The pilgrimage has two major Masses on Sunday. The earlier of the two was at 8:30 at San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. In contrast with last year’s Solemn Mass, the Mass was a read Low Mass, with musical accompaniment by a string ensemble at certain points in the liturgy. Later, I was told the simplified service was selected to avoid raising issues (and perhaps prompting negotiations?) with the (non-ICRSS) pastor. Nevertheless, the church was completely full.
The high altar of Sta Maria Maggiore.
The basilica was filled – I read estimates of 1200, 2000, even 4000 (!) present.
Despite the time pressure (I had heard first only one hour had been allotted for a Low Mass, later 1 1/2 hours was mentioned) the liturgy was reverent, solemn and unhurried. The music was obviously drastically reduced, even in comparison to a Missa Cantata. The Mass was recited aloud, except for the canon.
As he did on two other occasions on this pilgrimage, Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave a memorable homily, clearly defending the Traditional Mass.
(Above) What are the special rubrics for a Mass “versus poplulum” (as in the papal basilicas)? The celebrant does not turn, such as when the concluding blessing is given.
(Above) The pilgrims gathered before the closed ICRSS church of Santi Celso e Juliano. I suspect many learned at this time they would not be processing into St. Peter’s. (Below) The slim hand-out for the procession aleady reflected the new reality (“A solemn Procession towards the Basilica of St. Peter’s”) but the image selected did not.
(Above and below) The number of pilgrims (perhps 800-1000) was of course less than last year and also seemed to me less than in prior years as well. Many had travelled great distances to participate.
(Above) The pilgrimage sets out. The pilgrimage could continue along the route agreed with the Roman police until it reached the territory of the Vatican.
As always, the procession attracts much interest fom bystanders.
(Above) In contrast to previous pilgrimages, the procession was not lead by impressive ranks of clergy but by the laity. The clergy that were present blended into the rest of the pilgrims. In fact, the number of clergy present at this procession was far less than in prior years. Several major congregations were completely absent. Had they received advance word of the prohibition on entering St. Peter’s? From within the pilgrimage organization, or perhaps from the Vatican directly?
(Above) After a conversation with Carabinieri (Italian national police), the pilgrimage moved onto St. Peter’s square and eventually the territory of Vatican City.
The pilgrims were directed by a few Vatican officials into a kind of large holding pen or corral formed by barriers similar to those that deface this magnificent square today. Here the pilgrimage “fizzled out” around noon. It was an unforgrettble low point for this pilgrimage and for the Traditionalist cause.
The first liturgical celebration of the pilgrimage was Solemn Vespers in the Pantheon (Sta Maria ad Martyres) on Friday evening. Bishop Athanasius Schneider presided.
2
Nov
Of course I shall not pretend to consider it any matter for wonder, that (this) extraordinary case … has excited discussion. It would have been a miracle had it not — especially under the circumstances. Through the desire of all parties concerned to keep the affair from the public, at least for the present, or until we had farther opportunities for investigation — through our endeavors to effect this — a garbled or exaggerated account made its way into society, and became the source of many unpleasant misrepresentations, and, very naturally, of a great deal of disbelief.
It is now rendered necessary that I give the facts — as far as I comprehend them myself.
(Edgar Allan Poe, The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar)
The recently concluded Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage generated a great stir at least in those Catholic circles that still care about such things. Last year the massive attendance at the Pontifical Mass celebrated at St. Peter’s attracted more attention than this pilgrimage, which dates from 2012, had ever previously achieved. Yet this year, when the Vatican formally barred the pilgrimage from even entering St Peter’s, the resulting publicity was even greater. The events have given rise to a continuing stream of online commentary which, because of travel, I was at first unable to follow in detail. Perhaps that was fortunate, for much of what has been spoken or written is special pleading, attempted manipulation or outright lies. Those connected with the leadership of the pilgrimage have subsequently issued succinct statements of their own. Journalists too have weighed in, in some cases publishing relevant correspondence which has shed light upon the background of these events.
In view of this controversy and in the spirit of the anonymous narrator in The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar, quoted above, I will modestly relate what I myself saw and heard in Rome during the 15th Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage. As is usual on this blog, I will accompany the story with photos. I have added information I have learned from other sources and also give my opinions regarding the ultimate factors and forces behind these events.
I. The Conference
(Above) Natalia Sammartin Fenollera.
As always, the pilgrimage began with a conference Friday morning, which featured several memorable presentations. It is as always a privilege to experience the breadth and variety of the Traditionalist life throughout the world. Let me offer a selection of what we heard. Natalia Sammartin Fenollera (Madrid) spoke eloquently of the “battle for the liturgy and the burning fires” or centers of liturgical resistance. Her profoundly spiritual discourse drew on seemingly innumerable sources: Newman, Dostoevsky, John Senior, Pavel Florensky, Simone Weil, Kierkegaard – and, again and again, Cristina Campo, who seems to be finally receiving the recognition – in Catholic circles – that she deserves. Sammartin Fenollera spoke of the various communities that have preserved the liturgy and of their capacity for sacrifice in the midst of a disintegrating world. They (and we) do not need to “save the world” – or the Church – but only accomplish the little that we can. She emphasized the need for patience and fortitude, referencing St Hildegard of Bingen and St. Benedict. And she quoted Cristina Campo on trust in the providence of God: a youth trapped in a housing project may be meditating all night on the text of the liturgy, a drug addict, longing for death, may end up on Mount Athos….
(Above) Sebastian Ostritch.
Sebastian Ostritch (Stuttgart) spoke of the role of silence in the traditional liturgy, and how silent contemplation can be the most active form of participation. He spoke of the silent recitation of the canon, and of how people are now rediscovering this atmosphere reverence. Perhaps he went a little too far, though – it almost would seem that the ubiquitous (in pre-conciliar times) low mass would represent the pinnacle of Catholic liturgical sensibility!
(Above) Jorge O’Reilly.
Jorge O’Reilly (Buenos Aires) presented the story of Sursum Corda, a Catholic community, school and housing development founded around the celebration of the Traditional Mass. O’Reilly’s presentation addressed many practical questions involved in creating and maintaining such a community, such as obtaining the services of clergy and navigating local educational laws. Such an initiative is, of course, not without enemies. O’Reilly remarked on the “prudence of keeping a low profile.”
Now at this conference there were some very significant communications. The conference began with a lengthy, and I thought, unnecessary explanation, of why the Saturday mass at St. Maria Maggiore would be celebrated versus populum. Then, we were told that the vespers that evening would start at 6 instead of 6:30 as announced. Because of this I left early, thus missing the most important event of the day. For I heard later that evening that it had been announced – I believe for the first time publicly – that the Vatican had barred the pilgrimag from entering St. Peter’s Basilica.
All Souls Day is this Monday, November 2. The following churches will offer Traditional Masses.
Connecticut
St. Mary Church, Norwalk, Solemn Mass 1 pm (organized by Regina Pacis Academy); Solemn Mass 7 pm.
Georgetown Oratory of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Redding, 6 pm, Sung Latin Mass followed by recitation of the Bede Roll and refreshments
St. Pius X, Fairfield, 7 pm
Sts. Cyril and Methodius Oratory, Bridgeport, Low Masses at 7:45 am and 8:30 am; High Mass and absolution, 6 pm
St. Patrick Oratory, Waterbury, Requiem High Mass, 6 pm
New York
Church of the Holy Innocents, New York, NY, 6 pm
Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Harlem, 7 pm Solemn Requiem Mass
St. Josaphat Oratory, Bayside, Queens, Requiem Low Masses at 7 am and 12 noon; Requiem High Mass and Absolution, 7 pm
St. Rocco Church, Glen Cove, Long Island, Sung Requiem Mass, 7 pm
Sacred Heart, Esopus, 11:30 am
November 3: Church of the Blessed Sacrament, New Rochelle, Solemn Requiem Mass, 7 pm
November 5: St. Aidan Church, Williston Park, Long Island, Sung Requiem Mass, 7:30 pm
November 7: St. Margaret Church, Bronx, 12 noon Sung Requiem Mass.
New Jersey
Our Lady of Sorrows, Jersey City, Sung Requiem Mass, 5:30 pm
Our Lady of Victories in Harrington Park, NJ at 5:30pm, Low Requiem Mass
St. Anthony of Padua Oratory, West Orange, Requiem Low Masses at 9 am and 12 noon; Requiem High Mass at 7 pm
Shrine Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, Raritan, 7 pm
St. John the Baptist, Allentown, Solemn Requiem Mass, 7 pm. Dinner reception to follow.
November 3rd: St. Mary of Mt. Virgin, New Brunswick, Sung Requiem Mass, 7 pm. Annual Choral Requiem, featuring the Mass Ordinary from Victoria’s Officium Defunctorum à 6.
November 5th: Good Shepherd Parish, Hopelawn, 7 pm, Traditional Latin Vespers ofr the Day with candlelight proceession into cemetery
November 6th: St. Catherine Laboure Church, Middletown, Sung Requiem Mass, 7 pm
(Above) Most Holy Redeemer, New York (photo 1/6/2013)
The New York Post has published an extensive article summarizing the lack of progress on landmark designations in New York City, particularly those related to Catholic churches:
Moore, Chadwick, “Historic NYC churches and landmarks at risk of being razed for the sake of ‘affordable housing,’” nypost.com ( 10/15/2026)
The article specifically mentions – and provides photographs of – churches to which we ourselves have returned many times in this blog – reporting on the history of the church, its more recent vicissitudes, and, sometimes, the celebration there of a Traditional Latin Mass. For each church listed by the Post I provide a link to one of our relevant articles :
Most Holy Redeemer (The Churches of New York IX: Vierzehnheiligen on the East River)
St. Michael’s (West 34th Street)( The Churches of New York XXXI: the Wrong Side of the Tracks)
Our Lady of Guadalupe (at St. Bernard’s) ( The Churches of New York XXX: A Tale of Two Churches)
Church of the Transfiguration (Maspeth, Queens) (A Church in Danger of Closing)
St. Mary’s (Grand Street) (Landmark designation already received) ( The Churches of New York XXIV: In the Beginning. The interior seems to have been painted in garish red since we last visited.)
The New York Post article attributes the drying up of landmark designations to the desire to free up real estate for building both luxury condominiums and affordable housing, Thus, the interests of both real estate speculators and “democratic socialist” politicians and planners may be aligned:
“Without landmark protection, it’s very likely that eventually all of the historic buildings, the tenements, the old synagogues and churches, the institutional buildings will be demolished and turned into luxury housing and expensive hotels, the way things are going,” Richard Moses, president of the Lower East Side Preservation Initiative, told The Post of the current climate.
The socialists who have taken over have a dim view of preserving old buildings, particularly houses of worship, because they’d rather see more affordable apartments. They claim keeping churches from being torn down isn’t “equitable.”
The article gives an example of proposed legislation seeking to exploit the alleged tension between historical preservation – of churches – and affordable housing:
Preservationists are particularly worried about buildings being demolished to make way for affordable housing, after a bill called the “Faith Based Affordable Housing Act” was introduced by Brooklyn Democrats Andrew Gounardes and Brian Cunningham. It targeted houses of worship to have their landmark protections amended to allow developers to add-on or completely demolish sites of historic religious significance as long as they offered a fraction of the units they build at below market rates.
“Culture is low on the totem pole. If the mayor really wants an affordable housing complex to go on a historic site, it’ll probably happen,” Michele Bogart, former vice president of the New York City Art Commission under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, told The Post.
The flashpoint of the conflict over landmarking Catholic Churches is now Most Holy Redeemer in the East Village:
Preservationists are particularly alarmed over the fate of Most Holy Redeemer church on East 3rd Street in Manhattan’s East Village — a granite and limestone cathedral built in 1851 by German missionaries.
12
Oct
(Above) The former altar from St.Ann’s. (Photo: Diocese of Rockville Center)
We have covered over the years the fate of the sculptures, windows and other furnishings from St. Ann’s parish (destroyed by Cardinal Egan) now scattered over the archdiocese: “The Spoils” (7/20/2016); “The Churches of New York LXIV: Losses 7” (10/12/2014); “The Churches of New York XIV: The End of the Journey“(8/8/2011). We recently discovered yet another legacy of this church – the former high altar. It is now located in a side chapel of the Cathedral of St Agnes of the diocese of Rockville Center (Long Island). The site of the contractor (Rohn & Associates), which carried out the last restoration of the cathedral, provides a description of the matter:
After Vatican Council II, St. Agnes Cathedral in Rockville Centre, NY, was dehumanized to contemporary simplicity with the introduction of a whitewashed interior and the removal of many priceless carvings, reredos, and stone furnishings that had once graced the inside of the cathedral. The cathedral’s interior lost its sense of sacredness and the proper emphasis on the altar, ambo, font, and presider chair as primary signs and symbols of liturgical teaching, especially with the reserved Eucharist removed from the sanctuary and relocated to a side chapel.
Chapel
Rolf handpicked a marble high altar originally from old St. Ann’s Armenian Cathedral in New York. The altar, found in a warehouse and dating from the 1890s, was installed to enrich what was originally a bland chapel. His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan donated the altar to the Cathedral, recognizing that it could not find a finer home. Local contractors restored and expanded the hand-carved woodwork and executed the painting and decorating under the direction of Rolf and Eric.
Anderson, Eric, “St. Agnes Catholic Cathedral Renovation and Restoration Bring Reverence and Harmony,” catholicliturgicalart.blogspot.com (1/27/20025)
The restoration actually took place in 2016. It was one more expensive effort needed to undo the damage of the immediate post-conciliar years.
For a detailed set of photogrphs of the various stages in the development of the interior of the Cathedral of Rockville Center (also demonstrating the provenance of the chapel altar), see:
Ortega, Alberto, “History and renovations of St Agnes Roman Catholic Cathedral,” The Beauty of Catholicism (2/17/2025)
(Above) The artist’s rendering of the refurbished chapel. (Photo: St. Agnes Catholic Cathedral Renovation and Restoration Bring Reverence and Harmony, supra.)
11
Oct
(Above) The 2nd century AD “Porta Nigra” in Trier, Germany. St Simeon (died 1030) had his hermitage here. After his death, this Roman gate was converted into a church and thus survived relatively intact.
Peter Kwasniewski has replied to an article in The Catholic Thing by Dmitrii Solzhenitsyn, “The Original ‘Liturgy Wars’: between East and West,”thecatholicthing.org (9/18/2026). I also feel obliged to add a few words. (Mea culpa! I forgot to cite Peter Kwasniewski’s post: “There was no “Original Liturgical War”: a response to Dmitri Solzhenitsyn,” crisismagazine.com(10/7/2026))
First, I take issue with the term “liturgy wars” which Solzhenitsyn has borrowed from another source. There is no “liturgy war” between opposing forces in the Roman Catholic Church. Insofar as we are talking of “violence” (physical or coercive measures) the campaign – directed by the Vatican, the mainstream religious orders and much of the hierarchy – is entirely one-sided. It is the representatives of the establishment who are prohibiting traditional masses, imposing malicious requirements on the laity, sanctioning scholars, excommunicating the FSSPX and issuing a never-ending barrage of ad hominem attacks. Aside from intellectual arguments the traditionalists have not replied in kind – of course, they are unable to do so.
Second, the conflict between the Church of Constantinople and the Roman Catholic Church is not – or not primarily – a liturgy war. It is a longstanding disagreement, varying in intensity over the years, involving political and theological issues even more than those strictly liturgical. Certainly, at times – such as under patriarch Michael Cerularios of Constantinople in the 11th century – liturgical issues were asserted, such as the use of unleavened or leavened bread. But this was not always or consistently the case.
What Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s article does reveal is the conviction in at least part of the Orthodox world that the conflict with the Catholic Church reflects a primordial, unbridgeable divergence between the “East” (meaning the Orthodox Church) and the West. In this view the Orthodox Church, in its current state, is an exclusive, perfect community which also happens correspond with the early Church. This “East” is seen as originating in the 4th century or even earlier, depending on the author.
There is no evidence, however, that this understanding of a monolithic bloc of the “East” as contrasted with a “West” ever existed before relatively recent times. There had been disputes, often fierce, between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches about specific theological, liturgical and disciplinary questions. But as we shall see, for centuries representatives of both the “Latin” and “Greek” churches also acted as if no such fundamental gap existed. Mr. Solzhenitsyn seems to acknowledge this difficulty by theorizing that a formal break between Constantinople and Rome only happened in the 11th century because it was only then that the respective liturgical traditions actually came in contact with each other each other. I don’t think the facts support that.
Let us consider the situation in the city of Rome itself. In the year 536 AD Emperor Justinian reconquered the city of Rome. It – and the papacy – remained more or less closely associated with the Eastern Roman Empire till about 750. An Eastern Roman garrison resided in the city. As time went on numerous popes from the East occupied the papal throne. These “Greeks” came from all of the territories under the control or influence of the Eastern Roman Empire ranging from Palestine to Sicily. It was at this time that the art of Constantinople began to exercise a direct influence in the city of Rome and that strong influences of the East – not just of the Church of Constantinople – were felt in the Roman liturgy itself. One thinks of the Trisagion chanted in the traditional Roman rite on Good Friday – among other importations. These centuries saw a “rebirth” of Greek in the city of Rome. Supposedly, this interchange was not a one-way street: according to Byzantine tradition the Mass of the Presanctified, which is much more commonly celebrated in the East than in the West, was composed by Pope Gregory the Great. However that may be, it is interesting that St. Gregory became associated with liturgical reforms in both Rome and Constantinople.
But these borrowings did not at all mean that the popes of this era, whether Latin or Greek, were subservient to the culture or dictates of the Eastern Empire. On the contrary, a series of popes, like St. Gregory the Great, vigorously defended Roman liturgical practices against those of the East. After initial waffling, the popes took a strong stand against the Monothelite heresy introduced by the emperor. Later, the same was true was true of Roman opposition to iconoclasm. So the creative interactions between Rome and Constantinople in this era involved intellectual, liturgical and theological exchanges that were conscious and selective.
Fortunately, we have a direct monument of these years. The church of Santa Maria Antiqua was decorated between roughly 550 and 800 AD. This church was likely associated with the imperial government and Greek bureaucrats and soldiers. In this church we have a wide variety of paintings – some overpainted repeatedly – that show the direct influence of the art of Constantinople in the city of Rome. Like the churches of Ravenna or the monastery of St. Catherine’s on Mount Sinai, Santa Maria Antiqua preserves art that was otherwise destroyed in the East during the iconoclastic period. Furthermore, these frescoes were saved from further change by the “Latins” themselves because the church was buried by an earthquake in the 9th century and abandoned for 1000 years.
(Above) Santa Maria Antiqua, so-called palimpsest wall (550-700 AD). Mary as a Byzantine Empress.
(Above and below) Santa Maria Antiqua. Frescoes (8th century AD) with saints of the West and East, perhaps with an anti-iconoclastic message. Note the language of the inscriptions.
After 750 the political bond between the papacy and the Eastern Empire ceased. But contacts between East and West continued and, in some cases, even intensified. In the 9th century we could think of the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius which found both opposition and support in the Church of the West. According to tradition, the first hermit to live on Mount Athos, a Greek, St. Peter of Mount Athos, had received consecration from the Pope of Rome. This is not as startling as it may seem, because it likely happened during the years of iconoclast rule in Constantinople. Like the Islamic conquests, this resulted in the coming to Rome of a stream of religious refugees from the East.
And the interactions continued. Saint Nilus the Younger founded the Byzantine monastery of Grottaferrata near Rome in 1004. He was a Greek from Calabria, a mixed Greek and Latin area of South Italy. His successor at Grottaferrata, St. Bartholomew, (died 1065!) is credited as the second founder of that Abbey. He was also Greek from Calabria. He even gave refuge to the Pope of Rome, the notorious Benedict IX, who ended his days as a penitent in this monastery. In this same era, we encounter St. Simeon of Trier, who had been born in Syracuse of Greek parents under Arab rule. He was educated at Constantinople, traveled in the east and was for a time at Saint Catherine’s monastery at Mount Sinai. Later he acted as a kind of “tour guide “for western pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Thanks to these contacts he moved to Trier in Germany where he died in 1030 as a hermit and was subsequently recognized as a saint by all. In 1540 his unique Palestinian euchologion (= missal) of the Orthodox rite was translated and published by a German humanist. Unfortunately, the original manuscript has been lost!
I could take issue with other facts that Mr. Solzhenitsyn recites. So, he quotes an unidentified source for the proposition that the Orthodox church prohibited the use of three-dimensional art (statues) and that this had become a key liturgical difference with the West. But, at least in Russia, as an absolute rule this is untrue – there is a well-known museum in the city of Perm that has an outstanding collection of religious sculpture much of it dating from the 17th century. For the production of such statues continued, as demonstrated by the need for the Russian Church to issue repeated edicts against the practice, such as that of 1721.
My point is the none of the facts set forth above would have been possible if the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church in those times had been that of an exclusive bloc opposed to everything in the West and motivated above all by liturgical differences. Furthermore, these interchanges were often by people very familiar with one or both liturgies and traditions (for example, St. Gregory the Great had lived in Constantinople for years).
In subsequent ages political clashes multiplied and attitudes hardened. But even then, there were conflicting reactions, even by the same person. So, Nikolai Gogol, who wrote horrendous passages against Poles and Catholics, also was very much impressed by the city of Rome (he started a novel, never finished, set in that city). Whether a reconciliation between the Roman Catholic Church at the Orthodox Church will be possible anytime soon I do not know. But I do agree with the ecumenical movement to this extent: we should not be building up barriers derived from an incomplete understanding of what actually happened in the past.
I would recommend the following sources for further reading. Ekonomou, Andrew J., Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy From Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752, (Lexington Books, 2007) (a very pro-Greek account!); Rubery, E., Bordi, G., and Osborne, J., Eds., Santa Maria Antiqua: The Sistine Chapel of the Early Middle Ages(Harvey Miller Publishers, London 2021). And generally. the works of that profound scholar of Russia culture, Dmitry S. Likhachev(1906-1999) who detected all kinds of correlations between the artistic development of Russia and of the West. On the sculptures in Perm see “Permskaya Derevyannaya Skulptura,” ru.wikipedia.org. (accessed 10/11/2026) (“Wooden sculpture of Perm” (in Russian))
