Washington D.C., Dec 30, 2020 / 11:25 am (CNA).- This article is the first part of a two-part series on the Church, gender-critical feminists, and transgender ideology. Part two can be found here.
Mary Kate Fain doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church about anything. Or, nearly anything, at least. But she does agree with the Catholic take on gender and identity. And that’s cost her. A lot.
In July 2019, Fain wrote a piece critiquing non-binary gender identities. She questioned why so many of her female friends felt the need to shed their identities as women and to instead identify as “non-binary” – neither male nor female.
Fain published the piece on Medium, an online social publishing platform.
Not long after the article published, Fain was fired from her job as a software engineer. She claims her viewpoints are the reason she was let go.
“I guess one of my coworkers complained about the article and I was fired. And since then it just started the slew of cancellation,” Fain told CNA.
“I was canceled from conferences, and canceled for multiple groups that I was a volunteer in, et cetera. And it just really highlighted to me that they all wanted to shut me up, but what it proved was that there really is a need for a place for women to be able to say this.”
Since her firing, Fain, a millennial and freelance writer living just outside of Houston, founded 4W, an online publication that publishes articles analyzing radical feminist issues such as gender, male violence, sex positivity, and the portrayal of women in media. She is also co-founder of the feminist social media platform Spinster.xyz, and a volunteer with the Women’s Human Rights Campaign.
And she is just one of many “canceled” women.
Why women are being “canceled”
Fain, along with several other women writers, intellectuals, and activists, have been “canceled” for their conviction that women are adult human females, whose sex-based rights, such as the right to female-only spaces like bathrooms or sports teams or therapy groups, deserve protection.
This view is no longer seen as politically correct by some tastemakers and gatekeepers, because it is “trans-exclusionary” – to hold this view means to hold that a man cannot “become” a woman because he identifies as one, and vice versa.
“…this is not something that you’re supposed to say,” Fain said. “We’re supposed to just blindly accept what anyone says about their own identity, without any critical analysis, without any feminist analysis even. We’re supposed to ignore that sex-based oppression exists and just admit, ‘Oh yes, we are what we say we are and that defines our reality.’”
“But I think for any feminist, any real feminist, we know that that just simply isn’t true,” she added.
“Our sex does define certain aspects of our reality, and people are not allowed to say that in today’s day and age.”
Many women who hold this view refer to themselves as radical feminists, trans-exclusionary radical feminists or gender critical feminists, or even “canceled women.”
“Cancel culture” is a relatively new term, used to describe the phenomenon that happens when someone, usually a famous person or one with some kind of platform, experiences a kind of shunning, harassment, or social banishment for doing or saying something with which a lot of people disagree.
Being “canceled” can take many forms: being trolled or doxxed on social media, being banned from Twitter or other platforms, or finding that events featuring the canceled person are quickly, well, canceled.
In January, an event entitled “Evening with Canceled Women” was canceled by the New York Public Library, where the event was to be hosted.
The canceled event was organized by Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), a group that advocates for the “rights, privacy and safety of women and girls, by which we mean human females,” Kara Dansky, a board member with WoLF, told CNA.
“We were being told over the course of a week that the contract was being processed (for the event), and then the day before the deposit was due, we were told that we could not proceed with the event and we were not given a reason,” Dansky said.
The event would have included the voices of women “who have, in one way or another, been silenced or canceled as a result of their outspoken views on behalf of women and girls,” she added.
For example, the event would have featured Canadian feminist Megan Murphy, an advocate against pornography and prostitution whose insistence that women are female got her banned from Twitter, Dansky said.
It would also have included Posie Parker, a UK feminist known “for her insistence that the word woman means adult human female, which is simply the dictionary definition of the word,” Dansky said. Parker has also been banned from Twitter for her views.
The event also would have featured Linda Bellows, a Briton “who speaks on behalf of lesbian rights. And she has been told that it is transphobic to insist that lesbians are women who are attracted to women,” Dansky said.
These canceled women join a slew of others, with particularly high numbers in the UK, where the 2004 Gender Recognition Act lets adults register their gender as something other than the biological sex with which they were born.
Common ground with the Catholic Church
While trans-exclusionary radical feminist women typically hold many views with which the Catholic Church disagrees, such as approval of abortion and gay marriage, they share common ground in the belief that women are female and men are male – and they are born that way.
“It has been a tremendous plus to have radical feminists speaking out so strongly about the reality of sexual difference and against the new tyranny of gender,” Mary Rice Hasson, the Kate O’Beirne Fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and director of the Catholic Women’s Forum, told CNA.
“Although we disagree about many things – most significantly about abortion-– we agree on some important truths about women,” she said, such as opposing violence and exploitation against women, as well as “the importance of acknowledging the reality of sexual difference and the dangers of the transgender agenda.”
“Specifically, we agree that sexual difference is real, that males and females are different in significant ways, and that a person’s sex cannot change,” Hasson said.
“The Church’s vision of the human person differs radically from gender ideology,” Hasson noted. “Christian anthropology teaches that the person is a unity of body and soul, that we are created male or female, forever.”
“Gender ideology, in contrast, imagines the person as a bundle of assorted dimensions,” she said, such as gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and biological sex, none of which “needs to align – the person is self-determining. God is really not in the driver’s seat.”
Fain said she agrees that gender identity, “this idea that we have an internal sense of being male, female or neither, and that this has any effect on our material reality, is nonsense.”
Dansky, whose group’s primary goals are to fight violence against and exploitation of women in rape, sexual and domestic assault, and pornography and prostitution, said that her work is made nearly impossible in the context of broad social disagreement about what makes someone a woman in the first place.
“It’s very difficult to solve all of those problems when we’re not permitted to name the category of women,” she said.
“It’s very interesting to me that when our society talks about domestic violence and rape and sexual assault, and we talk about the rampant rates of these crimes being perpetrated against women and girls, everybody knows what the words ‘women’ and ‘girls’ mean.”
In light of increasing acceptance of transgender ideology, the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education’s issued a document entitled “Male and Female He Created Them” in June 2019, explaining the Church’s teaching on transgender issues and encouraging dialogue with those experiencing gender dysphoria.
The document cited the need to reaffirm “the metaphysical roots of sexual difference” to help refute “attempts to negate the male-female duality of human nature, from which the family is generated.”
Such a negation “erases the vision of human beings as the fruit of an act of creation” and “creates the idea of the human person as a sort of abstraction who ‘chooses for himself what his nature is to be.’”
Theories of gender, whether moderate or radical, agree that “one’s gender ends up being viewed as more important than being of male or female sex,” according to the document, which also reflects on the role of gender theory in education and speaks of a “crisis” in any alliance between the school and the family.
“Although ideologically-driven approaches to the delicate questions around gender proclaim their respect for diversity, they actually run the risk of viewing such differences as static realities and end up leaving them isolated and disconnected from each other,” it said.
The document called for dialogue, and the protection of human and family rights. It also decried unjust discrimination and noted points of unity among people with different perspectives on gender ideology.
“Key allies“
Looking for concrete examples of common ground, Fain told CNA that she thinks that protecting the freedom of speech of those who oppose transgenderism will be one of the most important things that radical feminists and Christians can work together for.
“(W)e need to deal with this freedom of speech issue that’s happening and cancel culture, which is making most people terrified to speak out on the issue,” she said.
Fain noted that when she wrote the controversial article that got her fired, she had anticipated the backlash and had been saving for months to protect herself from the blow. She recognized that most people cannot afford to lose their jobs for speaking up on this issue.
“Most people can’t, and especially women who are already at a financial disadvantage are more likely to be caring for kids,” she said.
“And people are terrified to speak out on this issue because of the serious economic consequences that are happening.”
“And although I have many issues with the right in general, I will say that I think religious freedom and freedom of speech do go hand in hand,” Faid added.
“And so the Church’s work on that is probably relevant here.”
Hasson identified women like Fain as “key allies” in the fight against transgenderism going forward, and said she looks forward to working with them despite differences on other issues.
“Radical feminists have been fearless in speaking the truth about sexual difference – over social media, at universities, and in public hearings. They have refused to be silenced – even after being ridiculed, ‘de-platformed’ at public universities, or having their Twitter accounts shut down,” Hasson said.
“We differ greatly about abortion and our views of men, but I am hopeful that our work together and personal regard for each other will open up some opportunities in the future for discussions about those areas where we disagree. But for now, I’m grateful for their commitment to speak the truth, even at great personal cost.”
This article was originally published on CNA Feb. 10, 2020.
[…]
German Archbishop authorizes blasphemous dance at ancient cathedral:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/05/30/fowl-behavior-chickens-in-diapers-dance-performance-at-westphalia-cathedral-blasted-as-blasphemous/
Chickens in Diapers and half-naked men Dance Performance at Westphalia Cathedral Blasted as ‘Blasphemous’
The question for Martin is this: Have the sheep abandoned the shepherd? Jesus told us that he knows the sheep and the sheep know him. It seems to me that the crisis in that diocese is less about the Tridentine manner of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but the full frontal assault on the liturgical sensibilities of the worshipping community in the diocese of Charlotte. Standing v. kneeling, mantillas v. barehead, and on and on. It’s all so arbitary. What’s important is that we do God’s will, proclaim the Gospel to the world and seek the kingdom.
A delay of five months is delaying the inevitable. Trads simply need to accept and live with the reality that Traditionis Custodes requires bishops to phase out the use of the 1962 Missal.
The bishop’s reversal will probably convince trads that if they make a big enough stink, then they can get their way. That’s not true. The Roman Rite is now in the form of the Third Edition of the 1970 Roman Missal: i.e., the reformed Mass. The TLM is going away, as it should, because that’s what Vatican II decreed when it called for the liturgical books to be revised.
Miss Dorothy, should we refer to other Catholic Christians as “Trads “?
I see a lack of charity on all sides of the issue. Catholic means universal and there’s room for diversity in rites and liturgies.
Let’s model charity and respect towards each other please.
They call themselves trads with pride; it’s not derogatory. Besides, Dorothy is right that the TLM should have the plug pulled. There is no place for a pre-Vatican II liturgy in a post-Vatican II Church. The TLM is not liurgical diversity; it’s liturgical backwardism. The Roman Rite has evolved.
Sebastien, do you think similarly about the Byzantine Rites?
I think we should all consider charity more seriously in commenting. Myself included.
mrscracker, yours are universally, always the most charitable of comments.
My thinking seconds Mr. Meynier’s.
Did we ever think we’d live to see the day? Liturgical ressourcement is now portrayed as backward!?!
Seabass and Dot would pull the plug on Jesus’ liturgical practices! After all, he lived a very long time ago. Even paper had not been invented then. Design and development have EVOLVED. We know more today than the mork trads of yesteryear. Down with tradition, no matter its stem, root, source or foundation.
Sebastian, your comment reveals that you are unaware (perhaps due to living in a news bubble rather than lack of Christian princple) that Pope Francis practiced clericalis, presumption, and hypocrisy when it comes to accompaniment and dialog for those he did not understand and was inclined to be judgmental toward. He was a man of deep empathy and compassion, but not with the consistency of a saintly pope. George Wiegel, who is exlusively Novus Ordo and does not care for the TLM, points out that Traditiones Custodes is “cruel and unnecessary”. When you get into the details you will realize that TC is based on lies as well as being a way of promoting Vatican II by betraying Vatican II. I pray that Pope Francis was manipulated, and was a victim of the lies rather than an architect.
Excellent comments, Mrscracker! You are right on!
“Bishop Martin is Out of Touch”
https://firstthings.com/bishop-martin-is-out-of-touch/
Perhaps the TLM saves more souls, brings the sinner closer to Jesus; has that been considered?
Are we to just look like the Protestant brands?
SWhatDorothy said was nonsensical. The Church still allows the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, Anglican Use, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Maronite (Antiochene) Rites, and more. Pope Benedict XVI was clear that the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms were two forms of the SAME Roman Rite. He also said they could help each – there were some minor changes to the Tridentine, for example – it is NOT pure Tridentine.
Yes, but — for example — the Mozarabic rite does not have the legal fiction of an ordinary form and an extraordinary form: there is one Mozarabic rite. Same with the other rites. Similarly, there is one Roman Rite: the post-Vatican II evolution of the Roman Rite, which is the Missal of Paul VI.
There are approved “uses” of the Roman Rite, but they all follow the post-Vatican II form of the rite. The TLM cannot be considered a “use” of the Roman Rite nor a “form” of the *current* Roman Rite (Pope Benedict was wrong). The TLM is properly understood as a prior liturgical form of the Roman Rite, a form that has been superseded by the new form: the Missal of Paul VI.
That’s exactly what trads like about it: that it is preconciliar, because at heart the trads reject the reforms of Vatican II.
The permissions to celebrate the TLM have their origin in pastoral concessions to avoid schism, not in the intent to preserve the celebration of the TLM in perpetuity. Trads have wrongfully turned a temporary pastoral concession into a hope for perpetual indulgence of their preconciliar proclivities.
Pope Benedict was a careful scholar who studied and wrote on the Divine Liturgy. Pope Francis was often rash and rarely a nuanced thinker (though he had some good ghostwriters). As Father Stravinskas has pointed out the Novus Ordo is the Roman Rite Mass with parts removed and some parts added. Basically, it is to the TLM what a movie adaptation is to a classic novel. When staying close to Sacrosanctum Concilium it can be a quite adequate and satisfying abridegment. But as you know, some movie adaptations are both unfaithful and horrid messes. Pope Francis was much less zealous about fixing actual abuses; one hopes that only his mind and not his heart was in the wrong place.
Rads have wrongfully turned episcopal power into a hope for perpetual eradication of their postconciliar proclivities.
FIFY, you’re welcome.
Yes. Many rites, one Faith.
No, Dorothy, we “Trads” do not have to accept and live with the reality that TC requires bishops to phase out the TLM. The bishops (and you) need to accept and live with the reality of Pope Pius V’s Quo Primam Tempore. Read it and you will see that Traditiones Custodus is invalid and anathema.
Quo Primum was a liturgical directive that bound the Church at that point in time, and was understood to be in force in perpetuity until a subsequent change occurred by a future pope. It was an ecclesiastical law, not a Divine law. It set policy for worship, but was not a definition of faith in and of itself. “Trads” have used this document (especially the SSPX) to further their argument as proof that the Tridentine Mass can never disappear or be limited because it is necessary for salvation to the exclusion of the so-called Novus Ordo Mass. But Tradition is not more important than the living authority of Christ via His Church. Like it or not, the OF form of the Mass is an acceptable and valid form of worship. To claim otherwise is private judgment and Protestant in spirit.
Everything you wrote can be applied to Traditiones Custodus.
Given that “Trads” (I note this is used as invective, especially if you are part of the FBI-are you part of the FBI?) are the ones doing the marrying and having children, perhaps they should be accommodated.
If it was up to me, I’d allow both forms. If it fifty or a hundred years, we see a growing, pious and faithful Church because of Novus Ordo, even if the music is guitars and flutes-so be it.
But if the TLM is what fills pews, so be it.
I agree Pitchfork. But I also have qualms about both forms being in competition with each other. I like the premise of the EF being preserved, and people having a choice, but I dislike the outcome of one eventually winning and the other losing. Which in effect means we all lose. The EF was never intended to remain in force, it was to be phased out. And many adherents weaponize it to discredit Vatican II. On the other hand, we are all too familiar with the lousy implementation of the OF and all the satellite nonsense surrounding it, crummy music being at the top of my personal list. Traditionis Custodes is the last current document in effect and until Leo or a future pope changes it, it should be accepted.
Did you see Pope Leo XIV talk to the Eastern Catholic Patriarch after the Conclave? He said their ancient orthodox rite was beautiful and should continue on. If the Eastern Catholics can have their ancient rite, then why can’t we have our also ancient Latin rite? What’s the difference?
Looking back on the last 69 years, 60+ of which I can remember, including starting as an altar boy, and choir boy, in the ancient Mass, and having lived through the ugly, brute force NO implementation, and over the last 30 years reading deeply and widely about the “reform of the Mass,” and the “reform of the reform,” it seems that the plan of the Church establishment is to commit cultural suicide.
Chris, we might paraphrase Orwell’s famous 1984 quote:
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a Novos Ordo boot stamping on the Latin Mass forever ?
Neither form of the Mass are the enemy though. This is about fallen human nature, not liturgical preferences.
Too true, alas. I have no idea why the Tridentine Mass went from the visible symbol of Catholicism’s universality–the thing that made a Catholic feel at home no matter where he was–to the epitome of liturgical evil. And, of course, made thd Catholics who still cherish it outcasts in their own Church…
The answer is simple: the liturgical reforms of Vatican II changed the form of the Mass for the whole Roman Church. The new form of the Mass is the current liturgical form to which all Roman Catholics are expected to adhere. The TLM is the former, preconciliar form of the Mass, which has been superseded by the conciliar mandate to revise the liturgical books and the subsequent promulgation of those books.
I don’t understand why trads can’t understand that simple logic. Nor why they won’t accept Vatican II.
Sebastian, in an effort to help you to understand why trads can’t understand “that simple logic” I suggest that you read Quo Primum Tempore. You will understand quite clearly that the TLM cannot be abrogated or suppressed. It is there for all to read.
It’s time for all Roman Rite Catholics who care deeply about reverent liturgies to switch affiliation from the Roman Rite to the Anglican Rite or any of the multitude of Byzantine Rites.
The Roman Rite extant in 1960 worked for the vast majority of Catholics and churches were filled to the brim. That “good-enough” Roman Rite was tossed aside and now only about 19% of Catholics attend the new rite Masses on a regular basis. Draw your own conclusions.
The New Mass, written by a committee which included Protestants, did not follow the guidelines of Vatican II in many ways. The Council Fathers wanted minor changes, such as perhaps the scripture readings in the vernacular and perhaps the congregation joining the priest in the Our Father, but not the wholesale tearing up and starting over (in large part) of the resulting mass. They definitely wanted the Roman Canon to remain as it was, and always to be in Latin. Now there are at least 8 Eucharistic prayers, one of which is mostly the Roman Canon. Depending on the whim of the priest, there is almost infinite variety in the new mass, and complete uniformity in the old rite.
“I don’t understand why trads can’t understand that simple logic. Nor why they won’t accept Vatican II.”
Have you read the documents which outline Novus Ordo, I mean HOW it must be celebrated? It clearly states such rules as priests facing the same direction as parishioners is a major choice; Gregorian chant is a major choice; silences and solemnity and so on. I do not go to TLM but two things are clear to me:
1 – Novus Ordo can and must be celebrated according to the actual prescribed rules (see above)
2 – the reforms of the Vatican II were overtaken and “interpreted” by the people who want to worship themselves instead of God. And so, when you speak about NO which “superseded” TLM and thus must be accepted, you in fact speak of its narcissistic “interpretation”. Alas, the possibility of such an interpretation, up to sacrilege, seems to be inherent in some aspect of the NO. It probably shows that the Church must not allow a choice when it is a liturgical matter; too many priests take it as a license to perform and improvise, making the worship impossible. The very predictability, word after word and solemnity makes Mass universal i.e. belonging to everyone. When you are free from a fear of “improvisations” bordering on sacrilege you actually can pray. This is why, I think, people appreciate the Latin Mass.
The God-orientation of TLM, so often being compromised by NO, is, I believe, the major reason why it is being suppressed. NB: Novus Ordo also has the God-orientation and can be done splendidly, but it is far easier to “bring it down” to the level of “us, beloved”.
I was a young adult around the time of Vatican II. While the vernacular Mass was instituted worldwide, the Tridentine Mass was not abolished, and in fact was to continue to have a place in the Church. There is no particular reason why Mass in both forms cannot continue to be accepted. But it is the intensity of its rejection that I find especially troubling.
Jo-Anne, the TLM was never hated as much since 1789. Today’s freemasons can idly watch on, as the post-conciliar-catholic bishops finish the work of the 18th century Luciferian sects for them. The devil hates latin…
IMO this is the first real test for our new Pope.
Let’s hope and PRAY that he passes.
Terence; Sadly, whatever he decides will never please all. He doesn’t have a chance of passing “the test”, for there is no correct answer.
Br. Jaques. I think there IS an answer. As with all other PROTESTANTS , they can leave, cross the Tiber and join their Vatican II deniers on the other side.
Please define what a “Vatican II denier” means. It was a legitimate council of the Church, and a legitimate disaster for the Faith. Does that make me a denier? According to every study I have seen, 67% of Catholics attending Mass today deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist. How does that fit into your “denial” litmus test?
Agree
Pope Benedict XVI on the Traditional Latin Mass:
‘What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
Pope Benedict XVI used his 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum to affirm the use of the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) alongside the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo). He stated that the TLM was not “forbidden” but should be honored and preserved as part of the Church’s rich liturgical tradition. He also emphasized that the Tridentine Mass was not a “faulty” Mass and was valid and could be celebrated freely by priests.
YES! Also, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
“What happened AFTER THE COUNCIL was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came FABRICATED LITURGY. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it–as in a MANUFACTURING PROCESS–with a FABRICATION, A BANAL ON-THE-SPOT PRODUCT.” [Emphases added.]
~From the Preface to the French Edition of “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background.”
He’s not the pope anymore. He was overturned by Pope Francis. He was also wrong. You’re quoting a document that is obsolete. You have to do better than that.
Francis too is no longer the pope, so by your logic, are his documents not also obsolete?
Also, what relevance does Scripture hold under your understanding of obsolescence?
Finally, what authority gives you the right to claim that Benedict was wrong?
Finally, no one ‘overturned’ Benedict. A successor pope simply chose to dishonor the beauty, truth, wisdom, and goodness of some of Benedict’s work. QED.
It’s not a court decision.
What is accomplished by the delay if the end result is to cancel Latin Mass there anyway? I am not a Latin Mass attendee, have not been to one in 50 years, but I dont see what harm is done by allowing people to worship at what had been a legitimate form of Catholic Mass for thousands of years. Who are they bothering?? Except of course, the control freaks, of which this Bishop appears to be one. Its my opinion that this Bishop has already squandered what little good will he had among the members of his diocese, and he will be ineffective going forward. He appears to have been primarily an administrative type before this assignment and it shows in his “my way or the highway” attitude. Would not be in his diocese for anything, nor would I donate a dime while he was still in power.
This type cant admit the installation of V2 changes heralded large scale damage to the church. The effect of fleeing clergy, non-church going parishioners, drop in donations, and flat out stripped, ugly churches resulted in damage to the Church which is felt to this day, decades later.
I come from a long line of Protestants. If I wanted to pray in a stripped down church devoid of inspiration , I could select from any number of denominations. Our parish church says the “Lamb of God” response in Latin during lent. So far no one has died from the experience . I would not mind keeping a touch of Latin all year round. It adds a bit of special beauty to the liturgy.
My parish church is primarily done in marble and which was too expensive to remove during the V2 tragedy. Thats why it survives to this day. Beautiful. The interior looks traditional and yet a reverent NO Mass is offered there. For us it works. But I think traditionalists should be free to attend a Latin Mass if they want to.
Where in the documents of Vatican Council II did it call for “Clown Masses”? (we had those in our parish church in Ridgefield, CT).
Where in the documents of Vatican Council II did it call for “Balloon Masses”? (we had those too).
Where in the documents of Vatican Council II did it call for “Religious Sisters doing interpretive dance in the center aisle”? (saw that at a Jubilee celebration at the Motherhouse of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in Wilton CT)
BUT “NO” TO COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE!!!!
(BTW, I’m not one who attends to Extraordinary Form )
It is truly sad that this Mass was ever let go! I grew up with it, as did so many, and they took it away! We always had translations in our St. Joseph Daily Missal! WE HAD TO CHANGE!!! Bishop Martin needs to see the many folks who attend this Mass at Our Lady of Grace, Greensboro! I appreciate his delay, but he really should reconsider his decision! It is truly a beautiful, well attended Mass! In my opinion, it should remain! Many young families attend every Sunday! We are all praying for Bishop Martin and for ourselves that we will grow closer to Christ! Thankyou!
Every argument that traditionalists use for the TLM has its exact counterpart among LGBTs who want gay marriage blessed by the church.
We just want to worship/love the way we want.
The church is persecuting us, a minority.
Why won’t the church just listen to us about our experience?
This is how we connect with God.
There should be room for diverse expressions of faith in the church.
The church does not have the authority to ban our worship/our love.
I’m going to do what I want anyway, regardless of what the church says.
Et cetera.
Wake up call.
I’d be very interested if you could state the source of your belief that traditionalists think such as you’ve listed. How does continuing in a state of make-believe differ from living a lie?
You might try better reading material:
The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy (Revised and Expanded Edition), by Martin Mosebach.
Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed, by Peter Kwasniewski, Ph.D.
A Forest of Symbols: The Traditional Mass and Its Meaning, by Abbé Claude Barthe, translated by David J. Critchley, with a Foreword by Robert Cardinal Sarah.
Bolderdash, Amy. Absolute bolders.
There is no link what-so-ever between sacred apostolic tradition being trashed and the promotion of sodomy and alphabet derivitives. No link, other than this: the novos Ordo protestants are also the pro-sodomites.
It would seem to me that what would suffice is a concise letter or homily reminding the Faithful that they should not assume attendance at a Latin Mass confers greater individual holiness or superior spirituality. However, in my experience, attendees do tend to show greater reverence, and it is a beautiful Mass. Personally, I am more drawn to the centrality of the Eucharist.
Martin’s restrictions included: “Neither an upright crucifix nor fixed candles may be placed on the altar, lest they interfere with the sight-lines of the congregation.”
Bishop Martin ‘sees’ a crucifix or a source of light on the dining table interfering with vision! Does he not understand irony?
He obviously prefers the congregants not to be reminded of the light of the world nor of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
Personally, I remember the last meal and the bold details of the deathbed of my dear mother.
This priest/bishop Martin is clueless regarding the riches of vision and memory as they pertain to the Lord.
Jesus: “But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. ~Matthew 13:16-19.
Good Jesus, have Mercy on us, and deliver us from evil.
I remember the lighting in the room where my mother died.
Rorate Caeli: News from Charlotte: Bishop Comes for the Catholic Schools’ Masses
Posted by New Catholic at 9/04/2025 06:53:00 PM
Excerpt:
“We have received a report of the new liturgical directives which Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte wishes to impose on the masses of Paul VI celebrated in the three Catholic high schools under his jurisdiction. The goal is apparently the decatholicization of the new liturgy in the schools under his authority.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they are exactly what we would expect, given what we have previously seen of his ideas about “liturgical norms.”
The use of kneelers and communion rails for the distribution of Holy Communion is forbidden.
There must be students to serve as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
A projector and screen are to be installed in the chapels to facilitate the singing of hymns and longer parts of the Mass such as the Gloria and the Creed. (It is, of course, a major pastoral problem that young people today spend too much time reading from books, and not enough time interacting with screens.)
At large Masses, a student is to give a testimonial about their faith life, lasting 3-5 minutes, between the final prayer and the blessing and dismissal.”
We might be tempted to say that Bishop Martin has learned nothing from the international backlash that resulted when his would-be liturgical norms, full of absurdities and illegalities, were leaked, but this would be unfair. He has learned not to put such things in writing, and to communicate them only by word of mouth.