National Catholic Register, Jun 4, 2025 / 09:39 am (CNA).
The bishop of Charlotte, North Carolina, has delayed his plan to restrict the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in his diocese, pushing the date back by nearly three months after a week and a half of significant backlash in North Carolina and beyond.
Bishop Michael Martin has determined that a plan to restrict the TLM from four parish churches to a single, designated chapel will now go into effect on Oct. 2, according to a June 3 story from the Catholic News Herald, the diocese’s official newspaper. The Charlotte bishop had previously announced on May 23 that the restrictions would go into effect on July 8.
The Herald reported that Martin made the change after accepting a request from the priests of the parishes where the TLM is currently celebrated to delay the restrictions, which he said he had originally scheduled to coincide with changes in diocesan assignments.
“It made sense to start these changes in July when dozens of our priests will be moving to their new parishes and other assignments,” the bishop told his diocesan paper. “That said, I want to listen to the concerns of these parishioners and their priests, and I am willing to give them more time to absorb these changes.”
Martin also told the Herald that if the Vatican changes required restrictions of the TLM, the Diocese of Charlotte “would abide by those instructions.”
The bishop’s delay comes after his decision to restrict the TLM in Charlotte — several months ahead of a Vatican deadline — faced criticism for being premature and unnecessarily restrictive.
Critics pointed out that Martin’s restriction to a single non-parish chapel was being made months ahead of an October cutoff of an extension the Vatican had previously granted the diocese to implement Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’ 2021 apostolic letter that called for limiting the availability of the TLM to non-parish churches and established Vatican oversight over associated permissions. Some speculated that the timing of the Charlotte moves would effectively preempt Pope Leo XIV, who may choose to regulate the TLM differently than Pope Francis.
The new target date for the Charlotte TLM restrictions now aligns with the original deadline of the Vatican’s extension, which had been requested by the previous ordinary of Charlotte, Bishop Peter Jugis, who retired in April 2024.
The controversy expanded when sweeping liturgical norms Martin had drafted — which included a ban on Latin in all diocesan liturgies and the prohibition of other traditional liturgical practices like “ad orientem” worship — were publicly leaked.
The Diocese of Charlotte told the Register at the time that the document, which would apply to all forms of the Mass, not just the TLM, was “an early draft that has gone through considerable changes over several months” and is still being discussed by the diocesan presbyteral council and Office for Divine Worship. Given references to Pope Francis, the document appears to have been drafted prior to the late pope’s April 21 death.
“It represented a starting point to update our liturgical norms and methods of catechesis for receiving the Eucharist,” said diocesan communications director Liz Chandler, adding that the norms will be “thoroughly reviewed” in accord with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).
Although the changes have not gone into effect, critics contended that Martin’s justification for them was not consistent with Church teaching, including Vatican II’s pastoral constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Others raised concerns that Martin, who marked his one-year anniversary as Charlotte’s bishop on May 29, was engaging in unnecessary micromanagement and had failed to adequately listen to people in his diocese.
In addition to allowing the affected communities more time to accept the changes to the TLM in Charlotte, Martin told diocesan priests in a June 3 email that the delay “allows more time for the transition and for renovation of a chapel designated for the TLM community,” according to the Herald.
The diocese is putting $700,000 toward renovations of the designated TLM chapel, which was formerly the home of the Freedom Christian Center, a Protestant community.
The Herald described the Mooresville chapel as “strategically located” between the diocese’s two biggest population centers, but critics have complained that it is more than a two-hour drive from St. John the Baptist in Tryon, one of the four parishes where the TLM will be prohibited starting Oct. 2.
The diocese reports that approximately 1,100 people attend the TLM in Charlotte each week.
This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )