Denver Newsroom, May 20, 2020 / 11:10 am (CNA).- A scientist on the front lines of developing a vaccine for COVID-19 today was selected as the recipient of this year’s Templeton Prize, an award recognizing his contributions to insight about religion through his work as a scientist.
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, told CNA that working to develop the coronavirus vaccine is one of the biggest challenges of his career, and that these days when he is not working, he is finding solace in prayer and reading the psalms.
“Like all crises, like all occasions of suffering, this is an opportunity where we can learn and grow. And I’m glad that I worship a God who knows about suffering,” Collins, an evangelical Christian, told CNA.
The Templeton Prize, established in 1972 by global investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton, is an annual cash award of £1.1 million ($1.3 million) to a living person who has made “an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery or practical works.”
St. Teresa of Calcutta was the inaugural recipient of the award in 1973.
Before joining the NIH in 2009, Dr. Collins had been professor of internal medicine and human genetics at the University of Michigan, leading research that had discovered the genes responsible for diseases such as cystic fibrosis; neurofibromatosis; Huntington’s disease; and Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, a rare form of premature aging.
In 1993, he was appointed director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, overseeing the Human Genome Project, an international collaboration that in 2003 succeeded in sequencing the three billion DNA “letters” in the human genome.
Now, Collins is overseeing the NIH’s collaboration with several pharmaceutical companies and government agencies to develop a vaccine for COVID-19. At least one potential vaccine will be ready to begin large-scale testing by July with others to follow soon, Collins told The Associated Press last week.
“I pray for wisdom, for guidance, I pray for forgiveness for making mistakes along the way,” Collins told CNA.
“I’ve been involved in so many large-scale science projects over the last 30 years, from finding the gene for cystic fibrosis, to the genome project, to cancer immunotherapy; and somehow the burden of responsibility here— we can’t afford to lose a day of progress in finding treatments and a vaccine and better tests— is just there every minute.”
“And here I am in my home office, but barely ever going outside, and probably working 110 hours a week just trying to do everything I can to marshal all of those resources and praying to God that they are used wisely to bring hope and healing,” he said.
A rational case for God’s existence
A Virginia native, Collins was homeschooled until age 10 and studied chemistry at the college and graduate level, earning a bachelor’s, Ph.D., and later his M.D., after which he was named a Fellow in Human Genetics at Yale Medical School.
Veering between agnositcism to atheism until age 27, Collins has said that he was “very happy with the idea that God did not exist and that he had no interest in me.”
“That was where I was— if somebody tried to raise that topic [of religion], I would be quick to dismiss it and want to move on to something else, having perhaps had too many instances of feeling like a target for some person who was trying to sell me their faith,” Collins said.
Collins converted in part thanks to C.S. Lewis’ classic book Mere Christianity, which lays out a rational case for God’s existence.
Collins said one thing that caught his attention in the opening chapters of the book is Lewis’ examination of the basis of morality— in other words, why is there such a thing as good and evil, and why does it matter?
“This is where I think the most strict atheists find themselves in a real quandary,” Collins argued.
“Because if they try to argue that our ideas about good and evil are solely driven by evolutionary pressures that have helped us survive, the ultimate consequence of that are that those are fictional concepts— that we’ve all been hoodwinked into imagining that there is such a thing as good and evil, and that we should stop paying attention to that and do whatever we please. And even the most ardent atheist has trouble with that conclusion.”
“Understanding God’s works in nature”
Today, Collins is outspoken about his Christian faith. He wrote a book in 2006 entitled “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” in which he describes how religious faith can motivate and inspire rigorous scientific research.
He and his wife in 2007 founded the non-profit BioLogos Foundation, which aims to foster discussion about harmony between science and biblical faith through articles, podcasts, and other media.
Collins is also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, having been appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.
Though Collins said he has only been able to attend one meeting of the Academy at the Vatican since his appointment, he described the meeting as “a fascinating gathering of really world-class scientists of multiple different disciplines.”
“I’ve found such joy in the ability to bring together the spiritual and the scientific perspectives that I feel this urge to share,” he said.
“Not to turn it into too dry an intellectual, philosophical discourse, but to talk about the joy that I have experienced and by God’s grace, in being able to read God’s word in the Bible and understand God’s works in nature.”
Faith and bioethics
Amid the global race to develop a vaccine for COVID-19, some pro-life advocates and ethicists have expressed concern that in some cases, scientists may use human fetal tissue derived from aborted babies in their research.
One proposed line of research, led by immunologist Kim Hasenkrug at the NIH Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Montana, aimed to find treatments for COVID-19 by implanting mice with fetal lung tissue, infecting the mice with coronavirus strains similar to COVID-19, and testing for successful treatments.
The Department of Health and Human Services, NIH’s parent agency, last year imposed a moratorium on NIH fetal tissue research derived from elective abortions, meaning Hasenkrug’s research will not go forward barring any changes in NIH guideleines.
The new guidelines, which NIH released in July 2019, halt new NIH research with aborted fetal tissue and limited funding of “extramural” research— or tests conducted outside the NIH— on aborted fetal tissue. Grant applicants to the NIH must indicate why their research goals “cannot be accomplished using an alternative to HFT” and what methods they have used to determine that no alternatives can be used.
For his part, Collins says he considers the question of whether it is ethical to use human embryos and aborted fetuses for research is an “important issue to think through carefully.”
“I would be the first to say we should not be creating or destroying embryos— human embryos— for research, and we should not be terminating pregnancies for research,” Collins told CNA.
Collins differs from Catholic teaching on research involving frozen embryos.
“But if there are embryos that are left over after in vitro fertilization— and the hundreds of thousands that are never going to be used for anything, they’ll be discarded— I think it is ethical to consider ways in which research might make it possible to utilize that information to help somebody.”
“And likewise, if there are hundreds of thousands of fetuses that are otherwise being discarded through what is a legal process in this country, we ought to think about whether it is more ethical to throw them away, or in some rare instance to use them for research that might be life saving.”
The 2008 Vatican document Dignitatis personae states that “the obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo…invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit.”
That document also strongly criticized aborted fetal tissue research, but regarding common vaccines—such as those for chicken pox and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)—that are derived from cell lines of aborted babies, the Vatican said they could be used by parents for “grave reasons” such as danger to their children’s health.
The document goes on to state that “everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.”
A committee of four Catholic bishops wrote a letter to the Trump administration in April asking them to “help to ensure that Americans will have access to vaccines that are free from any connection to abortion.”
Collins says he has found it fascinating to observe how much the modern field of bioethics rests on a Judeo-Christian foundation.
“The fact that we do value such things as benevolence, non-maleficence— that is, don’t hurt somebody on purpose— as autonomy, as equity, as justice; all of those principles come directly out of the bible,” Collins said.
“And so, a secular ethicist who adheres to those— and they will— may not have quite the same sense that I do about the foundation on which they rest, which for me is very much God-given.”
Sharing faith in the lab
Collins says when President Obama first nominated him as NIH director, there were some voices in the media— particularly, outspoken atheists— who objected to the idea of a Christian leading the nation’s biomedical research effort.
Although Collins said he certainly believes anyone working in the sciences wishing to share their faith with others ought to feel free to do so, he acknowledged that it was much easier for him to share his faith openly after he had already achieved the rank of full professor and led high-profile research projects.
He said even in a setting like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, held at the Vatican, he sensed that some of his fellow scientists were reluctant to speak openly about their religious beliefs— perhaps because they so often felt they could not share their religious beliefs in the labs where they normally worked.
“I do think, particularly for trainees, or junior faculty, there’s a little bit more anxiety about ‘How will I be viewed’ if I talk about my belief in God. Which is really a terrible tragedy, because as I tried to argue in Language of God— these ought not to be seen as in any way conflicting,” Collins said.
Collins said if he could go back in time to talk to his 27-year-old atheist former self, he would encourage that young man to begin contemplating questions like: Why is there something instead of nothing? Is there a God, and how would you know if there were? What is love about? What is beauty about? Why are we here?
“Those are not questions where the scientific approach is going to give you much of an answer at all,” Collins said, adding that he would tell his past self: “Let’s think about whether it’s worth, before you die, giving a few minutes contemplation to that, and seeing if there’s any other direction from which answers might come, other than the science lab.”
Collins will accept the Templeton Prize in a virtual ceremony later this year.
[…]
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.