We read today that Pope Leo has met in a private audience with Stephen Bullivant and Stephen Cranney, the authors of an upcoming book on the Traditional Latin Mass in America. The first published results of their research would seem to support a generally favorable view of traditionalism. Stephen Bullivant Is the author of a remarkable 2019 book Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II (Oxford University Press, 2019) which analyzes critically the decline in in church participation since Vatican II. It is speculated that the main topic of the audience with Pope Leo was the Traditional Latin Mass movement. 1)

Now the audience with the two scholars indicates Pope Leo’s continuing openness to listening to views on the Traditional Latin Mass that diverge from those that prevail at the Vatican, the secular and Catholic media, the religious orders and Catholic institutions of higher education.  We no longer see here the Bergoglian recipe for dealing with Traditionalists: denunciation, isolation and confrontation.  Infovaticana has gone further and has compiled a list of all such audiences in recent months  – the Spanish site then speculates on whether this pattern may reveal Leo’s receptivity to ameliorating the status of the Traditional Latin Mass. 2)

I suspect this might be going too far at this point in time. For in recent months Pope Leo has studiously avoided giving any personal statement or making any gesture in favor of the Traditional Latin Mass. On the contrary, at the recent consistory, undoubtedly with the Pope ’s approval, Cardinal Roche circulated the text of a presentation (never actually delivered) that was rabidly anti-traditionalist. The persecution of traditionalists throughout the world continues, including the fact that in one Brazilian diocese now they are to be excommunicated if they attend the Traditional Latin Mass outside of the one authorized location. Finally, the conflict with the FSSPX has resurfaced, with the Fraternity announcing episcopal consecrations later this year. This action was provoked in part by Leo’s failure (or refusal) to “dialogue”  with the FSSPX on this issue last year.

 So,  I believe it is far too early to celebrate a potential change of course at the Vatican. After some ten months we still do not know (a) to what extent Leo has any understanding of the world and of the Church beyond that of Francis and that pope’s entourage, and (b) whether Leo has the management, leadership and governance skills necessary to lead the Church. The decisions that must be taken in the next six to twelve months will tell us much about the character of the Pope!

1. “Papst Leo XIV. trifft Religionssoziologen – “Alte Messe” Thema?” katholisch.de(3/6/2026)
2.  “Is Leo XIV looking for a solution for the Traditional Mass?” Infovaticana.com(3/6/2026)

1. Traditionalist Life today

What are the traditionalists doing in this environment? Above all, they continue to celebrate and attend the TLM. For the “recruiting tactic” of the traditionalists has never been any program, publicity campaign or large-scale event but simply to make available as widely as possible the TLM. The overwhelming majority of traditionalists today consist of those who, coming from the Novus Ordo, other religions or even outright unbelief have encountered the TLM and have remained committed to it. Where unimpeded by Church authority, the TLM continues to flourish and even expand.

Yet, in many other dioceses, the TLM is drastically restricted or outright prohibited. Unfortunately, this includes some of the dioceses most grievously affected were ones that had the largest TLM presence  – in some cases until very recently: Detroit, Washington, Charlotte, Chicago, and Arlington. In these locations more cooperation with the FSSPX undoubtedly will be necessary.

The activity of the traditionalists is not limited to the TLM;  to the extent they can, all the other sacraments are provided. Traditionalists have also revitalized many forgotten customs in their parishes: processions, special foods and blessings associated with feast days and other sacramentals. The result is a much more varied church year than one finds the typical Novus Ordo parish  – or even what existed in most parishes in the U.S. prior to the Council. I now dimly recall that in those days only a few  practices outside of the Mass itself had survived in parish usage: Forty Hours devotion, Benediction, the blessing of the throat on St. Blaise’s day and May crownings. Traditionalists, along with the conservative Catholics and even non-Catholic allies,  have been active in restoring and preserving Catholic churches – or even, where necessary,  in creating new art and architecture in traditional styles.

A developing manifestation of traditionalist life both in the United States and elsewhere is the pilgrimage. These have always existed, but the recent renewed extraordinary successes of the Chartres pilgrimage have given them a new boost of popularity.  Traditionalists feel the need to make their public presence known. And perhaps also because, as in pre-Summorum Pontificum days, a pilgrimage offers to those living under restrictions on the TLM the opportunity to experience comradeship and often splendid liturgies. In the United States we have now not just the pilgrimages to the shrine of the North American martyrs in Auriesville, New York,  but also the Clear Creek, Oklahoma pilgrimage to the monastery there. Then, on a smaller and sadder note, we have the pilgrimages “of protest” such as that  between the Arlington  and Washington, D.C. cathedrals – among the dioceses where the TLM has been most harshly restricted  Outside the U.S, more and more pilgrimages are being founded. The American representation at the Chartres pilgrimage is long standing and growing. And American Catholics are among the vastly increased number of participants in the annual Summorum Pontificum conference in Rome. 

Increasingly visible in traditionalism are the contemplative monasteries of men and women like the Benedictines and Carmelites, and Trappists. Previously, the main traditionalist  (ex-Ecclesia Dei)religious communities had been modeled on the mainstream active religious orders. Outside the US, traditional monasteries in Ireland, Italy, and now we understand, in England have been founded by Americans. This is of the greatest long-term significance for the entire Church, because the reawakening of the contemplative life in Catholicism  is a necessity for  restoring the faith.

 Another traditionalist front is education. For a critical factor in the growth of traditionalism has been the need of the parents of young families to preserve the faith for themselves and their children. Traditionalist families know very well that the risk is great that their children will leave the church. Therefore, many are involved in home schooling and in the establishment of independent classical schools. For the restoration of the traditional liturgy seems to also require the recovery of the classical culture with which it was associated for so many centuries. Conservative Catholics are also extremely active in the development of these educational apostolates

Compared to the Catholic scene of fifty years ago,  the literature available to traditionalists is astonishing both in quantity and quality.  A vast number of books can be ordered – as opposed to those early days when the usual method  to obtain decent books was to acquire cast-off literature from closing Catholic institutions.   Recent books deal with the liturgy, theology, history, art and education from the traditionalist or just conservative Catholic perspective – from publishing houses such as Os Justi, Angelico or Arouca. In addition, of course,  are the online resources so richly abundant now. There is no excuse anymore for failing to develop one’s faith through reading. And doesn’t that itself illustrate the traditionalist dissent from today’s culture, which in large part has abandoned reading! I should mention at this point the large number of conferences and lectures sponsored by traditionalists.

What’s still, however, lacking is a central publication or source for U.S. traditionalists. As for current events in the life of the Church from a traditionalist perspective,  the traditionalist is even today much better served if he can read several foreign languages: Spanish, Italian, French…

Many traditionalists are privately politically engaged. Yet politics, except for pro-life activity plays little or no role in most of the traditionalist surroundings I have known. What I have seen is individual traditionalists becoming involved in apostolates both political and, more often, charitable,  based on their commitment to Catholic truth. For many traditionalists – those who have thought about the matter – do not accept liberal doctrines of the separation of Church and state. I fully endorse this position. But most traditionalists’ interest in movements such as integralism is, in my experience, more theoretical than practical. These facts may come as news for the Catholic progressives and the Catholic educational establishment, who seek to depict traditionalism as merely a manifestation of right-wing politics. In this utterly erroneous view,  traditionalism as the mirror-image of what they themselves in fact are: a secular political movement operating behind a religious facade.

Finally, traditionalists are active in charitable work, both in the United States and abroad. This activity tends to be on an individual level. For example, at a gathering of a traditionalist-friendly chivalric order, and in discussions at a traditionalist parish, I was struck by the number and scale of charitable apostolates conducted by individual traditionalists,

I have laid out the aspects of traditionalist life as if they existed in isolation.  In fact, in flourishing traditionalist parishes they are all intertwined. Here can be found splendid liturgies, processions, pilgrimages, devotions along with fellowship and festive meals.

One example of traditionalist activity that shows the integration of all these facets, and also the ability of traditionalists today to work together with those outside traditionalism (“ordinary form” Catholics, non-Catholics and even non-believers) is the ongoing story of Most Holy Redeemer church on East 3rd Street in New York City (covered extensively on this blog). This grand, historical Redemptorist parish, despite preserving an active parish life for a poor congregation, had otherwise fallen into decay. The Conciliar gimmicks of the Redemptorists, such as building a baptismal pool in the sanctuary, had achieved nothing. Finally, the order vanished, leaving the church in archdiocesan hands. But meanwhile traditionalists had already focussed on this church, first with special festive masses, then with a more regular schedule of TLM celebrations (the parish continued the Novus Ordo as well). A new pastor, a young archdiocesan priest, was able to reorganize the parish, and despite archdiocesan restrictions, continue the celebration of the TLM. The success of the parish’s evangelization efforts – extending well beyond the parish bounds – attracted the attention of the secular press. And even the archbishop visited to bless work on the church’s tower. Then the priest was transferred out, and Most Holy Redeemer church closed because of lack of clergy and alleged structural problems. In many similar situations, this was only the prelude to disposition and sale. But a coalition of Catholics and non-Catholics has assembled to obtain landmark status for the building and thus prevent its demolition.

Is this merely a summons to “stay the course”? In a sense, yes. I cannot think of any initiative, event or program I could recommend that would advance the progress of the traditionalist movement. Traditionalism has no central organization, leader, or publication to bring the traditionalist message to the world. No single religious community is dominant. In the U.S., traditionalism is made up of a myriad of apostolates, each with its own objective. But that is the strength of traditionalism. It exists and it flourishes as people discover the fullness of the Catholic faith, and what that means for them and their families. This is what the focus of traditionalism should be! I would say to traditionalists: continue to do what you have been doing, be prudent, try to help those being persecuted for traditionalism, and continue to trust in God. I look forward to what the future may bring!

1. The Church and the Traditionalists

With the advent of the papacy of Leo, a perceptible feeling of relief was noted in the traditionalist world. An obvious sign was the Mass celebrated by Cardinal Burke in St. Peter’s last year  on the occasion of the Summorum Pontificumpilgrimage. Everywhere we see new masses starting and new apostolates of the (ex-)Ecclesia Dei institutes being founded. I detect a new clarity and forcefulness in statements by known sympathizers with traditionalism: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal Zen,  to name but a few. These bold declarations are not at all restricted to the Traditional Mass but also deal forcefully with topics such as last year’s LGBT pilgrimage to St. Peter’s Basilica, the synodal path, the management  of the pope’s first consistory. etc.   The new Pope has received in audience all kinds of traditionalist personalities previously persona non grata in the Vatican. Some of these have spoken of their hope of relaxation of the Vatican’s war against traditionalism.

Yet Traditionis Custodes (“TC”) remains in place and that policy’s creators and enforcers are still ensconced in their positions at the Vatican. One of these, Cardinal Roche, with the concurrence of Pope Leo, was scheduled to present a paper at the pope’s first consistory, crudely reconfirming the policy of TC. In the United States,  bishops of dioceses as Chicago, Washington, Detroit, Charlotte, who have adopted radical anti-traditionalist measures, remain unchallenged, their cruel persecution continues unabated.  Indeed, the more extreme bishops have expanded the campaign to attack elements of Catholic liturgical tradition still present in the Novus Ordo: kneeling to receive communion, celebration of the Mass ad orientem, eucharistic veneration, etc.  This is regardless of the liturgical texts,  official policies and developments of the last 50 years – for them nothing less than a return to the situation of 1970 will suffice. 

The state of traditionalism at this moment has been well described as being  a holding pattern or  limbo. It remains unclear what action, if any, Pope Leo will take to alleviate the disabilities imposed on the traditionalists.  It’s a cruel disappointment for those who had expected a new pontiff to take a fresh look at their situation. To me, however, it seemed unlikely that a new pope would suddenly reverse any major policy of  Francis. And that pope had worked hard over the years to fill the College of Cardinals only with those aligned with his policies. The progressive forces also hold an overwhelming preponderance in the other levels of the Catholic Church establishment. 

There are other disappointments for the traditionalists. Over the last year there has been a recrudescence of attacks on traditionalism, not just from progressives, the establishment and conservative Catholics but even from within traditionalism itself.  In my history of American traditionalism, I noted that invective and infighting also proliferated in previous periods of uncertainty and distress within the conservative and traditionalist movements – for example, in the years 1997-2005.

Another unhappy consequence of the events of the last year has been a renewed, unhealthy focus, in extreme detail,  on the Vatican and the pope. Commentators speculate on subtle turns of phrase in the discourses of the Pope Leo, or on the background of his curial or episcopal appointments. I read of an Indian priest visiting Germany who was amazed at the attention paid there to the goings-on in the Vatican. Germany is the Church of the ”synodal path,” but the same is true of U.S. traditionalists!

2. The FSSPX Consecrations

Indeed, we now have a concrete example of Pope Leo’s attitude to the traditionalist world. The FSSPX on 2/2/2026 stated declared that they will consecrate new bishops for their fraternity, after having received from Rome unsatisfactory responses to their previous requests to discuss the matter. According to them, Pope Leo and the Vatican essentially refused to “dialogue” at all. Moreover, after the disclosure of Cardinal Roche’s scheduled address at the consistory, they do not see forthcoming any change to the treatment of the Traditional Mass. Accordingly, the “state of emergency” which justifies their current situation (and the new consecrations ) continues.

Of course, immediately after this announcement, the Vatican  stated that the “dialogue” would continue. This reaction resembles very much the way Pope Leo handled previous potential confrontations as described in Part 1 of this article (like the Senator Durbin incident).  Now Pope Leo has delegated Cardinal “Tucho” Fernandez to lead these negotiations.  I can’t think of anyone in the Vatican (except perhaps Cardinals Roche and Viola) ideologically more alien to his dialogue partner.  Beyond that issue, Cardinal Fernandez had at the time of his appointment to his present position fully disclosed to Francis (and the public) his reluctance  to assume it because of his admitted lack of administrative ability (as evidenced by his prior failures dealing with sexual abusers). And this is the man assigned to lead such sensitive negotiations? In my mind, this raises again the question whether Pope Leo  (a) understands what is going in the Church and the world; and (b) has the good judgment and character to govern the Church successfully. 

Whether anything will come of these negotiations I do not know. The FSSPX always has had to fight against the temptation of becoming a separatist cult. I did not appreciate the sallies in their latest letter against non-FSSPX traditionalists. Nor did I feel that, after TC, the FSSPX showed the leadership that their founder would have displayed in such a situation. Perhaps they were reluctant to jeopardize their semi-recognition by Francis? In any case it is extremely important for the whole of Traditionalism that the FSSPX remain intact. In many locations the FSSPX will remain the only resource for the TLM. And the very existence of the FSSPX has been a restraining influence on the powers within the Church seeking to eliminate traditionalism.

3. A Traditionalist “Ordinariate”?

In this time of uncertainty, it is not surprising that voices in the traditionalist camp have proposed (to themselves?) an “ordinariate” for traditionalists. This would involve the assignment of one or more bishops to exercise authority over a segregated community of traditionalists. I find this initiative utterly misguided. First, the proposal is unsound tactically. It would be worth addressing if the Vatican were offering it as a compromise. For traditionalists to suggest it themselves appears like begging for a favor. Second, any commitment to such a structure on the part of the Vatican would be worthless. A review of past Vatican negotiations with Una Voce and the FSSPX shows how utterly untrustworthy and underhanded the Vatican can be.  Third, the FSSPX have been requesting the ordination and recognition of bishops – in a sense, constituting themselves as an “ordinariate,” for many years. As of today, they have achieved nothing since the lifting of excommunications on bishops under Pope Benedict. Fourth, the experiences of the currently existing “ordinariate” of the ex-Anglicans or of the personal prelature of Opus Dei are not at all favorable precedents for the success of  traditionalist ordinariate. I would anticipate that, if such a structure were ever adopted,  endless discussions would ensue regarding the form of the liturgy,  the status of individual priests and parishes,  the relationships with the local bishops, the ownership of property etc. I very much doubt, for example, any traditionalist ordinariate would be permitted to function in Chicago, Detroit or Charlotte! All this would distract the Traditionalists from their main task: restoring and promoting the fulness of Catholic faith 

I think, however, the main problem with the ordinariate proposal lies not in defective tactics or a lack of understanding of ecclesiastical politics but in the fundamental nature of the traditionalist cause. For traditionalism is not – or not only – simply a desire for the traditional form of  Catholic worship. It is indeed that – but it’s also a movement to restore the fulness of the Catholic faith – in liturgy, morality, philosophy, theology, education, and even in art, music and manners. I of course applaud those who wish to give back to Catholic worship the beauty and reverence it should have – but that is just one aspect of traditionalism. And think that for the young people today who are living the rediscovered faith, founding new families  and raising children it may not even be the main reason for their engagement. 

For traditionalism is above all a spiritual movement of reform like the Gregorian reform of the 11^th century,  the rise of the mendicant orders in the 13th,  the Counter Reformation and the 19^th century Oxford/Tractarian movement. Traditionalists are not practicing and sacrificing for a “preference” but for a faith they believe to be true and a liturgy and associated practices that clearly and correctly express and preserve that faith. These principles are universal in their nature – they require traditionalists to strive to evangelize the whole Church and even the whole world. Such a movement can never willingly return to a “ghetto,” to use the favorite word of 1950-1965 vintage Catholic progressives. 

To try and negotiate limitations in order to curry favor with ecclesiastical authority undercuts the entire rationale for being a traditionalist in the first place. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has accordingly called not for an ordinariate, but for a return to universal recognition and availability of the TLM just as what  existed under Summorum Pontificum. We know given the current state of the papacy and hierarchy this goal may seem irrational, even quixotic – but has the situation of living as a traditionalist ever been any different? 

(Above) Bernini’s grandiose tomb of Pope Alexander VII in St. Peter’s, Rome (1670-77). The image of the praying pontiff is surrounded by representations of the virtues and attributes that should characterize a pope: charity, truth, justice and prudence. Reaching up from below is death brandishing his hourglass – a stark reminder of reality.

1. Pope Leo XIV

After more than eight months, a degree of clarity has emerged regarding the personality and intentions of Pope Leo XIV.

In terms of style,  Pope Leo breaks with his predecessor in many respects. Instead of Pope Francis’s confrontational, vindictive personality, Pope Leo has striven to project an image of calm and serenity. Instead of dictatorial centralization of all authority in the pope, Leo has at least held out the possibility of a more consultative style of leadership. Leo’s discourse also frequently reverts to traditional Catholic concepts. Pope Leo has reached out to those who, under Francis,  had been marginalized or worse.  Selected elements of papal and liturgical tradition have been restored – for example, the announced return of the pope to the Vatican apartments. Some administrative measures of Pope Francis have been reversed and some of that pope’s lower-level enforcers have been reassigned.  

Yet, the elements of continuity with the prior pontificate are even stronger. Leo has retained in office almost all the main figures of the era of Pope Francis.  Men such as Fernandez, Roche and Parolin continue to assert their progressive theological, liturgical, and political ideas as before. The pope’s first encyclical was dominated by the thought of Francis. The pope’s first consistory was guided by leading associates of Pope Francis. The pope‘s own rhetoric at times can be distinctly Bergoglian in character.  The same can be said of the style of his media interactions. The pope’s appointments to episcopal and Vatican positions have been reliably center-left or left.

Thus,  two tendencies coexist in the early pontificate of Leo:  (a) a desire for unity within the Church, involving more or less subtle abandonment or adjustment of aspects of his predecessor’s leadership style; and (b) a commitment to the substantive elements of the papacy of Pope Francis. Yet Leo is not necessarily merely repackaging of the pontificate of Pope Francis – continuing the Bergoglian administration, but in a kinder, gentler way. Pope Francis was not just a “dictator pope,” but an almost fanatical ideologue as well. His leadership style reflected the substance of his beliefs. With Pope Leo, there is a disconnect between much of the outer form (which a friend of mine characterized as “Ratzingerian”) and the continuing Bergoglian content (and personnel). The result of this divergence will be ongoing uncertainty as to how Pope Leo  will decide any particular issue. 

Moreover, although we may have attained some clarity regarding Pope Leo’s personality, attitude to Church politics and “ideology,” there’s much more to being a pope than that.  In earlier ages,  men did not see the pope as a charismatic “religious genius”( put pejoratively, a guru or oracle). The Christian people hoped that each pope possessed the virtues necessary to govern the Church (and in those times the Church’s secular domains as well). Whether Pope Leo has these virtues is something we still do not know.

First, If Leo is to govern, he must be able to perceive reality. I would submit that a career in the higher administration of the Catholic Church, which is where Leo spent more than half his ecclesiastical career, is extremely ill suited to obtaining an objective view of the world. Leaders of the Church as a rule live in a bubble. They discourse among themselves in a stylized ecclesiastical cant. The advisors they do consult – the members of the religious orders, the Catholic “scholars” and “journalists,” the friendly secular and Catholic media – speak to them basically in  the same language.  For Leo to be effective as a governor of the Church, he will have to step outside the fantasy world of the Catholic hierarchy.  The fact that Leo has been speaking with various people who had been ostracized by Francis – among them, Cardinals Zen, Mueller, and Burke – indicates that there’s at least the possibility of his hearing other views.

Second,  knowledge, once gained, has to be transformed into deeds. To do this, a ruler must exercise the virtues associated with leading and governing. Does Pope Leo have good judgment? Can he make decisions, especially between overtly antagonistic forces? Does Leo have insight into human nature – can he judge the personalities and merits of those he works with –  and appoints? Does he have the ability to stand up to criticism, especially from the secular media and members of the Vatican clique? All of Leo’s predecessors since 1958 have been deficient in some or all of these characteristics.

Pope Leo seems to want to restore order and unity to the Church. But I fear that Leo’s current approach will lead not to the pacification of the Church, but to an unending series of clashes. Such was the fate of the so-called “restoration” of John Paul II’s papacy – in its actual practice, that is, as opposed to the image that the pope presented to the media.  For Pope John Paul II sought to conserve the substance of the Vatican II, while stabilizing the Church and reemphasizing compliance, at least on paper, with the requirements of Christian morality. But such an essentially political approach, which seeks primarily to establish a truce among competing interests, necessarily leaves underlying problems in place. Indeed, such a policy almost demands the concealment of real issues.

In contrast with John Paul II,  Pope Leo will not have much time before he has to face outright confrontations between the antagonistic forces within the Church. For progressive Catholicism, whose hegemony over the Church was consolidated by Pope Francis, under no circumstances will retreat into the background. These forces are aggressive and feel empowered to push their agenda forward. Although still somewhat unsure about the exact character of Leo, they seek to portray him as a sympathizer with their own cause.

We already have seen opening skirmishes in the emerging struggle. Cardinal Cupich, who is reported to have friendly relations with Leo, last year sought to give a “lifetime achievement” award to Senator Dick Durbin. Given Durbin’s record on abortion, that constituted a calculated slap in the face of the pro-life movement. It was reported that this act was going to be formally disavowed by the USCCB (according to The Pillar, with the knowledge  of the Vatican). At the end, the honoree withdrew himself from consideration for the award, obviously as a negotiated deal to avoid an embarrassing public clash. But afterwards,  Pope Leo spoke favorably of the policies of both Cupich and Durbin. That was followed by Leo bestowing on Cupich a mainly ceremonial honor. Thus, this confrontation ended in something like a draw. 

We might say the same of the outcome of the commission on the female diaconate. The commission voted against  the ordination of women as deacons  – but supported further study of the matter. This is at least the second Vatican panel on female deacons to reach a negative result – to say nothing of prior pronouncements by the Church . Yet the issue remains unresolved. And the strident advocacy for female deacons by senior representatives of the establishment Church has not at all diminished.  

Here are some other major controversies as to which action has been deferred up till now:

The German synodal path is just now reaching a preliminary conclusion, leading to a proposed “synodal conference.” Will Pope Leo acquiesce in these decisions? Some “conservative” German bishops already have withdrawn from the deliberations.

The question of the Traditional Mass remains completely up in the air. Indeed, we hear today (2/2/2026) that the FSSPX has decided to ordain additional bishops, after an unsatisfactory “dialogue” with Rome over the last months. That move clearly shows their assessment of Pope Leo.  He seems to have been unwilling or unable to negotiate regarding this step, which could well return the FSSPX to the situation after 1988.

Conflicts involving Opus Dei continue concerning the ownership of their main shrine in Spain, and the implementation of Pope Francis’s drastic restructuring of the “Work.” The same holds true of measures Pope Francis took against the Communion and Liberation movement in Italy or the visitation that was ordered for the Fraternity of Saint Peter.

The problem of sexual abuse continues to fester; in particular,  the case of one of the most notorious examples, Fr. Marko Rupnik, remains unresolved.

The situation of the Church in China is gravely unsatisfactory.

A problem at the highest level is the budgetary crisis at the Vatican itself, a crisis Pope Leo doesn’t want to acknowledge.  

Finally, we have the endless, ongoing  “garden variety” problems of the Church: the decrease in the practice and knowledge of the faith; the decrease in ordinations and commitments to religious life;  the decrease of Catholic parishes, schools, monasteries and institutions of higher learning.

All of this is putting the institutional Church under extreme stress. I believe Leo does wish to restore peace and unity to the Church. Yet on all of the above matters, his decisions – or failure to decide –  will leave an important party dissatisfied. And if that important party is on the left or in the clerical establishment, in or outside of the Vatican, it will be able in short order to bring the secular media into action on its side. Pope Benedict experienced the consequences of such media campaigns – both during and after his papacy.  Leo’s reign may well be fraught with risk, tension and turmoil. 

On Saturday, October 11,  the National Latin Mass Pilgrimage took place once more. Its path lies between the Cathedrals of Arlington, Virginia and Washington DC (two dioceses which introduced some of the most confrontational measures against the Traditional Latin Mass). The Arlington Latin Mass Society sponsored the pilgrimage. Some 50 pilgrims took part. Now certainly dire forecasts of a looming weather disaster – which proved false – diminished participation.   But I can’t ascribe the low turnout entirely to that. We also had noticed a declining numbers at our last visit to the pilgrimage. As in prior pilgrimages, the clergy were conspicuous by their abscence.

Numbers, however, are not everything. Among the pilgrims, spirits were high. This pilgrimage was, as in the past, well organized. And are there not prominent examples of pilgrimages that a smaller core group has preserved through the years that later flowered (in numbers) once again: the “Pilgrimage of the Restoration” in Auriesville, NY or even the “Pilgrimage of Christendom” in Chartres. 

At the beginning it seemed that threatened rain-and windstorms might materialize. Later, the skies cleared and it turned out to be a beautiful day. (Above) In front of the cathedral of the Arlington diocese – with a statue of St. Thomas More looking down.

(Above) Chanting and praying the rosary. Sometimes cars honked approval.

(Above) The Pilgrim Virgin – at the one rest stop for the pilgrims across from the Iwo Jima memorial.

(Above) Processing onward from the Lincoln Memorial. The area around that monument was dominated by a deafening “Jesus Movement” event.

(Above) On the steps of St. Matthew Cathedral. The pilgrimage concluded with the chanting of None and Vespers on the steps of the Cathedral (not within it!).

Today Bishop Brennan of Brooklyn has deigned to give an explanation for an action announced on September 28:

(Tablet Staff) “As Diocese of Brooklyn Moves to Site Model, St. Cecilia To Cease Latin Mass,” The Tablet (Brooklyn) (October 6, 2025)

The diocese is moving to a “site model”( what’s that?). Whereas at first only Traditionis Custodes issues were (orally) mentioned, now resource issues are adduced.

Low traditional Latin Mass attendance at the church and a priest shortage led Bishop Robert Brennan to the decision, according to the diocese.

The traditional Latin Mass at St. Cecilia, which typically drew around 25-35 parishioners each week, was celebrated by a rotating group of priests. However, Bishop Brennan deemed this rotation no longer sustainable and therefore switched to the site model, according to the diocese. 

He made the decision pursuant to Traditionis custodes — Pope Francis’s 2021 decree that gave local bishops autonomy to regulate the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass.

“Low traditional Latin Mass attendance” – in the Washington, DC archdiocese and elewhere traditional Masses have been terminated becuse of high attendance.

“(Traditionis Custodes) gave local bishops autonomy to regulate the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass.” I doubt anyone familiar with this motu proprio would describe it this way.

“Bishop Brennan deemed”; “he made this decision.” There was no discussion with the congregation or, as far as I am aware, with the priests celebrating this mass. No “dialogue,” no “accompaniment.” And no thought as to how the congregation – two-thirds or so of which are from the immediate neighborhood – is supposed to get to the two authorized sites. It is all very autocratic, very clerical, very top-down – the true image of how the Church of Francis (and now of Leo) operates in reality. For TC will still be enforced regardless of the impact on anyone. As I wrote, Francis’s persecution is now Leo’s persecution.

(Above) Solemn Mass at St. Cecilia’s, November 20, 2011.

The congregation at the 2 PM Traditional Mass at St. Cecilia, Brooklyn, was informed after yesterday’s Mass that the Traditional Mass would be terminated as of October 12th. I note that the parish bulletin for Divine Mercy Parish (of which St Cecilia is one of three “worship spaces.”) of October 12th (!) summarily mentions this:

The administrator of this parish (there is only one priest) seems to publish the bulletin weeks in advance – that of October 25 is already online (without the 2 PM Latin Mass):

Divine Mercy Parish – Bulletins

This action of the Bishop seems to have taken the congregation by surprise. Needless to say, “Fr. MIke,” the administrator, did not see fit to publish any words of explanation to his parishioners. Normally, you would expect at least that courtesy – after all, reviewing this blog, I find references to and photographs of TLM celebrations at St. Cecilia’s as far back as 2008.

I spoke to a member of the TLM congregation of long standing. He was given to understand (unofficially?) that Bishop Brennan plans to restrict the TLM in the Brooklyn diocese to two locations: Our Lady of Peace in Carroll Gardens (in Brooklyn) and St. Josaphat (in Queens). Anyone who has tried to travel from one spot to another in these boroughs will know how daunting that prospect can be.

Finally,one thing is clear – whatever actions Pope Leo may take in the future regarding the Traditional Mass(and I am mildly hopeful), as of September 29 Pope Francis’s persecution of traditionalist Catholics is his persecution.

UPDATE:

A few additional facts: St. Cecilia is part of a mega-parish with very limited resources. I am told average attendance at the traditional Sunday Mass is around 35, however, around one third of those are visitors or new faces each Sunday. I believe attendance at the Novus Ordo Masses in that part of Brooklyn (Greenpoint/ Williamsburg) is also a matter of concern. These difficulties are acknowledged, however, none of this was presented by the bishop or administrator as the basis for terminating the TLM.

Some other images from St. Cecilia over the years:

(Above and below) October 4, 2020.

(Above) April 2, 2021 – Good Friday liturgy.

(Above) Photo of Cardinal Raymond Burke taken in Stamford, CT on 7/16/2021 (!)

From Paix Liturgique (Letter 1268 – 9/8/2025)

We asked Christian Marquant, coordinator of the Coetus Internationalis Summorum Pontificum, to give us the latest news about the upcoming pilgrimage, which will take place in Rome on October 24, 25, and 26. Cardinal Raymond Burke is kind enough to preside over it.

Q – Dear Christian, what news is there about the upcoming pilgrimage?

Christian Marquant – The first good news is that the pilgrimage will indeed take place. As in the previous 13 years, our Ad Petri Sedem pilgrimage will take place this year in Rome from October 24 to 26. As always, it will end on Christ the King Sunday. However, it will be an exceptional pilgrimage because it will take place during the Holy Year 2025, which is also the 100th anniversary of the encyclical Quas Primas on the Kingship of Christ.

Q – Why Ad Petri Sedem?

Christian Marquant – That is, the pilgrimage of the Summorum Pontificum people, that is, those attached to the usus antiquior, who give thanks to the Prince of the Apostles and his successor and thus demonstrate their attachment to the Church of Rome.

Q – The Summorum Pontificum People?

Christian Marquant – Yes, the representatives of the faithful who in more than 100 countries wish to continue to live their Catholic faith to the rhythm of the traditional liturgy and catechism.

Q – Any updates on the program?

Christian Marquant – Yes, there are: the first chronologically will be the presence of Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, who has kindly accepted to preside over the Pontifical Vespers opening our pilgrimage on Friday, October 24th at 6:30 p.m. at San Lorenzo in Lucina.

Q – This is not the first time he has participated in the ceremonies of your pilgrimage.

Christian Marquant – Indeed, he also presided over the Pontifical Vespers in 2022. We are very proud and honored by the participation of the Cardinal of Bologna, who is also the President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference: it is an eloquent sign of peace and charity among all Catholics.

Q – Vespers will therefore not be celebrated at the Pantheon this year.

Christian Marquant – Due to the Holy Year, the Pantheon will be occupied by a concert that has been planned for a long time. Its rector, who is also the parish priest of San Lorenzo in Lucina, has offered us his basilica for this year.

Q – And the next day?

Christian Marquant – Overall, the program will be the same as in previous pilgrimages, with a significant change in its timetable… since on Saturday morning, many pilgrims who have come to Rome for the Holy Year will gather in St. Peter’s Square.

Q – So, this new program…

Christian Marquant – It will begin as usual in front of the Basilica of St. Celsus, but at 12:00 p.m., before the pilgrimage continues in procession to St. Peter’s Basilica at 1:00 p.m., where, after the security checks, we will pass through the Holy Door.

Q – And at St. Peter’s?

Christian Marquant – At Saint Peter’s, we will be warmly welcomed by Cardinal Raymond Burke, who, as I mentioned, has agreed to sponsor our 14th pilgrimage this year. We will have the joy of seeing him celebrate a pontifical Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin at the altar of the Chair, as it has already happened 11 times since 2012, with an interruption in the past two years.

Q – So, once again, there will be a celebration of the Mass of the pilgrimage at Saint Peter’s. A miracle?

Christian Marquant – The joy of peace while giving thanks for this return, thanks to Heaven and Pope Leo, to our holy spiritual and liturgical habits.

Q – Is this the end of the pilgrimage?

Christian Marquant – No, it will conclude on Sunday with a closing pontifical Mass celebrated at the Trinità dei Pellegrini and two Masses of Thanksgiving.

Q – And for those who would like to know more?

Christian Marquant – You will find the program below and you may also consult our website: Pèlerinage Ad Petri Sedem https://site.summorum-pontificum.org/

Q- But we must also not forget Pax Liturgica Day.

Christian Marquant – No, of course not, remembering with emotion that Pope Leo’s first word was peace. What a joy to meet again with these Augustinian friars who have always welcomed us so kindly for this day of encounter and friendship. You may consult the program always on the website: Pèlerinage Ad Petri Sedem and https://bit.ly/40JNZTF

14th Ad Petri Sedem Pilgrimage, Rome, October 24-26, 2025

Friday, October 24, 2025

· 6:30 p.m.: Pontifical Vespers presided by Cardinal Zuppi in the Basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina

Saturday, October 25, 2025

· 12:00 p.m.: Rosary before the Basilica of Santi Celso e Giuliano

· 1:00 p.m.: Departure of the procession towards Saint Peter’s Basilica

· 2:00 p.m.: Arrival in Saint Peter’s Square/Checkpoints/and entry into Saint Peter’s Basilica

· 3:00 p.m.: Pontifical Mass celebrated by Cardinal Burke at the altar of the Chair in St. Peter’s Basilica

Sunday, October 26, 2025

· 8:30 a.m.: Mass of Thanksgiving of Christ the King in the Church of San Giovanni Battista dei Fiorentini celebrated by Canon Antoine Landais

· 11:00 a.m.: Pontifical Closing Mass of Christ the King at the church of Trinità dei Pellegrini

· 16:30 a.m.: Mass of Thanksgiving of Christ the King in the Church of Sant’Anna in Laterano celebrated by Msgr. Marco Agostini

Cardinal Matteo Zuppi presiding at Vespers in the Pantheon for the 2022 Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage.

On Saturday, October 25 in Rome:

3:00 p.m.: Pontifical Mass celebrated by Cardinal Burke at the altar of the Chair in St. Peter’s Basilica

Source: PIlgrimage Summorum Pontificum

Cardinal Cupich has graced us with his thoughts on the reception of communion – an article that has been enthusaistically received by the publicity arm of the German Catholic Church. 1) The cardinal’s statements are indeed extraordinary in many respects.

It seems Cardinal Cupich wants everyone to receive communion standing:

Our ritual for receiving of Holy Communion has special significance in this regard. It reminds us that receiving the Eucharist is not a private action but rather a communal one, as the very word “communion” implies. For that reason, the norm established by Holy See for the universal church and approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is for the faithful to process together as an expression of their coming forward as the Body of Christ and to receive Holy Communion standing.

In fact, the “norms” published by the USSCB and currently found on its website do not state that:

The General Instruction asks each country’s Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion

In the United States, the body of Bishops has determined that “[t]he norm… is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling” and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving (no. 160).

Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 91). 2)

What other authority does Cardinal Cupich adduce?

It is important to recall that processions have been part of the liturgy from the earliest days of Christian practice. … This is why we process into the church, process up to bring the gifts, process to receive Holy Communion and process out at the end of Mass to carry the Lord into the world. … Nothing should be done to impede any of these processions, particularly the one that takes place during the sacred Communion ritual. 3)

In part, of course, this is nonsense. The congregation does not process in or out of the church. In the Novus Ordo only a few individuals “process” with the gifts. But in part it is also pathological. For the cardinal views communion as a group or communal event. This is consistent with current liturgical practice, where everyone receives communion, regardless of his spiritual state or, often, even his religion. In Cupich’s mind, however, the key problem is not to “disrupt” the “flow” of the action.

Cardinal Cupich further draws for support on the principle of:

(The “Council Fathers” – SC) took seriously the ancient maxim “lex orandi, lex credenda,” a phrase often associated with Prosper of Aquitaine, a fifth-century Christian writer. It simply means that the law of praying establishes the law of believing. 4)

Now, as an erudite friend of mine points out, the actual expression is lex orandi, lex credendi. “Lex orandi, lex credenda” means the law of praying must be believed. Is it simply a gross mistake? That’s very likely, since Cardinal Cupich goes on to write:

The law of praying establishes the law of believing is our tradition. (sic) 5)

But perhaps unwittingly the cardinal may indeed be asserting that the law of praying (meaning the Novus Ordo) must be believed (= unconditionally accepted?). That would be consistent with Traditiones Custodes and how it has been forcefully applied in the archdiocese of Chicago. And Cardinal Cupich commences his article by claiming:

We all have benefited from the renewal of the church ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. 6)

Yet all objectively verifiable indicia testify to the drastic decline in religious practice since Vatican II, and the growing ignorance of basic Catholic and Christian doctrine – including the nature of the Eucharist – among those who still remain in the Church. Yes, the law of praying does indeed determine the law of believing, but in the case of the Novus Ordo the result has been calamitous.

Isn’t the real problem here that the institution of receiving communion standing (and in the hand) is even today such a breach with Catholic tradition and practice that a minority, while remaining within the Novus Ordo, cannot accept it. And Cardinal Cupich’s “solution,” as well as his theory of the communion ritual as a communal act, illustrates nicely the totalitarian aspects of the Novus Ordo – the drive to create a block-like unity in the congregation through the mandatory performance by all of external acts under the supervision of the “presider.” Finally, our Conservative Catholic friends would do well to take note that Cardinal Cupich’s article confirms that, under the current pontificate, not just Catholic Traditionalism but all aspects of continuity with prior Catholic liturgical practice remain potential targets of the friends of Francis.

1. Cardinal Blaise Cupich, “As we pray…”, Chicagocatholic.com (12/11/2024). For the German semi-official reaction see: “Kardinal: Kommunionempfang nicht zur frommen Show machen,” Katholisch.de (12/13/2024). The introduction to the katholisch.de article states: “In receiving communion the community is what matters, not the servile pose of individuals.” The contempt of the Catholic establishment in Europe (and the United States) for the faithful, their dignity and rights, couldn’t be better expressed. (both accessed 12/13/2024)
2. USCCB, “The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass,” usccb.org (accessed 12/13/2024)
3. “As we pray… .” supra note 1.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id.