simply as hermeneutic of continuity by deceptively omitting the reference to innovation, and so maintain that they want to stick to the old pre-Vatican II Mass. So, to sum up the papal message, so as to understand and implement the Council properly, the Vatican II documents be read not through the juxtaposition between the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture and the hermeneutic of continuity (omitting the newness implied in reform), but rather between the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture and the hermeneutic of reform (containing both innovation and fidelity to tradition). That is why the Vatican II Mass is one of reform not discontinuity.

    • “…the real concern of Pope Francis’s pastoral concern is the legacy of the Second Vatican Council…”

      Specifically how do the Roman Missal and the EF misalign with VCII teaching? The Novus Ordo Missae fails to follow VCII’s teaching in its Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. Why is it not suppressed? How did it even arise? Surely it could not have been based on anything of any value!?!

      Emerson also says: “Today, the law of belief of the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II,…”

      Deacon Darwin! Is it seriously your premise that only the teaching of VCII is the law of belief? Since the teaching of VCII did not include the totality of Scripture,tits non-inclusion in the ‘new law’ cannot be justified. To disregard scripture is to disregard Revelation altogether. Then there is no reason for VCII to have been and no reason for us to concern ourselves with it today!

      Your statements cannot be taken seriously, realizing the law of diminishing returns. By your reasoning, VCII itself is now horribly out of date. Why hasn’t it undergone evolution? Can you predict how long such perfect equilibrium will persist?

      Regarding St. Newman on doctrinal development, his remains surely turn in his coffin to know his labor is so sorely abused. Doctrinal distortion, deletion, suppression, destruction, negation, or downright piddling all contradict Newman’s document on doctrinal development.

    • I understand the desire for the Pope to bring liturgical unity to the Latin church, but why does that mean liturgical uniformity? The Latin church was once home to many diverse liturgical relatives of the Roman rite. I thought the name of the game with this pontificate was unity, not uniformity?
      Besides, this is not just a disagreement on practice between the two pontificates. Francis and Benedict have made different claims about reality in these two MPs, the latter saying that the papacy CANNOT abrogate such a venerable tradition, while the former says it can. That’s a contradiction in papal teaching. I believe that Benedict is historically correct. No pope has ever dared to force out a venerable ancient tradition (at least without significant pushback and eventual backing down). Trent only abrogated liturgies that were 200 years old and younger, and then said other parts of the Church MAY use the Tridentine use if the unanimous decision of the local cathedral canons decided to. Rome even offered the re-established English Catholic hierarchy in the 19th century the opportunity to revive the Pre-Reformation Sarum Use, but they themselves chose to use the Tridentine liturgy. Great for them.
      Rome had every right to offer the New Missal. Catholics have every right to use it. Rome has no right to tell the rest of the Church that they cannot celebrate using an ancient form. It is against the very nature of Christian authority (yes, even Vatican I’s definition), respect for local custom, piety towards our ancient faith, and love for the Holy Spirit’s presence in other forms of prayer. This is not just a battle for a liturgy, but also for the right relationship between Tradition and Authority. May the Name of God be vindicated, and may He give us the grace to love each other unto our salvation.

    • “Today, the law of belief of the Church has evolved into that of Vatican II, and the law of prayer should be aligned with this.”

      What an utterly absurd, false, and in fact heretical assertion. Vatican II is not some sort of super-Council that has somehow completely changed the belief of the Church but a pastoral Council that not only did not change any belief of the Church but by the specific terms of its convocation was to protect and defend the Church’s depositum fidei.

    • Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal and as Pope, duly noted on many occasions that the dire loss of faith in the Church is a direct result of the collapse of liturgy, antecedents for which you erroneously refer to as a “law,” and in the Ordinary form of the Mass you implicitly and wrongly identify it as mandated by Vatican II. It was not.
      Among the sloppy thought that was promoted by Vatican II was this opening line from Dignitatis Humanae: “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.”

      Now, given the level of human idiocy necessary to produce such a childishly optimistic line of nonsensical baloney about human moral evolution, which cannot exist, in the middle of the most evil century in human history, it is obvious that not everything about Vatican II set any standard of irrevocable wisdom of Catholic witness to the modern world. Likewise, the arrogance of assuming that any thought at all of what it really means to maintain continuity with the communion of saints, and to live out the promise of Hebrews 13:8: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever, as a matter that has been definitively settled by various authors of 16 documents from the mid-sixties is objectively disordered.

  2. The Pope said that the celebration of the TLM is “often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform but of the Vatican Council itself, claiming with unfounded and unsustainable assertions that it betrayed the Tradition and the true Church.”

    He also claimed that devotees of the TLM had “exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergencies and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”

    Neither one of those accusations is true, and neither one of them makes any sense at all.

    • Sadly, in many places, especially online it is true. It seems a number of bishops reported this also. Any number of traditional-leaning websites and discussion groups show persistent insult at nearly anyone who doesn’t share the core views and opinions.

      I do agree it doesn’t seem to make sense: the people who trumpet most loudly their own faithfulness seem not to embrace the values of the Gospel, or even Catechism 2478 when it comes to how they conduct themselves. Poor conduct has sunk the TLM. It’s true. It stings. But it seems clear to anyone who reads Rorate Caeli, CMAA, or any number of similar websites.

      • You could also say the same about people who object to New Ways Ministry. It’s just odd that the Church deems TLM supporters to be a greater threat than those who want to sell actual sin to the faithful. Just very odd. Why would Pope Francis welcome Fr James Martin into the Vatican, send him glowing letters, but then cut the knees off from the families who just want to celebrate the Latin Rite. It’s very odd.

        • I think the Holy Father explained well enough: it wasn’t families. It was bloggers, agitators, and others who claimed their Mass was better; the Roman Rite was deficient. They seemed disinterested in mutual enrichment. Perhaps if mothers and fathers went to their uppity priests who wouldn’t go to the Chrism Mass with their brothers in the clergy and said, “Enough! Be united with our bishop.” And to the blogger, “Leave the mainstream Catholics and their liturgy alone.” A good witness for their children, and putting schismatic-wannabes in their place.

          A careful read of Traditionis Custodes is needed. The hardcore traditionalists have spoiled things for people with a genuine spirituality. The But Gays! approach fails to convince. Our parents saw through our excuses when we were kids. The social media schismatics have been outed today.

          • So let us say for the sake or argument that there are zealots out there in defense of the TLM. (No sin there in my opinion.) And suppose they did defend it vigorously. Is the pontiff so insecure that he responds like a lowbrow bully and paints the entire Latin Mass community with the same broad brush and then summarily shoots them in the head? Seems like a bit of an overreaction.

            But I know that there is more to Francis’ motivation than that. He wants to conform the Church to the world and the TLM stands in the way of that. And just how does defending the faith as expressed in the Mass of the Ages render anyone schismatic?

            The “hardcore traditionalists” have not spoiled things for people with a genuine spirituality. Francis has done that with TC.

          • In light of the CWR article “Disobey and you’ll get your way” by Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas your comments appear to be lacking in balance.
            *
            https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/01/26/opinion-disobey-and-youll-get-your-way/
            *
            When it comes to insults Pope Francis has a website that has a whole laundry list of the Pope’s insults. You can see extensive documentation of Pope Francis’ acts of vilification on the website “The Pope Francis Little/Bumper Book of Insults.” URL:
            *
            http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
            *
            The quotes are clickable links to the articles where those quotes came from. It is quite the papal rock pile with which Francis can verbally stone others with.

          • If they said the modern Roman Rite was invalid, that would be a lie. Therefore a grave sin.

            The disruption and disunity caused by wayward priests existed before TC, and even before Pope Benedict XVI.

            No, I think some traditionalist Catholics would like to pass the blame to others. But that would qualify for St John Paul II’s assessment of a lack of a sense of sin. TC presents the case with clarity.

    • A convert, exactly so. And another convert (to Christianity if not quite the Latin Mass), the journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, had this to say:

      “Previous civilizations have been overthrown from without by the incursion of barbarian hordes. Christendom has dreamed up its own dissolution in the minds of its own intellectual elite. Our barbarians are home products, indoctrinated at the public expense, urged on by the media systematically stage by stage, dismantling Christendom, depreciating and deprecating all its values. The whole social structure is now tumbling down, dethroning its God, undermining all its certainties. All this, wonderfully enough, is being done in the name of health, wealth, and happiness of all mankind. That is the basic scene that seems to me will strike a future Gibbon as being characteristic of the decline and fall of Christendom” (The End of Christendom, 1980).

      In addition to “walking together” on an “endless journey,” what else might the Catholic bishops as “successors of the apostles”—and under the umbrella of Synodality—actually do or witness, now, in order to relieve this “basic scene” for some future Gibbon? Eucharistic coherence, perhaps?

    • And, in 1982 at the age of 79, Muggeridge was received into the Catholic Church, under the influence of Mother Teresa (about whom, his book “Something Beautiful for God”).

  3. It is so odd that the Vatican has equated Latin Mass attendance with divisiveness, while apparently not coming to a similar conclusion about European bishops who publicly agitate for marriages between males and males or females and females.

    Whaaaaaaat? Am I missing something?

  4. I pray the next Pope will cast aside Francis’s “reforms” on the liturgy (and other “doctrinal developments”) with the same contempt as he has treated the Benedict’s legacy to the Church.

  5. Not being a learned theologian, I somewhat appreciate Carl’s point. However in simple terms when a fellow brother ,in a way , equates those who disagree with him with acting like they would be in agreement with the objective evil of the act of sodomy he looses all credibility. Especially so many growing in their lives of faith.
    By their fruits you shall know them.

    • By what criteria do you judge blather of one ralph waldo to have come from the mind of a “fellow brother”?

      Disagreement with 2,000 years of Catholic faith tradition, Magisterium, Fathers and Doctors, and disagreement with Scripture is not disagreement with Carl by an order of magnitude approaching infinity.

  6. Some would argue that advocates of the TLM are being “divisive” in defense of the Mass of the Ages. No. No. Let us be intellectually honest right now. The divisiveness began when the Latin Mass was violently ripped from the hearts and hands of the faithful and the Novus Ordo forced upon the faithful who were given no say in the matter. THAT was the definitive divisive act. A 2000 year beloved tradition suddenly, arbitrarily abrogated. How in God’s name was THAT not divisive?

  7. Hmmm, reasonable requests by reasonable, serious adult Catholics.
    My experience with respectful correspondence to American bishops is silence. Nothing but silence.

    • My experience has been the same… a deafening silence from Church leadership (at all levels) when I reach out to them.

  8. I’ve told this (true) tale many times, but to me it never gets old, so here I go again.

    T’was a lovely Sunday morning in April of the year, and I arose to the song of the alarm clock so I would be able to get on the way (55 miles one way) in time to get to the 8 a.m. (in those days – now it’s at 8:30) Latin Mass at St. Peter & Paul Basilica in Lewiston, Maine. I got there around 7:15 and went into the Church, which was dark, silent and welcoming and wonderful. I took a seat and just sat there, and it was then that I realized that I was not alone – the organist was practicing. I had made no noise when entering, so (to this day I like to tell myself that) he didn’t know I was there, meaning that he believed that no one else but God was listening.

    After a time he left, and I never made a sound of acknowledgement or thanks, and so I like to believe that to this day he didn’t know I was there, but I was.

    Credo in Unum Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem

    • Addendum – ‘Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring’.

      We’ll get through this – all these silly people will fade into nothingness.

  9. How do I find the nearest Eastern Rite Catholic Church?

    While wintering in Venice FL, we’re forced to endure a “circus” when we attend Sunday Mass at an auditorium- otherwise known as the cathedral for the Diocese. There is no shortage of “priests-as-performer”, distracting projections onto the walls (at least in 5 places) of very hard-to-remember prayers like the Our Father, and Marty Haugan songs led by a screeching cantor. Please, someone, find me a Byzantine church to attend Mass where they are convicted about worshipping God in Divine Liturgy.

  10. For someone to tell me that I can’t celebrate Mass the way it was celebrated in our Church for centuries just because some council decided in 1965 that they had a “better” way is akin to telling me that I can’t profess my faith with the Apostle’s Creed because some council decided in 325 that they had a “better” creed. We still recite the Apostle’s Creed in Mass to this day…along with the Nicene Creed…and yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

  11. Given the current situation, the Pope should count himself lucky that ANY Catholic goes to ANY style of Mass at all at this point. We have seen: The Pachamama incident at the Vatican, child molester priests, the resultant bankruptcy of many dioceses, Vatican embezzlement, the betrayal of the closure of our churches for months in 2020 including cancellation of Easter, and a German hierarchy which seems to be in full schism prepared to give the ok to various sexual deviancies. We have seen the Pope back slapping the likes of Pelosi and Biden, the most prominent protectors and poster children for the pro -abortion crowd. Churches are being shut in Canada and other nations in a frenzy of covid hysteria. China closes them for no reason at all except hate, and jails it’s Christian followers. Christians and their priests are being murdered at will in Nigeria. Yet the Pope didnt even flinch. Or make a public remark about most of these issues. But the hill he chooses to die on is prohibiting a specific old form of a VALID Mass? Really? One would imagine he has more important issues to deal with.The problem with the church is that the Pope even SEES this Latin Mass as a problem at all. And appears not to recognize the rest as even an issue. Sad.

Leave a Reply to MarkM Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*