(Above) Our Saviour’s church after several years of simplifications to the art and furnishings. (photo 9/30/2019)

Earlier this year, the success of the Dominicans at St. Vincent Ferrer and St. Joseph’s in the Village – and, apparently, that of the Legion at St. Patrick’s old cathedral – in attracting Catholic “young adults” seems to have aroused the jealousy of the archdiocesan secular clergy. For in those media reports it was mentioned that nearby “archdiocesan” “mainstream” churches stood empty. That is certainly my perception too. Now the parish of Our Saviour’s – excuse me, Our Saviour & Sacred Hearts – seeks to address the situation by new musical offerings:

This initiative is part of the parish revitalization campaign, Building Parish Life: Enhancing Faith, Generosity, and Service, and seeks to offer a distinctive and welcoming prayerful experience, particularly for young adults in their 20s and 30s who have made Our Saviour their faith community.

Of course, Our Saviour’s had been a vital parish until the archdiocese deliberately destroyed it from 2013 onward.

What is the new initiative?

The Choir of Our Saviour & Sacred Hearts returns for the 2026–27 season, singing at the Sunday 5:00 p.m. Mass. Beginning Sunday, September 27, the 5:00 p.m. Mass will also introduce music drawing on the traditions of the Taizé Community in France, with simple, repeated songs and moments of contemplation intended to create an even more prayerful and contemplative experience.

…

The music of Taizé will complement rather than replace the beautiful musical traditions already part of the 5:00 p.m.Mass. Based in Burgundy, France, the Taizé Community is an ecumenical community known for prayer, song, and biblical reflection. Its simple meditative style of prayer has inspired communities around the world. At Our Saviour, we are drawing from this tradition while shaping a Sunday liturgy that belongs to our own parish and responds to the spiritual needs of our community.

Source: The bulletin of the parish of Our Saviour (9/20/2026)

The parish’s music director, Buck McDaniel, was more explicit in the previous parish bulletin of 9/13/2026. Or was it merely a slip of the tongue?:

I am delighted that our liturgical music program will be making an important contribution to the parish revitalizationcampaign: Building Parish Life: Enhancing Faith, Generosity, and Service.

At the Sunday 5:00 p.m. Mass, already well attended particularly by young adults, we will be introducing music that draws on the traditions of the Taizé Community in France to create an even more prayerful and contemplative experience. We are abandoning the beautiful music traditions currently used at this liturgy, but adding some new elements.

Through simple, repeated songs and moments of contemplation, we hope to create a distinctive welcoming prayerfulexperience, particularly for young adults in their 20s and 30s, who have come to New York to live and work, and are making the Church of Our Saviour their faith community. (NB: Those of all ages are most welcome!) (My bolding – SC)

Now Taizé and its music seem to be functioning today for the Church establishment as a hoped-for attraction to the younger generation. Which will succeed – the traditional music of the Church, that once was championed at Our Saviour’s and today is being at least partially rediscovered at St. Vincent Ferrer and elewhere? Or the “simple, repeated songs” (how Conciliar and how dull!) of Taizé? I have my opinion on the matter…..

On the developments at Our Saviour’s after 2013 see “Two Churches, Two Traditional Masses and ‘Making all Things New,’ “ The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny (6/18/2016). For a summary of recent developments in the religious order churches see “Young Catholics: Field Work in Manhattan,” The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny (4/8/2026)

The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny is honored to sponsor Solemn First Vespers for the Feast of the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel at St. Margaret of Cortona Church in the Bronx, with His Eminence Ernst Cardinal Simoni.

A reception will follow in the gymnasium with an opportunity to greet the Cardinal.

On September 9th the final program for this year’s Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage in Rome was released. As you probably have heard, the Vatican has formally refused permission for a final Mass in St. Peter’s. Instead, there will be “prayers.” Two hours later, a concluding liturgy will be celebrated at the high altar of St. Maria Maggiore. This decision is obviously a blow both for the pilgrimage and the traditionalist cause. For here Pope Leo reverses his own decision of last year to permit once again the celebration of a concluding Mass in St. Peter’s.

Why was this done? Pope Leo obviously has not the slightest knowledge of, or sympathy for, the traditional liturgy as such. That is evident from his statements on 8/26/2026 and those he permitted his subordinates to issue earlier this year. But clerics otherwise opposed or indifferent to the Traditional Mass have been open to recognizing the aspirations of those who are devoted to it. One thinks of cardinals like Bernardin in the past, or Zuppi today. But that is not the case with Pope Leo.

I suspect the difference is that Leo has no insight into the people of traditionalism: those who adhere to it and why they do so.  As he himself admitted, for him personally the subject is remote. Undoubtedly far more important to Leo are the relationships with his immediate advisors and former colleagues: the pope’s so-called “inner circle,” the officials of the curia, the heads of the religious orders. To maintain their good will, Leo has taken pains to demonstrate his continuity with the policies of Francis (other than on limited administrative measures). This is evident from his continuous quoting of his predecessor,  his praise of the main documents of the Bergoglio years and his retention in office of almost all the main figures of that regime.

It is certain that any advice these sources might give on a Traditional Mass in St. Peter’s would be negative. But what reasons could they cite for refusing a Mass?  The decision regarding the Mass was conveyed in letter issued in August by the Substitute of the Secretary of State. I believe this letter still has not been published – although one news site has further details regarding its contents.  Until those contents are fully disclosed,  I would assume that similar to other decisions of Leo, the refusal was summary and uninformative. 

 Thus, we are left to rumors and leaks from anonymous “informed sources” to discover the reasoning behind the decision. These tell us that, in stark contrast to the public perception of the 2025 pilgrimage,  Pope Leo had heard negative things concerning it. The “inner circle” and the others were disturbed that the pilgrimage had been used for “propaganda” and there had been a “perceived” “triumphant”  or “gloating” tone – that “perception” had not been well received. 1) 

I did not hear either during or after the 2025 pilgrimage “gloating” statements from those connected with the pilgrimage.  The “triumph” was not in the media, but in the fact of the pilgrimage itself. What these statements from “informed sources” really mean is that the 2025 pilgrimage had made too favorable an impression on Catholics and even the secular media. Those in and outside of the Vatican who are fanatically opposed to the Traditional Latin Mass had seen one key element of their narrative – that only a small minority cares for the Traditional Mass –  dramatically undermined.  So, the pilgrimage  had to be cut down to size. Of course, this is very similar to the attitude of the Vatican in regard to the Chartres Pilgrimage of Christendom.  As the attendance  at that pilgrimage has grown and grown in recent years the Vatican’s response (at least up to and including the 2024 pilgrimage)was hostile commentary and legal roadblocks. 

Thus, thousands of Catholic pilgrims are denied a Mass because of the media impression their successful pilgrimage has created. The spiritual desires of those Catholics  – the good of souls – plays no role at all;  media manipulation and “perceptions” relevant to internal Catholic ideological struggles are everything

As to the pilgrimage itself,  this determination is not the worst of results. I have no idea what the prayer service, if any, in St. Peter’s will be.  And it will take quite an effort for pilgrims to get from St. Peter’s to St. Maria Maggiore in 1-2 hours. But St. Maria Maggiore is certainly a uniquely splendid location, And if the 2026 pilgrimage is as large as last year’s,  St. Maria Maggiore is likely to be more appropriate, in terms of size, than a celebration before the throne of St. Peter within St. Peter’s basilica.

The greater problem created by this decision is the impact for the Church as a whole. It sends a signal that the traditionalist movement remains in official disfavor. Every bishop and priest of the world can restrict or abolish celebrations in the traditional rite, on the assumption  that the Pope will do nothing about it. Just now in Toronto restrictions are being imposed pursuant to Traditiones Custodes  (which after all remains on the books) primarily on two churches of the Toronto Oratory.  These are highly successful apostolates but, as in the case of the Rome and Chartres pilgrimages, that means nothing. 

Yet, the pilgrims who will come to Rome this October should not feel discouraged.  Paradoxically, traditionalists should take comfort from the restrictions and humiliations imposed upon them by an increasingly shaky ecclesiastical authority.  It has been through the efforts of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrims since 2012 that the Vatican  has been forced to acknowledge the existence of Traditionalism even in Rome itself. Yes, more recently this response has been not an offer of dialogue, inclusion or even welcome,  but suspicion, administrative harassment and prohibitions. But, as was already clear upon the issuance of  Traditiones Custodes in 2021,  this tactic is a loser’s game. The Council that was supposed to proclaim the Christian message more clearly to those both in and outside of the Church has manifestly failed to do so. To maintain the current regime,  the Church has had to resort to techniques of media manipulation and authoritarian measures. In the long term such actions can only result in a further loss of credibility. The clergy and religious orders can be intimidated, bishops and clerical scholars silenced. But from its very beginnings the bedrock of Traditionalism has been the devoted laity. They will continue seeking out the celebration of the Traditional Mass, and all the other sacraments,  produce online commentary,  write and read books and yes, go on pilgrimages. How long this situation in which traditionalists find themselves will last – a kind of stalemate in a war of attrition –  I cannot say.  But if we keep the focus on preserving Catholic Tradition in its totality – above all in the celebration of the Mass –  I am confident that happier days will come.

1. “Bishop Schneider to celebrate Summorum Pontificum TLM at St Mary Major after St Peter’s permission denied,” AdVaticanum (9/9/2026); Limbu, Niwa, Vatican letter leaves door open for Summorum Pontificum Mass to return to St Peter’s, AdVaticanum (9/10/2026). See also Pilgrimage Summorum Pontificum This Year, The Society of St Hugh of Cluny (8/4/2026) quoting Beltran, Edgar, “Is the Pope Maintaining a TLM ‘gray area’”? The Pillar (8/3/2026); Haynes, Michael, “Annual Latin Mass pilgrimage has Vatican Mass cancelled.” thecatholicherald.com (9/9/2026.

(Above) Image of St. Hildegard in the Abbey named for her, near Rüdesheim am Rhein, Rheingau.

On SEptember 19 chants of St. Hildegard of Bingen will be performed at the church of St. Josaphat in Queens, This summer we had a chance to visit St. Hildegard’s homeland in the Rhine.

St. Hildegard’s original monastery was closed and destroyed in the wake of the French revolution. But thanks to the initiative of the the local bishops and the generosity of Prince Karl zu Loewenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg (a prominent Catholic in 19th century Germany),  an abbey dedicated to St. Hildegard rose again between 1900 and 1908. The new foundation was a member of the Beuron congregation of Benedictines – the creators of a new form of sacred art in the second half of the 19th century. The abbey was built in a Romaneque revival style. The interior of the Abbey of St. Hildegard contains one of the most complete programs of Beuron mural painting in existence. The abbey flourished and grew to include more than 100 nuns – despite setbacks such as the expulsion of the community in 1941 during the Third Reich followed by a period of use as a military hospital and later as a home for refugees.

These murals, executed by monks from Beuron Monastery, date from 1907 through 1913. Beuron also supplied works of art in other media to the abbey, like the crucifix and sanctuary lamp visible above. After a destructive post-Conciliar period, the abbey more recently has been very respectful of its artistic heritage. (Readers will note the similarity of these works to murals in the New York City church of Most Holy Redeemer. The Redemptorist order (which administered that church) had as an artistic leader a German brother. He worked in a Beuron-related style.

(Above and below) The parish church of Eibingen preserves St. Hildegard’s relics as well as a collection of relics she acquired for her monastery during her lifetime. The church was built in 1935.

(Above) The baptismal font. (Below) The reliquary of St. Hildegard. It dates from 1929.

A Liberal Revolution: The Implementation of Vatican II in the Archdiocese of Baltimore

By Hanael Bianchi

Os Justi Press (Lincoln NE 2026)

241 Pages

It is amazing that, after sixty years of endless communication, exhortation and advocacy, there is today still very little understanding of what actually happened before, during and after Vatican II (the ”Council”). Have we not been told recently that we still do not understand the Council, that we still do not know how to celebrate the new liturgy correctly?  In part, that knowledge gap is attributable to lack of competent historical criticism. In the case of the clerical establishment, the “conservative Catholics,” the progressives, and even, to a great extent, the traditionalists, what passes for history is advocacy: declarations of principle or ideology,  in support of which real or alleged facts are marshaled.  Prime recent examples of this “Catholic” methodology are the 2022 articles of John Cavadini, Mary Healy, and Thomas Weinandy on the traditional liturgy, in which, for example, the 20^th century liturgical movement is equated to the emergence of the mendicant orders in the 13th century. 

Now Hanael Bianchi seeks to set the record straight at least for one formerly significant archdiocese in the United States. In this outstanding study, he chronicles the period 1965 to 1975,  in which Vatican II took concrete form in the lives of American Roman Catholics. Earlier studies of the impact of the Council on the parish level do exist. For the parishes of Paris, Prof. Luc Perrin published in 1997 Paris à l’heure de Vatican II. We could add some of the New York City parish histories that are referenced in my own series on the Churches of New York. But Bianchi in A Liberal Revolution aims to cover not just the parishes, but the totality of the “Conciliar experience”  in the Baltimore archdiocese: from the statements of the archbishop to the agitation among religious orders and clergy to the experience of the laity in the pews. To do this, he utilizes primary sources – contemporary publications and letters, but also more recent disclosures.  For example, he has drawn on the findings of the Maryland Attorney General’s Report on Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore (2023). This is doubly important  because, as Bianchi notes,  some important primary sources remain off limits. 

One of the statements in this book I would mildly dispute is that, in the Bianchi’s experience, the surviving “boomers” themselves have no clear recollection of what happened to those days. There are some of us still around who do remember. I am happy to state that the conclusions of this book agree very well with my own recollections!  

Now Bianchi has reached a series of exceedingly significant findings.

First, the essence of the Conciliar changes was the adaptation of the Church to liberalism: the emphasis on individual choice and autonomy in all aspects of faith. Liturgically, this took the form of the emphasis on spontaneity and creativity.  Collective actions,  such as periods of mandated, binding  fasting were scrapped in favor of individual choices of penance. The result was what Bianchi calls “the fragmentation of Catholic life” – the loss of a sense of group cohesion and solidarity. 

Second,  Vatican II was a true revolution. It introduced across the board changes in all aspects of Catholic life: not just the Mass, but all the other sacraments, the dress of the priests and religious, the training of priests, the rules for fasting,  the arrangement of  altars, the catalogue of saints and holydays – the list is endless. Catholics were now told that the previous regime was not only not immutable, but was at least in part erroneous, even harmful. And that message was conveyed not just verbally but visually: in everything from the reconstruction of the sanctuaries of the churches to the habits of nuns. 

Third, this revolution was clerical. it was propelled by the revolutionary fervor of the clergy – especially the younger priests. At all times the power behind the implementation of the Council were the Catholic clergy: their enthusiasm for change and hatred for the prior regime are well described in this book, Bianchi points out that this dynamic actually increased the gap between the clergy and the “benighted”  laity. The Conciliar implementation, instead of empowering the laity,  in fact disenfranchised them. For they had not been previously initiated into the new worldview – and a great percentage of them lagged behind the revolution.  IF young priests were one of the main drivers of the revolution, the older priests – chief among them the archbishop of Baltimore – did little or nothing to restrain them. On the contrary, during  this period the force of authority was deployed against those who resisted – or were slow to adopt – the changes.

Fourth, one major consequence of the Conciliar changes was the creation a clerical bureaucracy.  All kinds of programs, studies, planning initiatives, conferences and organizations proliferated. Analogous developments took place at the national (the National Conference of Catholic Bishops(NCCB), a predecessor of the USCCB) and Vatican(the Synod of Bishops) levels. The revolution was institutionalized. The preliminary high point of the post-Conciliar bureaucratic blossoming was the 1976 Call to Action conference in Detroit, which, after a “listening process,” recommended that the divorced and remarried be allowed to receive Holy Communion, that women be ordained priests and bishops, married priests, mitigation of restrictions on contraception and abortion etc.  Need I point out the similarities – indeed, the near identity – with the process and substance of the current “Synod on Synodality,” both in Germany and at the Vatican? And that one of these demands – communion for the divorced and remarried – has already been realized.

A unique contribution of A Liberal Revolution is its description of the initial “dissent” from the Novus Ordo. This took the form of (a)surveys of the laity which recorded significant dissatisfaction with new regime; and (b) the actions of a minority of priests who sought exceptions to continue the prior form of Mass. But in no way did these stirrings mature  – yet – into an organized movement of resistance. Bianchi does, however, record the fascinating fact that in the period 1969 to 1972 several Traditional Masses were temporarily continued or introduced as a consequence of this resistance. Now this temporary concession disappeared rapidly – but I had never heard of a similar response elsewhere in the United States in this period.

Now I do have questions regarding some of the judgments of  the author. For example, now and then he seems to imply that the revolution had settled down by 1975. Based on my own recollection,  I believe that there is a basis for this conclusion, at least liturgically.  By the late 1970s the unending dullness of the Novus Ordo regime and its associated music had replaced the chaos that ruled prior to 1970. And by 1975 some of the most avant-garde leaders among the clergy had departed the Church in one way or another. But the revolutionary spirit remained intact –  it was only “bureaucratized” and concentrated in certain sectors of the Church:  the religious orders, Catholic academia and media and, more generally,  the administrative staffs, both clerical and lay. 

Now those seeking to restore tradition have unfortunately tried to ignore the existence of the revolutionary impetus, handed down by the Church bureaucracy. It accounts for the almost fanatical hatred of the Traditional Mass encountered at all levels of the Church.  The inability to acknowledge – let alone squarely confront – this component of post-Conciliar Church culture led later to the rebirth of progressive Catholicism as the dominant tendency within the Church. For we have seen under Pope Francis and now, Pope Leo, the return to the positions of the early post-Conciliar years as chronicled in A Liberal Revolution.

For the archdiocese of Baltimore itself, the present-day legacy of the 1965-75 implementation of the Council has been continuous decline in the practice of the faith,  massive parish closings, demoralizing sex abuse scandals and bankruptcy.  Bianchi is surely right in concluding that the attempt to conform the Church to the surrounding liberal culture was disastrous.  That culture would have raised great problems for the Church in any case, but: 

It is difficult to imagine a less effective strategy than the way Vatican II was implemented. The pages that follow chronicle a tragedy; but also offer definitive evidence, as well as a lesson, that genuine Church renewal does not come from accommodating the modern liberal world. (p.18)

 A Liberal Revolution should be mandatory reading for anyone trying to get a sense of what happened 60 years ago – and of what is being done in the Church today.

A Liberal Revolution can be obtained from Os Justi Press.

Schedule of the Pilgrimage

Ad Petri Sedem,

Rome, October 23 to 25, 2026

Friday October 23, 2026

6/30 p.m.: Pontifical vespers in the Basilica of Santa Maria ad Martyres (Pantheon) presided over by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Saturday, October 24, 2026 

· 10:00 a.m.: Rosary before the Basilica of Santi Celso e Giuliano

· 11:00 a.m.: Departure of the procession towards Saint Peter’s Basilica

· 12:00 a.m.: Arrival in Saint Peter’s Square/Checkpoints/and entry into Saint Peter’s Basilica

· 13:00 p.m.: Time of prayer in St. Peter’s Basilica

· 15:00 p.m.: Mass at the high altar of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, celebrated by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Sunday October 25, 2026

08:30 a.m.: Mass of thanksgiving of Christ the King in the Basilica of San Giovanni Battista dei Fiorentini celebrated by Canon Antoine Landais

11:00 a.m.: Solemn closing Mass of Christ the King at the Trinita dei pellegrini

16:00 p.m.: Mass of thanksgiving of Christ the King in the church of Sant’Anna in Laterano celebrated by Msgr. Marco Agostini

11th Pax Liturgica Gathering

(You must register to participate in this event)

The 11th meeting will be held Friday October 23, 2026 at the Patristic Institute Augustinianum, located opposite the Holy Office, on the edge of St Peter’s Square (via Paolo VI, 25).

Program

09h30 : Reception of the participants

10h00 : Rubén Peretó Rivas, Director of the International Center for Liturgical Studies

Introduction to the Meeting

Father Claude Barthe, Chaplain of the Coetus Internationalis Summorum Pontificum

Welcome to the participants

10h30 : Sebastian Ostritsch (Stuttgart)

11h15 : Pause

11h30 : Natalia Sanmartin Fenollera (Madrid)

12h20 : Diane Montagna (Rome)

13h10 : Lunch

14h30 : Jean-Pierre Maugendre (Paris)

15h20 : Jorge O’Reilly (Bueno Aires)

16h00 : Pause

16h15 : Christian Marquant, President of Paix Liturgique

Conclusion

17h00 : End of the activities at the Augustinianum.

To register for this meeting : https://bit.ly/4aEoHwE

To register go to this link.