Tampa, Florida, Sep 12, 2019 / 05:20 pm (CNA).- A judge in Florida has denied a couple custody of their four-year-old son, who has leukemia, because there is “imminent risk of neglect” if he stays with his parents, who skipped a chemotherapy session for the child in order to leave the state to seek alternative treatments.
A judge ruled Sept. 9 that the Tampa Bay-area parents, Joshua McAdams and Taylor Bland-Ball, will be required to undergo a psychological evaluation with a parenting index after which point they may be able to be reunified with their son Noah, who is currently with his grandparents, the Tampa Bay Times reports.
Kevin Miller, assistant professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, stressed that the Catholic Church takes parental rights very seriously, but these rights should not be misused.
“When it is not fairly clear that parental rights are being abused, it seems to me, the state should generally be deferential to parents,” Miller told CNA.
But this case, he said, raises serious questions about whether the parents are misusing their authority and rights.
Florida law allows the state to provide medical treatment to children even if the parents object, CBS News reports.
“There was no alternative with a remote chance of success…They were choosing between life and death for their child,” Judge Palermo said as quoted by Fox13.
If the parents do not comply with the evaluation, the out-of-home placement could become permanent. They have 30 days to appeal the judge’s decision, the Times reports.
Doctors at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg diagnosed Noah with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in April 2019.
After two rounds of treatment, on April 22, 2019, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office issued a Missing Endangered Child alert after the parents did not show up for Noah’s third treatment, stating that “the parents failed to bring in the child to a medically necessary hospital procedure.”
McAdams, Bland-Ball, and Noah were located in Kentucky a week later; they had fled to Ohio to seek alternative treatments. Authorities placed Noah in the custody of his maternal grandparents in early May 2019.
The child’s mother argues that rather than denying him lifesaving treatment, she and her husband were simply seeking a second opinion, believing that chemotherapy had harmful side effects. On a GoFundMe page, Bland-Ball says that they were unhappy with the treatment they received at the hospital in St. Petersburg, and also that Noah’s condition has not improved.
Bland-Ball had sought to use “rosemary, Vitamin B Complex, including B17, completely alkaline diet, Rosemary, a liver/kidney/gallbladder/blood herbal extract, daily colloidal silver, high dose vitamin c, collagen, Reishi mushroom tea and grapefruit peel and breastmilk” as alternative treatments for Noah’s leukemia.
She has also posted on Facebook seeking cannabis treatments for Noah, and her attorney has confirmed that Noah also has received CBD and THC oil treatments. Medical marijuana is legal in Florida.
Bland-Ball also moved Noah’s PICC line, which she had no formal training on how to do other than watching instructional YouTube videos, the judge said.
Among the reasons the judge cited for his decision were evidence the parents dumped a car and cell phones while fleeing Florida, and the judge stated that he was convinced that the parents would flee Florida again if given the chance.
The judge also cited McAdams’ “proclivity for aggression” towards family members. McAdams in August 2016 was arrested on a charge of misdemeanor domestic battery by Brooksville police, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
McAdams reportedly threw a plastic toy bucket at Bland-Ball but accidentally hit Noah, cutting his face. McAdams then shoved Bland-Ball into a wall “multiple times,” causing a head contusion, the Times reported.
He spent three days in jail, records show, and the case was dropped in March 2017; McAdams later attended counseling. The Times reports that Bland-Ball also filed for a protective injunction against McAdams, according to court records, but it was later dismissed.
‘Appropriate social measures’
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.”
According to Miller, those rights include the right of parents to make decisions about how to promote the welfare— physical, psychological, intellectual, spiritual— of their children.
He also emphasized that “the family is a community of love in a way that no other community is capable of being,” and thus respect for family rights serves the good of both family members and of society more broadly.
The Catechism also teaches: “The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.”
But, Miller told CNA, some actions that parents might claim to be exercises of parental rights might actually be abuses of those rights. In case of gross abuses, he said, putting children in serious danger, it can be appropriate for the state, as part of its natural purpose of looking after the common good of its members, to step in and stop those abuses; this is obviously the case when, for example, parents subject their children to certain kinds of violence.
Parents overruled
Of course, Miller said, it is possible for the state to overstep its authority.
International cases such as that of 11-month-old Charlie Gard in 2017 and toddler Alfie Evans last year have highlighted situations of the state determining treatment for a patient against the parent’s wishes. In both cases, which took place in the UK, the state determined that the patients be removed from life support, despite the protest of the parents.
These cases are different from the Florida case, Miller said, because in both UK cases, the state was choosing death for the children in question, and in the Florida case, the state is prioritizing a treatment aimed at saving child’s life.
“I think one clear difference is that in those [UK] cases, it was the state that— I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say— wanted them to die,” Miller commented.
He noted that in the Gard case, the parents attempted to transfer to transfer the child to the United States to undergo an experimental treatment for his condition.
“In the one case, it was experimental treatment, but it was experimental treatment offered as part of a bone fide study by a bone fide doctor at a bone fide hospital here in the US. So in that case they were pursuing an approach that you could certainly call extraordinary rather than ordinary means of treatment, but there’s nothing wrong with that. I think it’s within the rights of the parents to decide whether to pursue that kind of a treatment or not.”
He noted that in both of the UK cases, the question was not whether or not to pursue an alternate form of treatment, but rather whether or not to continue basic life-saving measures.
Miller said the only similarity he sees between the UK cases and the Florida case is the fact that the state overruled the wishes of the parents.
“This [Florida] case, in multiple respects, is almost like the opposite of what was going on in the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases,” Miller said.
“In terms of what the parents are trying to do, and in terms of what the state is trying to do…there’s absolutely no inconsistency in siding with what the state is doing in this present case and siding with the parents in those earlier cases.”
‘An abuse of parental rights’
“I suspect that the parents are genuinely sincere in claiming that what they want to do is in their son’s best interest – although the fact that the father, on one occasion, attempted an act of violence against the mother that ended up injuring their son is cause for concern,” Miller said.
“Nevertheless – and putting aside that point about the father’s history – it seems to me that what they want to do constitutes an abuse of parental rights.”
According to Fox13, the judge said the particular type of chemotherapy being given to Noah has a 70-year track record with 90-95% success rate.
“Proper treatment, based on evidence established by a tremendous amount of research, is, sadly, very difficult for the child, his parents, and other family members. It takes several years. There are side effects, including serious ones, during this period. There is the possibility of other side effects appearing years later. The fact remains that in the vast majority of cases, treatment is lifesaving, and so confers benefits that far outweigh the burdens,” Miller noted.
“In contrast, there is absolutely no evidence to support the parents’ view that stopping standard treatment very early, and switching to the approach that they favor, will confer any benefit. Rather, it is certain that – barring a miracle – the child will come out of remission and die of leukemia.”
Miller also pointed out a fact that has been circulated in news reports about the case: that at least one of the alternative treatments that Bland-Ball mentions, known commonly as Vitamin B17, has been found by the National Center for Biomedical Information to not only be likely ineffective for curing cancer, but also bringing with it the potential for cyanide poisoning.
“Again: We ought to be vigilant about the problem of abuse of state authority. This does happen – including in the area of health-care decision making. The phenomenon of ‘medical kidnapping’ is not purely fictitious,” Miller cautioned.
“But in the case at hand, it is clear to me that it is the parents – not the state – who are abusing their rights.”
‘Measure of last resort’
Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told CNA that removal of a child from parental custody ought to be a measure of “last resort,” to be used only after a “shared understanding” between the parents and healthcare professionals cannot be achieved.
“Sometimes parents may be attracted to ‘alternative’ treatments they came across on the internet that have not [been] tested or verified, and it may be important to spend a great deal of time and energy explaining to such parents the clear preferability of using standard treatments that have been tested and verified as efficacious for many patients,” Pacholczyk said.
Pacholczyk said parents should generally be permitted to make medical judgements on behalf of minor children, especially when weighing the burdens of particular treatments such as chemotherapy— or, as in the Charlie Gard case, whether to discontinue treatment altogether.
“The decision to discontinue such interventions ultimately lies with the patient — or in this case with the parents as the child’s proxy,” he said.
In making such judgements, he noted, parents need to be in close communication with healthcare professionals, and avail themselves of their medical expertise, prior to reaching any conclusions regarding the proposed treatment.
“In situations where there is a standard treatment available, one that works in a high percentage of cases…it may indeed be unreasonable, and even wrong, for parents to decline such a treatment if the burdens to their child associated with its use are fairly low,” he said.
“In such cases, however, the first line of attack should be not to take away the custody of their child, but to work assiduously to convince the parents to use the most effective approach.”
Echoing Miller, Pacholczyk said that the family is, broadly speaking, the best place for a child, and “custody should be taken away only in clear situations of manifest danger to the child or in other evident situations of abuse or gross neglect.”
Judge Palermo in the Florida case emphasized that in his view, the state had “met its burden and found clear and convincing evidence for neglect.”
“Being raised through substitute arrangements set up by the state is many times more detrimental to the well-being of children than remaining within their native family setting,” he said.
“State and governmental agencies are almost invariably worse at caring for the needs of children than the child’s own parents, even when those parents may not exercise perfect judgment or may lack ideal parenting skills.”
[…]
Bishop Martin do you not know that Francis is no longer with us??? Talking about unity and conformity, the Latin Mass DELIVERS ON THIS!! If he hopes to show that he is in dialogue with one or two Mass offerings to the Latin Mass ahearents, his largess is frankly parsonmonius!
Really? Has it escaped the Bishop’s notice that Frances is dead and we have a new Pope? It is not yet apparent that Pope Leo will follow in the footsteps of the late Pope and stamp out the Latin Mass. It might be smarter to sit this one out for a bit. Maybe it has also escaped his attention that the bulk of vocations and conversions have been coming from those with a conservative life perspective. That would be something to encourage I believe. Indeed an excess of enthusiasm for Post Vatican II ideas is largely why the convents and seminaries are empty. Note to the Bishop: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The Mass prayed reverently and respectfully (albeit not in Latin) is available at Ordinariate churches. For both laity and the priest celebrating the Holy Sacrifice the prayer of the Mass is said facing ‘ad orientem.’ I’m afraid, however, that the Church will have to suffer along with Bergoglian-appointed bishops for awhile.
I recommend to the Catholics living in Charlotte who have a preference for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass prayed in Latin to give NO CONTRIBUTION AT ALL to their parish, diocese and Peter’s Pence, CCHD, CRS, CCUSA, etc. Instead, write a check to a reputable Catholic missionary (and if you don’t know one, I’ll be glad to send you a priest’s name in Guatemala and his bank number to wire money to.)
To seminarians for the Diocese of Charlotte, I’d recommend you give serious consideration to transferring to an orthodox religious order like the Dominicans.
I live in a state where two archbishops in adjoining dioceses “allow” the TLM. I have FOUR beautiful, beautiful churches where I can attend, all in easy driving distance.
It is so cruel and unfair that by the mere chance of geography, Catholics are deprived of the Mass that for centuries every saint, every attendee at Vatican II, etc. went to as if it were something shameful.
Pope Leo has put two modernized “sisters” (one with a degree in psychology) in charge of ALL the orders of monks, brothers, priests, sisters and nuns of the whole planet. Not a good start. If he doesn’t do something about the irrational limiting of the TLM (while not limiting ANY other form, such as the Anglican or Dominican), then my “cautiously optimistic” will turn to something much sadder.
What will the Bishop say when there are crowds of people outside the Chapel who want to get in but can’t because there is no room, while there is PLENTY of room at a Novus Ordo Church?
They don’t care. They lack religious Faith and a willingness to be open to what God might be telling them by preferences for the TLM. They are too busy promoting the evilness of synods that dictate to God what God has to accept and think from now on by those who now treat God as their subordinate.
This is beyond evil. Shame on him
Why now?
I am under the impression that Pope Leo was chosen in large part because he is seen as someone who will restore unity to the Church.
Get with the program, folks!
And he will restore unity to the church by forcing out the conservatives and trads. That was Francis’ idea, and Leo has pledged to advance Francis’ agenda right down the line.
The current pope has declared publicly on at least two occasions that his immediate predecessor is already in heaven. Are we in store for another “santo subito”?
Where and when did Pope Leo XIV declare “that his immediate predecessor is already in heaven.”?
Was the idea that he/we pray and hope or that he/we know?
Please tell me where and when this was published. Thanks.
For details, see an article in The Catholic Thing, titled “Where Is Pope Francis?” by Sebastian Morello. The first paragraph states that Leo XIV recently made the statement on X, and that it was the third time he stated it. I vaguely recall he said it first either on the day of his election or on the following day. I wish I could be more specific, but when I read Morello’s article this morning, I knew I’d heard or read the statement at least once before. There’s also an article in “The WM Review” titled “Leo Doubles Dow on Conviction that Francis Is in Heaven.” I hope this helps.
P.S. I know nothing about the “WM Review” and my citing its publication of an article on the subject is in no way intended to suggest I agree with or even respect its positions on matters Catholic.
Thanks Ken. Will check it out. Good to know.
Hi Ken,
At TCT, philosopher Sebastian Morello, reports that Leo has said three times that Francis is in heaven. He rebuts that statement. His reasoning is worth a view.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/05/26/where-is-pope-francis/
Larry, that’s no Catholic thinking at all. Let me guess: You came of age in the immediate post Vatican II days – 1965-1975.
I think he might have been a bit sarcastic and not approving of the Francis agenda.
I thought the same thing…why now? Maybe he’s new? Trying to establish himself? Any way it goes, Pope Leo needs to address this issue sooner than later.
My thought, too…why now? Is he new? trying to establish or assert himself? Pope Leo needs to do something about this sooner than later or things will only get worse. What’s wrong with providing both forms of the Mass? So much for unity. I
Here comes the Latin, here comes the Latin. There are no empty pews so why cling to the tried and true practices of past… Hint: watering down the brand can be a mistake.
I hear what other posters are thinking and saying, but…we’re not in Charlotte, and we don’t know what has prompted this. I know that some will assume that the Bishop just “hates the Latin Mass” or perhaps he’s just “on a power trip.”
But for all we know, this Latin Mass could be having some negative effect on Charlotte Catholics; e.g., it’s draining good and orthodox Novus Ordo parishes of members, volunteers, and monies, or even more serious, it’s “dividing the Church” into two camps who oppose each other rather than working together to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Division is dangerous for Catholics and may drive them away from “church” entirely.
It could also be driving less traditionally-minded Catholics into the Protestant non-denominational churches that have dynamic preaching (not necessarily deep or “correct” but at least it’s in American English!) and contemporary music, a lively and active youth group, great children’s ministries and clubs, and many opportunities for the members to serve God in various community charitable outreaches.
Just some thoughts, and since I’m not in Charlotte, I could be way wrong about all of them. But I still don’t think we should try to draw conclusions until we know “the full story” from those who live there and know “the rest of the story.”
Mrs. Whitlock – my comment disappeared so I am trying again – apologies if it is duplicated. But I DO know people there. It is a vibrant community and has been for a long time. None of what you say is true.
1) TLM homilies ARE in ENGLISH – just saying otherwise makes the rest of your “speculations” suspect.
2) I go to a Novus Ordo church mostly, but my TLM church has all kinds of clubs, ministries, charitable outreach, and a vibrant youth group.
3) Absolutely NO ONE is being “driven” to a Protestant church because a TLM mass exists, as there are FAR FAR more Novus Ordo churches EVERYWHERE. Why on earth would you say that?
4) Contemporary music is a sticking point. My kids and their friends specifically said they felt “patronized” by having to listen watered down 70s elevator music and pop tunes. They can hear that everywhere, day and night, but the only chance to hear the HUGE variety of beauty handed down through the ages, from medieval chant to Renaissance to Baroque to modern, from Palestrina and de Victoria to the 20th century and Messiaen and more, has been at a TLM.
I am sorry, but these “speculations” are disingenuous.
Benay,
Your Item No. 4 exemplifies my experience. My introduction to the NO was as a young ‘tween.’ All us youngsters were keen at the idea and looked forward with excitement to this new Mass.
Well. Without doubt, we felt ‘played.’ We were embarrassed, chagrined, somehow betrayed, definitely uncomfortable, and we snickered. Row after row of teens in the pews were glancing sideways at one the new row, and snickering. It seemed as if the church, the adults, were trying so very hard to become teens. And FAILING. If you’ve ever seen a middle-aged mother flirting with her teen daughter’s boyfriend, you get the notion.
Yes, some speculations are disingenuous, inane, vapid, boring, stultifying, and downright stunning, reflecting a sad form of stupid.
Protestants don’t have the Eucharist, so if current CINO don’t believe and want more entertainment let them leave (and I’m not judging them in the least) It’s not surprising considering the surveys on what Catholics actually believe. In spirit, they may have already left the church.
There’s also a cease and desist in Detroit: Archdiocese of Detroit: Parishes must cease Traditional Latin Mass celebrations by July 1
Will there be any faith when He returns?
Mrs. Sharon, I have such great respect for your always reasonable presence on these CWR comment pages.
But I feel obliged to remind you that we are talking about the Catholic Mass here.
This is the same Mass that Pope Leo celebrated in Rome upon his election as pope.
The same Mass that’s been said for nearly two thousand years.
Ask yourself: Who could possibly be in favor of suppressing the Catholic Mass?
Answering that question will give you some insight into the spirit that animated the Bergoglian papacy.
Oh, please…if he had more to say, he’d have said it. He explained himself and that’s all he’s going to say and all we need to know.
Have you ever attended a Latin Mass? The homilies are in English. Missals are bilingual. The Lectionary readings are read in both Latin and in English. Occasionally the Recessional song is in English.
You say that the Latin Mass could be having a negative effect on Catholics in Charlotte. Seriously, do you expect us to believe that? Do you not believe that a Mass is a Mass is a Mass? HOW, exactly can a Latin Mass be harmful or hurt anyone? The Latin Mass was the dominant form of Catholic worship for over 400 years. You would argue against that history as bearing any fruit?
“e.g., it’s draining good and orthodox Novus Ordo parishes of members, volunteers, and monies,”
So? Then have the Latin Mass offered at those parishes as well.
“It could also be driving less traditionally-minded Catholics into the Protestant non-denominational churches that have dynamic preaching (not necessarily deep or “correct” but at least it’s in American English!)”
The homily is in the vernacular even at Latin Messes. And anybody who would leave the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for shallow and incorrect preaching has a lot more problems than Latin.
“and contemporary music,”
Ah, yes, contemporary music, also known as nauseating tripe.
“a lively and active youth group, great children’s ministries and clubs, and many opportunities for the members to serve God in various community charitable outreaches.”
None of those have anything to do with whether the Mass is in Latin or not.
So… if the orthodox Novus Ordo parishes have a substantial number of parishioners who prefer the TLM, such that a nearby TLM drains them to a detrimental extent of “members, volunteers, and monies”, probably there are a sufficient number of parishioners to justify a TLM parish – or at least a TLM AT the parish.
I don’t believe there’s much in the way of data regarding whether more children and teens tend to stay in the Church from the TLM than the NO. As such, I think we should probably leave it up to the parents to decide, rather than randomly closing their home churches and uprooting their families.
IF TLM parishes are driving less traditionally-minded Catholics to Protestant churches, then they are only driving the dumb ones there. NO parishes are widely available in the Charlotte diocese. I can find no information claiming that any of them are offered in Latin or ad orientem, so there shouldn’t be too much to offend Protestant sensibilities, although I expect there is still plenty to offend Protestant theological beliefs.
Is the idea that good, orthodox NO parishes can only be run by forcing TLMers to attend the NO? Do you really think NO types are that ubiquitously awful?
If I were to ban even something so inconsequential as non-vanilla ice cream flavors, or require everyone in the country to use only Microsoft’s operating system, the uproar would be immense. As it stands, there is very little division over either subject. Banning things that are good, wholesome, and sanctifying does not prevent division, it induces it.
Mrs. Sharon, we have two parishes in our diocese that offer the TLM every Sunday and on several weekdays. Those parishes also offer the NO Mass. Everyone gets along. No one is “poaching ” parishioners.
To be fair, I’ve found some TLM Mass goers more susceptible to certain conspiracy narratives and I’ve encountered NO Mass attendees who are less concerned with Church teaching. I hope Pope Leo’s influence and goodwill will encourage the TLM folks to dispense with the suspicions and NO people to take the Catechism more seriously. Especially regarding marriage and family issues.
mrscracker: Being upset over thousands of episodes. over half a century, of Catholic prelates publicly stating ridiculous falsehoods about the Catholic religion is not a case of “susceptibility to certain conspiracy narratives.”
Those aren’t the same conspiracies I was thinking about Mr Baker. I’ve heard some really bizarre stuff over the past couple years. I hope that situation will improve going forward. Please God.
Your thinking is in reverse to think persecuting traditional Catholic liturgy will drive traditionallists towards Protestantism. The reason Catholics who are Catholic desire to remain Catholic, even if the episcopate doesn’t care about Catholicism, is from having witnessed the Protestantization of Catholicism.
This makes perfect sense.
An untimely bishop invokes a deceased pope as he suppresses the Catholic Mass.
The Bergoglian legacy is here to stay.
This difference of wanting the Latin mass and leaving the true everlasting church of all ages, the Mystical Body of Christ, to offer up and labor in the eternal Church to build her up, or to leave Christ’s body to join those who CONDEMN and SLANDER the true church and are not in unity with Holy Church. We are called to gather and labor in the Church, not to scatter, and the Holy Spirit flees, YOU ARE NOT TO CONDEMN THE CHURCH AND YOUR BROTHERS, you lack all charity. There is one Christ and one Church now and forever. Do they want the mass in Latin or separate themselves, accepting all the lies there, “only the priest can touch the holy host but you munch it and eat it all up (That is not touching it?). Thank you Lord, you gave us a holy Pope and we will have unity because you are a merciful GOD! Without love you will not enter the Kingdom!
What are you talking about?
The pope said at the time that he was saddened that the celebration of the extraordinary form was characterized by a rejection of the Second Vatican Council and its liturgical reforms. To doubt the Council, he said, is “to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
Aside from the blasphemous premise, the charge was and is unsubstantiated. Bergoglio claimed to have surveyed the bishops, but never released the results, almost certainly because he didn’t find the sort of widespread episcopal opposition he was looking for.
Yours truly recalls at least a summary of the survey results, posted by someone, and reporting that half of respondents showed some concern about TLM while the other half were indifferent or even supported TLM…
AND that 80 percent of bishops didn’t respond at all! So, likely a statistically invalid survey skewed by those with an ax to grind?
My speculation at the time was that most bishops simply do not have time for governance-by-survey and ignored the insider/operatives in charge, or else did not even know about it. Was the “survey” mailed individually (!) or, instead, simply posted on the national bishops’ conference websites–which probably are not the first thing that bishops look at in the morning, or anytime later in the day?
The 1962 Missal should no longer be used. Vatican II mandated that the liturgical books be revised. The bishop made the correct decision. Roman Catholic parishes should be unified in liturgical form: the post-conciliar liturgical form. The new Mass can be celebrated in Latin with Gregorian chant. There is no need for the pre-conciliar Mass, whose ritual expression of post-conciliar ecclesiology is deficient. It should be phased out and eventually discontinued and then formally abrogated.
We read, There is no need for the pre-conciliar Mass, whose ritual expression of post-conciliar ecclesiology is deficient.
Exactly, the ecclesiology and theology of the two liturgies are different.
The 1962 missal perfectly expresses the Catholic faith, the new mass, well….
Vatican 2 mandated that the books be revised. It did not mandate that the ordinary be sliced and diced, or that the Propers be partly thrown out and most of the rest cut to pieces. The Council Fathers, when presented with the Novus Ordo, were horrified.
By all means, point me to a Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian chant, in the dioceses of, say, Fargo, Little Rock, and Evansville. Since it’s presumably so easy to find.
Roman Catholic parishes are not unified in liturgical form, and won’t be even without the TLM. You see, the Council of Trent kept all the liturgical forms older than 300 years, which included the Rite of Braga, the Mozarabic Rite, the Sarum Rite, and the Ambrosian Rite, in addition to the Rites of various religious orders, such as the Dominicans, Carthusians, Premonstratensians, and Cistercian Rites. These are all still in use as well.
Then of course in modern times we have the Anglican Use, which is basically the Sarum Rite, in English, with some changes since the English “Reformation”. But contrary to your opinion, it was established AFTER the Council, according to pre-conciliar ritual tradition.
Unity of liturgical form is not a Latin Church thing. There’s nothing to indicate that it has ever been done before.
As for deficiency in post-conciliar ecclesiology, I’m fairly confident that was never the reasoning for reforming the Roman Missal. It would be grounds for also demanding the similar revision of every Eastern Catholic rite, which was not only not envisioned by the Council, but clearly spoken against, in Orientalis Ecclesiarium.
Traditionis Custodes (TC) contradicts your first sentence, “The 1962 Missal should no longer be used.”
Article 2, TC states: “It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese,…”
haha… you left out “…according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See” in your citation. Cherry picking.
You also left out this from the accompanying letter: “It is up to you [bishops] to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.”
So every bishop is required to proceed to a unitary form of celebration according to the Vatican 2 Mass, which means gradually ceasing the TLM. Any permissions for the TLM are temporary, provisional, and a concession, not a right nor a permanent arrangement.
hahahaha. The laugh is on you, Mr. Walker. The pope has no authority to outrightly do away with any rite which has developed according to apostolic tradition. Further, it has always been the domain of the bishops to oversee and regulate liturgy in their individual dioceses. The pope has such authority in the diocese of Rome. The pope has the canonical authority to supervise and rule liturgy but the functions have never been defined.
Have you never wondered why the Latin Rite developed over 1400 years, why it continued to exist after Paul VI abolished it, and continues today to exist despite Francis’ efforts to suppress it by such as TC?
The Pope’s reasoning is circular in Article 2 when my quote and your cherry-picked addendum are put together. The circular reasoning is nonsensical, and it had to be this way to be consistent with the Magisterium as it was handed on to Francis.
The pope’s letter has no binding canonical authority and is meaningless. The bishop has the right to regulate liturgy in his diocese, and the Pope has no right to abolish any liturgy derived organically from apostolic tradition. Read Gamber.
Mr Walker, our diocese has plans for a permanent TLM parish and the property for that has been purchased. Currently the TLM is offered on Sundays and weekdays in 2 of our parishes.
The TLM isn’t going away here.
There’s not a competition between liturgies. I love the TLM but it’s not a deal breaker for me. We need to quit the bickering and division and our bishops need to assist in that also.
When people feel demeaned and the liturgy they’re attached to is suppressed they can begin to listen to other voices than their shepherds.
What you’re ignoring is that a pope, and what he delegates to prelates, does not have the authority to ever eliminate the TLM without incurring excommunication upon himself. This was made a permanent part of the Deposit of Faith by Pius V.
Miss Dorothy, with respect unity doesn’t translate to uniformity
Catholic means universal. We have many rites and liturgies, but One Faith. That’s a beautiful thing.
“Roman Catholic parishes should be unified in liturgical form: the post-conciliar liturgical form.”
Following your logic, Rome must also abolish all other Liturgies – Eastern Catholic Rites, Mozarabic Rite, etc. You are calling to abolish the very phenomena which makes the Catholic Church universal: different liturgical traditions are harmoniously glorifying God under the same roof (of the same Church) so to speak. Latin Mass belongs to that house. To abolish it is to impoverish the Catholic Church.
From an Eastern Orthodox point of view (I am an Orthodox), the liturgical rite cannot be mandated from above because it has never been created “from above”. The Liturgy (Mass) has developed from the Old Testament worship (just like Our Lord prayed the Psalms and also the prayers of the Passover during His Last Supper – note that even He did not “abolish” ancient liturgy but used it, to fulfill the promise of God). Various forms of Christian Liturgy (Mass) had slowly developed over centuries, acquiring particular character of different places and cultures. It is the whole Church (the whole body of people) that created the Liturgy. It is a slow and organic process. If the Latin Mass served as an expression of faith of the Church for centuries, it cannot be “prohibited”. Only heresies and errors are prohibited because they are contrary to faith.
Since TLM or Mozarabic or Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or of St James are a true liturgical expression of the Catholic faith, they cannot be “abolished”. To abolish them is to abolish a correct expression of a faith and it is absurd.
Hear, hear!
Or as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said: “It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis — the handing-on of tradition.”
I guess the Bishop of Charlotte doesn’t consider the Eastern Catholics to be one with us. Not only is his decision foolish, it is vindictive. And I suspect he wants to show Pope Leo that more diocese have implemented Bergoglio’s restrictions, embarrassed as Roche, Cupich et al are that only a minority had done so until now. Oh, the games we play. It’s sad that he made this move after the pope started his papacy with a call to unity. Shame on him.
More outright evil by our lying bishops. They are angry that their illegal immigration money scam is in danger, and now they are lashing out at faithful Catholics wherever they can find them.
I don’t see Pope Leo continuing the suppression of the TLM.
I do see him treading carefully so he doesn’t appear to be the anti-Francis.
My impression is that the new Pope gives to others what they want to hear (to the conservatives – a prayer in Latin, to the liberals – PF’s legacy etc.). If I am not mistaken, it will be worse for the Church than PF’s reign.
It was sad for me to observe a wild excitement of “the trads” about Pope Leo’s wearing a traditional garb and using Latin. It is very naïve. Such signalling has no real implications. Only bold actions of a decisive change in accord with Our Lord are the real thing.
Pope Leo then has a choice: either he will follow PF’s cause trying to “please” the more conservative part of the Church or he will begin acting as a true Vicar of Christ, doing everything in accord with Him and not anyone else. I am not feeling hopeful but I allow the possibility of the second choice.
Pope Leo cannot serve both “the course of PF” and of Christ because they are opposite vectors, in essence. He will not manage to combine both.
I think the excitement over Leo wearing traditional garb, using Latin, and being a canon lawyer, are related to the fact that he is at least somewhat obedient to custom, does not seem to have an instinctive rejection of older things, and is aware that arbitrary rule is a bad thing.
That can be expected to restrain a variety of harmful actions. You are right that they cannot, by themselves, restrain all of them. There’s no substitute for seeking the Face of the Lord. As yet, I don’t think there’s clear evidence that Pope Leo is not doing that (as you say, signalling has no real implications – either way), and I think Catholics in general have an admirable desire to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt.
“Pope Leo then has a choice: either he will follow PF’s cause trying to “please” the more conservative part of the Church…”
What evidence do you have that PF was even remotely interested in “pleasing” the conservative wing if the church? Is this a typo? PF was a progressive and a psuedo-marxist. He catered to the left and attacked traditional believers.
I agree, and I am not really a traditionalist, although I have sympathies for traditionalism.
Pope Francis did not seem interested in pleasing the more conservative wing of the Church, in fact, the impression I got is that he saw them as a problem, maybe THE problem, “Backwardists,” etc. Whatever gestures Pope Leo is making toward restoring traditional Cathoic practices, it is not inspired by anything Francis did or said.
“What evidence do you have that PF was even remotely interested in “pleasing” the conservative wing if the church? Is this a typo?”
Probably it is a missing coma and a few words. I will rephrase:
“Pope Leo then has a choice: either he will follow PF’s cause, WHILE also trying to “please”/TO KEEP HAPPY the more conservative part of the Church or he will begin acting as a true Vicar of Christ, doing everything in accord with Him and not anyone else.”
Why not assume the best, hope for the best and turn a new page?
I for one will absolutely give Pope Leo the benefit of doubt. That’s the very least expected from Christians.
No, benefit of doubt is not in any way required of Christians. No man has a right to be a public coward. And any Church leader who doesn’t see the need to renounce what effectively became moral nihilism out of the mouth and actions of Francis, is already beginning to sell out the Faith. The victims of sin matter, every day, and the Francis agenda included trivalizing sin before the whole world.
I believe my Catechism instructs us to first assume the best intentions in others. It’s a part of charity.
I asked my computer’s AI component. Though ‘she’ would be verbose, I’ll be brief. Matthew 7:1 was mentioned. Ideas of judging truth in charity, prudence, wisdom, and faith resulting from uncertainty were mentioned.
“When we evaluate situations or the actions of others, we are to do so with care, compassion, and a guarded recognition of our own imperfections. As Jesus’ exhortation “Judge not, that you be not judged” (cf. Matthew 7:1) reminds us, the act of judging others in haste overlooks the fullness….” and the obscure and mysterious crypts of the human heart. “Consequently, the call to charity both informs and restrains every act of judgment, ensuring that our moral assessments lead toward healing and reconciliation rather than condemnation.”
Also see https://www.occatholic.com/the-benefit-of-the-doubt/ and
https://catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/faith-certainty-and-doubt.html
Also, St. Thomas Aquinas defines rash judgment more succinctly in his Summa Theologica: “When the human intellect lacks certainty, as when a person, without any solid motive, forms a negative judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, it is called judgment by suspicion or rash judgment.”
Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary defines rash judgment: “Unquestioning conviction about another person’s bad conduct without adequate grounds for the judgment. The sinfulness of rash judgment lies in the hasty imprudence with which the critical appraisal is made and in the loss of reputation that a person suffers in the eyes of the one who judges adversely.”
I’m sorry , but this entire issue is beyond ridiculous.
Bergoglio said that the different religions throughout the world are all paths to God, in the way different languages are different ways of speaking the truth.
He said it is God’s will that the different religions exist.
And yet he couldn’t tolerate the Catholic Mass as it’s been said for some 1,900 years?
How does that make sense?
And how does the Latin Mass cause anyone to disdain Vatican II? If we want people to see the good in Vatican II, we should have parishes sponsor Vatican II appreciation seminars.
Promoting Vatican II by suppressing the Catholic Mass is like getting people to floss regularly by limiting their ability to watch TV.
Insane.
Some people, among far too many crazies, retain the ability to think; thank you! I’ll pray for you to keep it going. I’m turning on my TV now; thank God the Marxists don’t yet control EVERYTHING.
Catholic Bishops, including Cardinals like “His Eminence” Roche, and the like-minded French Bishops (now publicly persecuting the Pilgrims of Chartres), and the late Pontiff Francis, who persecute faithful Catholic people who desire the traditional Mass exhibit disgusting and wicked behavior.
It seems that this is their true creed: “Everything that I personally reject deserves to perish.”
meiron’s comments are very educational. What is the “Current” Latin Mass?
Very educational and up-to-date. Good starting point for debate or enlightenment.
Patrick A. Schmiedeler
Thank you, Patrick, for esteeming my comments, but I am no expert, no Doctor of Sacred Theology. Perhaps CWR Editor Carl Olson could call upon a few experts and print a few articles for our edification. Do you want to know statistics, history, controversies, theology? Do you want to find a Latin Mass to attend?
I read a lot, and I love the Latin Mass. I am fortunate to have near me (actually a 45-minute 1-way drive) a private parish operated by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a Church sanctioned (JPII) apostolate whose charism and constitutions are ordered to the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Tridentine rite. You can google them.
Do you like to read? What shall I recommend for you? I especially like a chapter called “The Case for the Latin Mass” in von Hildebrand’s book, “The Charitable Anathema” because he well defines and discusses the virtue of reverence. The Latin Mass both teaches and calls it forth. “The most elementary gesture of reverence is a response to being itself…It is a recognition of the inner consistency and positiveness of being….Reverence gives being the opportunity to unfold itself; to, as it were, speak to us, to fecundate our minds. Therefore, reverence is indispensable to any adequate knowledge of being. The depth and plenitude of being, and above all its mysteries, will never be revealed to any but the reverent mind.”
An internet search for the value of the Mass in the ‘dead’ Latin language can reveal why the worship of God expressed in ‘dead’ language can enhance man’s full and ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the life of God’s grace. Do we really need to speak to God with many English words in unison with our neighbors or do we need to individually seek and LISTEN to Him more? I and many other TLM adherents believe He is more readily found in listening for Him while beseeching His participation in our lives as we participate in His, particularly as He hung upon the cross for our salvation. The sacrifice of the Cross at the Sacrifice of the Mass is boldly put in relief at the TLM. We are in communion with our brothers through and because, with, and in His sacrifice. He is first, foremost, and always for us. He exists AS and IS Love.
Somewhat tangential but germane concepts can be read in Josef Pieper’s “Abuse of Language–Abuse of Power.” (Ignatius Press). “…word and language form the medium that sustains the common existence of the human spirit….if the word becomes corrupted, human existence itself will not remain unaffected and untainted. ” (p. 15). Do we need to understand exactly what words we say in prayer? Do we need to put names to the many confused emotions or states of being that we have when we contemplate Our Lord? Indeed, Romans 8:26 tells that the Holy Spirit translates our prayer and God knows without our saying anything what we need.
Finally, Gamber’s “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background” overviews what happened to the liturgy as a result of VCII.
I wish you well in your quest. I hope I’ve been helpful and sorry for being verbose. Feel free to ask me or Carl Olson for more specifics.
What makes the 1962 Missal so uniquely special? Why not go back further—to the pre-1955 liturgical books, the Missal of 1262, or even the Sarum Rite? The ongoing search for a “purer” liturgy among traditionalists increasingly feels like a never-ending purity spiral.
I absolutely support the idea that the Mass should be celebrated reverently and prayerfully. Priests should, as the saying goes, “do the red and say the black.” But that same spirit of fidelity should apply to the laity as well— particularly when it comes to obedience to their bishops and to the Holy See. Catholics aren’t called to retreat into isolated enclaves but to be part of the life of the local Church.
The Novus Ordo is both beautiful and doctrinally sound. I’m frankly weary of seeing it disparaged — treated as somehow “less than” simply because it doesn’t conform to a narrow set of aesthetic preferences. Too often, traditionalist criticism of the ordinary form seems less about theology and more about taste — and with that comes a kind of selective obedience that undermines ecclesial unity.
C.S. Lewis spoke to this phenomenon in The Screwtape Letters, where a senior demon advises a junior demon:
“Surely you know that if a man can’t be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighbourhood looking for the church that ‘suits’ him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches. … The search for a ‘suitable’ church makes the man a critic where the Enemy wants him to be a pupil.”
That warning rings just as true today. The Mass — regardless of form — is not a product to be judged, but a mystery to be entered with humility and obedience.
With your moniker, one would think that you’d understand the appeal of the TLM: The Carthusian order reports: The Carthusians have preserved their own rite of Mass, which dates back to the 11th-12th centuries, and which has a monastic origin but is a branch of the Roman rite….The community participates in this Eucharistic liturgy through Gregorian chant, interior prayer and communion. The community prostrates itself in adoration during the consecration.
In my experience and base of knowledge, today’s ordinary Catholics who seek the beauty, reverence, silence, and mystery of liturgy in the TLM do not clamor for those missals you reference. Where do you get your information? Who has been reported to quest for an ever more pure liturgy? Who, pray, sir? Seriously.
Finally, which comments have disparaged the NO? I understand how, without
careful reading, someone could misconstrue, on its face, my 3:21 pm comment of yesterday. But a reader would note that the teens snickered in relation to Benay’s Item No. 4: MUSIC.
Ok. Who and where here is disparaging the NO? It seems to me that the predominant disparagers here oppose the UA and that they have do so according to the erroneous, uncharitable, and cruel non-pastoral principles which the papacy of Francis put into effect. Why classify those principles thus? Are they based on anything other than the will of the pope and his henchmen? If you disagree, I and others surely look forward to arguments of fact, truth, and substance. Full stop. Period.
Please add beginning quotes in the previous comment. After THE CARTHUSIAN ORDER REPORTS: “The…..
The end quote is after the paragraph’s final word: consecration.”
Thanks.
Meiron,
A) The Carthusians did reform their liturgy after Vatican II.
B) My previous comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there really is significant debate among traditionalists regarding the use of older liturgies. Just search “pre-1955 Holy Week” and you’ll quickly see how deep the disagreements run. Arguments over which Breviary is the “most authentic” are also common—it’s an ongoing and seemingly endless debate/fixation.
C) Many traditionalists are openly critical of the Novus Ordo. From figures like Archbishop Lefebvre, who famously referred to it as a “bastard rite,” to scholars like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski who has advocated for its complete abandonment, there’s a broad spectrum of strong opposition, critique and often uncharitable spin against the NO. Trust me—disparagement of the ordinary form is widespread in some traditionalist circles.
D) Ultimately, it’s not for us to judge the pastoral decisions of a bishop, a successor to the Apostles. He acts with the grace of his office and sees the broader pastoral landscape in ways we cannot. The best response is to pray for him and respectfully follow his leadership.
PS: I’m not anti-TLM. I attended a FSSP parish for years. What I’m against is the sectarianism and Novus Ordo bashing often found in the TLM world.
Yeah. They ‘received’ anaphoras! What else did the Carthusians change? Please tell. Sources appreciated.
Many traditionalists? You name two. So no. I do not trust that many disparage the NO. Many think and reason that it should never have been promulgated. But disparage? That is a gutter term. The NO is a completely fabricated right, according to Benedict. Gamber argues that no pope has a right to abolish any rite, organically derived, that the Church has received from apostolic tradition. And since the TLM Roman Missal has developed from apostolic tradition and had not changed significantly for 1400 years, what pope had any right to abolish it? VCII DID NOT EVER GRANT ANY POPE ANY RIGHT TO ABOLISH OR SUPPRESS WHAT LITURGY HAD BEEN HANDED ON THROUGH THE AGES.
D) It is the right and the duty of a Catholic brother to question any prelate when the faith is believed at stake. We do not judge by disagreeing. Judgment implies punishment or administering justice. We do not do that through reason, argument, and discussion. All those we do here, but we do not judge any bishop.
rite, not right.
Meiron,
1. The point is this: the Carthusians, like all religious orders with their own rite, reformed their liturgy after Vatican II in accordance with the Council and their own charism. They did not remain unchanged, nor were they exempt from the broader liturgical renewal ordered by Vatican 2 and the Holy See.
2. You asked for names—there are many, but space doesn’t permit a full list. It’s easy to find traditionalist voices critical of the Novus Ordo. In fact, your own second paragraph reflects the kind of dismissive tone commonly found in those circles.
Regarding your all-caps statement: the Pope does not need permission from a council or anyone else to modify the liturgy. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (CCC 882)
This authority includes changes to the liturgy. Historically, popes have exercised it many times—even after Trent. For example:
1) Pope Pius X substantially reformed the Roman Breviary and changed the structure of the Sunday liturgical calendar in 1911.
2) Pope Pius XII made significant changes to the Holy Week liturgies in 1955, including the Easter Vigil and Good Friday ceremonies.
So yes, the “Tridentine” Mass evolved, and popes made those changes with legitimate authority.
Finally, Catholic teaching affirms that the laity are to show respectful obedience to their bishops, who govern with apostolic authority.
Why? The Church entrusts diocesan bishops with significant responsibility in liturgical matters. The Code of Canon Law states:
“The diocesan bishop, in the Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life.” (Canon 835 §1)
And more specifically:
“Within the limits of his competence, the diocesan bishop is to issue liturgical norms which must be observed in all churches of the diocese.” (Canon 838 §4)
In short, it is not the role of the laity to campaign for preferred liturgical forms in opposition to their bishop’s judgment. The Novus Ordo is a valid and orthodox form of the Roman Rite. If a bishop makes liturgical decisions for his diocese, the faithful are called to trust his pastoral care, pray for him, and follow his leadership with humility.
On your bullet point (C): Virtually all the Council Fathers and Pope Paul himself were revolted by the NO mass.
And anyone who does not take offense of the abuses the NO made inevitable ought to consider finding a different religion. This is not uncharitable. It is charitable towards the Catholic Faith and witness and the honor of God.
And no Catholic teaching calls for the laity to be obedient to bishops when their bishops promote objective evil.
Indisputable Catholic teaching holds that right is right even if no one is right, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.
The pre vatican II missal perfectly express the Catholic faith. Protestants will not attend such a liturgy. The new mass was created to accommodate our “separated bretheren”, and we can see that in its prayers and rubrics. How can the new mass accommodate Protestants and be doctrinally sound at the same time?
Nick – stop repeating talking points. Protestants don’t attend the Novus Ordo either. The NO is orthodox. So says the Church!
Being orthodox does not preclude ugly and irreverent.
The NO doesn’t accommodate Protestants by teaching Protestant theology. It accommodates Protestants by de-emphasizing or excising *some* (not all) of the things that would tend to make Protestants uncomfortable (e.g. Protestants tend to put the emphasis on doctrine and emotion, so everything being in Latin tends to make them uncomfortable). Similar to how one could, in polite company, refrain from mentioning things likely to incite hate and discontent without ever telling a lie.
The NO is valid and not heretical.
Also, I have met Protestants at the TLM. Weddings, funerals, invitations from coworkers…
The Sarum Rite is not an earlier version of the Tridentine Rite, it is, rather, the English Mass which the Church in England used at the same time that she used a variety of other Latin Rites. It was basically stamped out by the English Reformation, but it is part of the heritage of English Catholics, and some are interested in it for that reason. Seeking it out is not an indication that other forms of the Latin Rite are being rejected.
It is not the TLM Mass-goers who decided to isolate the TLM from regular parishes. We generally raised objections to that nonsense.
My main objection to the NO, at this point, is that the propers and the ordinary were sliced and diced by Cardinal Bugnini, and therefore have had a great deal of Tradition removed or obscured (though of course it is still in the Church). While I will readily admit that the general absence of chant, ad orientem, incense, etc. at the NO parishes in my area plays a role, along with the violations of the Vatican’s document on liturgical abuses, even a well-celebrated NO (which for most Catholics remains a mere idea) still has a lectionary with narrowed subject matter, prayers that tend to avoid asking for mercy and basic necessities, and an ordinary designed to be didactic and more comfortable to Protestants, in part by excising prayers to and references to Saints. These are not new objections, nor are they secret; articles and books have been published on non-aesthetic aspects.
It’s not just about taste. Taste is just the only thing that non-trads seem generally likely to accept calmly, and is therefore the most peaceable place to start building bridges.
As far as Church shopping goes, if you desire a TLM, you will most likely only have one option, if that. It’s not like there’s a Sarum Rite parish in every town, and a TLM for different sensibilities in every neighborhood. Parish-shopping is only practically a possibility in the NO.
I do agree though, that the Mass is not something one should be judging and tinkering with. That is part of the reason people are going to the Mass prior to the tinkering, which doesn’t provide the priest with a menu of options to judge between. Priests don’t have to figure out what the appropriate/pleasing thing to do is, they just look up the rubric and do it. Laity can have any opinion they please, and none of the other laity will ever have to worry about it becoming a reality.
It isn’t disobedient to attend a TLM. It isn’t even disobedient to attend an SSPX TLM as a layperson. The Vatican specifically allowed it. One could ask whether it is contrary to unity to accuse others of disobedience for doing things that are expressly permitted now, and practiced by many Saints for centuries.
Inimicus Missae Latinae est Procurator Satanae.
I guess Martin didn’t get the memo that Francis has gone to his eternal reward.
No one in the hierarchy need worry at all about Catholics rejecting the teachings of Vatican Council II. Why? Because if you stood at the exit of any Catholic Church after Holy Mass anywhere in world and randomly asked 10,000 Catholics to name any three teachings of Vatican Council II, anyone would quickly realize that it’s not on any Catholic’s radar screen. Let’s not kid ourselves here, an overwhelming majority of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence yet we should be convinced that Catholics have knowledge about the teachings of Vatican Council II. Our hierarchy is plainly out of touch.
Thank you for stating this what should be obvious truth.
This is a very good point. I have asked repeatedly on various forums what doctrines were developed by Vatican 2 and how, and have never gotten any answer whatsoever. Probably not going to improve your chances with a pew survey.
But I’m not sure that is actually the point. If understanding was the goal, there’s been 60 years in which the many educated people could have been explaining things. Some people seem to want an attitude of good cheer and affection regarding the Council without any botheration over actual teachings.
Vatican II is NOT a dogmatic council but pastoral. Latin Mass Communities grow more Catholics and have better Mass attendance. Missing Sunday Mass with cause is a mortal sin, but Modernists don’t believe in sin anymore. God have mercy!
“a bid to “promote the concord and unity of the Church.””
Bishop Martin appears to have a pitiably pinched, insular view of the Church. How is having every country (or linguistic region within a country) have the Mass in the local vernacular promoting unity? Instead of being able, anywhere in the world, to go to Mass and have it in the same language, one must go and hear a completely foreign language.
At least the re-translation of the Mass into English what, 10 or 15 years ago, got rid of some of the more egregious lousy translations (e.g. “pro multis” does not mean “for all”). One wonders if Bishop Martin complained bitterly about that, as well.
Leslie, you’re absolutely correct about the argument for suppressing Latin based on unity. I’ve travelled to Europe many times over the years. I can’t count the occasions in Germany, France, Italy, Czech, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway when as a family we sat through Masses not understanding a word of the Mass. If Latin were still the universal language of the Mass, I would have known enough to pack my Latin/English Missal. Then, the only part of the Mass I would not be able to understand would have been the homily (and in most instances, that would have been a blessing!).
Yes. Or my progressive Seattle diocesan neighborhood parish. Because the neighborhood consists of Vietnamese, Spanish, and old European people, some liturgies proceed as ‘blended,’ with the vernacular English, Spanish, and Vietnamese used separately at different parts of the liturgy.
Clear as a bell, one experiences Babel.
Yea. They, Martin and the progressives talk of the unity of uniformity, and the diversity of exclusivity.